Welcome to the Summoner Class Playtest!

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

Quote:

We dont need to rebuild the wheel here - Extra Evolution feats "Like an Investigator/Rogue gets extra Skill Feats" is an established paradigm inside how the rules already work.

Except the way that the playtest works is that there can be no extra evolution feats unless you make it into a general feat and it cannot be compared to skill feats.

Here is why. Investigator/rogue have actual class feats. Skill feats aren't obtained in place of class feats ever.. unless you have a class feat that can instead switch your class feat to a skill feat.

We don't have a separate group of 'evolution feats' since the summoner and Eidolon use the same exact feats. It's in the same pool. Why would we have an extra evolution feat?

The suggestion of allowing a Summoner to get a bonus Evolution feat on odds levels is breaking new ground by suggesting granting bonus class feats from a limited subset of class feats.

That's still way less extreme than inventing a "point buy" subsystem for 2E.

[Verzen]

The way I picture evolutions working in my head is that Eidolons, rather than getting ancestry feats, skill feats, general feats, and class feats, they themselves replace ALL Of those with just EVOLUTION feats and evolution feats are their own pool of feats.

Like how ancestry feats are its own pool? And how skill feats are its own pool? And how general feats are its own pool? And how class feats are its own pool? And a martial character can get ALL THOSE FEATS to make it customizable?

So why can't an Eidolon get evolution feats in their very own pool?

You guys are okay with the system when it works for martials but it's all of a sudden too much if it works for Eidolons? It's the same exact system! I am not reinventing the wheel here.

[manbearscientist]

Verzen wrote:

Quote:

I think the lack of evolution options is the single most universal complaint right now. Some people are thinking to solve this by going back to the 1e system and oh god no, for reasons you've already gone over.

Give me ONE reason why not.

Don't you agree the only reason the 1e system didn't work was because of the design flaw of 1) having X points to distribute as you wish and 2) having unequal power in evolutions?

Why wouldn't it be balanced and more interesting if they could pick X from a 1st level list, X from a 2nd level list etc like spellcasters do and to make sure that the 1st level list is all relatively balanced? What's so wrong with that idea? No one has refuted it. You guys sound like you have nightmares about the original system and then rather revisiting the base concept and seeing if we can balance it, you guys just want to throw it out, which is not a good reason.

For starters, this is nearly unworkable due to page count. And just option fatigue. You don't just want a decent number of flexible feats, you want a system that has to be nigh comparable to spells. I'm not it will be reasonable to make that many options, let alone devote the book space to them.

There are 16 evolution feats now, and likely 30+ in the final book. What you are talking about is having potentially a dozen 1st level evolutions, up to maybe 4 or 5 9th level evolutions. The amount of sheer work that would take is hard to compare to 'hey, give a feat for elemental attacks', and would likely require splitting flexible options up like separate evolutions for fire and cold and every other element. Even then, you are looking at requiring maybe double the amount of evolutions just to justify being able to pick a couple a level.

And that doesn't necessarily make it easier to build-a-bear. One feat to actively shift a damage to an elemental type could represent an Ifrit, but it could also represent a chaotic kaleidoscope of energy that shifts between multiple types which couldn't easily be approximated with a spell-type evolution system.

[Verzen]

KingOfAnything wrote:

Verzen wrote:

That is criticizing the implementation. Not the base system itself.

Let me explain the difference.

The implementation. Here's a bunch of evolution points. Go wild. Pick what you want. Oh you want 8 tentacles? Cool. You get 8 attacks.

THAT is the implementation

That is so boring in comparison to what we have in the playtest. I'd much rather have something to build on and make my own than a generic blob of evolution points.

See, this is why I am so frustrated. Did you like not read my post specifically criticizing that?

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Quote:

We dont need to rebuild the wheel here - Extra Evolution feats "Like an Investigator/Rogue gets extra Skill Feats" is an established paradigm inside how the rules already work.

Except the way that the playtest works is that there can be no extra evolution feats unless you make it into a general feat and it cannot be compared to skill feats.

Here is why. Investigator/rogue have actual class feats. Skill feats aren't obtained in place of class feats ever.. unless you have a class feat that can instead switch your class feat to a skill feat.

We don't have a separate group of 'evolution feats' since the summoner and Eidolon use the same exact feats. It's in the same pool. Why would we have an extra evolution feat?

The suggestion of allowing a Summoner to get a bonus Evolution feat on odds levels is breaking new ground by suggesting granting bonus class feats from a limited subset of class feats.

That's still way less extreme than inventing a "point buy" subsystem for 2E.

I honestly don't understand why you guys are not listening or reading what I am actually saying. I am absolutely baffled by it.

[Verzen]

manbearscientist wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Quote:

I think the lack of evolution options is the single most universal complaint right now. Some people are thinking to solve this by going back to the 1e system and oh god no, for reasons you've already gone over.

Give me ONE reason why not.

Don't you agree the only reason the 1e system didn't work was because of the design flaw of 1) having X points to distribute as you wish and 2) having unequal power in evolutions?

Why wouldn't it be balanced and more interesting if they could pick X from a 1st level list, X from a 2nd level list etc like spellcasters do and to make sure that the 1st level list is all relatively balanced? What's so wrong with that idea? No one has refuted it. You guys sound like you have nightmares about the original system and then rather revisiting the base concept and seeing if we can balance it, you guys just want to throw it out, which is not a good reason.

For starters, this is nearly unworkable due to page count. And just option fatigue. You don't just want a decent number of flexible feats, you want a system that has to be nigh comparable to spells. I'm not it will be reasonable to make that many options, let alone devote the book space to them.

There are 16 evolution feats now, and likely 30+ in the final book. What you are talking about is having potentially a dozen 1st level evolutions, up to maybe 4 or 5 9th level evolutions. The amount of sheer work that would take is hard to compare to 'hey, give a feat for elemental attacks', and would likely require splitting flexible options up like separate evolutions for fire and cold and every other element. Even then, you are looking at requiring maybe double the amount of evolutions just to justify being able to pick a couple a level.

And that doesn't necessarily make it easier to build-a-bear. One feat to actively shift a damage to an elemental type could represent an Ifrit, but it could also represent a chaotic kaleidoscope of energy that shifts between multiple...

No. What I want is this.

A martial character can, at level 1,
Select 1 Ancestry feat, can select 1 class feat, they get a skill feat (from their background)

An Eidolon can, at level 1,
---Select 1 Ancestry feat, can select 1 class feat, they get a skill feat (from their background)---(I'm not sure how to cross it out) Select 3 evolution feats instead.

[BACE]

manbearscientist wrote:

many of which the Eidolon won't be able to participate in because they are limited in languages.

...
On that note, Eidolons can't by default communicate with the summoner. Angels for instance get only Celestial, and can't get another language. Well, not many ancestries get Celestial as a bonus language. This seems incongruent with the idea the Eidolon and Summoner are in sync.

You're correct, this is incongruous, and thankfully it doesn't work that way. The eidolon and summoner share languages, page 18 under the "Language" entry of "Reading an Eidolon Entry"

[MrTsFloatinghead]

Verzen wrote:

Give me ONE reason why not.

Don't you agree the only reason the 1e system didn't work was because of the design flaw of 1) having X points to distribute as you wish and 2) having unequal power in evolutions?

Why wouldn't it be balanced and more interesting if they could pick X from a 1st level list, X from a 2nd level list etc like spellcasters do and to make sure that the 1st level list is all relatively balanced? What's so wrong with that idea? No one has refuted it. You guys sound like you have nightmares about the original system and then rather revisiting the base concept and seeing if we can balance it, you guys just want to throw it out, which is not a good reason.

I've refuted it, multiple times, with clear examples and explanations.

The old system was bad not because of the power level imbalance between eidolons, it was bad because people insisted that there had to be mechanical differences between pincers and claws, or a tail slap and a tentacle slap, or what have you, and that becomes a straitjacket on concepts very quickly, because the mentality that says "I cannot feel I'm summoning a construct eidolon unless it has construct traits" is the same mentality that says "I cannot accept that YOU have a construct flavored eidolon unless YOU take the construct trait option".

Here's what is good about the current system: I say "My eidolon's main attack are a pair of bulky lobster looking claws with stony growths along the side. It uses these to bash enemies or crush them in its grip, so it does bludgeoning damage", and that's just... fine. That's totally fine, there's no concerns about that at all. Maybe someone says "it was a rock lobster!"?

Here's what is bad about the old system (and inevitable about a system like you propose): I say "My eidolon's main attack are a pair of bulky lobster looking claws with stony growths along the side. It uses these to bash enemies or crush them in its grip, so it does bludgeoning damage", and the response is "well, actually claws do slashing damage and are agile so have to be secondary weapons, but it sounds like what you are describing is maybe more like pincers than claws anyway, and pincers CAN be primary weapons since they're not agile, but to get them to do bludgeoning damage you have to get the versatile weapon option too, so that means your AC has to come down by one because you don't have enough options left to pay for the tougher armor you described there. Or, I suppose, you could just stick with the rocky look but say the pincers do piercing damage because of the sharp rock shards."

Basically, the fact that the flavor of the mechanics is left up to the player is a feature, not a bug. Having more mechanical options is fine (to a point), but tying those options to narrative/fluff options is not.

[Squiggit]

KrispyXIV wrote:

So many times this. The advantage of a Summoner needs to be in having double the presence, not in having a pet that can outfight a Barbarian (or Rogue, or Swashbuckler, or...). Making Martial players feel like they're worse than a pet is a one way ticket to unplayables-ville, as everyone who doesn't like Summoner will hate and resent them..

I think this is looking at the Summoner completely wrong. With the way their actions work and the way their character power is distributed, the Eidolon isn't a pet and the Summoner isn't actually a pet class. A Summoner who uses Act Together to boost their Eidolon and then has their Eidolon move up and hit enemies has far more in common with a Champion than a Druid with an AC.

The sentence "Eidolons shouldn't be competitive with martials" isn't the same as "Animal companions shouldn't be competitive with martials", it's closer to "Monks shouldn't be competitive with martials."

You're right that Summoners have some cool potential skill utility as a result of their Eidolon, but Rogues and Investigators have a ton of skill utility too and they still get to be pretty damn good martials.

And yes, Summoners have spells and that needs to be factored into their power budget too, obviously, but at the end of the day that should still leave them roughly comparable to a martial, because that's what they are.

[BACE]

Honestly, I think you two are kind of converging on a general system here. You've both agreed that things like "extra legs" and "extra arms" are dumb. You've both agreed that evolutions should have mechanical benefit, with the way that benefit physically manifests left up to the player. You've both agreed that there should be some sort of increased progression for evolutions, whether that be through a unique pool of evolutions that you pick up like a spellcaster would, or through a rogue-like "bonus feats" system.

At this point, you're agreeing in basically all but two ways:

1) Number of evolutions the eidolon should get

2) What those evolutions should/can replace

[Verzen]

My #1 issue is, is that it feels like the summoner himself is infinitely more customizable than my Eidolon which feels bad. It should be the exact opposite.

[BACE]

Verzen wrote:

My #1 issue is, is that it feels like the summoner himself is infinitely more customizable than my Eidolon which feels bad. It should be the exact opposite.

I agree. Between being forced to use class feats for customization PLUS the fact that a lot of the current evolutions feel uninspired, there needs to be more customization. But I think Krispy's idea is much more likely to see print, just because it's simpler and requires less book space. And it still accomplishes that. You get your eidolon base still, which I know you don't like, but then you also get evolutions at every odd level, including first level. That's a minimum of 10 evolutions. And then you can take evolutions as class feats on even levels. That's a maximum of 20 evolutions (or more, if you're a human). 10-20 evolutions in addition to still getting class feats to do fun stuff seems like a huge upgrade from what we currently have.

[shroudb]

Aaaaaaand we're back to:

Not enough evolutions
No flavorful evolutions
Not enough customization.
No typical monster abilities.

I think this has to be the No1 issue that people tend to agree upon.

[Dubious Scholar]

Temperans wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I'm not at all sure how curating the number of limbs an Eidolon has is good, or fun, or useful in any way.

I'm fine with action economy enhancers or other customizable things (at least in theory), but having them tied to stuff like number of limbs inevitably penalizes concepts that have a different number of those, and that's bad and leads to badness.

If we're to increase mechanical customizability (and I think that's a worthy goal), I strongly feel those mechanical options should not come with any precise or specific morphology or other physical change, as that restricts thematic customizability.

If we remove the limb evolutions (I estimate that is about half of them) we would still have a lot of customizations that the PF2 version lacks:

Energy attacks, magic, see in darkness, shadow form, celestial/fiendish/undead appearance, magical flight and other mobility options, special effects when they hit with an attack, alignment attacks, auras of various kinds, improved attributes and stats, fast healing, high level magical abilities, etc. That doesnt even include the weird evolutions from Unchained.

Um... I don't think you've been reading the PDF very carefully then because most of those are already available.

[BobROE]

Verzen wrote:

An Eidolon can, at level 1,

---Select 1 Ancestry feat, can select 1 class feat, they get a skill feat (from their background)---(I'm not sure how to cross it out) Select 3 evolution feats instead.

So would the summoner player get 6 feats at first level? Or am I misunderstanding here?

Or are you proposing just dumping the summoner as part of the equation? So the player would just be the eidolon.

[MrTsFloatinghead]

Verzen wrote:

Yeah. It kinda is. I am and have been since the beginning suggesting something similar to evolution feats that the Eidolon picks up at the same rate as a martial but instead of Ancestry, class, skill, general feats, the Eidolon can pick evolution feats in its place. But not many of you want to actually address this. Instead, you guys come out with arguments such as, "Well, I don't want to have to take a feet for multiple legs!" .. no one says that's in the cards with my idea.. "Well, I don't want to have 8 different attacks!" .. no one says that's in the cards with my idea.. "Well, I don't want to outshine the martials!" .. no one says that's in the cards with my idea.. The only legit argument against it is book space. Sure. It would take a lot of book space. But I'd much rather have that than something that I personally feel is a boring class that I'd just outright ignore its existence, which is a shame since PF1 APG summoner was one of my favorite classes just based on concept alone. I made Eidolons that were specifically underoptimized as well, just so I can have that class fantasy being utilized. When unchained came out, I didn't touch the unchained summoner except for once, when the twinned archetype came out. And that was it. It just didn't interest me.

No, it objectively isn't. Again, the core, root, necessary assumption that underlies your proposal is specifically that "more customization" is the same as "more mechanical distinctions". That is what I am objecting to.

You cannot propose examples of feats that say things like

Armored

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

and then dismiss the criticism that this means that if I wanted to describe my eidolon as LOOKING like it has tough scales or armor, that narrative character choice is now suddenly locked behind a mechanical option as "a strawman".

Point blank, you are being called on the assumption that describing an eidolon as being made of living ice MUST mean that the eidolon is immune to cold energy damage, vulnerable to fire damage, etc, and therefore if you cannot get those mechanics, you cannot describe your eidolon that way. All those things about having 8 arms and lots of eyes and so on are not non sequiturs, they are specific examples of things that work under a more generic system but would not work under yours for the same reason as you objected to a hypothetical ice eidolon.

[Arachnofiend]

TBH the more I think about it the more I think that "the eidolon is just a pet and shouldn't be as strong as a proper martial" isn't actually true. The eidolon shares actions with the summoner, shares an HP pool with the summoner. I like these design decisions because they justify the eidolon being exceptionally powerful.

The fourth action and mild spell support the summoner provides should be the "catch up to the fighter" mechanics for the eidolon, who should be treated as a real martial and competitive with the others. Certainly, I do not think that a synthesist summoner should be any weaker than the other martials, so that should ring true for the eidolon/summoner pair as well.

[BACE]

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

No, it objectively isn't. Again, the core, root, necessary assumption that underlies your proposal is specifically that "more customization" is the same as "more mechanical distinctions". That is what I am objecting to.

You cannot propose examples of feats that say things like

Armored

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

and then dismiss the criticism that this means that if I wanted to describe my eidolon as LOOKING like it has tough scales or armor, that narrative character choice is now suddenly locked behind a mechanical option as "a strawman".

Point blank, you are being called on the assumption that describing an eidolon as being made of living ice MUST mean that the eidolon is immune to cold energy damage, vulnerable to fire damage, etc, and therefore if you cannot get those mechanics, you cannot describe your eidolon that way. All those things about having 8 arms and lots of eyes and so on are not non sequiturs, they are specific examples of things that work under a more generic system but would not work under yours for the same reason as you objected to a hypothetical ice eidolon.

He's not saying those should be gated behind anything. It sounds like you just have an issue with the flavor text he put in it. The flavor text is literally just saying "there is something about your eidolon that makes it harder to hit well. Here are some examples of what might be causing the effect."

If it were called "Defensive Evolution" and it said "Your eidolon is especially hard to hit, having gained a new way to protect itself from incoming blows. Your eidolon gains a +1 status bonus to AC." would you have an issue with it?

[Verzen]

BobROE wrote:

Verzen wrote:

An Eidolon can, at level 1,

---Select 1 Ancestry feat, can select 1 class feat, they get a skill feat (from their background)---(I'm not sure how to cross it out) Select 3 evolution feats instead.

So would the summoner player get 6 feats at first level? Or am I misunderstanding here?

Or are you proposing just dumping the summoner as part of the equation? So the player would just be the eidolon.

I am suggesting that a lot of those ancestry feats and general feats are going to be useless because they benefit the summoner when it is the Eidolon that's going to be in combat most of the time. For example. Dwarves get an ability to throw their body weight around. How useful is that going to be for the summoner? Are there going to be any ancestry feats that are going to assist the Eidolon? Probably not. The only fix I can think of for this is that the Eidolon BENEFITS from any of the feats that the summoner has, but that still doesn't solve the issue of me feeling like I am controlling a monster. 90% of our class SHOULD be about that Eidolon and customizing it. It should all be about customization. I am not saying we should make it OP like in 1e. I am saying that I want a unique monster I can be able to create. A monster of my very own that is not found anywhere else. A unique being.

[Verzen]

I'd even be willing to lower the actual power of the BASE Eidolon in order to give them power space to add in those customizable options. You're worried about the summoner having 6 feats, for example. But if we make the Eidolon slightly weaker to accommodate for that design space and provide those customizable options, then what we get is an Eidolon that when it HAS those customizable options, it's on par with any other prepackaged Eidolon.

[Dubious Scholar]

BACE wrote:

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:

No, it objectively isn't. Again, the core, root, necessary assumption that underlies your proposal is specifically that "more customization" is the same as "more mechanical distinctions". That is what I am objecting to.

You cannot propose examples of feats that say things like

Armored

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

and then dismiss the criticism that this means that if I wanted to describe my eidolon as LOOKING like it has tough scales or armor, that narrative character choice is now suddenly locked behind a mechanical option as "a strawman".

Point blank, you are being called on the assumption that describing an eidolon as being made of living ice MUST mean that the eidolon is immune to cold energy damage, vulnerable to fire damage, etc, and therefore if you cannot get those mechanics, you cannot describe your eidolon that way. All those things about having 8 arms and lots of eyes and so on are not non sequiturs, they are specific examples of things that work under a more generic system but would not work under yours for the same reason as you objected to a hypothetical ice eidolon.

He's not saying those should be gated behind anything. It sounds like you just have an issue with the flavor text he put in it. The flavor text is literally just saying "there is something about your eidolon that makes it harder to hit well. Here are some examples of what might be causing the effect."

If it were called "Defensive Evolution" and it said "Your eidolon is especially hard to hit, having gained a new way to protect itself from incoming blows. Your eidolon gains a +1 status bonus to AC." would you have an issue with it?

Yes, because that's not actually a choice. You take it, it's too mechanically advantageous not to. Same as the stat boosts and such in 1e - you just take them.

[Verzen]

Quote:

and then dismiss the criticism that this means that if I wanted to describe my eidolon as LOOKING like it has tough scales or armor, that narrative character choice is now suddenly locked behind a mechanical option as "a strawman".

So if I say, "Well, my dwarf monk LOOKS like he has studded leather on, so why do we need to have actual studded leather?"

And no one is saying you can't have a phantom that looks like it has armor on or a beast that looks like it has scales. This is just providing a mechanical advantage for those who want it.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

I'd even be willing to lower the actual power of the BASE Eidolon in order to give them power space to add in those customizable options. You're worried about the summoner having 6 feats, for example. But if we make the Eidolon slightly weaker to accommodate for that design space and provide those customizable options, then what we get is an Eidolon that when it HAS those customizable options, it's on par with any other prepackaged Eidolon.

So now we have to choose specific options to regain things we have now?

So I have less options in how to define and describe my eidolon, because I'm obligated to take certain options to keep up mechanically?

Evolutions should be used for customization and enhancement, not baseline functionality.

[Verzen]

It also feels bad to say.. have an undead Eidolon skeletal warrior looking guy but have NONE of the undead traits associated with a skeleton and to "just use your imagination"

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

It also feels bad to say.. have an undead Eidolon skeletal warrior looking guy but have NONE of the undead traits associated with a skeleton and to "just use your imagination"

What part of "that requires a single trait that will likely be covered when the base form for undead is published" is a real issue?

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

It also feels bad to say.. have an undead Eidolon skeletal warrior looking guy but have NONE of the undead traits associated with a skeleton and to "just use your imagination"

What part of "that requires a single trait that will likely be covered when the base form for undead is published" is a real issue?

The part that they can't cover literally every single concept. Why can't we just have an evolution that states, "Choose a creature type. Your Eidolon becomes that type" ? I mean, this is a pretty simple evolution and then allow us to be able to select which 1st level abilities or evolutions it has as well. Allow us to mix and match.

[Dubious Scholar]

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

It also feels bad to say.. have an undead Eidolon skeletal warrior looking guy but have NONE of the undead traits associated with a skeleton and to "just use your imagination"

What part of "that requires a single trait that will likely be covered when the base form for undead is published" is a real issue?

The part that they can't cover literally every single concept. Why can't we just have an evolution that states, "Choose a creature type. Your Eidolon becomes that type" ? I mean, this is a pretty simple evolution and then allow us to be able to select which 1st level abilities or evolutions it has as well. Allow us to mix and match.

Among other things, that doesn't actually grant undead traits as written. What you're specifically looking for is the negative healing ability.

[Grankless]

It's not like an actual literal undead even particularly fits within the confines of the eidolon as it exists on Golarion.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

It also feels bad to say.. have an undead Eidolon skeletal warrior looking guy but have NONE of the undead traits associated with a skeleton and to "just use your imagination"

What part of "that requires a single trait that will likely be covered when the base form for undead is published" is a real issue?

The part that they can't cover literally every single concept. Why can't we just have an evolution that states, "Choose a creature type. Your Eidolon becomes that type" ? I mean, this is a pretty simple evolution and then allow us to be able to select which 1st level abilities or evolutions it has as well. Allow us to mix and match.

This is me, the flexible and lenient GM speaking -

Players do not need an infinite range of options.

They need a range of discreet options, preferably which can cover a range of concepts, but which provide structure and guidance to keep the system workable and easy to use.

If the player wants to do something outside those guiderails, the GM can look at it and if needed change the label of the most appropriate option.

Pathfinder is great about providing a diverse range of mechanical options for players. But fighters essentially still only have 4 feat trees, because there's no need to distinguish at the feat level between various two handed weapons.

[manbearscientist]

Or just give more choices after selecting a base:

Negative/Positive Healing?
Extra movement types?
1 one weapon trait per primary and secondary attack?
Senses?
Add an elemental trait? (Air/Earth/Fire/Water)
If we are being spicy: Add another trait? (Amphibious, Cold, Astral, Dream, Ethereal, Ooze, Time?)

Want an Ooze Angel with Reach Pseudopods as its attacks and Low-Light Vision? I don't have a problem with that.

Want a dragon with negative healing and a swim speed? I don't have a problem with that.

This would eliminate most of the issue with a static base. The options just can't be too limiting (the pool needs to be fairly large, and mostly sidegrade options that don't hurt if not taken).

[Verzen]

Grankless wrote:

It's not like an actual literal undead even particularly fits within the confines of the eidolon as it exists on Golarion.

Really?

Undead Appearance (Ex)
Source: PZO1117

An eidolon appears as an undead creature, and mimics some of an undead creature’s abilities and weaknesses. Negative energy heals the eidolon, and positive energy (including a cleric’s channel energy ability) harms it. Spells and effects that target undead or have specific effects against undead (such as Command Undead, hold (halt?) undead, and searing light) affect the eidolon as if it were undead. The eidolon gains a +2 bonus on saves against disease, exhaustion, fatigue, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.

At 7th level, this bonus on saves can be increased to +4 by spending 2 additional evolution points. At 12th level, this protection can be increased to immunity against these attacks by spending 2 additional evolution points (the summoner must pay for the 7th-level upgrade before paying for this 12th-level upgrade).

Although the eidolon appears undead, it is still an outsider.

[KrispyXIV]

Grankless wrote:

It's not like an actual literal undead even particularly fits within the confines of the eidolon as it exists on Golarion.

While true, its an extremely good opportunity to address the mechanical needs of prospective undead minion players. You get your one hulking undead, and the Animate Dead / Summon Undead spell and youre good to go, and balanced!

Yeah, there are some concessions to the Eidolon mechanics... but for anyone who wants a bone golem pet, its a major win.

[BACE]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Yes, because that's not actually a choice. You take it, it's too mechanically advantageous not to. Same as the stat boosts and such in 1e - you just take them.

That's not the issue that was being addressed, though. The issue was one of flavor. And the flavor is flexible, that's my point. I honestly like Krispy's idea of giving them a rogue skill feat progression for evolution feats. I think that's about exactly where I want the class. But it sounds like Krispy is also taking the things Verzen is saying a bit out of context, and not really paying attention to what the other is saying.

But Krispy's argument is basically that flavor text shouldn't exist. Like, look at Resilient Evolution, something that already exists. It says "Your eidolon grows a tougher hide, manifests armor, or otherwise becomes particularly resilient against physical attacks. They gain resistance to physical damage equal to their Constitution modifier."

Does this mean that your eidolon at level 1 can't look like it has armor or a tough hide? No. Of course not. It's flavor text. It's saying "Hey, here are some ways you might want to flavor this in-character." It's not saying "Your eidolon can't have armor or a tough hide without this feat."

It's flavor text.

[Verzen]

manbearscientist wrote:

Or just give more choices after selecting a base:

Negative/Positive Healing?
Extra movement types?
1 one weapon trait per primary and secondary attack?
Senses?
Add an elemental trait? (Air/Earth/Fire/Water)
If we are being spicy: Add another trait? (Amphibious, Cold, Astral, Dream, Ethereal, Ooze, Time?)

Want an Ooze Angel with Reach Pseudopods as its attacks and Low-Light Vision? I don't have a problem with that.

Want a dragon with negative healing and a swim speed? I don't have a problem with that.

This would eliminate most of the issue with a static base. The options just can't be too limiting (the pool needs to be fairly large, and mostly sidegrade options that don't hurt if not taken).

See, I wouldn't mind that either. Even if it's not precisely what I envision.

[MrTsFloatinghead]

Verzen wrote:

So if I say, "Well, my dwarf monk LOOKS like he has studded leather on, so why do we need to have actual studded leather?"

And no one is saying you can't have a phantom that looks like it has armor on or a beast that looks like it has scales. This is just providing a mechanical advantage for those who want it.

Yes, if you want to say that your dwarf monk is effectively cosplaying as a rogue with non-functional studded leather, that is totally, completely, 100% fine and good and interesting and allowed. You don't get an item bonus to AC for the fake armor, though. It's just a quirky character detail, and that's it. It probably allows for some cool roleplay moments (why does the Dwarf dress that way?

Is it just a style? Is he trying to hide from his past?) so that's awesome, and there's no reason why I wouldn't want to just run with it at the table. Please explain to me why this is in any way bad?

With regards to the limitations on descriptions, again, YOU ARE SAYING EXACTLY THIS. You are on record that an Ice eidolon without cold immunity or a construct eidolon without construct traits should not be allowed. Saying "you can't have the appearance of ice without rules to back it up" is not different from saying "you can't describe your monk dwarf as wearing something that looks like studded leather without it actually having the mechanics of studded leather" or "you can't describe your eidolon as looking tougher and more durable without taking the evolution feat that gives +1 AC"

Verzen wrote:

It also feels bad to say.. have an undead Eidolon skeletal warrior looking guy but have NONE of the undead traits associated with a skeleton and to "just use your imagination"

No, it doesn't. At least, not to me. What feels bad is being told "You can't flavor your Eidolon as looking skeletal because for balance reasons the undead type gives enough mechanical benefit that really you should have to be level 4 before you can take it".

[Verzen]

Quote:

With regards to the limitations on descriptions, again, YOU ARE SAYING EXACTLY THIS. You are on record that an Ice eidolon without cold immunity or a construct eidolon without construct traits should not be allowed. Saying "you can't have the appearance of ice without rules to back it up" is not different from saying "you can't describe your monk dwarf as wearing something that looks like studded leather without it actually having the mechanics of studded leather" or "you can't describe your eidolon as looking tougher and more durable without taking the evolution feat that gives +1 AC"

How exactly does it make sense to have a literal creature made of ice have zero resistance to ice and be vulnerable to fire? That's like saying an Ice Mephit isn't resistant to ice. It would make zero sense. Without these mechanical benefits, all the Eidolons will feel the same rather than unique manifestations.

[Samir Sardinha]

Verzen wrote:

The way I picture evolutions working in my head is that Eidolons, rather than getting ancestry feats, skill feats, general feats, and class feats, they themselves replace ALL Of those with just EVOLUTION feats and evolution feats are their own pool of feats.

Like how ancestry feats are its own pool? And how skill feats are its own pool? And how general feats are its own pool? And how class feats are its own pool? And a martial character can get ALL THOSE FEATS to make it customizable?

So why can't an Eidolon get evolution feats in their very own pool?

You guys are okay with the system when it works for martials but it's all of a sudden too much if it works for Eidolons? It's the same exact system! I am not reinventing the wheel here.

I would love this approach!

Eidolon ancestry feats: Choose based on the type Angel/Beast/Dragon/Phantom
Eidolon class feats: Evolution/Dedications/Archetype ?
Eidolon skill/general feats: Shared with summoner?

[Charlesfire]

Verzen wrote:

No. What I want is this.

A martial character can, at level 1,
Select 1 Ancestry feat, can select 1 class feat, they get a skill feat (from their background)

An Eidolon can, at level 1,
---Select 1 Ancestry feat, can select 1 class feat, they get a skill feat (from their background)---(I'm not sure how to cross it out) Select 3 evolution feats instead.

So you get to play 2 full characters instead of one with split ressources. This doesn't seem balanced even considering you share actions between both characters since you'll be far more flexible than any other possible character build.

Verzen wrote:

No. You haven't. You've refuted a strawman. That strawman is well and beaten by now. I think any more clobbering is a bit overkill.

It's not because you refuse to hear others people's arguments that it means other people didn't give you valid arguments...

Verzen wrote:

I'd even be willing to lower the actual power of the BASE Eidolon in order to give them power space to add in those customizable options.

Then most of these options would be spent to get back that power loss unless you don't care about having a weak eidolon...

Verzen wrote:

The part that they can't cover literally every single concept.

Pathfinder 2E is a finite game with finite options. It's a design choice the dev have made. If you don't like that, go play GURPS...

Verzen wrote:

Why can't we just have an evolution that states, "Choose a creature type. Your Eidolon becomes that type" ?.

That could be a feat (with maybe some added benefits)...

[Verzen]

Quote:

No, it doesn't. At least, not to me. What feels bad is being told "You can't flavor your Eidolon as looking skeletal because for balance reasons the undead type gives enough mechanical benefit that really you should have to be level 4 before you can take it".

Why is animate dead a level 1 spell then? I mean, I can summon an undead creature that has "enough mechanical benefits" of what makes an undead creature what it is. Why does it need to wait till level 4 if an Eidolon does the same thing?

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

How exactly does it make sense to have a literal creature made of ice have zero resistance to ice and be vulnerable to fire? That's like saying an Ice Mephit isn't resistant to ice. It would make zero sense. Without these mechanical benefits, all the Eidolons will feel the same rather than unique manifestations.

Because it is a game based on imagination and dice rolls, and as beings capable of abstract thought we can separate the description of a thing and the associated mechanics.

It does not need to "make sense", at least not perfectly. Everyone involved in playing the character can understand the Eidolons ice theme, while also understanding that the constraints of the game and balance mean that it might not yet have certain abilities.

[shroudb]

I feel like Evolutions shouldnt be numerical buffs.

no "take this evolution for +X to ac, and that evolution for +Y to attack"

That feels like the epitome of mathfixers and feat taxes that PF2 dont want to have anythig to do with.

Evolutions should provide additional options and actions for the Eidolon similarly as Class feats provide options and actions for the MArtials.

Grab evolution, Poison evolution (probably making it a 2 action activity for a poisonous attack), Constrict, Flyby, Rend, More magical stuff, More reactions (shield other as an example), and etc

[KrispyXIV]

shroudb wrote:

I feel like Evolutions shouldnt be numerical buffs.

no "take this evolution for +X to ac, and that evolution for +Y to attack"

That feels like the epitome of mathfixers and feat taxes that PF2 dont want to have anythig to do with.

Evolutions should provide additional options and actions for the Eidolon similarly as Class feats provide options and actions for the MArtials.

Grab evolution, Poison evolution (probably making it a 2 action activity for a poisonous attack), Constrict, Flyby, Rend, More magical stuff, More reactions (shield other as an example), and etc

Poison evolution is already modeled in several feats. Spend an action, add poison damage to next attack. Easy peasy.

[Verzen]

Quote:

Because it is a game based on imagination and dice rolls, and as beings capable of abstract thought we can separate the description of a thing and the associated mechanics.

Again. With this logic, why have any creature types at all? Just imagine it to be made of ice, despite not being weak to fire and being resistant to ice.

This "imagination" argument actually ruins immersion for me. If I am able to deal equal damage to a skeleton with an arrow as I am with a mace, that makes no sense to me. Eidolons really should be treated the same way and have the customizability to back it up or support it. I also do not agree with the prepackaged idea because an Eidolon shouldn't be a carbon copy of an already existing creature. It should be a new, unique, fantastic creature that's not found anywhere else. Otherwise it will be like that Spiderman meme where he's point at himself.

[BobROE]

Verzen wrote:

I am suggesting that a lot of those ancestry feats and general feats are going to be useless because they benefit the summoner when it is the Eidolon that's going to be in combat most of the time. For example. Dwarves get an ability to throw their body weight around. How useful is that going to be for the summoner? Are there going to be any ancestry feats that are going to assist the Eidolon? Probably not. The only fix I can think of for this is that the Eidolon BENEFITS from any of the feats that the summoner has, but that still doesn't solve the issue of me feeling like I am controlling a monster. 90% of our class SHOULD be about that Eidolon and customizing it. It should all be about customization. I am not saying we should make it OP like in 1e. I am saying that I want a unique monster I can be able to create. A monster of my very own that is not found anywhere else. A unique being.

If you're view is that 90% of the class should be about the eidolon why even have that last 10%?

Why not just have a class that's built around giving weird mutations to some base chassis entity? And then make that the PC.

[Verzen]

It's also not unbalanced at all to give an ice themed Eidolon 1/2 your level in ice resistance and a weakness to fire 5 and an ice breath attack.

I am taking balance into consideration here. I am a maths guy. I LOVE mathematics and TTRPGs are all about mathematics.