Welcome to the Summoner Class Playtest!

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans 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.

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

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

OK Temperan's and Verzen, trying to meet you part way here - lets see if this setup sounds like something to discuss further.

First, we divorce Eidolon skills from player skills. Eidolons still get training in their 'bonus' skills, plus their Int modifier (maybe additional, I dunno).

Then, we add Eidolons getting skill increases to the Skill Increase class feature.

Then, you add to all Skill Feat entries that when you gain a Skill Feat, your Eidolon gains an Evolution feat.

We then convince Mark to add a bunch of skill themed [Evolution] Feats including things like, "Choose a skill feat, and your Eidolon gains that skill feat. It counts as having the relevant tools." and "Gain an additional Trained Skill". As well as things like Circumstance bonuses to intimidate, athletics, etc. Things which could be described in multiple ways.

It robs from the base skill versatility of the Eidolon, but presuming a good enough Variety of Evolutions it means that people that want to pile on combat Evolutions are never short on feats for doing so (and they have their other class feats for other things, if they don't want to) and opens the door for non-combat Eidolons to pile on some skill abilities and versatility.

Current system, more options. Doesn't touch the base combat viability of things, but gives you twice as many choices over the life of the character.

The direct inspiration here is the Skill Feat / Increase progression of Rogues and Investigators.

[Temperans]

Hmm how about just get 2 evolution points at level 1, and 1 point every other level. That would cap it at 11 points at level 19.

With evolutions ranging from 1 to 3 points that would limit the amount of the very strong evolutions to 3.

If you offer evolution points via Summoner feats you can do 2 + 1 every 3 levels and that caps the free evolutions to 8.

[Javaed]

Unfortunately it isn't likely that I'll get to playtest unless my current character dies next week. I did want to share a few thoughts though as I really enjoyed playing my 1e Summoners.

1. The action economy mechanics of the Summoner strike me as something that could be confusing for new players to the game. If possible I think feedback from first-time or more relatively new players should be gathered.

2. One of my favorite characters was a Grippli Summoner who strode into combat with his Eidlon, using a polearm to attack around it. I really struggle to see a viable way to build this type of concept, and I would think a Gish + Summoned creature build to be a common fantasy for players. Maybe this could be alleviated with feat support though? Like I could see a feat that allows both and your Eidolon to each strike but only increases the MAP after the strikes for 2 actions? Or maybe "Strike Together" that gives you both finisher strikes when using act together with a condition to trigger it?

3. I may have missed it on my read through, but how do skill proficiency advancements work for the Eidolon? For the final version of the book a specific callout for how an Eidolon advances might be a good idea.

4. Right now it feels like most of your actions and feats boost the Eidolon, almost turning your main character into more of a remote pilot or sidekick. I'd like some feats that let you have a stronger impact via the Summoner himself. Make it so there's an actual decision to be made each round as to which character spends most of the actions.

5. I like the Summoning Font idea, but wouldn't want to give up buffing spells for the ability. Playing with the action economy to have both a summoned creature and an Eidolon on the field could be quite fun though. Especially if you set things up with Ostentatious Arrival on the first round. I would like to see more feats like that, and maybe a feat that adds an additional Summon X spells to your repertoire from outside your spell school.

[Temperans]

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

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...

Both the Eidolons you mentioned where just a bunch of background that had no mechanical effects what so ever. It was all fluff.

Eidolon Evolutions should have a mechanical impact on how the eidolon works. And that just does not happen with the current system.

[Deadmanwalking]

Temperans wrote:

Hmm how about just get 2 evolution points at level 1, and 1 point every other level. That would cap it at 11 points at level 19.

With evolutions ranging from 1 to 3 points that would limit the amount of the very strong evolutions to 3.

If you offer evolution points via Summoner feats you can do 2 + 1 every 3 levels and that caps the free evolutions to 8.

I don't think points are the way to go. Too fiddly.

I do think additional options are good, but a list like Familiars have (and scaling in number as you level) seems a much better way to do it for minor stuff, and Feats seem valid for more major stuff like flight.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

Both the Eidolons you mentioned where just a bunch of background that had no mechanical effects what so ever. It was all fluff.

Eidolon Evolutions should have a mechanical impact on how the eidolon works. And that just does not happen with the current system.

Yeah, I'm totally and vehemently against any setup where people are told they can't build the eidolon they want because they lack the Evolution resources.

Thats what you're saying here - those Eidolons need mechanics to make them distinct, and thats an exclusionary position that invalidates other peoples characters.

Do you not see the issue with that position?

[Vallarthis]

Do archetypes taken by the summoner apply to the eidolon? Or perhaps you could pick to which of you the archetype benefits apply?

I want to have my angel Lay on Hands, and a dragon with Panache.

[cavernshark]

Vallarthis wrote:

Do archetypes taken by the summoner apply to the eidolon? Or perhaps you could pick to which of you the archetype benefits apply?

I want to have my angel Lay on Hands, and a dragon with Panache.

All dragons have panache.

[Charlesfire]

Vallarthis wrote:

Do archetypes taken by the summoner apply to the eidolon? Or perhaps you could pick to which of you the archetype benefits apply?

I want to have my angel Lay on Hands, and a dragon with Panache.

This is something that should be possible with a synthesis build, but it's not the case actually...

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Both the Eidolons you mentioned where just a bunch of background that had no mechanical effects what so ever. It was all fluff.

Eidolon Evolutions should have a mechanical impact on how the eidolon works. And that just does not happen with the current system.

Yeah, I'm totally and vehemently against any setup where people are told they can't build the eidolon they want because they lack the Evolution resources.

Thats what you're saying here - those Eidolons need mechanics to make them distinct, and thats an exclusionary position that invalidates other peoples characters.

Do you not see the issue with that position?

I disagree entirely. Otherwise your argument could be used the other way. Well, I want a flying Eidolon at level 1. The Eidolon in my head is like Tōshirō Hitsugaya's dragon with flare. He is also made of ice, so he should be immune to ice. Why would ice hurt an ice Eidolon? Makes no sense to me!

Why should any of the mechanics (that help balance the class) get in the way of what I see in my head? That's an exclusionary position that invalidates my character.

[Verzen]

But seriously Mark, now I kinda want to create Hitsugaya's dragon. A flying dragon made completely of ice.

Here is a picture of it.

https://mocah.org/190833-tshir-hitsugaya-1400x1050.html#images

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Both the Eidolons you mentioned where just a bunch of background that had no mechanical effects what so ever. It was all fluff.

Eidolon Evolutions should have a mechanical impact on how the eidolon works. And that just does not happen with the current system.

Yeah, I'm totally and vehemently against any setup where people are told they can't build the eidolon they want because they lack the Evolution resources.

Thats what you're saying here - those Eidolons need mechanics to make them distinct, and thats an exclusionary position that invalidates other peoples characters.

Do you not see the issue with that position?

I disagree entirely. Otherwise your argument could be used the other way. Well, I want a flying Eidolon at level 1. The Eidolon in my head is like Tōshirō Hitsugaya's dragon with flare. He is also made of ice, so he should be immune to ice. Why would ice hurt an ice Eidolon? Makes no sense to me!

Why should any of the mechanics (that help balance the class) get in the way of what I see in my head? That's an exclusionary position that invalidates my character.

...

I'm not clear on what you're getting at here.

You can have a winged Eidolon that 'flies' non-mechanically above the ground (hovering) as the setup is described now. According to your position, that requires mechanics. According to mine, you're good to go!

Same with an Ice Eidolon. Totally good to go by my reckoning.

My position is inclusive - describe things how you like, those things don't need to come with mechanics unless you choose to.

Saying those aspects require mechanics is exclusive, when you attach a cost to those mechanics - and that's the position you seem to be presenting.

The class description of Summoner says you describe your Eidolon when you make it, at level one. Not that you describe the larval version of what you're going to have 13 levels from now.

Some day, my Ifrit Eidolon will have fire abilities and a fire explosion - but for now, thats just special effects. This setup is inclusive, and allows everyone to get what they want.

Saying that until I can get some fire aura evolution, my Ifrit Eidolon is just sortof a weird monkey is exclusive, and prevents me from creating the Eidolon I want from the get go.

And starting with the Eidolon I want is how the class is described.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Both the Eidolons you mentioned where just a bunch of background that had no mechanical effects what so ever. It was all fluff.

Eidolon Evolutions should have a mechanical impact on how the eidolon works. And that just does not happen with the current system.

Yeah, I'm totally and vehemently against any setup where people are told they can't build the eidolon they want because they lack the Evolution resources.

Thats what you're saying here - those Eidolons need mechanics to make them distinct, and thats an exclusionary position that invalidates other peoples characters.

Do you not see the issue with that position?

I disagree entirely. Otherwise your argument could be used the other way. Well, I want a flying Eidolon at level 1. The Eidolon in my head is like Tōshirō Hitsugaya's dragon with flare. He is also made of ice, so he should be immune to ice. Why would ice hurt an ice Eidolon? Makes no sense to me!

Why should any of the mechanics (that help balance the class) get in the way of what I see in my head? That's an exclusionary position that invalidates my character.

...

I'm not clear on what you're getting at here.

You can have a winged Eidolon that 'flies' non-mechanically above the ground (hovering) as the setup is described now. According to your position, that requires mechanics. According to mine, you're good to go!

Same with an Ice Eidolon. Totally good to go by my reckoning.

Our position is inclusive - describe things how you like, those things don't need to come with mechanics unless you choose to.

Saying those aspects require mechanics is exclusive, when you attach a cost to those mechanics - and that's the position you seem to be presenting.

The class description of Summoner says you describe your Eidolon when you make it, at level one. Not that you describe the larval version of what you're going to have 13 levels from now.

Some day, my Ifrit Eidolon...

By their very nature, TTRPG games are going to be exclusive. In fact, part of game design in its nature is an exclusive principle. It works based on excluding others of options, and then coming back and making exceptions. That's part of the philosophy of game design. It's a backwards approach and can be counter-intuitive, because people think game design is just adding in abilities for characters to use, but it's not.

It's saying, "Hey. No one else who is NOT a monk can use flurry of blows. But here is an exception if you choose the monk dedication at level 8."

I cannot be a fighter and get flurry of blows unless I go that route because I am inherently restricted from it. Likewise, if I am a wizard, I don't 'gain' arcane spells. I am inherently restricted and forbidden to cast any other spells except for arcane spells. Most people will see it as, "You're just giving them that ability" but it's really not.

The exclusionary principle is by and far part of game design at its core.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Both the Eidolons you mentioned where just a bunch of background that had no mechanical effects what so ever. It was all fluff.

Eidolon Evolutions should have a mechanical impact on how the eidolon works. And that just does not happen with the current system.

Yeah, I'm totally and vehemently against any setup where people are told they can't build the eidolon they want because they lack the Evolution resources.

Thats what you're saying here - those Eidolons need mechanics to make them distinct, and thats an exclusionary position that invalidates other peoples characters.

Do you not see the issue with that position?

I disagree entirely. Otherwise your argument could be used the other way. Well, I want a flying Eidolon at level 1. The Eidolon in my head is like Tōshirō Hitsugaya's dragon with flare. He is also made of ice, so he should be immune to ice. Why would ice hurt an ice Eidolon? Makes no sense to me!

Why should any of the mechanics (that help balance the class) get in the way of what I see in my head? That's an exclusionary position that invalidates my character.

...

I'm not clear on what you're getting at here.

You can have a winged Eidolon that 'flies' non-mechanically above the ground (hovering) as the setup is described now. According to your position, that requires mechanics. According to mine, you're good to go!

Same with an Ice Eidolon. Totally good to go by my reckoning.

My position is inclusive - describe things how you like, those things don't need to come with mechanics unless you choose to.

Saying those aspects require mechanics is exclusive, when you attach a cost to those mechanics - and that's the position you seem to be presenting.

The class description of Summoner says you describe your Eidolon when you make it, at level one. Not that you describe the larval version of what you're going to have 13 levels from now.

Some day, my Ifrit Eidolon...

And FYI - Having preset "packages" such as Angel, construct, dragon, etc is far more restricting than how the PF1e was which was it gave a bunch of evolutions and then said, "Have fun!" as you build your own Eidolon.

I felt the chained PF1e summoner was far far far more up your alley than the 1e unchained was or even the PF2e playtest version was. It's interesting that you're not advocating for that system back.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

And FYI - Having preset "packages" such as Angel, construct, dragon, etc is far more restricting than how the PF1e was which was it gave a bunch of evolutions and then said, "Have fun!" as you build your own Eidolon.

I felt the chained PF1e summoner was far far far more up your alley than the 1e unchained was or even the PF2e playtest version was. It's interesting that you're not advocating for that system back.

Both 1E versions of the Summoner were versions that told me I couldn't have the Eidolon I wanted until I could pay the evolution costs for the features I wanted.

That was an issue.

A much better system is, "Describe your Eidolon when you roll your summoner, and unlock mechanical benefits to go along with its traits as you go."

I signed up for playing a Summoner to have a cool, iconic summon. Not the undeveloped, half formed version of that summon.

A summoner is a totally different ball game from any other class in the game, all of which are essentially 'human' level to start. The Summoner gets to deal with a monster from the get go - its part of the Summoner 'class fantasy' to steal an MMO term.

[Invictus Novo]

I'm a huge fan of the Summoner and think we are moving so much in the right direction. My biggest concern right now is the lack of summoning for the Summoner. There are feats that want to make summoning good, but lack of options right now. Considering how 2e's action economy is, we don't run the same risk of flooding the battlefield like in 1e either. I'd love to see something like one of the following options.

1. As many have mentioned, a type of Summoning Font like the cleric. However, it should NOT be based on CHA as that is the Summoner's primary stat. I'd love it to be based on CON as that seems to be the secondary ability. Heck, even in the language of the summoner, you are summoning with your life force, so it would be interesting to use CON in this unique way and still be thematically fitting.

OR

2. Go the other route and make it a Conduit Spell using your focus pool. Doing it this way also keeps with the spirit of 1e in that the Eidolon and summon SLA use the same energy. While I would hate for it to unmanifest the Eidolon (that would feel horrible), it does prevent you from buffing them that round and using your focus pool resource. Something like:

------
Summoning - Focus 1
Traits: Conjuration, Summoner, [matching Eidolon's Trait]
Cast: 2 actions
Duration: Sustain up to 1 minute

You conjure an otherworldly being to fight for you. Choose a creature sharing the trait of your Eidolon whose level is -1. Heightening the spell increases the maximum level of creature you summon.

-----

[graystone]

Invictus Novo wrote:

based on CON as that seems to be the secondary ability.

Well, they have no armor proficiency so I'd say Dex is the secondary.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

And FYI - Having preset "packages" such as Angel, construct, dragon, etc is far more restricting than how the PF1e was which was it gave a bunch of evolutions and then said, "Have fun!" as you build your own Eidolon.

I felt the chained PF1e summoner was far far far more up your alley than the 1e unchained was or even the PF2e playtest version was. It's interesting that you're not advocating for that system back.

Both 1E versions of the Summoner were versions that told me I couldn't have the Eidolon I wanted until I could pay the evolution costs for the features I wanted.

That was an issue.

A much better system is, "Describe your Eidolon when you roll your summoner, and unlock mechanical benefits to go along with its traits as you go."

I signed up for playing a Summoner to have a cool, iconic summon. Not the undeveloped, half formed version of that summon.

A summoner is a totally different ball game from any other class in the game, all of which are essentially 'human' level to start. The Summoner gets to deal with a monster from the get go - its part of the Summoner 'class fantasy' to steal an MMO term.

So let me understand you correctly. Your solution is to... instead... have a choice of 4 different Eidolons that cant be modified or changed in any way and the class fantasy of said Eidolon is set in stone?

So Angel, Dragon, Beast, Devotion Phantom.. and that's it?

That seems like the exact opposite of what you want in terms of customizing what kind of Eidolon envision.

[Verzen]

And before you say, "Well, there will inevitably be more options"

Yeah. I get that. But picking from a list of packages is innately more restrictive on fantasy choice and construction than the "choose your own evolutions and build-a-monster" ever was.

[MrTsFloatinghead]

Temperans wrote:

Both the Eidolons you mentioned where just a bunch of background that had no mechanical effects what so ever. It was all fluff.

Eidolon Evolutions should have a mechanical impact on how the eidolon works. And that just does not happen with the current system.

That's just objectively an untrue statement, though. There are for sure mechanical differences, in that they have different damage types and different skills (given the different backgrounds of their respective summoners). All of those have mechanical impact.

Furthermore, as the two characters grow, there are already a bunch of ways to develop them differently, both mechanically and more importantly as characters. More significantly, the two characters have different motivations, different behaviors, different priorities, different outlooks on the world, etc. All of these would have WAY more significant "mechanical" impact than pretty much any of the raw numbers on the character sheet.

Basically, to me it seems pretty obvious that "Draconic avatar of somebody's math thesis paper" is a very different character from "Crudely shaped Kobold idol with delusions of grandeur", despite the fact that they are both +6 to hit for the same base damage (though of different types).

I cannot understand the viewpoint that wants to throw the important part of the character (you know, the stuff like who they are, where they come from, what they look like, how they think, what their goals are, how they interact with others, etc) and cut as much of that out of the game as they can so that we can force people to only have as much characterization as they can find mechanical justification for.

I should not have to spend an "evolution point" on "natural appearance" or whatever just to justify saying my eidolon is an animated Kobold idol. I don't care that taking that hypothetical evolution gives the eidolon a +1 circumstance bonus on deception or stealth checks to appear as some inanimate object, because my vision for the character is that he's too proud to want to hide. Being forced to take an ability that doesn't fit with the actual character is the ultimate 'cool tax'.

It's a double whammy in that not only do I have to take a power that I don't really want or need, just for the "fluff" benefit, but it also likely trades off with a power or ability I DO want for the character, all because someone made the decision that an eidolon that looked like an animated rock pile would probably be good at hiding, so now that's the mechanical benefit tied to that description in order to make that choice "meaningful" (and that mechanical benefit has to be paid for, even if it's irrelevant to the actual character).

I especially don't want to be told I simply can't play the concept that I want because the natural appearance evolution has a minimum level requirement of 4th level, so until the character reaches that level, I cannot describe the eidolon as being made of natural materials, since obviously there is a mechanical benefit for that description which is too powerful for a starting character.

The crazy thing is that nobody seems to be disagreeing that the natural conclusion of "I want to tie character choices to mechanics" is that none of the concepts I've come up with can likely even exist in the world being proposed. Before you come at me with Stormwind fallacy, please note that literally in this thread are people arguing that players should not be allowed to describe rage in a way that seems mechanically consistent but thematically different than what they expected. You cannot say "if you like fluffy characters so much, just build your obtuse math dragon spirit with the more crunchy rules, there's no conflict there" and support "Your idea for a barbarian whose rage is more cold and focused can't be supported by the current rules, sorry".

This isn't even to say that I'm opposed to more options - indeed, I'm sure more will exist in the final book already, and I'm excited to see them. Those options need to stay generic, though. Instead of something like the old style of evolutions where they were a mechanical benefit tied to some narrative, just give the mechanical benefit and let players fluff it how they want.

For example, instead of having something like "your eidolon gets a +1 bonus on stealth checks to appear as a loose pile of stones and rocks", just have "Stealthy Eidolon: This eidolon gains a +1 circumstance bonus on stealth checks to hide". You might decide that for your eidolon this represents it having a chameleon-like ability. I might decide that for my angel eidolon (not normally known for stealth), it represents the fact that when it stands very, very still, it can be mistaken for a statue. Again those have very different "feel", despite the mechanics being the same. It isn't necessary to gatekeep the chameleon one behind having a base form that looks like a lizard, or the angel as statue behind a bunch of earlier evolutions that give damage resistance to represent being made of stone.

[Dubious Scholar]

I'll just state I mostly like this. My wants are more stat customizability to support skill use and more evolution feats (which it sounds like we already have coming).

I feel like summon monster is a valid focus for a class, but it's not what I personally am after. I prefer having some gas for buff spells each day. I am worried that cantrips are of limited utility due to poor proficiency. The dragon breath scaling on spell DC is a problem - eidolons should have good DCs on their combat effects, only the summoner should be limited there.

I agree Synthesis needs a bit more, either baseline or in feat support (but probably baseline so you can evolve stuff more).

I do feel like the summon monster SLA in 1e was more of a backup effect that become strongly associated with the class because it was so strong of a combat ability.

[Verzen]

Mark - If you decide to make Synthesis a base line option (which so many of us desire), perhaps make a level 4 feat that ONLY synthesis can get that allows us to manifest our Eidolon outside of our body for 1 minute.

The Summoner loses all effects of the Eidolon and the combined might of the two of them, but the Eidolon manifests outside of the summoners body to act for a limited time.

Just a cool feat idea. This approach would make synthesis the default, but offer options if a situation required that the two separate. (Like if I am locked in prison, I can manifest him on the other side of the bars and command him to get the keys to the cell) Thematically that just sounds awesome in my head.

[Verzen]

Furthermore, I would also like the ability to be able to have a synthesis for a dedication. Just with less evolutions/bonuses.

How cool would the fantasy be of an anti-paladin with dedication summoner (synthesis) that is capable of having some demonic traits such as brimstone skin, horns, and scales, all from manifesting his demon within.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

So let me understand you correctly. Your solution is to... instead... have a choice of 4 different Eidolons that cant be modified or changed in any way and the class fantasy of said Eidolon is set in stone?

So Angel, Dragon, Beast, Devotion Phantom.. and that's it?

That seems like the exact opposite of what you want in terms of customizing what kind of Eidolon envision.

First, as you predicted - there will be more options.

Second, even if these were it, the four that exist -

I can still make an Azata, Fey, Construct, or Imaginary Friend Eidolon using these templates. Its slightly more of a stretch, but its absolutely doable. Such is the magical power of the imagination, and an open description. An Angel can be any good outsider, in a pinch.

That said, I'm predicting something like Angel, Azata, Devil, Demon, Undead, Dragon, Construct, Elemental, Fey, Beast, Phantom, Ooze/Abberation, Figment. All of those are mainstream, common choices for an Eidolon and that list can cover a LOT of bases.

Yeah, its better if I can get exactly the right trait or base form... but what reasonable GM is going to say you can't call your Chaotic Good outsider Eidolon a Azata, even if you're playing that its an Angel...? Especially if its just a matter of waiting for that traits base form to be published.

[Verzen]

Quote:

I can still make an Azata, Fey, Construct, or Imaginary Friend Eidolon using these templates. Its slightly more of a stretch, but its absolutely doable. Such is the magical power of the imagination, and an open description. An Angel can be any good outsider, in a pinch.

Sorry, I find it very difficult to make a construct when there's no construct mechanical flavor.

Dragon? A construct dragon that breaths fire? Uh I guess? A construct beast that charges? Uh okay... A construct angel that deals good damage on hit? Uh.. A construct phantom? That doesn't even make sense.

However if an Eidolon came out that was a construct WITH THE CONSTRUCT TRAITS then I could start to get more of a feeling that yes, THIS is a construct. Construct traits help to shape what a construct would be. This same thing can be said with literally any creature type. It is difficult to imagine an ooze using the dragon template that breaths fire or charges or deals good damage, or somehow retaliates against anyone who damages me. An imagination only goes so far before it becomes a stretch of the 'imagination'.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

Quote:

I can still make an Azata, Fey, Construct, or Imaginary Friend Eidolon using these templates. Its slightly more of a stretch, but its absolutely doable. Such is the magical power of the imagination, and an open description. An Angel can be any good outsider, in a pinch.

Sorry, I find it very difficult to make a construct when there's no construct mechanical flavor.

Dragon? A construct dragon that breaths fire? Uh I guess? A construct beast that charges? Uh okay... A construct angel that deals good damage on hit? Uh.. A construct phantom? That doesn't even make sense.

However if an Eidolon came out that was a construct WITH THE CONSTRUCT TRAITS then I could start to get more of a feeling that yes, THIS is a construct. Construct traits help to shape what a construct would be. This same thing can be said with literally any creature type. It is difficult to imagine an ooze using the dragon template that breaths fire or charges or deals good damage, or somehow retaliates against anyone who damages me. An imagination only goes so far before it becomes a stretch of the 'imagination'.

I mean, you can literally make a Clockwork version of any of those things - a Clockwork dragon that breathes fire was, if I recall, on the cover of one of the Bestiaries.

Isn't there an entire plane of outsiders that are essentially machines - Inevitable's?

Possessed objects are like, Sci-Fi and Fantasy 101 for Phantom Objects.

As are Robo T-Rexes.

The above are not exactly what I meant, but thats not even a stretch to make those work, easy.

Oozes similarly cover a huge range of options inside the bestiary, with a variety of traits, movement abilities, offensive and defensive strategies, etc.

Those aren't even unreasonable.

[Verzen]

Quote:

a Clockwork dragon that breathes fire was, if I recall, on the cover of one of the Bestiaries.

Sure. But it had ACTUAL construct traits.

Quote:

A construct is an artificial creature empowered by a force other than necromancy. Constructs are often mindless; they are immune to bleed damage, death effects, disease, healing, necromancy, nonlethal attacks, poison, and the doomed, drained, fatigued, paralyzed, sickened, and unconscious conditions; and they may have Hardness based on the materials used to construct their bodies. Constructs are not living creatures, nor are they undead. When reduced to 0 Hit Points, a construct creature is destroyed.A construct is an artificial creature empowered by a force other than necromancy. Constructs are often mindless; they are immune to bleed damage, death effects, disease, healing, necromancy, nonlethal attacks, poison, and the doomed, drained, fatigued, paralyzed, sickened, and unconscious conditions; and they may have Hardness based on the materials used to construct their bodies. Constructs are not living creatures, nor are they undead. When reduced to 0 Hit Points, a construct creature is destroyed.

The fantasy is effectively broken the moment you poison it, give it a disease, or cause it to bleed.

That would be like having an ooze eidolon that can be crit when a defining trait among oozes is their inability to be crit.

[Verzen]

Or what if paizo never made undead, but I decided to skin a summon animal to summon an undead animal instead... except it got healed by the heal spell and harmed by the harm spell. These lack of bonuses all for the sake of fluff can really cause damage to the reskinning fantasy you seem to support.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

Or what if paizo never made undead, but I decided to skin a summon animal to summon an undead animal instead... except it got healed by the heal spell and harmed by the harm spell. These lack of bonuses all for the sake of fluff can really cause damage to the reskinning fantasy you seem to support.

They're things that aren't ideal for sure, and ideally we have a base form to support those. But in all of these cases, you don't really need a ton of mechanics to make it work. You just said it yourself!

Undead need negative energy healing.

Constructs should have immunity/resistance to poison/disease.

Oozes might have some sort of interaction or immunity to crits (thats actually really weird with Shared HP, will be interesting to see if this happens and how!)

You don't need vast amounts of customization to make these things work - you just need the one defining thing that makes them stand out. You boiled these 'types' down to one main trait yourself.

[Gaulin]

I personally think that the eidolon should be a super familiar. When creating it, choose a number of familiar abilities (might have to put a restriction or two on but I don't think many would be overpowered, probably just flight, but it could be as simple as choose from the following familiar abilities *insert list here*), and add a couple combat options at the start like breath attack, ranged attack, etc. Then as class feats, you get really cool eidolon evolutions, like strong combat options.

[Verzen]

Gaulin wrote:

I personally think that the eidolon should be a super familiar. When creating it, choose a number of familiar abilities (might have to put a restriction or two on but I don't think many would be overpowered, probably just flight, but it could be as simple as choose from the following familiar abilities *insert list here*), and add a couple combat options at the start like breath attack, ranged attack, etc. Then as class feats, you get really cool eidolon evolutions, like strong combat options.

I think it should be a hybrid personally between an animal companion and a familiar + a few other things to make it stand out a little more. I do like the idea of sharing HP, for example. It's essentially the share HP from PF1e but without the ridiculous amount of HP potential.

[graystone]

Verzen wrote:

I think it should be a hybrid personally between an animal companion and a familiar + a few other things to make it stand out a little more.

So a manbearpig?

[Charlesfire]

Verzen wrote:

Mark - If you decide to make Synthesis a base line option (which so many of us desire), perhaps make a level 4 feat that ONLY synthesis can get that allows us to manifest our Eidolon outside of our body for 1 minute.

The Summoner loses all effects of the Eidolon and the combined might of the two of them, but the Eidolon manifests outside of the summoners body to act for a limited time.

Just a cool feat idea. This approach would make synthesis the default, but offer options if a situation required that the two separate. (Like if I am locked in prison, I can manifest him on the other side of the bars and command him to get the keys to the cell) Thematically that just sounds awesome in my head.

There could be a "class path but more limited" feat for each class path. Like a summon monster with a frequency of one per day for the "master summoner" path, a time limited (or no summoner's ability like it is currently) synthesis for the synthesis path and a time limited standard eidolon for the standard eidolon path. This would allow to mix and match some iconic abilities of the summoner without overstepping on the toes of each class path.

[Arachnofiend]

Verzen wrote:

And FYI - Having preset "packages" such as Angel, construct, dragon, etc is far more restricting than how the PF1e was which was it gave a bunch of evolutions and then said, "Have fun!" as you build your own Eidolon.

The chained Summoner (which I assume you're talking about, given that the unchained also had preset packages) restricted options by making some of them just better than others. Pounce was so strong that you were doing badwrongfun if you made an eidolon that wasn't a quadruped.

That's what Krispy's concerned about, I'm pretty sure, and it's a concern I share. Codifying the mechanics of what it means to have a thousand legs means that buying into a thousand legs better be damn worth it otherwise your horrible centipede monster eidolon is a dead concept from the start.

[Verzen]

Charlesfire wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Mark - If you decide to make Synthesis a base line option (which so many of us desire), perhaps make a level 4 feat that ONLY synthesis can get that allows us to manifest our Eidolon outside of our body for 1 minute.

The Summoner loses all effects of the Eidolon and the combined might of the two of them, but the Eidolon manifests outside of the summoners body to act for a limited time.

Just a cool feat idea. This approach would make synthesis the default, but offer options if a situation required that the two separate. (Like if I am locked in prison, I can manifest him on the other side of the bars and command him to get the keys to the cell) Thematically that just sounds awesome in my head.

There could be a "class path but more limited" feat for each class path. Like a summon monster with a frequency of one per day for the "master summoner" path, a time limited (or no summoner's ability like it is currently) synthesis for the synthesis path and a time limited standard eidolon for the standard eidolon path. This would allow to mix and match some iconic abilities of the summoner without overstepping on the toes of each class path.

Uh no. That would completely destroy any of the class fantasy for me. It needs to be built in as options. Imagine rogue being like, "You can only be a thief for a minute 1/day." or "You can only be a mastermind 1/day"

Those options help DEFINE who you are and what path you're going down.

[KrispyXIV]

Arachnofiend wrote:

That's what Krispy's concerned about, I'm pretty sure, and it's a concern I share. Codifying the mechanics of what it means to have a thousand legs means that buying into a thousand legs better be damn worth it otherwise your horrible centipede monster eidolon is a dead concept from the start.

This is a significant part of it, and a serious issue with the way 1E summoners worked.

Pounce was so valuable, it became less of a concern for most people what Eidolon they wanted to bring for their character than how they could justify their own personal Zergling.

Instead of a range of cool pet ideas, you had ideas that were fit to mechanics.

It was boring as heck, because the cool Eidolon ideas were inevitably buried by all the people running pouncing, multi-armed stab machines.

[Verzen]

Unless I am misunderstanding you.

[Verzen]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Verzen wrote:

And FYI - Having preset "packages" such as Angel, construct, dragon, etc is far more restricting than how the PF1e was which was it gave a bunch of evolutions and then said, "Have fun!" as you build your own Eidolon.

The chained Summoner (which I assume you're talking about, given that the unchained also had preset packages) restricted options by making some of them just better than others. Pounce was so strong that you were doing badwrongfun if you made an eidolon that wasn't a quadruped.

That's what Krispy's concerned about, I'm pretty sure, and it's a concern I share. Codifying the mechanics of what it means to have a thousand legs means that buying into a thousand legs better be damn worth it otherwise your horrible centipede monster eidolon is a dead concept from the start.

I mean.. sure. But that's not a fault of the system. Just the implementation of the system.

It's entirely feasible to have an evolution system in which you have level 1 evolutions all the way up to level 9 evolutions and you must pick 3 level 1 evolutions that are all relatively balanced, 3 level 2 evolutions which are all relatively balanced, all the way up to level 9.

[BACE]

Mark Seifter wrote:

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.

What? You mean you can't just make this a 1000-page book with 200 pages of evolutions? Well then WHY DOES THE CLASS EVEN EXIST?

[KrispyXIV]

Ironically, when all Angel Eidolons are mostly the same at their heart mechanically - people running Angel Eidolons are free to differentiate them based on their vision of the character as opposed to which mechanical attributes are the best.

Describe the Eidolon, pick up the mechanics to enhance the aspects you like.

The way its currently set up, you'll end up with a range of diverse Angel Eidolons because each one's capabilities will reflect its summoner in skills, and in which Evolutions are chosen because none are so critical they're a must have.

They'll actually end up quite diverse... so long as they're not forced to chase mechanical advantages to 'keep up' with the game.

[Arachnofiend]

Verzen wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

Verzen wrote:

And FYI - Having preset "packages" such as Angel, construct, dragon, etc is far more restricting than how the PF1e was which was it gave a bunch of evolutions and then said, "Have fun!" as you build your own Eidolon.

The chained Summoner (which I assume you're talking about, given that the unchained also had preset packages) restricted options by making some of them just better than others. Pounce was so strong that you were doing badwrongfun if you made an eidolon that wasn't a quadruped.

That's what Krispy's concerned about, I'm pretty sure, and it's a concern I share. Codifying the mechanics of what it means to have a thousand legs means that buying into a thousand legs better be damn worth it otherwise your horrible centipede monster eidolon is a dead concept from the start.

I mean.. sure. But that's not a fault of the system. Just the implementation of the system.

It's entirely feasible to have an evolution system in which you have level 1 evolutions all the way up to level 9 evolutions and you must pick 3 level 1 evolutions that are all relatively balanced, 3 level 2 evolutions which are all relatively balanced, all the way up to level 9.

Even in the best case scenario that all of the choices are perfectly balanced against each other (a much more likely case in PF2 than it was in PF1, I will admit) you're still going to have the issue of synergies. Some abilities will pair better than others, either by design or accident. If your concept doesn't align with those synergies then there's going to be a problem.

[Moppy]

Verzen wrote:

A construct phantom? That doesn't even make sense.

red dwarf - rimmer

star trek voyager - emergency medical hologram

they arent exact parallels but if you think about it, its a device that manifests the phantom.

[Charlesfire]

Verzen wrote:

Charlesfire wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Mark - If you decide to make Synthesis a base line option (which so many of us desire), perhaps make a level 4 feat that ONLY synthesis can get that allows us to manifest our Eidolon outside of our body for 1 minute.

The Summoner loses all effects of the Eidolon and the combined might of the two of them, but the Eidolon manifests outside of the summoners body to act for a limited time.

Just a cool feat idea. This approach would make synthesis the default, but offer options if a situation required that the two separate. (Like if I am locked in prison, I can manifest him on the other side of the bars and command him to get the keys to the cell) Thematically that just sounds awesome in my head.

There could be a "class path but more limited" feat for each class path. Like a summon monster with a frequency of one per day for the "master summoner" path, a time limited (or no summoner's ability like it is currently) synthesis for the synthesis path and a time limited standard eidolon for the standard eidolon path. This would allow to mix and match some iconic abilities of the summoner without overstepping on the toes of each class path.

Uh no. That would completely destroy any of the class fantasy for me. It needs to be built in as options. Imagine rogue being like, "You can only be a thief for a minute 1/day." or "You can only be a mastermind 1/day"

Those options help DEFINE who you are and what path you're going down.

I see I mis-explained my idea again XD

I was suggesting getting to choose one of the three class path (master, standard, synthesis) and later on having class feats that give a lesser version of one of the class path thus allowing someone to dip into the other class path if he wishes so...

[manbearscientist]

The issue is that actions =/= cosmetics. Adding in rake, fine. Adding in constrict, fine. Adding in greater constrict... NO. Not fine, that should never be given to a player character. Aquatic Ambush, fine. Etc.

But you heavily reduce options if go to farinto 'build-a-bear' territory. You don't need to individually buy eyes to get dark-vision, then buy eyes a dozen more times for all-around vision. Just let them get all-around vision at an appropriate at let the player decide how that comes about.

Trying to tie-in lightweight mechanic options cosmetics (e.g., +1 Bulk carrying capacity per leg) just means that it isn't possibly to have a bunch of legs AND also buy cool abilities. That isn't freeing, it is limiting.

Tying things like Speech behind the same points you buy combat mechanics from also means that any speaking Eidolon would be strictly worse in the main part of the game for taking the Speech option. I don't mind some level 1 options there, but what I can think of is pretty limited: (darkvision vs scent, trained in a skill, climb/swim speeds, one weapon trait per attack, negative healing, that sort of stuff).

Special abilities (whether replicating class features or monster abilities) are something I thing are appropriate for Evolution feats. Even dragons in the game get abilities as they go up in level, a young white dragon doesn't have all the options of an ancient gold.

Going down the list, I could see a repurchaseable feat granting: all-around vision, aquatic ambush, AoO, frightful presence, constrict, grab, knockdown, lifesense, push, rend, trample, tremorsense, basic poison, a broader list of added weapon traits, changing damage to an energy type, swiftness, burrow/fly, etc.

But I fall on the side of "get whatever cosmetics you want at 1 with a little innate customization", and and not tying cosmetics at all to mechanical benefits. Even with the stripped down base now, I don't think it is true that every Eidolon from a given base will be mechanically identical.

Even the basic damage type difference does matter. But so do skills. The same can be said for senses, or spells. From a combinatoric standpoint, an Eidolon has many orders of magnitude more choices than say a Familiar or Animal Companion (and yes, that is mathematically provable). Heck, AC gives hardly any customization outside the base with no choices till level 8.

[Arachnofiend]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Ironically, when all Angel Eidolons are mostly the same at their heart mechanically - people running Angel Eidolons are free to differentiate them based on their vision of the character as opposed to which mechanical attributes are the best.

Describe the Eidolon, pick up the mechanics to enhance the aspects you like.

The way its currently set up, you'll end up with a range of diverse Angel Eidolons because each one's capabilities will reflect its summoner in skills, and in which Evolutions are chosen because none are so critical they're a must have.

They'll actually end up quite diverse... so long as they're not forced to chase mechanical advantages to 'keep up' with the game.

Who's ready for Burning Wheel Angel eidolons? Couldn't do that in PF1.

[KrispyXIV]

Arachnofiend wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Ironically, when all Angel Eidolons are mostly the same at their heart mechanically - people running Angel Eidolons are free to differentiate them based on their vision of the character as opposed to which mechanical attributes are the best.

Describe the Eidolon, pick up the mechanics to enhance the aspects you like.

The way its currently set up, you'll end up with a range of diverse Angel Eidolons because each one's capabilities will reflect its summoner in skills, and in which Evolutions are chosen because none are so critical they're a must have.

They'll actually end up quite diverse... so long as they're not forced to chase mechanical advantages to 'keep up' with the game.

Who's ready for Burning Wheel Angel eidolons? Couldn't do that in PF1.

Ooooh, nice.

What are your attacks... a deliberate wheel smash (d8 bludgeoning) and a bladed spin (d4 slashing agile)?

Or something more metaphysical or magical? Maybe crushing foes with the mere force of your presence (just straight up bludgeoning damage for both).

[Verzen]

Here is an example of what I mean.

Assume there is NOT a specific package that you pick. Evolutions are all you get. So we are assuming we get rid of Angel, Dragon, etc.

Evolutions
Each Eidolon is unique in its own manifestion and they gain powers to compensate their differences. At level 1, the Eidolon starts with 2 evolutions. They follow the evolution progression chart on page XX.
Evolution level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 - - - - - - - -
2 3 -
3 3 2
4 3 3
5 3 3 2
6 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 2
8 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3
10
11
12
(Essentially the wizard spell progression but instead, evolutions)

Evolutions can only ever be picked once. They do not stack with themselves.

Level 1 evolutions
Armored
The Eidolon has tougher scales, is wearing armor, or some other form of protection. Your Eidolon gains +1 status bonus to AC.

Water Resilience
Your Eidolon is capable of swimming in water. It gains a swim speed of 20 feet. They can breath twice as long while under water.

Resistance
Choose a resistance. This resistance can be to physical or energy damage. (Bludgeoning, slashing, piercing, acid, fire, cold, etc) Your Eidolon gains resistance equal to half your level in that element. (This is to simulate if I want a ice dragon, I can get resistant cold right from the get go.)

Breath Weapon
Your Eidolon gains a breath weapon that deals 1d4 dmg and increases by 1d4 additional damage every other level. 1d4 cooldown. (Kobolds get this at level 1. The dragon gets this. Precedence is set)

Enrage
The Eidolon gains the rage action.

Manifest Trait
The Eidolon gains the traits of a single monster type. Can only be chosen at level 1. This will allow me to create a construct, or an undead, or a fey and gain the traits associated with them, both strengths and weaknesses.

Elemental Attacks
Your Eidolons attacks become the element of your choice. (Acid, Fire, Ice etc)

(These are all fairly not on par with what a level 1 would be able to get power wise AND they add a bit of Eidolon customization fantasy that I'd like to see in the class)

Level 2

???

Level 3
???

Level 4

Enlarge Eidolon
Your Eidolon becomes large. He gains +4 strength (Essentially +2 damage, +2 attack). His reach increases by 5 feet. (Downside and upside. He's large. More difficult to maneuver in dungeons)

Empowered Elemental Attacks
(Requirement: Elemental Attacks)
Your attacks deal an additional 1d6 damage of your chosen elemental attack.

When you pick an option from a particular level rather than have "evolution points" and they are all equal in strength and customization than you can't do crazy shenanigans like you could in 1st ed. The problem with 1st ed was NOT that it wasn't a good idea or good system. It was because the implementation was terrible.

This system would allow for a more direct customization of your Eidolon and uniqueness and flavor that I and MANY others would love to have for their Eidolon without putting us in the "pre-built packages" box that the playtest put us in. Many loved the pf1e original summoner concept of build-a-monster. Now is the opportunity to do something very similar to that but uh.. actually balanced rather than having outrageous evolutions that cost almost nothing to get like pounce.

[RexAliquid]

The preset packages are what really sold the unchained summoner for me. I wasn't interested in the chained version at all, really. So, I really like that I can have a phantom of the paladin that died trying to stop a demonic plot and won't rest until she's helped me succeed. Or if I prefer, an angel sent by Heaven to help me achieve the same goals. Alternatively, I could play a god-caller and summon a beast eidolon. Each of the options provide excellent narrative hooks to fuel roleplay, way more than the amorphous blob of points that was the chained summoner.

[BACE]

I just want to say, I think Krispy and Verzen are largely just talking past each other. Verzen wants customization to make the eidolon feel uniquely their own. Krispy wants to be able to flavor their eidolon, without being told "no, sorry, that's not allowed."

But unless there's something I'm missing, there's nothing that says these have to be mutually exclusive. Stop thinking about evolutions as "I buy more arms. I buy some eyes. I buy some legs."

Instead, you can have "I get lifesense. My eidolon has a third eye on their forehead. The eye's color is a dark gray, and its pupil pulses with a faint purple light." Or you can have "I get lifesense. My eidolon develops tiny hairs across its body that stand on end whenever a living creature is nearby." You can have mechanics that aren't inherently tied to some aspect of your eidolon's physiology or personality.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

Enlarge Eidolon
Your Eidolon becomes large. He gains +4 strength (Essentially +2 damage, +2 attack). His reach increases by 5 feet. (Downside and upside. He's large. More difficult to maneuver in dungeons)

And here's where we reveal the issue with this concept - you've included an option here that either makes the current Eidolon progression a better fighter because you've given out +2 to hit, or you've created an option that is not an option because +2 to hit isn't optional.

For that matter, neither is a permanent, unrestricted +1 status bonus to AC.

Abilities on this scale are either completely unbalanced, or you have to dial the base stats of the class back and then they're no longer optional - you need them not to fall behind.

The math in PF2E doesn't really support these sorts of things when you're concerned with maintaining balance.

And then things like Resistance and Elemental traits are perfectly functional as feat selections, or weapon property runes. Heck, resistance is functional as armor property runes.

The system as it stands allows for the balanced version of this - I feel like you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.