Welcome to the Summoner Class Playtest!

[Keydan]

It does because that's how the greataxe works and it's a great opportunity to add crunch to fit with your use of this mechanical implement.

What I am saying is, and I repeat myself, you can imagine ANYTHING, but there aren't many games that give your choices meaningful mechanical feedback. And even in your case, pathfinder is the kind of game that will or should give you mechanical satisfaction for that idea. The argument of "well what if I don't wanna" is exactly my argument, you should have the option to make a chocolate cake that taste like chocolate, but also a chocolate cake that tastes whatever you want and vice versa. Btw pathfinder 1e had that kind of cold quite scary barbarian as an option.

Put it this way, if you and me are taked with making an eidolon for a level 1 summoner, print them out... we both pick angel, and then we give them to a 3rd person without describing what we imagined. Say he knows the rules of the game, will there be any difference? He may even mistakenly give you my cheatsheet back. Because that's the whole lot of mechanical feedback he eidolon has for the most part, as far as what they do goes, they are the same. In pathfinder 1e? Even with unchained summoner, the amount of weird and fun stuff, with just base choices, was staggering. It was your eidolon, not only in the theater of the mind, which is all the rage these days, and more power to you, but also mechanically.

[Temperans]

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

Keydan wrote:

When you take a greataxe it has statistics of a greataxe, making it not only a greataxe in image but also unique in how it performs as a greataxe. Making you want to use a greataxe and not a maul or a greatsword. Because mechanically, not only is it a cool 2-handed axe, but also has a big die to roll for damage to represent it being a big heavy chopping weapon you swing around recklessly. And that is why I play and run pathfinder. This kind of mechanical feed back to your choices.

While your description sounds great for a classic "loud" raging barbarian, what if that's not the character I want to make? What if I want mechanically to use a great axe on a barbarian, but instead of being wild, reckless swings fueled by a roaring fire of fury, I want to play up the idea of "Fear the fury of a quiet man" angle with a John Wick style rage - cold, efficient and merciless. Just as violent and as immune to reason as the most over-the-top Conan clones, but focused and precise in application of that violence. Is that allowed?

Perhaps a better way of posing the question is this: Clearly, I have described a vastly different character concept than what it seems you had in mind when thinking about using a great axe. Does that difference in description require a difference in game mechanics to be "meaningful"?

The difference is that Evolutions are not just 1 weapons.

Evolutions were Eidolon features just like classes have Class features. The Evolutions helped determined the fluff, not random cookie cutter features.

[Moppy]

The summoner iconic eidolon looks very similar to a toy I have seen sold in several European countries. Then again all dragons look the same (in a non-racist manner).

https://i.imgur.com/5MrMbhi.jpg

edit: The brand is "Plastoy".

[MrTsFloatinghead]

Temperans wrote:

The difference is that Evolutions are not just 1 weapons.

Evolutions were Eidolon features just like classes have Class features. The Evolutions helped determined the fluff, not random cookie cutter features.

That's not even true on face - many evolutions were, in fact, literally just 1 weapon. But even to the extent that you think it has been true that descriptions should/need mechanical justifications, that doesn't mean it was at all good, or that we should return to it (or allow it to continue, as the case may be).

For example - what if I wanted to make a centipede style Eidolon for a first level character under the 1st ed system? How would I do that? Clearly I would choose a serpentine base form, right? But then what? I want to describe my Eidolon as having many legs, but none of the serpentine options for the unchained summoner have any legs at all. So, can I not describe it that way unless I add legs? After all, "legs" are a defined evolution with a defined cost and a defined benefit, so if I want to have legs, I should pay for them, right? Of course the "limbs" evolution is too expensive to add at first level, so I guess the entire concept is banned, because obviously it would be unfair to allow my Eidolon to have legs without paying for them.

Already we can hopefully see a problem - I don't necessarily WANT the mechanical benefit of the legs at all, I just want to be able to describe my fantasy monster in a particular way. I'm being shoe-horned into taking the legs because as soon as there is a mechanical advantage tied to a specific description, it becomes all but impossible for some (many? most?) players to accept the validity of a description that doesn't have those mechanics backing it up. It's not that scuttling along the floor on many short legs is inherently any more or less powerful than slithering across the same floor, it's that people buy in to the idea that there must be some mechanical distinction in order to make my choice of a centipede form over a snake form "meaningful", and that seems silly and pointlessly restrictive.

[Arachnofiend]

Keydan wrote:

When you take a greataxe it has statistics of a greataxe, making it not only a greataxe in image but also unique in how it performs as a greataxe. Making you want to use a greataxe and not a maul or a greatsword. Because mechanically, not only is it a cool 2-handed axe, but also has a big die to roll for damage to represent it being a big heavy chopping weapon you swing around recklessly. And that is why I play and run pathfinder. This kind of mechanical feed back to your choices.

Would it suffice to just have more variations on what the eidolon's generic natural attack can be? If you could choose to give up the agile secondary to get a 1d12 primary instead then that'd make the big greataxe make sense mechanically and aesthetically.

[MrTsFloatinghead]

Keydan wrote:

It does because that's how the greataxe works and it's a great opportunity to add crunch to fit with your use of this mechanical implement.

What I am saying is, and I repeat myself, you can imagine ANYTHING, but there aren't many games that give your choices meaningful mechanical feedback. And even in your case, pathfinder is the kind of game that will or should give you mechanical satisfaction for that idea. The argument of "well what if I don't wanna" is exactly my argument, you should have the option to make a chocolate cake that taste like chocolate, but also a chocolate cake that tastes whatever you want and vice versa. Btw pathfinder 1e had that kind of cold quite scary barbarian as an option.

Put it this way, if you and me are taked with making an eidolon for a level 1 summoner, print them out... we both pick angel, and then we give them to a 3rd person without describing what we imagined. Say he knows the rules of the game, will there be any difference? He may even mistakenly give you my cheatsheet back. Because that's the whole lot of mechanical feedback he eidolon has for the most part, as far as what they do goes, they are the same. In pathfinder 1e? Even with unchained summoner, the amount of weird and fun stuff, with just base choices, was staggering. It was your eidolon, not only in the theater of the mind, which is all the rage these days, and more power to you, but also mechanically.

So, to be clear, if you feel that descriptions must be justified via distinct mechanics, how would you deal with my hypothetical (though actually increasingly a character I'm excited about) John Wick with a Great Axe character? Would you simply say that character cannot be a barbarian because my interpretation of rage as a cold merciless fury doesn't line up with your expectation of what rage looks like? Would you require I take some sort of penalty on damage because "Great Axes don't work that way"?

After all, assuming identical stats and equipment, if you gave my barbarian's character sheet and your barbarian's character sheet to a third person, and didn't give them any description of how the characters were different, they wouldn't be able to tell them apart, right? They would be mechanically the same, so even though my character has a different personality, different look, etc., they are fundamentally the same character, right? Sitting at a table with your character would not in any meaningful way be different than sitting down at the table with my character, because they both have the same class features, same equipment, and same stats, right?

Thus, if it is true that it FEELS like the characters are different, I guess the only options are to either admit that maybe it's not really true that mechanics define a character as much as you think they do (or should), or else scrounge up some arbitrary mechanical distinction between the two character concepts so that nobody gets the two characters confused with each other.

[Keydan]

It's a bit of disingenuous, really, when we both know that to make a level 1 barbarian with a greataxe to be like JW, and making a barbarian like, say, Randy Savage, then give these sheets to a 3rd person - everything on the character sheets, rage powers, backgrounds, feat and ancestry choices will all be different, except the greataxe, and the 3rd person will immediately see that these are different dudes. In my case we both made 1 choice and that's it, when in 1e that'd be like making 2 different barbarians.

I understand not everything can have perfect 1 to 1 mechanic transition. That's why I said balance of fluff and crunch. But look me in the eye and say that you have even 1/3 as much of say in what your eidolon can do and how he does it at level 1 as you did in vanilla pathfinder 1e. You know this is no barbarian character sheet comparison.

(I may even argue JW is a ranger with hunt pray)

(And sorry that current itteration of the game and it's current mechanical feedback can't facilitate a specific trope at this point in time, pathfinder 1e had a killer instinct cold hearted barbarian for that.)

(Lastly, there are games that are like your little barbarian experiment, they don't have crunch. Like dungeonworld. No crunch, still fun, everything is about the flow and consequences and abilities are more of if x the you can y. You can fight with pretty much whatever, monsters are obstacles and GMs don't roll any dise most of the time)

[Keydan]

And I am sorry but this fluff/crunch dicottomy is real and important for many players and GMs. Not because we don't have imagination to think of our barbarians as John's Whicks, our alchemists as Mr.Hydes, or that pointy stick is also stick that is pointy, but because we want our choices to have a mechanical impact on our characters, so when numbers add up your imaginary character and his numerical/rule interpretation both feel unique. And the more seamless this transition iss the better. Not just how you imagine it, but also how it flows, comes online, works and, well, crunches.

In this game famous for satisfying crunch. Eidolons. Don't. Crunch.

(This is the exact reason why many 5e players try pathfinder, when you can only play so many fighters before you can stop pretending that in this tactical bate simulator part of the game - they are all the same)

[Verzen]

Keydan wrote:

And I am sorry but this fluff/crunch dicottomy is real and important for many players and GMs. Not because we don't have imagination to think of our barbarians as John's Whicks, our alchemists as Mr.Hydes, or that pointy stick is also stick that is pointy, but because we want our choices to have a mechanical impact on our characters, so when numbers add up your imaginary character and his numerical/rule interpretation both feel unique. And the more seamless this transition iss the better. Not just how you imagine it, but also how it flows, comes online, works and, well, crunches.

In this game famous for satisfying crunch. Eidolons. Don't. Crunch.

(This is the exact reason why many 5e players try pathfinder, when you can only play so many fighters before you can stop pretending that in this tactical bate simulator part of the game - they are all the same)

This 100%.

I am a VERY mechanical (mathy) person. I don't have much of an "imagination" and I don't do well in terms of "just imagine your Eidolon however you wish"

I like having actual mechanical benefits to play around with.

[Sporkedup]

Right. The "fluff" as it were (that term is stupid and I'm ready for a new one that sounds less condescending) should mostly be packaged at the start, in character/eidolon creation. You get your base mechanics of say, a devil, but how that devil specifically represents should be a choice. And as you evolve it, it becomes much more your own specific devil.

It shouldn't be "if your eidolon is a devil, it's a barbazu." However, beyond that stylistic choice, the actual bits and bobs that make up its attacks or abilities should have mechanical representation. There's no fun in flavoring the eidolon with, say, giant flaming horns on its head if it can't make a giant flaming horns attack (within reason, obviously).

I might have spent too much time circling these playtest discussions today. Not sure I'm still making sense. Or maybe I haven't made sense yet and need to keep trying all evening. That will thrill the wife.

[KrispyXIV]

I'm in Pathfinder 2E specifically because it has crunch and balance and has begun merging all that math crunch with narrative concessions like hero points, multiple modes of play, exploration activities, and the explicit permission to build my npcs how they work best and describe them how is appropriate for the narrative.

I'm playing Pathfinder instead of Fate because it actually plays like a game, while still putting as much narrative control into the hands of players as is reasonable in a DnD like game. And its balanced, and fun and easy to run.

The amount of granularity you're describing for Eidolons will result in fewer options, not more, as suddenly things that were previously descriptive now have absolute costs and associated mechanics.

My eidolon with a snake body doesn't need extra mechanics to represent that. If i want that to mean extra speed, I have that option. Making "snake body" cost x and have mechanics is unnecessary baggage.

[Temperans]

You are not thinking of it correctly.

The body shape of the Eidolon is the bare minimum that you have without evolutions. Evolutions should be what determine what the Eidolon actually does.

Your Eidolon has a snake body, but what does it do? In PF2 its does exactly the same as every other Eidolon.

However, Evolutions would allow your snake Eidolon to constrict the enemy. Meanwhile my Snake Eidolon is flying around. And a third person's Eidolon is using a poisonous bite.

Evolutions having a cost of not letting you do other stuff is not a negative, its part of what allows them to give powerful effects by spending greater amounts of Evolution points.

I said twice and I will say it every time. Familiar options are a weak version of Eidolon Evolutions. The fact Eidolons dont have such a subsystem is like spitting in the face of old Summoners.

[MrTsFloatinghead]

Keydan wrote:

It's a bit of disingenuous, really, when we both know that to make a level 1 barbarian with a greataxe to be like JW, and making a barbarian like, say, Randy Savage, then give these sheets to a 3rd person - everything on the character sheets, rage powers, backgrounds, feat and ancestry choices will all be different, except the greataxe, and the 3rd person will immediately see that these are different dudes. In my case we both made 1 choice and that's it, when in 1e that'd be like making 2 different barbarians.

I understand not everything can have perfect 1 to 1 mechanic transition. That's why I said balance of fluff and crunch. But look me in the eye and say that you have even 1/3 as much of say in what your eidolon can do and how he does it at level 1 as you did in vanilla pathfinder 1e. You know this is no barbarian character sheet comparison.

(I may even argue JW is a ranger with hunt pray)

(And sorry that current itteration of the game and it's current mechanical feedback can't facilitate a specific trope at this point in time, pathfinder 1e had a killer instinct cold hearted barbarian for that.)

(Lastly, there are games that are like your little barbarian experiment, they don't have crunch. Like dungeonworld. No crunch, still fun, everything is about the flow and consequences and abilities are more of if x the you can y. You can fight with pretty much whatever, monsters are obstacles and GMs don't roll any dise most of the time)

It's not disingenuous at all, because you and I don't (and can't) "know" that we would build the different character concepts differently, especially at first level, when there are plenty of options, but not infinite ones. There's nothing about my concept that necessarily points to a specific background or particularly disallows any choices, so I'm not sure how you can assume that it MUST be distinct.

Let me put it another way. Let's say we were both handed the exact same character sheet for a generic great axe wielding barbarian. Neither of us built the character, we were just handed the sheet with no description or context other than the basic names of the feats/heritages/features etc. and asked to play them in a way we felt was cool and interesting. You play your version of the barbarian and I play my version. Your explicitly stated view is that:

A) those characters end up being the same, since the difference in characterization is not backed up by mechanics and thus there can be no difference in how it feels to play as or with those two characters.

B) to the extent that there WAS a difference, it would be that I was playing the character "wrong" at best, and actively cheating at worst, because in your mind there are no mechanical justifications I can point to for why my character gets to be different than yours or make different choices in the course of play than you did.

This is not me twisting your words - you've clearly stated that you don't think my hypothetical style of barbarian can be supported in the current edition of the rules, so the necessary conclusion is that you think that I should be disallowed from describing my characters emotional state as anything other than what conforms to your expectations based on your narrow interpretation of what "rage" looks like.

Given that, I have absolutely no problem looking you in the eye and telling you that point blank that the eidolon customization as it currently exists allows for approximately infinitely more meaningful customization for me than what you're suggesting, since it explicitly denies you (or any other players) the ability to dictate the actual character of my eidolon to me (or anyone else) on the basis of your view of what the mechanics dictate.

[Verzen]

Quote:

Given that, I have absolutely no problem looking you in the eye and telling you that point blank that the eidolon customization as it currently exists allows for approximately infinitely more meaningful customization for me than what you're suggesting, since it explicitly denies you (or any other players) the ability to dictate the actual character of my eidolon to me (or anyone else) on the basis of your view of what the mechanics dictate.

With this logic, lets just get rid of classes and levels entirely.

Leave all of your abilities up to imagination. Want a flaming sword? You got that. It deals 1d8 damage. Just pretend it's fire damage.

[Temperans]

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

Keydan wrote:

It's a bit of disingenuous, really, when we both know that to make a level 1 barbarian with a greataxe to be like JW, and making a barbarian like, say, Randy Savage, then give these sheets to a 3rd person - everything on the character sheets, rage powers, backgrounds, feat and ancestry choices will all be different, except the greataxe, and the 3rd person will immediately see that these are different dudes. In my case we both made 1 choice and that's it, when in 1e that'd be like making 2 different barbarians.

I understand not everything can have perfect 1 to 1 mechanic transition. That's why I said balance of fluff and crunch. But look me in the eye and say that you have even 1/3 as much of say in what your eidolon can do and how he does it at level 1 as you did in vanilla pathfinder 1e. You know this is no barbarian character sheet comparison.

(I may even argue JW is a ranger with hunt pray)

(And sorry that current itteration of the game and it's current mechanical feedback can't facilitate a specific trope at this point in time, pathfinder 1e had a killer instinct cold hearted barbarian for that.)

(Lastly, there are games that are like your little barbarian experiment, they don't have crunch. Like dungeonworld. No crunch, still fun, everything is about the flow and consequences and abilities are more of if x the you can y. You can fight with pretty much whatever, monsters are obstacles and GMs don't roll any dise most of the time)

It's not disingenuous at all, because you and I don't (and can't) "know" that we would build the different character concepts differently, especially at first level, when there are plenty of options, but not infinite ones. There's nothing about my concept that necessarily points to a specific background or particularly disallows any choices, so I'm not sure how you can assume that it MUST be distinct.

Let me put it another way. Let's say we were both handed the exact same character sheet for a generic great axe wielding barbarian....

A generic character sheet for a generic double axe Barbarian is not infinite possibilities. Its a tiny almost insignificant fraction of the possible Barbarians possible.

Pathfinder is not 5e where you get like 5 options and the rest must be done through pure roleplay. Pathfinder gives you countless options that provide even more countless roleplay options.

And of all the classes that one to give the most roleplay and mechanical options than any other class was the Summoner. PF1 Summoner both chained and unchained gave you options, upon options, on top of options. And what is Paizo trying to do now? They took away everything that made the Summoner the Summoner.

* Eidolons have 0 customization.
* Summoner have effectively no spells slots.
* Summoners have 0 Summoning pool.
* Synthesist went from awesome to only penalties.
* The stats of both are bad.

etc. etc. etc.

So why are you saying that Summoners have more when everything they were was stripped to the point its questionable why they even share the name?

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

Quote:

Given that, I have absolutely no problem looking you in the eye and telling you that point blank that the eidolon customization as it currently exists allows for approximately infinitely more meaningful customization for me than what you're suggesting, since it explicitly denies you (or any other players) the ability to dictate the actual character of my eidolon to me (or anyone else) on the basis of your view of what the mechanics dictate.

With this logic, lets just get rid of classes and levels entirely.

Leave all of your abilities up to imagination. Want a flaming sword? You got that. It deals 1d8 damage. Just pretend it's fire damage.

You just took what he said, and dialed it up to 11 to make it look absurd!

No one is arguing for removing all mechanics.

What we're arguing is that there are already significant mechanics, and that the degree of granularity being asked for here is too far in the opposite direction and will result in less options for those of us who want some narrative freedom to go in the direction we want out the gates.

Please don't take that and misrepresent it.

[Xenocrat]

Need my devotion phantom named Gideon bodyguarding my summoner, Harrowhark, who really likes Animate Dead for summoning skeletons and a few other necromancy spells.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

A generic character sheet for a generic double axe Barbarian is not infinite possibilities. Its a tiny almost insignificant fraction of the possible Barbarians possible.

Pathfinder is not 5e where you get like 5 options and the rest must be done through pure roleplay. Pathfinder gives you countless options that provide even more countless roleplay options.

And of all the classes that one to give the most roleplay and mechanical options than any other class was the Summoner. PF1 Summoner both chained and unchained gave you options, upon options, on top of options. And what is Paizo trying to do now? They took away everything that made the Summoner the Summoner.

* Eidolons have 0 customization.
* Summoner have effectively no spells slots.
* Summoners have 0 Summoning pool.
* Synthesist went from awesome to only penalties.
* The stats of both are bad.

etc. etc. etc.

So why are you saying that Summoners have more when everything they were was stripped to the point its questionable why they even share the name?

You're absolutely correct.

They took the single most banned class in 1E, a class that was banned in official play and even the nerfed version was banned at many tables, and gutted it.

They started from scratch because maybe, just maybe, all of those things you referenced caused problems for a lot of players at a lot of tables.

Maybe part of the goal to removing all the fiddly bits was to remove both the ability and perception of the class to be extensively gamed for optimizing, and make all of that customization narrative, because narrative customization is better for balance.

I get that you'll come back and say that its not about being OP, but pretty much every complaint I see comes back to class power and ability power.

I don't see a lack of power. I see a class that as it stands has better effective ability scores than anyone else, the ability to be two places at once, and has 4-5 actions a turn to play with easily. I think that if you run it within the limits of the system, there's a lot to be gleaned there since the combat numbers are very close to a full Martial character, when they aren't equal.

But that requires creativity both in character creation and play, because that sort of benefit isn't just a free boost to combat numbers - and shouldn't be.

[Temperans]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Quote:

Given that, I have absolutely no problem looking you in the eye and telling you that point blank that the eidolon customization as it currently exists allows for approximately infinitely more meaningful customization for me than what you're suggesting, since it explicitly denies you (or any other players) the ability to dictate the actual character of my eidolon to me (or anyone else) on the basis of your view of what the mechanics dictate.

With this logic, lets just get rid of classes and levels entirely.

Leave all of your abilities up to imagination. Want a flaming sword? You got that. It deals 1d8 damage. Just pretend it's fire damage.

You just took what he said, and dialed it up to 11 to make it look absurd!

No one is arguing for removing all mechanics.

What we're arguing is that there are already significant mechanics, and that the degree of granularity being asked for here is too far in the opposite direction and will result in less options for those of us who want some narrative freedom to go in the direction we want out the gates.

Please don't take that and misrepresent it.

Evolution points dont harm narrative points they are mean to give more abilities. Does your familiar having Familiar options harm your narrative options? No it doesn't.

So why do Eidolons the ones who created that mechanic in the first place lose it?

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Quote:

Given that, I have absolutely no problem looking you in the eye and telling you that point blank that the eidolon customization as it currently exists allows for approximately infinitely more meaningful customization for me than what you're suggesting, since it explicitly denies you (or any other players) the ability to dictate the actual character of my eidolon to me (or anyone else) on the basis of your view of what the mechanics dictate.

With this logic, lets just get rid of classes and levels entirely.

Leave all of your abilities up to imagination. Want a flaming sword? You got that. It deals 1d8 damage. Just pretend it's fire damage.

You just took what he said, and dialed it up to 11 to make it look absurd!

No one is arguing for removing all mechanics.

What we're arguing is that there are already significant mechanics, and that the degree of granularity being asked for here is too far in the opposite direction and will result in less options for those of us who want some narrative freedom to go in the direction we want out the gates.

Please don't take that and misrepresent it.

Evolution points dont harm narrative points they are mean to give more abilities. Does your familiar having Familiar options harm your narrative options? No it doesn't.

So why do Eidolons the ones who created that mechanic in the first place lose it?

Familiars are a minor class feature based on restrictions, and removing those restrictions selectively through granting them new abilities.

An Eidolon doesn't need to play by those rules. It can speak, have hands, and have darkvision out the gates without needing to pay for each of those because its a primary class feature.

There's a difference.

[Temperans]

Krispy the familiar options are a weak version of the original Eidolon evolutions.

That fact the Eidolon is stronger does not mean they should have less customization.

[MrTsFloatinghead]

Temperans wrote:

You are not thinking of it correctly.

The body shape of the Eidolon is the bare minimum that you have without evolutions. Evolutions should be what determine what the Eidolon actually does.

Your Eidolon has a snake body, but what does it do? In PF2 its does exactly the same as every other Eidolon.

However, Evolutions would allow your snake Eidolon to constrict the enemy. Meanwhile my Snake Eidolon is flying around. And a third person's Eidolon is using a poisonous bite.

Evolutions having a cost of not letting you do other stuff is not a negative, its part of what allows them to give powerful effects by spending greater amounts of Evolution points.

I said twice and I will say it every time. Familiar options are a weak version of Eidolon Evolutions. The fact Eidolons dont have such a subsystem is like spitting in the face of old Summoners.

Here are two 1st level Dragon Eidolons I thought up earlier today:

Pythagoras is the mental echo of a scholarly blue dragon whose mind got lost wandering the plane of Axis in the vain pursuit of a "Perfect truth" that could unify all the laws of the multiverse. He formed a bond with his summoner, a young half-elven scholar, when the youth attempted to cheat on a conjuration exam by stealing Pythagoras' journal and notes from the forbidden section of the library and attempting to copy the rituals within. Now pulled back to the material plane by the soul bond between the two, Pythagoras has taken on many of the characteristics of the axiomites native to Axis, and thus appears mostly solid until he moves, in which case his form starts to fragment into arcane sigils and math expressions. His main attack is to slash at an enemy by manifesting an expression of pure truth from his body, and his secondary attack is to bludgeon nearby enemies with agile clouds of fragmented possibility.

Argotharyx was god. Well, A god, anyway. Unfortunately, the kobold tribe that worshiped him died out before the strength of their belief in the crudely shaped dragon idol could fully manifest, so he sat as a nascent power, locked in stone and wood until an explorer stumbled across his shrine in while exploring the ruins in the caverns once occupied by his people. The tiny respect that the halfling paid to the relic of his people was enough to surge him back into life, and he seized upon the hapless adventurer as his first new disciple. His main attack is a bludgeon with the vine wrapped stones that form his tail, and his secondary attack is a vicious piercing stab with the lashed together wooden spikes that form the frame of his "wings".

Tell me how these are not meaningfully different ideas from each other, that wouldn't lead to widely different play experiences? Then tell me which would have been allowed with the 1e summoner under the paradigm that descriptions need to be tied to mechanics? Finally, tell me what mechanics you would assign to these so that you get the rules crunch that you (and plants) crave, but still would allow them to be viable first level characters?

That's what we're discussing here. You are thinking that because there aren't rules that I can point to that provides mechanical support for my descriptive choices, those choices are either meaningless or should be disallowed. I'm saying that the fact that I explicitly don't have to justify my descriptive choices allows far more real meaningful freedom to explore vastly different characters precisely because the mechanics are so generic.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

Krispy the familiar options are a weak version of the original Eidolon evolutions.

That fact the Eidolon is stronger does not mean they should have less customization.

I get what you're saying.

I don't get how taking basic abilities, such as the ones familiars have to pay for, like manual dexterity and speech, and making me choose between them improves my experience somehow when all that is currently included in the base package.

If you're saying that Eidolons should get abilities like natural attacks (also currently free), movement modes, etc. this way - things with combat effectiveness - I have bad news for you. I can't imagine a version of 2E where these things aren't Feats.

That's how the system is set up - if it provides a significant mechanical benefit above baseline class effectiveness, its a class feat.

While its theoretically possible they could come up with an entire, unique subset of mechanical benefits for Summoners to pick from that are not feats, I really don't see that happening. I think whatever we end up with, Evolutions are going to be Class Feats with the Evolution trait.

[MrTsFloatinghead]

Verzen wrote:

Quote:

Given that, I have absolutely no problem looking you in the eye and telling you that point blank that the eidolon customization as it currently exists allows for approximately infinitely more meaningful customization for me than what you're suggesting, since it explicitly denies you (or any other players) the ability to dictate the actual character of my eidolon to me (or anyone else) on the basis of your view of what the mechanics dictate.

With this logic, lets just get rid of classes and levels entirely.

Leave all of your abilities up to imagination. Want a flaming sword? You got that. It deals 1d8 damage. Just pretend it's fire damage.

No, what I'm saying is that I should have the authority to describe things like the ways in which my character expresses emotions like rage, instead of having to explain to someone how/why my character's experience of rage is different from what they are used to.

What I'm saying is that if I want to describe my character's produce flame cantrip as making blue fire, I should get to do that without having to point to some random class feature or feat or whatever to justify it. Just let the fire be blue, and move on with your life.

I'm saying that if I want to describe my leather armor as having very fine stitching, despite being of common material, instead of hemming and hawing and grumbling about "did you make a craft check for that?" just file that away as the minor character detail that it is, and don't say "well, because you described a thing in a non generic way, I'm going to have to make you pay a cool tax".

I'm saying that instead of creating a world in which you respond to "My eidolon is a serpentine mix of centipede and deep ocean crustacean, with two crushing crab claws and a pair of rasping mandibles as his bite", instead of you saying "Hmm, that sounds like it should have the evolutions for a carapace, a bite, two pincers (not claws, those are different), multiple legs and probably amphibious too, all on a serpentine base chassis which offers just a bite from its base evolutions - how are you affording that all at first level?" you should shrug and go "Okay, sounds cool, let's start playing".

[Mark Seifter]

I want to let everyone know that I have read every one of the 744 posts in this subforum so far. Some interesting ideas all around, thank you so much for voicing them, whether they are positive or negative! I'm very open to making significant changes to where the power budget comes in for the summoner (honestly, I'm pretty intrigued by even some of the radical suggestions like removing spellcasting, and everything is under consideration depending on what we find out is the overall desire from all of you), so I'm taking notes here.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

A generic character sheet for a generic double axe Barbarian is not infinite possibilities. Its a tiny almost insignificant fraction of the possible Barbarians possible.

Pathfinder is not 5e where you get like 5 options and the rest must be done through pure roleplay. Pathfinder gives you countless options that provide even more countless roleplay options.

And of all the classes that one to give the most roleplay and mechanical options than any other class was the Summoner. PF1 Summoner both chained and unchained gave you options, upon options, on top of options. And what is Paizo trying to do now? They took away everything that made the Summoner the Summoner.

* Eidolons have 0 customization.
* Summoner have effectively no spells slots.
* Summoners have 0 Summoning pool.
* Synthesist went from awesome to only penalties.
* The stats of both are bad.

etc. etc. etc.

So why are you saying that Summoners have more when everything they were was stripped to the point its questionable why they even share the name?

You're absolutely correct.

They took the single most banned class in 1E, a class that was banned in official play and even the nerfed version was banned at many tables, and gutted it.

They started from scratch because maybe, just maybe, all of those things you referenced caused problems for a lot of players at a lot of tables.

Maybe part of the goal to removing all the fiddly bits was to remove both the ability and perception of the class to be extensively gamed for optimizing, and make all of that customization narrative, because narrative customization is better for balance.

I get that you'll come back and say that its not about being OP, but pretty much every complaint I see comes back to class power and ability power.

I don't see a lack of power. I see a class that as it stands has better effective ability scores than anyone else, the ability to be two places at once, and has 4-5 actions a turn to...

The ONE thing that made Eidolons broken in 1st edition is already fixed in 2nd e by the nature of the system.

Natural attacks were broken in 1e. Absolutely broken. So what happens if you give an Eidolon 8 natural attacks with a bunch of evolutions? An even MORE broken character! The 3 action economy innately fixes the 1e chained summoner without even delving into any of its other evolutions. I am positive if you took the 1e summoner and slapped the 3 action economy on it with MAP and everything (and changed the maths to be on par with 2e. For example. Elemental strikes would be just 1 dmg rather than 1d6), it would be completely balanced as a class.

Try it. Take the 1e summoner and give him the 2e treatment. The brokeness of the eidolon is literally no more once you do that.

[Verzen]

Mark Seifter wrote:

I want to let everyone know that I have read every one of the 744 posts in this subforum so far. Some interesting ideas all around, thank you so much for voicing them, whether they are positive or negative! I'm very open to making significant changes to where the power budget comes in for the summoner (honestly, I'm pretty intrigued by even some of the radical suggestions like removing spellcasting, and everything is under consideration depending on what we find out is the overall desire from all of you), so I'm taking notes here.

Sorry if I sound overly critical Mark. I highly respect you as a designer. I'm just super passionate about one of my favorite PF1 classes. In fact, the summoner is the first class that got me hooked on PF1 just for the flavor and style alone. (I didn't realize, at the time, that it was completely broken nor did I initially know how to break it)

I'm critical because I care. =)

[Squiggit]

KrispyXIV wrote:

I don't get how taking basic abilities, such as the ones familiars have to pay for, like manual dexterity and speech, and making me choose between them improves my experience somehow when all that is currently included in the base package.

I kinda feel this a lot. While there's some mechanical sense to it, it's been really frustrating when making characters that have familiars, because it often feels like I have to spend a bunch of points just getting the idea of my familiar correct, before I even get to pick the abilities that I want to use for mechanical reasons. My level 1 familiar thesis wizard needs to spend all of his abilities to have a talking owl... if I didn't have familiar thesis I couldn't even have a talking owl until I took enhanced familiar. Feelsbad.

I wouldn't mind seeing more customization for Eidolon attacks, but it should still be very abstracted, imo. I'd rather be able to buy my eidolon the agile property or give them a ranged attack directly than I would want to just give them a short sword or longbow, for instance.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

The ONE thing that made Eidolons broken in 1st edition is already fixed in 2nd e by the nature of the system.

Natural attacks were broken in 1e. Absolutely broken. So what happens if you give an Eidolon 8 natural attacks with a bunch of evolutions? An even MORE broken character! The 3 action economy innately fixes the 1e chained summoner without even delving into any of its other evolutions. I am positive if you took the 1e summoner and slapped the 3 action economy on it with MAP and everything (and changed the maths to be on par with 2e. For example. Elemental strikes would be just 1 dmg rather than 1d6), it would be completely balanced as a class.

Try it. Take the 1e summoner and give him the 2e treatment. The brokeness of the eidolon is literally no more once you do that.

I'm pretty sure it would just be easier to make it as a 2E eidolon, describe it exactly like whichever concept from 1E we're talking about, pick my 2 favorite attacks for my d8 attack and d4 agile attack, and use the rules in 2E for the exact same concept.

I can use Evolution feats as I go to enhance its abilities as appropriate.

Things like perma-flight are higher level for a reason. I fully expect things like breath weapons to be available as evolution feats in the full rules (hint hint, Mark :)). Elemental damage can come from weapon runes, etc.

And my numbers will be balanced for the whole thing, because they're closely tied to the player proficiency system for transparency and ease of use.

There's no need to use 1E's system, as I can undoubtedly make a version in 2E that lacks all of the stuff in 1E that was available too early or should have been restricted. I really don't think Eidolons should get access to the Bestiary/monster version of things like Grab or Constrict.

[KrispyXIV]

Squiggit wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

I don't get how taking basic abilities, such as the ones familiars have to pay for, like manual dexterity and speech, and making me choose between them improves my experience somehow when all that is currently included in the base package.

I kinda feel this a lot. While there's some mechanical sense to it, it's been really frustrating when making characters that have familiars, because it often feels like I have to spend a bunch of points just getting the idea of my familiar correct, before I even get to pick the abilities that I want to use for mechanical reasons. My level 1 familiar thesis wizard needs to spend all of his abilities to have a talking owl... if I didn't have familiar thesis I couldn't even have a talking owl until I took enhanced familiar. Feelsbad.

I wouldn't mind seeing more customization for Eidolon attacks, but it should still be very abstracted, imo. I'd rather be able to buy my eidolon the agile property or give them a ranged attack directly than I would want to just give them a short sword or longbow, for instance.

Does your Owl warn you about poisonous snakes, by any chance?

[Mark Seifter]

In my mind, nothing is off the table in terms of weakening certain areas that we don't need as much to strengthen the ones that are more important, based on what folks want. I'm going to be looking very carefully to figure that out! And there will for sure be more options in the final (for instance, to your point Krispy, there was an eidolon-based focus spell where you pick an energy type and visual, making it like ifrit's inferno or shiva's frost snap or all those types of moves, but we didn't get into eidolon-based focus spells for the playtest due to it being an added complication, so it got cut for now). I actually think one thing that's different between this playtest and the APG is that APG playtest classes' feat selection was so slim that it was obvious there weren't enough and there had to be more in the final. These both actually have a better selection of feats, so it might look like they are up there in length and give the impression they are closer to final.

[Temperans]

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

Temperans wrote:

You are not thinking of it correctly.

The body shape of the Eidolon is the bare minimum that you have without evolutions. Evolutions should be what determine what the Eidolon actually does.

Your Eidolon has a snake body, but what does it do? In PF2 its does exactly the same as every other Eidolon.

However, Evolutions would allow your snake Eidolon to constrict the enemy. Meanwhile my Snake Eidolon is flying around. And a third person's Eidolon is using a poisonous bite.

Evolutions having a cost of not letting you do other stuff is not a negative, its part of what allows them to give powerful effects by spending greater amounts of Evolution points.

I said twice and I will say it every time. Familiar options are a weak version of Eidolon Evolutions. The fact Eidolons dont have such a subsystem is like spitting in the face of old Summoners.

Here are two 1st level Dragon Eidolons I thought up earlier today:

Pythagoras is the mental echo of a scholarly blue dragon whose mind got lost wandering the plane of Axis in the vain pursuit of a "Perfect truth" that could unify all the laws of the multiverse. He formed a bond with his summoner, a young half-elven scholar, when the youth attempted to cheat on a conjuration exam by stealing Pythagoras' journal and notes from the forbidden section of the library and attempting to copy the rituals within. Now pulled back to the material plane by the soul bond between the two, Pythagoras has taken on many of the characteristics of the axiomites native to Axis, and thus appears mostly solid until he moves, in which case his form starts to fragment into arcane sigils and math expressions. His main attack is to slash at an enemy by manifesting an expression of pure truth from his body, and his secondary attack is to bludgeon nearby enemies with agile clouds of fragmented possibility.

Argotharyx was god. Well, A god, anyway. Unfortunately, the kobold tribe that worshiped him died out before the strength of their belief in the...

Both of the things you described have nothing to do with the mechanics of the class.

It does matter what convoluted backstory you come up with for the Eidolon if the mechanics for the Eidolon dont work.

The mechanics need to work otherwise that class is a waste of time.

[Verzen]

Mark Seifter wrote:

I want to let everyone know that I have read every one of the 744 posts in this subforum so far. Some interesting ideas all around, thank you so much for voicing them, whether they are positive or negative! I'm very open to making significant changes to where the power budget comes in for the summoner (honestly, I'm pretty intrigued by even some of the radical suggestions like removing spellcasting, and everything is under consideration depending on what we find out is the overall desire from all of you), so I'm taking notes here.

By the way, Mark. I'd really prefer Eidolons myself to be VERY unique and VERY customizable mechanically and I think it would be best to do the three schools. Synthesis (combat focused), Eidolon (Strong pet), Summon monster focused (For those who do not want the Eidolon).

And having some sort of evolutions to differ and customize them all, even the summon monsters you end up summoning, similar to the Evolved Summoned Monster feat from PF1 baked right in to that option and giving them summon monster as a font (1+cha/day)

Thank you also for taking the time to listen to our suggestions and feedback! That must have taken you hours to read all those comments. =)

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

The ONE thing that made Eidolons broken in 1st edition is already fixed in 2nd e by the nature of the system.

Natural attacks were broken in 1e. Absolutely broken. So what happens if you give an Eidolon 8 natural attacks with a bunch of evolutions? An even MORE broken character! The 3 action economy innately fixes the 1e chained summoner without even delving into any of its other evolutions. I am positive if you took the 1e summoner and slapped the 3 action economy on it with MAP and everything (and changed the maths to be on par with 2e. For example. Elemental strikes would be just 1 dmg rather than 1d6), it would be completely balanced as a class.

Try it. Take the 1e summoner and give him the 2e treatment. The brokeness of the eidolon is literally no more once you do that.

I'm pretty sure it would just be easier to make it as a 2E eidolon, describe it exactly like whichever concept from 1E we're talking about, pick my 2 favorite attacks for my d8 attack and d4 agile attack, and use the rules in 2E for the exact same concept.

I can use Evolution feats as I go to enhance its abilities as appropriate.

Things like perma-flight are higher level for a reason. I fully expect things like breath weapons to be available as evolution feats in the full rules (hint hint, Mark :)). Elemental damage can come from weapon runes, etc.

And my numbers will be balanced for the whole thing, because they're closely tied to the player proficiency system for transparency and ease of use.

There's no need to use 1E's system, as I can undoubtedly make a version in 2E that lacks all of the stuff in 1E that was available too early or should have been restricted. I really don't think Eidolons should get access to the Bestiary/monster version of things like Grab or Constrict.

That's where we differ. I want a build-a-monster workshop.

But as a class!

[Temperans]

I have said Familiar options are Evolution lite.

I never said that Familiar options are the same as the Eidolon options.

The Eidolon basic rules: The form, type, and etc. can all be free just like the PF1e eidolon.

Evolutions should give you more.

[Mark Seifter]

Verzen wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

I want to let everyone know that I have read every one of the 744 posts in this subforum so far. Some interesting ideas all around, thank you so much for voicing them, whether they are positive or negative! I'm very open to making significant changes to where the power budget comes in for the summoner (honestly, I'm pretty intrigued by even some of the radical suggestions like removing spellcasting, and everything is under consideration depending on what we find out is the overall desire from all of you), so I'm taking notes here.

By the way, Mark. I'd really prefer Eidolons myself to be VERY unique and VERY customizable mechanically and I think it would be best to do the three schools. Synthesis (combat focused), Eidolon (Strong pet), Summon monster focused (For those who do not want the Eidolon).

And having some sort of evolutions to differ and customize them all, even the summon monsters you end up summoning, similar to the Evolved Summoned Monster feat from PF1 baked right in to that option and giving them summon monster as a font (1+cha/day)

Thank you also for taking the time to listen to our suggestions and feedback! That must have taken you hours to read all those comments. =)

Yep, I saw your suggestion in another thread (or maybe more than one other thread come to think of it). Cutting the four variable slots for a font of summon monster (that scales up to 10) is definitely an interesting idea. I've put it on my list.

And yeah, it took a long time, but it's worth it to take in all the feedback. As you can see here I was up and answering pretty late last night.

[Temperans]

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

The ONE thing that made Eidolons broken in 1st edition is already fixed in 2nd e by the nature of the system.

Natural attacks were broken in 1e. Absolutely broken. So what happens if you give an Eidolon 8 natural attacks with a bunch of evolutions? An even MORE broken character! The 3 action economy innately fixes the 1e chained summoner without even delving into any of its other evolutions. I am positive if you took the 1e summoner and slapped the 3 action economy on it with MAP and everything (and changed the maths to be on par with 2e. For example. Elemental strikes would be just 1 dmg rather than 1d6), it would be completely balanced as a class.

Try it. Take the 1e summoner and give him the 2e treatment. The brokeness of the eidolon is literally no more once you do that.

I'm pretty sure it would just be easier to make it as a 2E eidolon, describe it exactly like whichever concept from 1E we're talking about, pick my 2 favorite attacks for my d8 attack and d4 agile attack, and use the rules in 2E for the exact same concept.

I can use Evolution feats as I go to enhance its abilities as appropriate.

Things like perma-flight are higher level for a reason. I fully expect things like breath weapons to be available as evolution feats in the full rules (hint hint, Mark :)). Elemental damage can come from weapon runes, etc.

And my numbers will be balanced for the whole thing, because they're closely tied to the player proficiency system for transparency and ease of use.

There's no need to use 1E's system, as I can undoubtedly make a version in 2E that lacks all of the stuff in 1E that was available too early or should have been restricted. I really don't think Eidolons should get access to the Bestiary/monster version of things like Grab or Constrict.

That's where we differ. I want a build-a-monster workshop.

But as a class!

Exactly Verzen.

The Eidolon is a verifiable monster. And the class should allow to make the monster that you want. Not just a cookie cutter copy with alternate colors.

[KrispyXIV]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

I want to let everyone know that I have read every one of the 744 posts in this subforum so far. Some interesting ideas all around, thank you so much for voicing them, whether they are positive or negative! I'm very open to making significant changes to where the power budget comes in for the summoner (honestly, I'm pretty intrigued by even some of the radical suggestions like removing spellcasting, and everything is under consideration depending on what we find out is the overall desire from all of you), so I'm taking notes here.

By the way, Mark. I'd really prefer Eidolons myself to be VERY unique and VERY customizable mechanically and I think it would be best to do the three schools. Synthesis (combat focused), Eidolon (Strong pet), Summon monster focused (For those who do not want the Eidolon).

And having some sort of evolutions to differ and customize them all, even the summon monsters you end up summoning, similar to the Evolved Summoned Monster feat from PF1 baked right in to that option and giving them summon monster as a font (1+cha/day)

Thank you also for taking the time to listen to our suggestions and feedback! That must have taken you hours to read all those comments. =)

Yep, I saw your suggestion in another thread (or maybe more than one other thread come to think of it). Cutting the four variable slots for a font of summon monster (that scales up to 10) is definitely an interesting idea. I've put it on my list.

And yeah, it took a long time, but it's worth it to take in all the feedback. As you can see here I was up and answering pretty late last night.

I don't know if we're at a point where we can recommend wildly divergent class setups, but I think its worth bringing up that replacing the class spellcasting with a Summoning Font type ability sounds super awesome.

It also kills my absolute thing about the current setup of Summoner, which is that my Divine Summoner gets enough spellcasting to play an effective mini-cleric (in theory, testing monday!) with healing magic in addition to my Eidolon.

Is the sort of 'class archetype' where someone could either choose 'limited spellcasting based on my eidolon' or 'fully scaling summon monster' something that is on the table?

I'm saying I don't want to root for one or the other of those, because both are cool.

[Mark Seifter]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Bestiary/monster version of things like Constrict.

Eh, I don't know, constrict is definitely on my list of possible evolutions to add for the final. Barbarians get Thrash which is essentially pretty similar to constrict, so it's all about finding the right way to do it. I think with just a few more, we can cover nearly strictly more ground than the PF1 APG evolutions did with a simpler chassis for players to build.

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.

[graystone]

KrispyXIV wrote:

I don't get how taking basic abilities, such as the ones familiars have to pay for, like manual dexterity and speech, and making me choose between them improves my experience somehow when all that is currently included in the base package.

I think doing the unchained way would solve a lot of these issues. For instance each would get a package of abilities to start so say humanoid ones auto get manual dexterity as it'd be included but if you take Beast or dragon you'd need to buy it.

[Mark Seifter]

KrispyXIV wrote:

I don't know if we're at a point where we can recommend wildly divergent class setups, but I think its worth bringing up that replacing the class spellcasting with a Summoning Font type ability sounds super awesome.

It also kills my absolute favorite thing about the current setup of Summoner, which is that my Divine Summoner gets enough spellcasting to play an effective mini-cleric (in theory, testing monday!) with healing magic in addition to my Eidolon.

Yeah, I love them both too, and those four big heals are outstanding for angel summoner. Ultimately for the playtest we wanted to test this new sliding window of four spells setup because we have no idea how it plays, but in truth, I had actually already considered Verzen's idea of swapping for a font style of summons as a possibility, we just know how that works so we need more playtest data on the idea that made it into the playtest. If that makes sense?

[Squiggit]

Part of the problem I think is that a lot of people seem to have very different visions of the class.

I've been surprised at how many people have griped over the lack of summoning options or focus summons.

Personally I'd dump as much as I could for more Eidolon customization and other options. A class that's just eidolon cantrips, focus spells, and a big toolbox to build the perfect eidolon for yourself sounds awesome to me.

I would really like to see some non-feat ways to customize eidolons beyond your first choice though. I feel like there's sort of an awkward tug of war right now where if you want to pile the most unique abilities onto your eidolon, it has to be completely at the summoner's expense.

And while I don't hate that idea entirely (I like the aesthetic of a powerful summoned monster and a relatively weaker person controlling it), it does mean that if I want to focus on evolutions and upgrading my eidolon, my actual PC ends up kind of... nothing at the end of the day and that feels a little weird.

[Verzen]

Mark Seifter wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Bestiary/monster version of things like Constrict.

Eh, I don't know, constrict is definitely on my list of possible evolutions to add for the final. Barbarians get Thrash which is essentially pretty similar to constrict, so it's all about finding the right way to do it. I think with just a few more, we can cover nearly strictly more ground than the PF1 APG evolutions did with a simpler chassis for players to build.

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.

See, I strive off of complexity. Things that are too simple kind of bore me. I think it's why I prefer Pathfinder 1st and 2nd ed far more than 5th edition D&D while some of my friends prefer 5th ed. I come to PF for the customizability.

A suggestion I have, not sure you've seen it, but replace the 9 levels of casting with evolutions. And they would scale similar to a wizards scaling of spells, but they would be slight modifications. I think having an evolution system similar to this may go a long way to add customization and simplify the evolution system.

At 1st level, select 2 from this list. At 2nd level, select 1 more 1st level evolution. At 3rd level, select 2 2nd level evolutions. At 4th level, select 1 more 2nd level evolution. So on and so forth until level 10. This would provide a mechanical advantage while having an evolution system in place that is not confusing nor broken, since for each build, you just need to compare the power to all the 1st level evolutions, or compare the power to all the 2nd level evolutions and make sure they are equal.

[KrispyXIV]

Mark Seifter wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

I don't know if we're at a point where we can recommend wildly divergent class setups, but I think its worth bringing up that replacing the class spellcasting with a Summoning Font type ability sounds super awesome.

It also kills my absolute favorite thing about the current setup of Summoner, which is that my Divine Summoner gets enough spellcasting to play an effective mini-cleric (in theory, testing monday!) with healing magic in addition to my Eidolon.

Yeah, I love them both too, and those four big heals are outstanding for angel summoner. Ultimately for the playtest we wanted to test this new sliding window of four spells setup because we have no idea how it plays, but in truth, I had actually already considered Verzen's idea of swapping for a font style of summons as a possibility, we just know how that works so we need more playtest data on the idea that made it into the playtest. If that makes sense?

That does make a degree of sense. I'm very much looking forward to testing the limited spellcasting, as I honestly feel like getting four 'relevant' level spells is pretty darned strong as a secondary mechanic to my main one, especially when I get to pick those spells and freely choose what goes where.

I'll be sure to share how that goes :)

[Verzen]

Squiggit wrote:

Part of the problem I think is that a lot of people seem to have very different visions of the class.

I've been surprised at how many people have griped over the lack of summoning options or focus summons.

Personally I'd dump as much as I could for more Eidolon customization and other options. A class that's just eidolon cantrips, focus spells, and a big toolbox to build the perfect eidolon for yourself sounds awesome to me.

I would really like to see some non-feat ways to customize eidolons beyond your first choice though. I feel like there's sort of an awkward tug of war right now where if you want to pile the most unique abilities onto your eidolon, it has to be completely at the summoner's expense.

And while I don't hate that idea entirely (I like the aesthetic of a powerful summoned monster and a relatively weaker person controlling it), it does mean that if I want to focus on evolutions and upgrading my eidolon, my actual PC ends up kind of... nothing at the end of the day and that feels a little weird.

That's why I suggested to break the playstyle up into 3 main focuses. Players who want a synthesis summoner can get their synthesis play that is similar to the PF1 synthesis. Make it a viable, balanced option for those who want to wear a suit or mech.

Make the Eidolon a viable option for those who want that.

Make a summon monster focused option that allows them to do that.

And you only pick one of these options as your focus.

[Temperans]

Squiggit wrote:

Part of the problem I think is that a lot of people seem to have very different visions of the class.

I've been surprised at how many people have griped over the lack of summoning options or focus summons.

Personally I'd dump as much as I could for more Eidolon customization and other options. A class that's just eidolon cantrips, focus spells, and a big toolbox to build the perfect eidolon for yourself sounds awesome to me.

I would really like to see some non-feat ways to customize eidolons beyond your first choice though. I feel like there's sort of an awkward tug of war right now where if you want to pile the most unique abilities onto your eidolon, it has to be completely at the summoner's expense.

And while I don't hate that idea entirely (I like the aesthetic of a powerful summoned monster and a relatively weaker person controlling it), it does mean that if I want to focus on evolutions and upgrading my eidolon, my actual PC ends up kind of... nothing at the end of the day and that feels a little weird.

Yeah Eidolon power should not come at a direct expense of Summoner feats.

It would be a lot better to have feats give more Evolution points and access to more evolutions than the current version that just feel like wasting feats.

Similar to how Focus spell feats give you a Focus spell and an Focus Point.

[Mark Seifter]

Squiggit wrote:

Part of the problem I think is that a lot of people seem to have very different visions of the class.

I've been surprised at how many people have griped over the lack of summoning options or focus summons.

Personally I'd dump as much as I could for more Eidolon customization and other options. A class that's just eidolon cantrips, focus spells, and a big toolbox to build the perfect eidolon for yourself sounds awesome to me.

I would really like to see some non-feat ways to customize eidolons beyond your first choice though. I feel like there's sort of an awkward tug of war right now where if you want to pile the most unique abilities onto your eidolon, it has to be completely at the summoner's expense.

And while I don't hate that idea entirely (I like the aesthetic of a powerful summoned monster and a relatively weaker person controlling it), it does mean that if I want to focus on evolutions and upgrading my eidolon, my actual PC ends up kind of... nothing at the end of the day and that feels a little weird.

It's definitely true that people want a lot of different things. My goal is to bring a concept that is coherent enough to be one class and not several, while also fulfilling as many of those as I can. I say that knowing that some of us (maybe even me!) are not going to get the class to go in the direction we prefer most, since it's mutually exclusive and it can't do everything (if for nothing else than the fact that each concept I cover sufficiently well is going to take up a certain number of pages and we would eventually run out). I'm going to work to reduce that number and take the opinions of all the playtesters into account, but it's nearly certain that someone reading this right now will have the class not go the way they prefer most, basically for the reasons you stated Squiggit.

[Temperans]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Part of the problem I think is that a lot of people seem to have very different visions of the class.

I've been surprised at how many people have griped over the lack of summoning options or focus summons.

Personally I'd dump as much as I could for more Eidolon customization and other options. A class that's just eidolon cantrips, focus spells, and a big toolbox to build the perfect eidolon for yourself sounds awesome to me.

I would really like to see some non-feat ways to customize eidolons beyond your first choice though. I feel like there's sort of an awkward tug of war right now where if you want to pile the most unique abilities onto your eidolon, it has to be completely at the summoner's expense.

And while I don't hate that idea entirely (I like the aesthetic of a powerful summoned monster and a relatively weaker person controlling it), it does mean that if I want to focus on evolutions and upgrading my eidolon, my actual PC ends up kind of... nothing at the end of the day and that feels a little weird.

It's definitely true that people want a lot of different things. My goal is to bring a concept that is coherent enough to be one class and not several, while also fulfilling as many of those as I can. I say that knowing that some of us (maybe even me!) are not going to get the class to go in the direction we prefer most, since it's mutually exclusive and it can't do everything (if for nothing else than the fact that each concept I cover sufficiently well is going to take up a certain number of pages and we would eventually run out). I'm going to work to reduce that number and take the opinions of all the playtesters into account, but it's nearly certain that someone reading this right now will have the class not go the way they prefer most, basically for the reasons you stated Squiggit.

We could always add more options in later books just like Unchained Summoner added more Eidolon subtypes as more books were printed.

As for mutual exclusivity.

Wouldn't it be possible to find the bare minimum needed for each and offer it as a feat? Similar to how the Druid Order exploration only lets you grab the first part, not the rest.

* P.S. It would also make a good use of the PF1e style archetypes that great change the base class.

[Mark Seifter]

Verzen wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Bestiary/monster version of things like Constrict.

Eh, I don't know, constrict is definitely on my list of possible evolutions to add for the final. Barbarians get Thrash which is essentially pretty similar to constrict, so it's all about finding the right way to do it. I think with just a few more, we can cover nearly strictly more ground than the PF1 APG evolutions did with a simpler chassis for players to build.

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.

See, I strive off of complexity. Things that are too simple kind of bore me. I think it's why I prefer Pathfinder 1st and 2nd ed far more than 5th edition D&D while some of my friends prefer 5th ed. I come to PF for the customizability.

A suggestion I have, not sure you've seen it, but replace the 9 levels of casting with evolutions. And they would scale similar to a wizards scaling of spells, but they would be slight modifications. I think having an evolution system similar to this may go a long way to add customization and simplify the evolution system.

At 1st level, select 2 from this list. At 2nd level, select 1 more 1st level evolution. At 3rd level, select 2 2nd level evolutions. At 4th level, select 1 more 2nd level evolution. So on and so forth until level 10. This would provide a mechanical advantage while having an evolution system in place that is not...

We aim for the maximum depth and customizability with the minimum complexity. Complexity meaning the sort of negative side of having a rules-heavy game, the cognitive load cost to figure out how to do things, and depth being the positive side of a rules-heavy game in having more and deeper options to customize.

[MrTsFloatinghead]

Temperans wrote:

Both of the things you described have nothing to do with the mechanics of the class.

It does matter what convoluted backstory you come up with for the Eidolon if the mechanics for the Eidolon dont work.

The mechanics need to work otherwise that class is a waste of time.

How do they have nothing to do with the mechanics of the class? What other class allows you to have either of the companions I described, in any mechanical capacity? What system can you propose that would allow them to still be viable concepts at first level? The entire reason for the existence of the summoner class as it is presented seems to be to allow exactly the kinds of character ideas I'm suggesting, so I'm really not buying the idea that they are somehow not germane, or that the mechanics don't "work".

In fact, what I'm seeing is that even without considering the differences between phantoms, beasts, dragons and angels (and we can be sure there will be more choices in the final book), you can still create two completely different eidolons that would likely end up playing in totally different ways. It doesn't matter that their to-hit bonus and amount of damage is the same at first level, anymore than two str. 18 fighters going breastplate long sword and shield are "the same character".

Before you go on about the two fighters having different backgrounds that are mechanically supported, bear in mind that when you are mechanically defining the background of your summoner, you are mechanically defining the differences in your eidolons as well. For example, Argotharyx's summoner, Garvelyn Highboots (Halfling explorer at large) has a sporty, athletic background. This means that Argotharyx is trained in athletics as well, and so on the battlefield can sometimes take advantages of athletics checks to grapple (flavored as animating some of the vines holding him together, no less). Pythagoras' summoner, Cerillon, is much more bookish, so while Pythagoras isn't as physically adept, as he (and Cerillon) develop in power Pythagoras is likely to become relatively skilled in various scholarly pursuits as well (flavored as him slowly rediscovering is love of knowledge and discovery after centuries of drifting as an aimless mental echo).