| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Contributing in battle does not a PC make.
A wizard's spells aren't the pc.
A fighters sword isn't the pc.
A summoner's eidolon isn't the pc.
If you can point to the part of the playtest that says the eidolon is the pc, go ahead and prove it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I never said synthesis was good. It's really quite bad, actually. I simply said it solved the issue with aoe damage you were having, which is a fact.
"Hey dude just don't play Pathfinder and that'll fix the issue with AoEs for you"
lmfao
Synthesis needs A LOT of help.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Verzen, baby, have you made a balanced 2e iteration of this point system yet?
Do you refute where the 2e balance line is?
I admit at times I get annoyed by the new classes and how they have a fluffy narrative niche that results in making more rolls to perform at the level of a core class making less rolls. It's not good imo.
But I also view that as seperate from say... The level you get access to flight. It's pretty obvious where the levels you are expected access to it.
I think the chassis for Eidolon ought to be a more customizable AC that scales much better than the AC does without the feat investment. I think that me having to choose between focus spells, interesting interactions, and basic customization of evolution points such as aquatic or climb doesn't really feel good. They should get some flavor options built in to the Eidolon that allows me that sort of freedom. If I want my Eidolon to be a shark, I shouldn't have to wait till level 4 to pick up a feat that allows it.
If I want to be a swashbuckler with a shark, I shouldn't need to wait till level 8 to be able to get it with that dedication.
I don't think that answered any of my questions
But at face value of what you have posted
You want a customizable animal companion that scales better than an animal companion but with zero feat investment. So, taking this statement. It seems impossible to balance. Animal companion are weaker than martials and require much feat investment to keep it from becoming completely useless. And what's strictly better than a animal companion? A actual martial. Wich the current eidolon is closer to than current animal companions. Or maybe it would take a massive amount of the power budget and you just lose spells.
As far as having to choose between focus points, interesting interactions and specialty movement options is sorta how pf2e works no? Name me one class that doesn't have to make these kinds of choices. And I mean all 3.
Flavor options implies no gameplay consequence. Everything you have listed has an impact on gameplay.
But, I reiterate. Have you developed your own evolution point system for pf2e? I'd like to see your take.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Contributing in battle does not a PC make.
Even if it did, the idea that a Summoner doesn't contribute is pretty silly.
A Summoner gets all the resources of a player, in addition to cantrips and significant spellcasting.
The impact you can make with spells is reduced - because you have an Eidolon for Martial Contributions - but that's still 4 significant buffs, debuffs, or offensive spells per day.
For half its life, a Summoner is every bit as capable of swinging any given fight with a Calm Emotions, Haste, Synethesia or Chain Lightning. For the other half, its only slightly less effective at doing that - and no less effective at all on the buffing side of things.
Summoners absolutely contribute... just not by making Strikes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Verzen, baby, have you made a balanced 2e iteration of this point system yet?
Do you refute where the 2e balance line is?
I admit at times I get annoyed by the new classes and how they have a fluffy narrative niche that results in making more rolls to perform at the level of a core class making less rolls. It's not good imo.
But I also view that as seperate from say... The level you get access to flight. It's pretty obvious where the levels you are expected access to it.
I think the chassis for Eidolon ought to be a more customizable AC that scales much better than the AC does without the feat investment. I think that me having to choose between focus spells, interesting interactions, and basic customization of evolution points such as aquatic or climb doesn't really feel good. They should get some flavor options built in to the Eidolon that allows me that sort of freedom. If I want my Eidolon to be a shark, I shouldn't have to wait till level 4 to pick up a feat that allows it.
If I want to be a swashbuckler with a shark, I shouldn't need to wait till level 8 to be able to get it with that dedication.
I don't think that answered any of my questions
But at face value of what you have posted
You want a customizable animal companion that scales better than an animal companion but with zero feat investment. So, taking this statement. It seems impossible to balance. Animal companion are weaker than martials and require much feat investment to keep it from becoming completely useless. And what's strictly better than a animal companion? A actual martial. Wich the current eidolon is closer to than current animal companions. Or maybe it would take a massive amount of the power budget and you just lose spells.
As far as having to choose between focus points, interesting interactions and specialty movement options is sorta how pf2e works no? Name me one class that doesn't have to make
Cool you have told me is not impossible to balance. I assume you have an evolution point system you made to test in 2e then? That thing I've asked you about 3 times so far? Can we address that question maybe?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And do you have data of your playtesting with internal friend groups? And all of your iterative design changes when things conflict with inherent system expectations and balance - which it always will on a first pass? Do you have your pillars of design that you are using when designing the class, and ensuring it does conflict with PF2E's wider design pillars?
And, since you constantly say you want a weak summoner but a strong eidolon, what is your solution for people who vehemently do not want that? That is both balanced against your own chassis desire, and does not sacrifice your Eidolon customization needs in order to make the summoner more powerful?
(I'm being deliberately facetious because it's not so simple as "just balance it" and expounding design in a vacuum philosophy which is basically what you're saying.)
...Verzen, baby, have you made a balanced 2e iteration of this point system yet?
Do you refute where the 2e balance line is?
I admit at times I get annoyed by the new classes and how they have a fluffy narrative niche that results in making more rolls to perform at the level of a core class making less rolls. It's not good imo.
But I also view that as seperate from say... The level you get access to flight. It's pretty obvious where the levels you are expected access to it.
I think the chassis for Eidolon ought to be a more customizable AC that scales much better than the AC does without the feat investment. I think that me having to choose between focus spells, interesting interactions, and basic customization of evolution points such as aquatic or climb doesn't really feel good. They should get some flavor options built in to the Eidolon that allows me that sort of freedom. If I want my Eidolon to be a shark, I shouldn't have to wait till level 4 to pick up a feat that allows it.
If I want to be a swashbuckler with a shark, I shouldn't need to wait till level 8 to be able to get it with that dedication.
I don't think that answered any of my questions
But at face value of what you have posted
You want a customizable animal companion that scales better than an animal companion but with zero feat investment. So, taking this statement. It seems impossible to balance. Animal companion are weaker than martials and require much feat investment to keep it from becoming completely useless. And what's strictly better than a animal companion? A actual martial. Wich the current eidolon is closer to than current animal companions. Or maybe it would take a massive amount of the power budget and you just lose spells.
As far as having to choose between focus points, interesting interactions and specialty movement options is sorta how
Don't want to share it here? I'll go exploring though I think the playtest would have been a better place to.. Well... Place it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't want to share it here? I'll go exploring though I think the playtest would have been a better place to.. Well... Place it.
I'm not 100%, but im pretty sure that Vezren shared it in Homebrew at the request/suggestion of other posters.
I dont agree with a lot of things (including the idea that the proposed alternate system is balanced), but I'm not going to hold that against them.
Well I disagree to post it in home brew personally. As this is playtest. And it's relevant.
Overall looking at it you changed a bit too much at base level. So I'm skipping most and looking at the evolution point system.
It doesn't work as written very well.
Instead of a point system where you have to hold multiple levels, certain evolution points should be level gaited. And your selection of a evolution feature should potentially be an optional feat pool you can take using your class feats but only applying to the eidolon. So instead of taking a familiar at first level, you take fire resistance to your eidolon.
Then you go fighter route and have 2-3 bonus feats as you level that you can take specifically for evolution feats
1,9,17.
This is a more natural way to give the player the ability to focus more on the caster, or the eidolon, or the pairing.
The stat spread isn't bad for the eidolon simply because as it is right now, they can't use apex items.
The issue arises is your basically making an entirely seperate feat/evolution pool for one class Wich will add bloat.
But that's what I'd do. Just at first glance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So tell me what about that system, which I purposely made to be conservative, is unbalanced? Flight at low level? I made it so only a small eidolon could have it, and the evolution has a clause that prevents the Eidolon from carrying someone. Resistances?...
Fundamentally, its the fact that you created a system that grants the Summoner more free and customizable resources that are relevant in combat, where balance is most important, than any other class.
As I noted earlier in this thread, an Eidolon gets for free already - for all intents - all the Familiar abilities that shouldn't be costing a Summoner resources from the same pool of resources any other player has to work with.
No balanced solution for Summoners can be built on the foundation of granting the class too many "extra" effective character building resources. That means things like movement modes and damage resistance need to cost feats or gold, since that's what other players have to pay for those.
You're treating Familiars like they get Familiar abilities for free, which is actually untrue- a Familiar itself costs a feat (sometimes that's a class bonus feat, but the cost is hidden and still there) in order to gain those and get started.
What an Eidolon gets for free as part of the Summoner class is the same as everyone else does - combat proficiency, math, and essential flavor traits.
The other stuff they need to pay for, in the same currency as any other player.
You cant grant the class its own, seperate, additional currency for these abilities and call the result "balanced".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No balanced solution for Summoners can be built on the foundation of granting the class too many "extra" effective character building resources. That means things like movement modes and damage resistance need to cost feats or gold, since that's what other players have to pay for those.
Should we start charging Monks gold for their unarmed improvements that other classes have to pay for?
Magic, metal, adamantite?Maybe charge them feats for their extra movement?
Should we charge the Fighter feats for their extra combat flexible feats, Shield Block, or Attack of Opportunity that nobody else gets for free?
Maybe we should nerf the Barbarian since it gets damage resistance for free without paying gold or feats?
Let's be sincere here, there's no real issue with granting the Eidolon more customizability. Let's consider how the Summoner can be unique in what it's granted just like other classes. If you want to gatekeep damage resistance options to a later level that's fine, but there's nothing wrong with it being "free" or "extra" per the system's design.
The Eidolon has no options to gain armor and it is just as defensive as the Summoner itself for 8 levels of it's life, ontop of being two targets sharing 1 resource.
That's not an argument for damage resistance but to really consider how unique these new classes in SoM are and what new territory they are charting.
I don't even consider the Summoner itself to be 1 whole PC, especially not with what feat options there are for the Summoner itself without having to beg for other classes' options in the form of multiclassing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A familiar with 2 familiar options costs 2 feats. Wizard's Familiar thesis gives them a familiar for free, with an extra 4 abilities for 7, and Enhance Familiar feats makes it 9. Wizards get full spellcasting and spent 1 feat to get 9 Familiar abilities. Witches can get Incredible Familiars to get 11 Familiar abilities spending only 2 feats,...
I'm not opposed to giving a Summoner bonus Evolution feats - I've suggested that exact thing in multiple forms in the past.
Thats directly equivalent to the extra familiar abilities these Wizards and Witches get.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should we start charging Monks gold for their unarmed improvements that other classes have to pay for?
Uh, that's what handwraps of mighty blows are. So yes, we do charge for these. Monks also pay feats for more interesting unarmed attack options associated with styles.
Should we charge the Fighter feats for their extra combat flexible feats, Shield Block, or Attack of Opportunity that nobody else gets for free?Maybe we should nerf the Barbarian since it gets damage resistance for free without paying gold or feats?
Let's be sincere here, there's no real issue with granting the Eidolon more customizability. Let's consider how the Summoner can be unique in what it's granted just like other classes. If you want to gatekeep damage resistance options to a later level that's fine, but there's nothing wrong with it being "free" or "extra" per the system's design.
I've suggested and supported bonus evolution feats at multiple points during the playtest.
That's the currency Summoners should be using for customization. A reasonable and measured increase in this currency isn't a bad thing - but an entirely new subsystem for these abilities is fundamentally unfair and unneeded.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not opposed to giving a Summoner bonus Evolution feats - I've suggested that exact thing in multiple forms in the past.Thats directly equivalent to the extra familiar abilities these Wizards and Witches get.
Listen, we get bonus evolution feats, i'll shut my trap about initial customization options.
I don't need 1e's evolution system, even though most of us loved it.
Although, i do still think a dummy template you build off for an Eidolon and ability choices would go a long way to saving page-space and still give players options to mechanically-support their narrative creations. (Nothing extra from what we currently get, i just don't feel we need roughly the same templates posted over and over again with different names; a lot is just repeated information)
Uh, that's what handwraps of mighty blows are. So yes, we do charge for these. Monks also pay feats for more interesting unarmed attack options associated with styles.
The Monk is not charged for it's fist material upgrades, no, which is what i was referring to.
Literally, anybody who MCs into Monk can get styles. But nobody can just get Fighter's free combat feats, Barbarian's damage resistance for free, or the Monk's unarmed material improvements for free (Magic, Metal, Adamantite)| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enhanced and Incredible Familiar eaxh gives 4 familiar slots. While Wizard and Witch each give 4 familiar slots.
How is "lets give Summomers 4-8 feats better than giving Eidolons evolution points/slots? Again are you even reading what you are typing?
Enhanced grants 2 familiar slots - its 4 instead of 2, which is a increase of 2. That means that the Wizard Familiar thesis and Witches gain an equivalent of 3 bonus feats over the life of their character (familiar, and 2 feats worth of ability increases).
3 bonus feats, total, fits my definition of a reasonable and measured increase in resources.
Thats not equivalent to a new subsystem for evolutions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Familiar feats give 2 slots.
You are saying that Eidolons should not have evolution points/slots. So you need to give them 2 feats to match a single familiar feat.
That means you need to give Summoners 6 bonus feats to even match a basic familiar.
You're running away from the point here.
Eidolons already possess the equivalent of a TON of Familiar abilities, just for existing as a fully capable character, and don't pay for them. By your math, theyre like... way ahead here on familiars by default.
The ones they don't have are the sorts of abilities that a player combat-asset like a companion needs to be spending character resources on - feats.
Seriously, you can't use this "familiar equivalency" thing you're running with and ignore the fact that Eidolons get the equivalent of a dozen familiar abilities built in.
In reality though, its a bad comparison. Eidolons aren't familiars. The correct resource for them to spend for things like movement modes is class feats.
It would be extremely generous - though I think possibly reasonable - to give the class 3 lifetime bonus evolution feats. Or maybe one flexible evolution feat.
More than that though? The class doesn't need that much additional free stuff, and definitely not a whole new currencies worth.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread took a weird turn. If the Eidolon is not treated as an equivalent in power to a PC, then what is the problem with some of them getting flying at level 1 again? If they ARE equivalent, then what is the problem with Eidolons getting more customization?
Right now, people arguing with Verzen are trying to argue both at once (Krispy excepted).
I'll go ahead and post what I think a vaguely balanced point system might look like:
Each Eidolon gets 1 point to start. As you level, you gain access to higher level options, but no extra points unless you select a feat for more points.
All Eidolons that have darkvision now have low-light vision. All evolution feats more or less become options to select at the same level as the feat, with the following additions:
1- Energy Resist 1/2 level, Step into difficult terrain
2- Perfect Balance (not flat-footed when balancing and can move 5' on a failure, but not crit failure)
8- Sense upgrade (imprecise motion, precise scent or hearing), Greater magic just becomes Basic Spellcasting, though still innate
10- Burrowing speed , temporary flight
14- Expert Innate Spellcasting
At 2nd, a new feat adds an additional point, and at 6th, 10th, 14th, 18th levels, new feats add 2 point each to your pool. Each of these also places a cap on how high a level you can select with them. The 1 free point can always be spent everywhere, but the extra ones can only be spent on Evolutions of a lower level (like the level 2 feat gives you 1 evolution of level 2 or lower, the 6 feat gives you 2 points of 6th or lower, etc.). Evolution Surge now grants you a temporary point (which is a nerf to flight, thus why temporary flight is a 10th level option) instead of listing various options.
All of this would be a LOT more compact than granting these by feats, simply due to the difference in formatting.
Special attacks, like breath weapon, should remain chassis locked for ease of balance. I'm leery of even adding the range attack evolution in here.
As far as the rest of the power budget, this would free up a maximum of 4 feats over the course of 20 levels for the summoner, which honestly they could probably use. A tweak could be made that instead of separate feats, there could just be one feat that scales to the level you select it at, giving you a point to spend at the same level, and can be selected multiple times. Then there would be no increase in power, though of course quite a bit of increase in versatility. Transmorgify and True Transmorgification would be rendered obsolete, so new feats would be needed. But all this would mean the summoner could probably ship with 30-40 feats instead of a more typical 50-60.
Edit:
It would be extremely generous - though I think possibly reasonable - to give the class 3 lifetime bonus evolution feats. Or maybe one flexible evolution feat.
Or a tweak in line with this would be 3 2-point feats at 6th, 12th, and 18th. You'd top out at fewer evolutions than you can currently pick up, but you'd get plenty of flexibility in trade. I'd take that, but some might not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be extremely generous - though I think possibly reasonable - to give the class 3 lifetime bonus evolution feats. Or maybe one flexible evolution feat.
More than that though? The class doesn't need that much additional free stuff, and definitely not a whole new currencies worth.
I'd say 5 (1 per ability boost; lv.1/5/10/15/20) would be more reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone have an idea how long the designers have before they need to hand the book over to editing to get it out in time? I'm curious how much time they have to actually digest and implement the playtest data, as that dictates an upper limit on how much the design can change. If it's, like, two months, a ground-up redesign doesn't seem feasible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone have an idea how long the designers have before they need to hand the book over to editing to get it out in time? I'm curious how much time they have to actually digest and implement the playtest data, as that dictates an upper limit on how much the design can change.
That's what a lot of us are considering here.
I have no idea, it seems Summoner needs a lot of work still but the best thing to do would be to stick with evolution feats as a system, implement a lot of tiny fixes the Eidolon and Summoner need, and maybe implementing something like a dummy Eidolon template.All of this would save on time and page-space which is why i'm arguing from that side of the conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone have an idea how long the designers have before they need to hand the book over to editing to get it out in time? I'm curious how much time they have to actually digest and implement the playtest data, as that dictates an upper limit on how much the design can change. If it's, like, two months, a ground-up redesign doesn't seem feasible.
Considering this year, it's anyone's guess.
But if they were projected to release on the same time tables as the APG, I believe the APG was nearly finalized (last pass of editing? Not sure I remember the exact details) in late January after its playtest.
If this followed a similar paradigm, they'd have the next 4 months (if they kept to the same schedule) to make their updates.***
***Big asterisk, this is my memory serving me, and my memory is the worst server in history at times.
I'm guessing it should be at the printers by february or march probably. They have time.
Really?
That's like 6 months from release, surely it doesn't take 6 months to print the same book to reasonable supplies, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say end of this year to be safe.
I work in logistics. Logistical networks, especially from China, have been PROPERLY hosed all this year and won't correct for a while.
At least finished goods aren't doing as badly as, say, oil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread took a weird turn. If the Eidolon is not treated as an equivalent in power to a PC, then what is the problem with some of them getting flying at level 1 again? If they ARE equivalent, then what is the problem with Eidolons getting more customization?
Right now, people arguing with Verzen are trying to argue both at once (Krispy excepted).
I'll go ahead and post what I think a vaguely balanced point system might look like:
...
Another, unspoken reason thus far to avoid a point system and consider using simple bonus feats for extra customization resources:
Variance.
Remember all those people wanting class paths?
Eidolon Summoner, Synthesist, Master Summoner?
Those are way easier to balance when each is a discreet addition to the base system.
In the above examples, the Eidolon Summoner is bonus Evolution feats, rhe Synthesist is Synthesis and possibly companion abilities to make it Good (or bonus Synthesist feats), and the last is whatever Summoning system they choose to implement.
Its harder to implement those side by side if you've created an elaborate subsystem for Eidolons as your default consideration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the above examples, the Eidolon Summoner is bonus Evolution feats, rhe Synthesist is Synthesis and possibly companion abilities to make it Good (or bonus Synthesist feats), and the last is whatever Summoning system they choose to implement.
Its harder to implement those side by side if you've created an elaborate subsystem for Eidolons as your default consideration.
Oh, certainly. That was more a thought experiment than actual suggestion, just to illustrate how I would implement a point system if that was the task in front of me. I think I would ultimately rather have the flexible evolution feats you mentioned, though my idea may well save some space, which could be spent on more base forms and more feats that support alternate subclasses.
Also solves the question about MC Eidolons. MC Summoners get an Eidolon, but no free point. Eidolon masters might get 2 free points to start, Synthesis 1, and Master Summoners none.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another, unspoken reason thus far to avoid a point system and consider using simple bonus feats for extra customization resources:
Variance.
Remember all those people wanting class paths?
Eidolon Summoner, Synthesist, Master Summoner?
Those are way easier to balance when each is a discreet addition to the base system.
In the above examples, the Eidolon Summoner is bonus Evolution feats, rhe Synthesist is Synthesis and possibly companion abilities to make it Good (or bonus Synthesist feats), and the last is whatever Summoning system they choose to implement.
Its harder to implement those side by side if you've created an elaborate subsystem for Eidolons as your default consideration.
Personally, I really don't see Synth being good as anything but a sub-class.
Leaving Synth as a feat means less power for a Synth since the regular Eidolon does not need to pay the cost; people are looking for a playstyle that's not satisfied with the current implementation of Synth, the Synth cannot be weaker than a regular Eidolon.Nobody who loved playing Synth in 1e wants Synth relegated to just a "defensive" (using that term loosely) option in 2e.
It needs the power-balance to compensate for losing so much.
It cannot be a worse-Wildshape Druid.
As well as the fact it's really too flexible if it gains the necessary power balance, it'd become a must-pick if it's not locked behind a choice the player has to make; they would have to dedicate to only manifesting as a Synth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another, unspoken reason thus far to avoid a point system and consider using simple bonus feats for extra customization resources:
Variance.
Remember all those people wanting class paths?
Eidolon Summoner, Synthesist, Master Summoner?
Those are way easier to balance when each is a discreet addition to the base system.
In the above examples, the Eidolon Summoner is bonus Evolution feats, rhe Synthesist is Synthesis and possibly companion abilities to make it Good (or bonus Synthesist feats), and the last is whatever Summoning system they choose to implement.
Its harder to implement those side by side if you've created an elaborate subsystem for Eidolons as your default consideration.
Personally, I really don't see Synth being good as anything but a sub-class.
Leaving Synth as a feat means less power for a Synth since the regular Eidolon does not need to pay the cost; people are looking for a playstyle that's not satisfied with the current implementation of Synth, the Synth cannot be weaker than a regular Eidolon.Nobody who loved playing Synth in 1e wants Synth relegated to just a "defensive" (using that term loosely) option in 2e.
It needs the power to compensate and balance for losing so much.
It cannot be a worse-Wildshape Druid.As well as the fact it's really too flexible if it gains the necessary power balance, it'd become a must-pick if it's not locked behind a choice the player has to make; they would have to dedicate to only manifesting as a Synth.
Id like to see current Synthesis remain as a feat any Summoner can pick up, and the sub class/class path add some sort of fundamental feature that makes it a valid playstyle.
The ability to spend an action and access your Summoners feats/skills/abilities for a round, something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Id like to see current Synthesis remain as a feat any Summoner can pick up, and the sub class/class path add some sort of fundamental feature that makes it a valid playstyle.The ability to spend an action and access your Summoners feats/skills/abilities for a round, something.
Ontop of everything a Synth sacrifices in order to be a Synth, including the extra action economy, you want the Synth to spend an action to do what a regular Summoner can already do?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ontop of everything a Synth sacrifices in order to be a Synth, including the extra action economy, you want the Synth to spend an action to do what a regular Summoner can already do?
Id like to see current Synthesis remain as a feat any Summoner can pick up, and the sub class/class path add some sort of fundamental feature that makes it a valid playstyle.The ability to spend an action and access your Summoners feats/skills/abilities for a round, something.
I dont want them to end up as "Perfect Stats Man - the Guy whose main feature is his near perfect Attribute array!" Which is what you get if they have free access to all their Eidolon and Summoner attributes and abilities with no drawbacks.
That was essentially the problem with the 1e Synthesist as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont want them to end up as "Perfect Stats Man - the Guy whose main feature is his near perfect Attribute array!" Which is what you get if they have free access to all their Eidolon and Summoner attributes and abilities with no drawbacks.
That was essentially the problem with the 1e Synthesist as well.
I didn't say anything about that but i'll give you my opinion like before.
I really don't think Synth needs to be able to use the Summoner's mental stats; 2e is balanced in such a way, where the Eidolon gets boosts too, so there are no MAD problems.
You can already have your Eidolon be good at mental through boosts, using your own mental scores is really not a big boon at all and i think the vast majority of us wouldn't care if we didn't get it as a Synth in 2e.
You get to increase 4 stats each time you get a boost (which comes the same time as every other class), obviously as an Eidolon you'll boost STR/DEX/CON, but what about your last stat increase? That can go to any mental you want. INT/WIS/CHA. It's fine.
So "perfect-stats man" really isn't an issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont want them to end up as "Perfect Stats Man - the Guy whose main feature is his near perfect Attribute array!" Which is what you get if they have free access to all their Eidolon and Summoner attributes and abilities with no drawbacks.
That was essentially the problem with the 1e Synthesist as well.
I didn't say anything about that but i'll give you my opinion like before.
I really don't think Synth needs to be able to use the Summoner's mental stats; 2e is balanced in such a way, where the Eidolon gets boosts too, so there are no MAD problems.
You can already have your Eidolon be good at mental through boosts, using your own mental scores is really not a big boon at all and i think the vast majority of us wouldn't care if we didn't get it as a Synth in 2e.
So "perfect-stats man" really isn't an issue.
I mean, sure, that's probably a workable option.
I'm not committed to my particular strategy on limiting Synthesists - I just think they need to be limited somehow.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, sure, that's probably a workable option.
I'm not committed to my particular strategy on limiting Synthesists - I just think they need to be limited somehow.
And you know what? Regardless, i appreciate you Krispy.
You're throwing out ideas of your own, even if maybe not everything lands, you're adding to the conversation in a cool way by exploring what could be done.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what point of it is unbalanced? What point of that system makes it impossible to balance? Why can't Paizo, who are the devs and have a better understanding of the game, come up with a much more balanced system?
I ask them to give the Eidolon more customization because I trust them to make something that is well balance. I might disagree or question some parts of the balance. But I trust them that it will be balanced.
If you look up the chained Summoner in Archives of Nethys you will see a little tag next to the name. If you scroll over it, it will say, "As of 4/27/15, the summoner class in this book is no longer legal for play. A summoner character that has played at least once at level 2 or higher by this date qualifies to continue using this version of the class. Otherwise, only the summoner in Pathfinder RPG Pathfinder Unchained is legal for play."
It is the only class to have a blanket ban in PFS over the entire class aside from the Antipaladin (which is banned for reasons I hope I don't have to explain.)Look I get it. I do. A lot of people look at the fact that PF2 is getting the Summoner and think "Great, this is Paizo's chance to make the Chained Summoner again but Right! (balanced)"
But I understand if they don't even wanna try.
I dont think there is any reason to limit Synthesists. Its not like they get any of the action economy feats martial's get, so it would just end up feeling like a worse martial.
As long as the HP remains connected. If the hit points get separated I'm not sure getting a whole character's worth of hit points added onto your own (like in PF1) could be balanced this edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we can get even more diversity by give at least 4 options for base form: Biped, Quadruped, Avian, Serpentine. For example: Avian could allow for flying eidolon from level 1; Quadruped could be faster in land and serve as mount eidolon from level 1; Biped could allow for manual dexterity and at least 1 weapon from level 1; While Serpentine gets faster access to burrow and better at grapple checks (aka constricting).
I hope we get that no matter what else, if only for space saving. Probably not the weapon and mount ability though.
It'd be nice to get the attacks to also not be chassis locked, but I know they're very leery of doing that. Mark pointed out even feats that add special attacks or just upgrade the damage of existing attacks might feel required to select, and they don't want to make that a thing.
Edit: While I really think putting special attacks as part of the pool would lead to the min-maxing, there might be a way. Have the higher level upgrades be chassis locked, but add the 1st level ones to the general pool at, say, level 8 (which can be adjusted as needed, no need to add them all at the same level). So the dragon breath weapon would be a level 8 evolution worth 2 points, but the dragon eidolon would get it for free at level 1.
The avian Eidolon might get the level 10 temporary flying evolution or even level 16 permanent one, but would not get the base attack ability. They'd have to buy it with their points once they are at a high enough level to do so (which might render their higher level upgrades useless, but that's their problem).