Welcome to the Summoner Class Playtest!

[GM OfAnything]

Moppy wrote:

Verzen wrote:

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

Sometimes people want a toy car, not a lego set. Certainly you can build the car from the legos but not everyone wants to.

Personally, I prefer Lego.

It's a lot easier to build a LEGO car when you start with wheels and a chassis. Not everyone enjoys building wheels out of bricks.

[Verzen]

GM OfAnything wrote:

Moppy wrote:

Verzen wrote:

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

Sometimes people want a toy car, not a lego set. Certainly you can build the car from the legos but not everyone wants to.

Personally, I prefer Lego.

It's a lot easier to build a LEGO car when you start with wheels and a chassis. Not everyone enjoys building wheels out of bricks.

No one is saying to build wheels out of bricks. But we would like to at least be able to design the body of our car.

[勝20100]

I just wanted to give my opinion and maybe a couple of ideas on the class.

When I saw the flight evolution at level 16, I had to go back to the illustration of the iconic. I looks like this dragon is unable to use his wings. (I saw evolution surge then but that feels weird anyway).

When I created a summoner in 1st edition, I had seen many players do the usual summoner that launches his eidolon and stay far. I wanted to have a character that would fight alongside her eidolon. That did not work well at some point but it was fun and she and her eidolon charged in to defeat the fiend in the name of Iomedae. Some elements of the Summoner in the playtest make me think that I could try to make such a character but it would not work really well.

I also like the fact that there is different eidolon are tied to different traditions. As for sorcerers and witches, I think it allows for more concepts. I also played a spiritualist in 1st edition.

To me, summoner have always been primarily about the eidolon. The summon monster were secondary in most cases, sometimes as a backup when the eidolon wasn’t available. I think other classes, in particular the conjuration wizard with his focus spell, are already good at doing that.

I’m surprised that evolution surge is available as a base ability. I feel it does not always match the theme of the creature. I do not see an angel starting to have a hound noise for example. I feel it’s a bit like Cackle as it should not be a base ability of witches (it was the case in the APG playtest of the witch). I would not be surprised that a summoner with a protean creature to have such an ability.

I was initially thinking that the eidolon would work like a minion but after reading it, I think it is best if it is different. It makes it feel more like the duo are partners rather than a master and its minion. Thought in Pathfinder 1e, you had sometime the feeling that the main character was the eidolon, rather than the summoner…

[KrispyXIV]

勝20100 wrote:

When I saw the flight evolution at level 16, I had to go back to the illustration of the iconic. I looks like this dragon is unable to use his wings. (I saw evolution surge then but that feels weird anyway).

Unrestricted, permanent flight is a high level ability for unrestricted (ie, non animal) player characters and assets. See also the cloak of the bat, greater, which is a 17th level item.

This is a mechanical limitation in place for game balance reasons - things like Evolution Surge exist to allow your eidolon to fly earlier when it is dramatically appropriate, but only after it is game-balance-wise reasonable as a focus abiwas designed from the ground up lity (as opposed to a spell slot).

PF2E is designed throughout its rules with balance in mind. This means making narrative concessions, like understanding that your eidolon's (or tiefling's) wings are just cosmetic unless you have something available to let you use them when it matters for interacting with The Game.

This didn't start with Summoner - its baked into 2E.

But its going to be super apparent with Summoner, because Summoner tells you to describe your full blown Eidolon out the gate. I think players need to come to terms early with the fact that you're going to be "unlocking" the mechanical benefits associated with your Eidolon throughout their career, instead of all at once.

[RexAliquid]

I'm currently debating between a Cassisian angel or a Legion Archon for an angel summoner. I'm glad choosing between them won't impact my effectiveness as a character.

[KrispyXIV]

RexAliquid wrote:

I'm currently debating between a Cassisian angel or a Legion Archon for an angel summoner. I'm glad choosing between them won't impact my effectiveness as a character.

Which is exactly consistent with how other classes are set up as well.

The vast majority of the Fighters effectiveness is in their core class features.

Class feats provide situational, flavorfulz and stylistic improvements - but not massive shifts in power, and none are required to be an effective fighter.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

RexAliquid wrote:

I'm currently debating between a Cassisian angel or a Legion Archon for an angel summoner. I'm glad choosing between them won't impact my effectiveness as a character.

Which is exactly consistent with how other classes are set up as well.

The vast majority of the Fighters effectiveness is in their core class features.

Class feats provide situational, flavorfulz and stylistic improvements - but not massive shifts in power, and none are required to be an effective fighter.

No one is suggesting that the feats give massive shifts in power or be required to be an effective Eidolon. Literally the opposite of that is what I am suggesting. I am not sure why you still think this is my argument after I've stated several times it is not.

[graystone]

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

We don't KNOW it's going to be in the book: even Mark said the class might not turn out how he or anyone else wants and I don't think anything is guaranteed at this point.

To clarify, and you probably meant this already with "he or anyone else", but obviously it is not going to be the case that "neither I, nor anyone else, wants the class" but instead "enough people want enough things that are mutually exclusive enough that there will for certain be a few people, possibly including myself because I'm going to go with what people want most, who don't see the version they would maximally prefer."

Yes: no one vision of the class is set in stone and with the number of moving parts there are in classes even if it is similar, it's unlikely to be a perfect match. I'm sure you want a cool AoO ability for them [heck so do I], but it seems shortsighted to assume we'll get it or if we get it that it will be out when the Class comes out.

PS: Thanks for keeping up with the threads and making comments. You're the best. ;)

[Mark Seifter]

graystone wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

We don't KNOW it's going to be in the book: even Mark said the class might not turn out how he or anyone else wants and I don't think anything is guaranteed at this point.

To clarify, and you probably meant this already with "he or anyone else", but obviously it is not going to be the case that "neither I, nor anyone else, wants the class" but instead "enough people want enough things that are mutually exclusive enough that there will for certain be a few people, possibly including myself because I'm going to go with what people want most, who don't see the version they would maximally prefer."

Yes: no one vision of the class is set in stone and with the number of moving parts there are in classes even if it is similar, it's unlikely to be a perfect match. I'm sure you want a cool AoO ability for them [heck so do I], but it seems shortsighted to assume we'll get it or if we get it that it will be out when the Class comes out.

PS: Thanks for keeping up with the threads and making comments. You're the best. ;)

No problem, it's not easy to keep up with everything, but I'll do my best. I might not always comment because I don't want to quash opinions with my ex cathedra weight as the designer, but I'll always be listening.

[Verzen]

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

We don't KNOW it's going to be in the book: even Mark said the class might not turn out how he or anyone else wants and I don't think anything is guaranteed at this point.

To clarify, and you probably meant this already with "he or anyone else", but obviously it is not going to be the case that "neither I, nor anyone else, wants the class" but instead "enough people want enough things that are mutually exclusive enough that there will for certain be a few people, possibly including myself because I'm going to go with what people want most, who don't see the version they would maximally prefer."

Yes: no one vision of the class is set in stone and with the number of moving parts there are in classes even if it is similar, it's unlikely to be a perfect match. I'm sure you want a cool AoO ability for them [heck so do I], but it seems shortsighted to assume we'll get it or if we get it that it will be out when the Class comes out.

PS: Thanks for keeping up with the threads and making comments. You're the best. ;)

No problem, it's not easy to keep up with everything, but I'll do my best. I might not always comment because I don't want to quash opinions with my ex cathedra weight as the designer, but I'll always be listening.

Just curious, were you a lot more gung ho with your ideas and suggestions when you were a playtester? =)

[Mark Seifter]

Verzen wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

We don't KNOW it's going to be in the book: even Mark said the class might not turn out how he or anyone else wants and I don't think anything is guaranteed at this point.

To clarify, and you probably meant this already with "he or anyone else", but obviously it is not going to be the case that "neither I, nor anyone else, wants the class" but instead "enough people want enough things that are mutually exclusive enough that there will for certain be a few people, possibly including myself because I'm going to go with what people want most, who don't see the version they would maximally prefer."

Yes: no one vision of the class is set in stone and with the number of moving parts there are in classes even if it is similar, it's unlikely to be a perfect match. I'm sure you want a cool AoO ability for them [heck so do I], but it seems shortsighted to assume we'll get it or if we get it that it will be out when the Class comes out.

PS: Thanks for keeping up with the threads and making comments. You're the best. ;)

No problem, it's not easy to keep up with everything, but I'll do my best. I might not always comment because I don't want to quash opinions with my ex cathedra weight as the designer, but I'll always be listening.

Just curious, were you a lot more gung ho with your ideas and suggestions when you were a playtester? =)

Yep, definitely. In the magus playtest for PF1, I made a thread specifically for linking playtest feedback only, which Jason commented on, and near the end, I made a lengthy post that looked like manbearscientist's analysis post in this thread (I think it was this thread? they blend together). I didn't really have the kind of volume of many different posts defending/debating the same idea, I was more focused on performing playtests and analysis and then going in-depth on my findings in one place.

I did that for most playtests, I think the only time I really became engaged in a back-and-forth of any significant length was with someone who was being really disingenuous during the swashbuckler playtests by playtesting with a 7 Constitution swashbuckler, but even then, most of my effort was on things like my playtest where I soloed treerazer with a silly build that used a starknife instead of a high crit weapon.

[Verzen]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

We don't KNOW it's going to be in the book: even Mark said the class might not turn out how he or anyone else wants and I don't think anything is guaranteed at this point.

To clarify, and you probably meant this already with "he or anyone else", but obviously it is not going to be the case that "neither I, nor anyone else, wants the class" but instead "enough people want enough things that are mutually exclusive enough that there will for certain be a few people, possibly including myself because I'm going to go with what people want most, who don't see the version they would maximally prefer."

Yes: no one vision of the class is set in stone and with the number of moving parts there are in classes even if it is similar, it's unlikely to be a perfect match. I'm sure you want a cool AoO ability for them [heck so do I], but it seems shortsighted to assume we'll get it or if we get it that it will be out when the Class comes out.

PS: Thanks for keeping up with the threads and making comments. You're the best. ;)

No problem, it's not easy to keep up with everything, but I'll do my best. I might not always comment because I don't want to quash opinions with my ex cathedra weight as the designer, but I'll always be listening.

Just curious, were you a lot more gung ho with your ideas and suggestions when you were a playtester? =)

Yep, definitely. In the magus playtest for PF1, I made a thread specifically for linking playtest feedback only, which Jason commented on, and near the end, I made a lengthy post that looked like manbearscientist's analysis post in this thread (I think it was this thread? they blend together). I didn't really have the kind of volume of many different posts defending/debating the same idea, I was more focused on performing playtests and analysis and then going in-depth on my findings in one place.

I did that for most playtests, I...

My first PFS character was an alchemist with 7 con. I didn't think I'd need con. After all, I'd just be throwing bombs.

.. until I opened a door and got ambushed for sneak attack damage by two different rogues...

[Mark Seifter]

Verzen wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

We don't KNOW it's going to be in the book: even Mark said the class might not turn out how he or anyone else wants and I don't think anything is guaranteed at this point.

To clarify, and you probably meant this already with "he or anyone else", but obviously it is not going to be the case that "neither I, nor anyone else, wants the class" but instead "enough people want enough things that are mutually exclusive enough that there will for certain be a few people, possibly including myself because I'm going to go with what people want most, who don't see the version they would maximally prefer."

Yes: no one vision of the class is set in stone and with the number of moving parts there are in classes even if it is similar, it's unlikely to be a perfect match. I'm sure you want a cool AoO ability for them [heck so do I], but it seems shortsighted to assume we'll get it or if we get it that it will be out when the Class comes out.

PS: Thanks for keeping up with the threads and making comments. You're the best. ;)

No problem, it's not easy to keep up with everything, but I'll do my best. I might not always comment because I don't want to quash opinions with my ex cathedra weight as the designer, but I'll always be listening.

Just curious, were you a lot more gung ho with your ideas and suggestions when you were a playtester? =)

Yep, definitely. In the magus playtest for PF1, I made a thread specifically for linking playtest feedback only, which Jason commented on, and near the end, I made a lengthy post that looked like manbearscientist's analysis post in this thread (I think it was this thread? they blend together). I didn't really have the kind of volume of many different posts defending/debating the same idea, I was more focused on performing playtests and analysis and then going in-depth on my findings in one place.

I

...

My first PF1 character I ever made for an ongoing campaign (I had been a GM up til then) was a playtest summoner in Council of Thieves. She was a whole lot of fun, and I wanted to play a character with a cat eidolon so I was even OK with the fact that quadruped was mandatory, but I was very bittersweet about the fact I had to take arms to get more claws because I would have preferred just a big cat and not a centaur cat. The one thing that was problematic for me in the final version that changed from the playtest was that when you went to sleep the eidolon vanished, since her backstory was that the eidolon had protected her when she was a child alone in a dangerous part of Westcrown by guarding her when she was asleep.

[Verzen]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

graystone wrote:

We don't KNOW it's going to be in the book: even Mark said the class might not turn out how he or anyone else wants and I don't think anything is guaranteed at this point.

To clarify, and you probably meant this already with "he or anyone else", but obviously it is not going to be the case that "neither I, nor anyone else, wants the class" but instead "enough people want enough things that are mutually exclusive enough that there will for certain be a few people, possibly including myself because I'm going to go with what people want most, who don't see the version they would maximally prefer."

Yes: no one vision of the class is set in stone and with the number of moving parts there are in classes even if it is similar, it's unlikely to be a perfect match. I'm sure you want a cool AoO ability for them [heck so do I], but it seems shortsighted to assume we'll get it or if we get it that it will be out when the Class comes out.

PS: Thanks for keeping up with the threads and making comments. You're the best. ;)

No problem, it's not easy to keep up with everything, but I'll do my best. I might not always comment because I don't want to quash opinions with my ex cathedra weight as the designer, but I'll always be listening.

Just curious, were you a lot more gung ho with your ideas and suggestions when you were a playtester? =)

Yep, definitely. In the magus playtest for PF1, I made a thread specifically for linking playtest feedback only, which Jason commented on, and near the end, I made a lengthy post that looked like manbearscientist's analysis post in this thread (I think it was this thread? they blend together). I didn't really have the kind of volume of many different posts defending/debating the same idea, I was more focused on performing playtests and analysis and then going in-depth on my

...

So just from your perspective and a design perspective, given the 3 attack action limit and MAP. would a system of having more open ended Eidolons similar to the APG be a lot more balanced than it was in APG just based on the game system alone? Or is that sort of open ended evolution system not even on the table to have more of a say on what our Eidolons look like and the customizations going into them? Or can you really not say atm?

[Temperans]

This is really annoying.

Both sides are saying to give Eidolon bonus evolutions and yelling at each other that they are wrong. Its really stupid when all that time could had beem spent on thinking on a good way to implement those bonus evolutions. Also bonus feats in my opinion are not "easier" or better customization. Because they fall into the trap of being level locked for no reason.

Which is why I prefer the point system (which Paizo copied and gave to familiar).

The Unchained System specifically is generally the best way to do it after some balance changes to fit PF2. The Unchained System lets all of you who want a chassis get a chassis. But it also allows Vezren to get his generic Eidolon via a "generic" Eidolon subtype.

And no the Unchained Eidolon system is not complicated:

1) Choose a subtype. This gives you a set of subtype specific abilities, some choices of free evolutions, and a chpice of base form.

2) Choose a base form. This determines the stats and and some free evolutions.

3) Get evolution points. This is how many abilities you can get.

3) Get evolutions. Pick the evolutions that you want by spending evolution points.

Thats it. No special weird feats. No blob as a base character (unless you pick the generic or protean). No cookie cutter Eidolons that are just weird reskins.

And for balance well Paizo can handle balancing. And the 3 action system inherently removes the #1 issue in pathfinder being multiple natural attacks.

[BACE]

Temperans wrote:

This is really annoying.

Both sides are saying to give Eidolon bonus evolutions and yelling at each other that they are wrong. Its really stupid when all that time could had beem spent on thinking on a good way to implement those bonus evolutions. Also bonus feats in my opinion are not "easier" or better customization. Because they fall into the trap of being level locked for no reason.

Which is why I prefer the point system (which Paizo copied and gave to familiar).

The Unchained System specifically is generally the best way to do it after some balance changes to fit PF2. The Unchained System lets all of you who want a chassis get a chassis. But it also allows Vezren to get his generic Eidolon via a "generic" Eidolon subtype.

And no the Unchained Eidolon system is not complicated:

1) Choose a subtype. This gives you a set of subtype specific abilities, some choices of free evolutions, and a chpice of base form.

2) Choose a base form. This determines the stats and and some free evolutions.

3) Get evolution points. This is how many abilities you can get.

3) Get evolutions. Pick the evolutions that you want by spending evolution points.

Thats it. No special weird feats. No blob as a base character (unless you pick the generic or protean). No cookie cutter Eidolons that are just weird reskins.

And for balance well Paizo can handle balancing. And the 3 action system inherently removes the #1 issue in pathfinder being multiple natural attacks.

Yeah, I've been trying to express that people are just talking past each other, but it doesn't seem to change much. But anyway, I think this is somewhat reasonable, but a lot of people seem to be very against a points-based system as a whole, heralding it as too complicated. Which I guess I can see. You're holding onto a resource that you can only use at level up, so it's just a weird little bit of extra bookkeeping. I agree that it isn't that complicated, but a lot of people are against it, so maybe it's worth looking into alternatives. Also, to touch on

Quote:

they fall into the trap of being level locked for no reason.

There's a pretty good reason for things like permaflight to be level-locked, and that's so you can't just get permaflight at level 5 when every other character has to wait for level 15+. It just doesn't quite fit that the eidolon could do this super early.

[Temperans]

BACE wrote:

Temperans wrote:

This is really annoying.

Both sides are saying to give Eidolon bonus evolutions and yelling at each other that they are wrong. Its really stupid when all that time could had beem spent on thinking on a good way to implement those bonus evolutions. Also bonus feats in my opinion are not "easier" or better customization. Because they fall into the trap of being level locked for no reason.

Which is why I prefer the point system (which Paizo copied and gave to familiar).

The Unchained System specifically is generally the best way to do it after some balance changes to fit PF2. The Unchained System lets all of you who want a chassis get a chassis. But it also allows Vezren to get his generic Eidolon via a "generic" Eidolon subtype.

And no the Unchained Eidolon system is not complicated:

1) Choose a subtype. This gives you a set of subtype specific abilities, some choices of free evolutions, and a chpice of base form.

2) Choose a base form. This determines the stats and and some free evolutions.

3) Get evolution points. This is how many abilities you can get.

3) Get evolutions. Pick the evolutions that you want by spending evolution points.

Thats it. No special weird feats. No blob as a base character (unless you pick the generic or protean). No cookie cutter Eidolons that are just weird reskins.

And for balance well Paizo can handle balancing. And the 3 action system inherently removes the #1 issue in pathfinder being multiple natural attacks.

Yeah, I've been trying to express that people are just talking past each other, but it doesn't seem to change much. But anyway, I think this is somewhat reasonable, but a lot of people seem to be very against a points-based system as a whole, heralding it as too complicated. Which I guess I can see. You're holding onto a resource that you can only use at level up, so it's just a weird little bit of extra bookkeeping. I agree that it isn't that complicated, but a lot of people are against it, so maybe it's worth...

Yeah it would be better if they stopped arguing over wanting to do the same thing differently and just talk about how to compromise.

Point based systems dont hang up in between level unless they dont want to spend it on something. Part of the original Eidolon mechanic was that you could if you wanted redistribute all your points at level up. So if you could not afford a higher level evolution, you could spend it on something else and fix it the next level up.

One reason why I think people dont want Evolutions is because they dont want to think about how to mechanically implement their Eidolon. Maybe its because they came from 5e, or because they like roleplay more than mechanics. But that is how some of them appear to me.

The other reason I can think of is that they hate Pathfinder Summoners and want nothing to do with Pathfinder Summoners. But still want to play a Summoner. But then we are playing Pathfinder, why should Paizo get rid of a unique class that they designed?

*********************

I understand why some stuff are level locked. But others really should not be.

In the case of flight I can see it being restricted to level 10 and have a high evolution cost.

Alternately, if you really want a flying Eidolon from level 1. Get the Avian form which has weaker stats and fewer free evolutions.

This is something that just isnt possible with the PF2 version that the Unchained version allows.

[Mark Seifter]

Verzen wrote:

So just from your perspective and a design perspective, given the 3 attack action limit and MAP. would a system of having more open ended Eidolons similar to the APG be a lot more balanced than it was in APG just based on the game system alone? Or is that sort of open ended evolution system not even on the table to have more of a say on what our Eidolons look like and the customizations going into them? Or can you really not say atm?

I think no one here is wrong, but that there's a lot of argument when there could be common ground.

Let's look at the APG summoner as published in the APG and only those evolutions, since that was the release summoner:

Strikes (covered already in playtest summoner) Bite, Claws, Pincers, Slam, Sting, Tail Slap, Tentacle, Wing Buffet, Gore, Weapons

Just math (people seem to have agreed that it's better to give this for free): Improved Damage, Improved Natural Armor, Ability Increase, Skilled (though you share proficiencies so can have better skills on the eidolon without spending additional resources).

Body Part evolution that would restrict your concepts if it existed, currently available: Limbs, Tail

In the current playtest as options: Scent (which is an imprecise sense and so is the closest PF2 has to Blindsense), Climb, Gills and Swim (in one), Magic Attacks (gained automatically via sharing summoner's items, also applies to Energy Attacks), Mount (via hulking but people have pointed out that I might want to split those up), Pounce (restricted to quadruped in PF1, pounce style charge ability restricted to beast in playtest), Flight, Damage Reduction, Spell Resistance (status bonus to saves against spells is PF2's equivalent), Large (and Huge), Push, and Trip

No longer exists in PF2: Blindsight (but could be like a precise sense), Rake

Missing from the playtest: Burrow, Constrict, Grab, Immunity, Poison, Pull, Reach, Rend, Resistance (the one that gives energy resistance), Trample (this is sort of a hybrid with not existing because PF2 Trample is much more powerful than the PF1 eidolon Trample), Tremorsense, Frightful Presence, Swallow Whole, Web, Breath Weapon, Fast Healing

So of 48 we've got 26, miss 16, and can probably agree on not making 6.

Which is not to say there won't be more coming (in fact, there definitely will), but rather that I think all of you agree on more than you think, like BACE and Temperans have noted.

[Verzen]

Temperans wrote:

BACE wrote:

Temperans wrote:

This is really annoying.

Both sides are saying to give Eidolon bonus evolutions and yelling at each other that they are wrong. Its really stupid when all that time could had beem spent on thinking on a good way to implement those bonus evolutions. Also bonus feats in my opinion are not "easier" or better customization. Because they fall into the trap of being level locked for no reason.

Which is why I prefer the point system (which Paizo copied and gave to familiar).

The Unchained System specifically is generally the best way to do it after some balance changes to fit PF2. The Unchained System lets all of you who want a chassis get a chassis. But it also allows Vezren to get his generic Eidolon via a "generic" Eidolon subtype.

And no the Unchained Eidolon system is not complicated:

1) Choose a subtype. This gives you a set of subtype specific abilities, some choices of free evolutions, and a chpice of base form.

2) Choose a base form. This determines the stats and and some free evolutions.

3) Get evolution points. This is how many abilities you can get.

3) Get evolutions. Pick the evolutions that you want by spending evolution points.

Thats it. No special weird feats. No blob as a base character (unless you pick the generic or protean). No cookie cutter Eidolons that are just weird reskins.

And for balance well Paizo can handle balancing. And the 3 action system inherently removes the #1 issue in pathfinder being multiple natural attacks.

Yeah, I've been trying to express that people are just talking past each other, but it doesn't seem to change much. But anyway, I think this is somewhat reasonable, but a lot of people seem to be very against a points-based system as a whole, heralding it as too complicated. Which I guess I can see. You're holding onto a resource that you can only use at level up, so it's just a weird little bit of extra bookkeeping. I agree that it isn't that complicated, but a lot of people are against

...

I agree with this pretty much. I am a very math focused person. I have a lot of trouble with doing the whole roleplay thing/imagination thing. My characters are defined by their mechanics and math involved. Maybe it's because I'm autistic. But that's just what I find fun.

[Mark Seifter]

I can speak to one thing, though. When it comes to constant flying on something that can attack from out of the foes' reach (or "kiting"), the game cannot handle it before a certain level without the GM doing some pretty big lifts. After we hit the highest levels, every opponent gets a pass where we look at it saying "Does it have a way to deal with an opponent attacking from out of reach in the air, even if that's just 'OK I'm leaving, burrow away' " but before that, they don't (and frankly if they all did at low levels, it would be pretty verisimilitude breaking) and the GM has to do it and can't really use prepublished adventures The bird animal companion, for example, can fly right away but is incapable of attacking or supporting unless it comes into reach, and it can't carry along another character capable of kiting.

[shroudb]

Personally, it's not that i dislike point-buy as a system, i just find it redundant in light of pf2 already having a chassis for customisation via feats.

So, i just don't see why we need to have summoner use a different setup than what we have now.

What i *do* dislike about point system is having similar things with different power levels and base them on different costs, like claw atack 1 point, tail attack 3 points, weapon attack 4 points, and etc.
Just differate evolutions by power level, put them in appropriate levels based on said power and give us a pool of evolutions of each tier to pick from.

I like the idea some people have said above that point to rogue and investigator getting extra skill feats/2 levels, so give us extra "evolution feats" at the same levels that can only be spend on feats with the evolution tag.

[Temperans]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Verzen wrote:

So just from your perspective and a design perspective, given the 3 attack action limit and MAP. would a system of having more open ended Eidolons similar to the APG be a lot more balanced than it was in APG just based on the game system alone? Or is that sort of open ended evolution system not even on the table to have more of a say on what our Eidolons look like and the customizations going into them? Or can you really not say atm?

I think no one here is wrong, but that there's a lot of argument when there could be common ground.

Let's look at the APG summoner as published in the APG and only those evolutions, since that was the release summoner:

Strikes (covered already in playtest summoner) Bite, Claws, Pincers, Slam, Sting, Tail Slap, Tentacle, Wing Buffet, Gore, Weapons

Just math (people seem to have agreed that it's better to give this for free): Improved Damage, Improved Natural Armor, Ability Increase, Skilled (though you share proficiencies so can have better skills on the eidolon without spending additional resources).

Body Part evolution that would restrict your concepts if it existed, currently available: Limbs, Tail

In the current playtest as options: Scent (which is an imprecise sense and so is the closest PF2 has to Blindsense), Climb, Gills and Swim (in one), Magic Attacks (gained automatically via sharing summoner's items, also applies to Energy Attacks), Mount (via hulking but people have pointed out that I might want to split those up), Pounce (restricted to quadruped in PF1, pounce style charge ability restricted to beast in playtest), Flight, Damage Reduction, Spell Resistance (status bonus to saves against spells is PF2's equivalent), Large (and Huge), Push, and Trip

No longer exists in PF2: Blindsight (but could be like a precise sense), Rake

Missing from the playtest: Burrow, Constrict, Grab, Immunity, Poison, Pull, Reach, Rend, Resistance (the one that gives energy resistance), Trample (this is sort of a hybrid with not existing...

Mark yes there are some similar stuff. But how you get those is the problem.

The evolutions that PF2 offers are meh and or have a really high level for what they do.

Things like magical attack in PF2 could be done via Evolutions and Magic Items simultaneously in PF1.

The versatility and customization that made Eidolons fun just isnt there at the moment. Even if there are abilities that sound similar.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

Things like magical attack in PF2 could be done via Evolutions and Magic Items simultaneously in PF1.

This sounds like a bug that was fixed, to me.

I'm not clear on what a reasonable benefit for combining these would be - some sort of 'weapon bond' equivalent that gave an eidolon a elemental property rune that couldn't break the property rune cap?

[Cydeth]

Temperans wrote:

Mark yes there are some similar stuff. But how you get those is the problem.

The evolutions that PF2 offers are meh and or have a really high level for what they do.

Things like magical attack in PF2 could be done via Evolutions and Magic Items simultaneously in PF1.

The versatility and customization that made Eidolons fun just isnt there at the moment. Even if there are abilities that sound similar.

Agreed. I went ahead and created my faux Yuna/Shiva, and my biggest complaint is that there's so little to make the character match the theme. The action economy and shared hp aside (which I hate with the burning passion of a thousand suns), the only way to get even 1 point of cold damage to my attacks is the level 8 frost rune or the ranged evolution. If there were an evolution to add half my level as energy resistance, it would help. So would one to add even minor amounts of energy damage to the creature's unarmed strikes.

As it stands, I compared my eidolon and summoner to several level 8 creatures (balisse, lamia matriarch, and erinyes) and a level 10 barbarian my friend built, and found them just... underwhelming and boring. I'd rather have a slightly weaker but interesting and fun character to a boring powerful character. The summoner currently is both weak and boring for me.

Edit: To be clear, I found the eidolon on its own to look roughly equal to a level 8 creature. Maybe a touch stronger in some ways, but it definitely didn't have the abilities.

[Mark Seifter]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Things like magical attack in PF2 could be done via Evolutions and Magic Items simultaneously in PF1.

This sounds like a bug that was fixed, to me.

I'm not clear on what a reasonable benefit for combining these would be - some sort of 'weapon bond' equivalent that gave an eidolon a elemental property rune that couldn't break the property rune cap?

If it's meant to deal extra damage on top of runes, that changes from "this is covered" to "this is pure bonus math that, if included, would be mandatory" like Improved Natural Attack.

[BobROE]

Verzen wrote:

BobROE wrote:

Then what's wrong with just give the summoner 'evolution' feats that they can select as class feats that give the eidolon stuff? They don't need to be a special pool of feats that only the eidolon can select just ones with the right traits.

Cause not all players are going to want to focus on their eidolon the same way you do.

Again. Lack. Of. Customization.

Lack of Customization for who? The Summoner or the Eidolon? Cause I don't think that you're ever going to get 'class' feats for both the summoner and the eidolon.

Is it just an issue of there not enough class feats over the 20 level to make the eidolon as custom as you want?

Or that the feats as presented in the playtest aren't good enough?

[Dubious Scholar]

shroudb wrote:

Personally, it's not that i dislike point-buy as a system, i just find it redundant in light of pf2 already having a chassis for customisation via feats.

So, i just don't see why we need to have summoner use a different setup than what we have now.

What i *do* dislike about point system is having similar things with different power levels and base them on different costs, like claw atack 1 point, tail attack 3 points, weapon attack 4 points, and etc.
Just differate evolutions by power level, put them in appropriate levels based on said power and give us a pool of evolutions of each tier to pick from.

I like the idea some people have said above that point to rogue and investigator getting extra skill feats/2 levels, so give us extra "evolution feats" at the same levels that can only be spend on feats with the evolution tag.

I'm not sure there's enough evolution feats to support as many extra feats as rogue gets. My big worry has been that it feels like some people are pushing for evolutions to be responsible for things like numbers or form, and that's one of the biggest advantages of the playtest eidolon - those are baked in, everyone gets them (and in 1e everyone takes them anyways).

One balance point is that if most of a summoner's combat power is the eidolon then most of their class feat list will be eidolon stuff already as well.

Something that comes to mind though is that most abilities probably aren't very high tier - climb speed, swim speed, scent, etc. are all pretty basic. An alternative to bonus feats (which may have to be level restricted, so you can't just pile on the most powerful options) would be a feat that lets you take multiple lesser feats, and then you have a couple tiers of that. Depending on how much of a pyramid the options end up being, anyways. So you can choose between upgrades and breadth (and I think higher feats may be heavier on things that upgrade, such as an advanced attack specific to the ranged strike, or upgrading synthesis).

Partly I don't want too many flavors of bonus feat flows, those were always a pain to juggle in 1e for me. "Get skill feat every level instead of every other" is simple. How every other class in 1e got bonus feats every X levels, but X was different for every class wasn't my favorite thing.

Another thing I'd watch for on bonus evolution feats would be that as is, class feats can force the choice of power between eidolon and summoner (yes, I know it's going to be more eidolon anyways usually, but things like summoner focus spells, things that enhance summon magic, synthesis, etc compete with evolving the eidolon right now, which is a meaningful choice)

I broadly agree with Mark's list there. I don't know how many of those need to come back (although I'm already imagining now that the grab trait gets added to one of your attacks... and then a later feat can allow using Grab monster action after a strike connects with a grab traited attack).

Some innate defenses are flavorful, like resistance, others like just hitting harder are probably best left to existing progression like runes.

As a concrete example, I'd say that there should be two different size increase feats. One is the feat to ride your eidolon. This can make it large (optionally, since S PCs don't need that and being M has its own advantages), but does not increase it's reach. The other is a prerequisite to going huge, always makes it large, and increases its reach. Maybe have some slight bonus if it has both since they'd be redundant otherwise? (Like a small speed bonus). There could be an upgraded ride feat that means you always have cover while riding? To discourage attacking the summoner, who probably has worse defense still.

[Katrixia]

BobROE wrote:

Verzen wrote:

BobROE wrote:

Then what's wrong with just give the summoner 'evolution' feats that they can select as class feats that give the eidolon stuff? They don't need to be a special pool of feats that only the eidolon can select just ones with the right traits.

Cause not all players are going to want to focus on their eidolon the same way you do.

Again. Lack. Of. Customization.

Is it just an issue of there not enough class feats over the 20 level to make the eidolon as custom as you want?

That seems to be the actual concern for most people who desire more customization actually, yes.

Especially if we're going to see more feat chains that eat away at the set number of slots we can fill with evolution feats, i can understand people's concerns.

Some people have suggested bring back and adapting the Evolution point-buy system from 1e or giving the Summoner a set of bonus feats only to be used for Evolutions.

I'm not sure if either proposed solution is the right answer but it is definitely worth thinking about and considering since this is clearly a real issue.

The top 3 things i keep reading from these threads, by and large, is

1. Synthesist does not facilitate a satisfying playstyle that is desired, there is an unequal exchange in benefits to what you lose; people are wanting to manifest only in Synthesist form.

2. The customization for Eidolons is lacking beyond the evolution feats.

3. Summoner doesn't actually seem all that "good" at "summoning".

[shroudb]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Verzen wrote:

So just from your perspective and a design perspective, given the 3 attack action limit and MAP. would a system of having more open ended Eidolons similar to the APG be a lot more balanced than it was in APG just based on the game system alone? Or is that sort of open ended evolution system not even on the table to have more of a say on what our Eidolons look like and the customizations going into them? Or can you really not say atm?

I think no one here is wrong, but that there's a lot of argument when there could be common ground.

Let's look at the APG summoner as published in the APG and only those evolutions, since that was the release summoner:

Strikes (covered already in playtest summoner) Bite, Claws, Pincers, Slam, Sting, Tail Slap, Tentacle, Wing Buffet, Gore, Weapons

Just math (people seem to have agreed that it's better to give this for free): Improved Damage, Improved Natural Armor, Ability Increase, Skilled (though you share proficiencies so can have better skills on the eidolon without spending additional resources).

Body Part evolution that would restrict your concepts if it existed, currently available: Limbs, Tail

In the current playtest as options: Scent (which is an imprecise sense and so is the closest PF2 has to Blindsense), Climb, Gills and Swim (in one), Magic Attacks (gained automatically via sharing summoner's items, also applies to Energy Attacks), Mount (via hulking but people have pointed out that I might want to split those up), Pounce (restricted to quadruped in PF1, pounce style charge ability restricted to beast in playtest), Flight, Damage Reduction, Spell Resistance (status bonus to saves against spells is PF2's equivalent), Large (and Huge), Push, and Trip

No longer exists in PF2: Blindsight (but could be like a precise sense), Rake

Missing from the playtest: Burrow, Constrict, Grab, Immunity, Poison, Pull, Reach, Rend, Resistance (the one that gives energy resistance), Trample (this is sort of a hybrid with not existing...

The problem, for me, is that those missing are actually what made Eidolons resemble monsters.

I mean, apart from the aesthetics, that i am grateful that we can do as we wish, most mechanical aspects of a "monster" are in the missing pool of evolutions

Magical attacks isnt something monstrous, nor is a bonus to saves, movement modes and size doesnt function that different to say that i'm playing a monster.

We need far more than breath weapon on dragon and the phantom phasing one (mo always), and the more "archetypically monstrous" abilities are stuff like grabs, contricts, poisonous attacks, frightening auras, and etc

(One personal gripe I have with the Angel Eidolon is that it gains it's healing abilities at level 17... that's far too late for something so stereotypical as a healing celestial. Give them to us early enough to play with like at level 7 with a scaling casting level! Unfortunately magical evolution giving so low spell levles doesnt cut it for counteract checks and etc to emulate this at a reasonable level.)

[Verzen]

BobROE wrote:

Verzen wrote:

BobROE wrote:

Then what's wrong with just give the summoner 'evolution' feats that they can select as class feats that give the eidolon stuff? They don't need to be a special pool of feats that only the eidolon can select just ones with the right traits.

Cause not all players are going to want to focus on their eidolon the same way you do.

Again. Lack. Of. Customization.

Lack of Customization for who? The Summoner or the Eidolon? Cause I don't think that you're ever going to get 'class' feats for both the summoner and the eidolon.

Is it just an issue of there not enough class feats over the 20 level to make the eidolon as custom as you want?

Or that the feats as presented in the playtest aren't good enough?

The Eidolon.

The summoner as a character gets multiple feat options. Feat options allow customization. At level 1 as a human, I can get a class feat, an ancestry feat and a skill feat. I choose my Summoners background. I get bonuses from it. I modify his stats etc.

I get an Eidolon that has zero customizable features. They get no ancestry feats, they get no class feats unless I take a specific evolution feat and quite frankly the level 1 feats for summoner in the playtest are boring.

SENSORY EVOLUTION is literally the only evolution at 1st level.

And that gives me low light or dark vision. Okay? That's all the customization I can get? Boring.

It's a combination of both. 1) They dont get nearly enough modifications for my liking. 2) The ones they do get are boring.

Some ideas for 1st level evolutions I like and are thematic could be seen as literal side grades. As in, they do nothing but alter your character slightly.

Like, for example, my Eidolon deals cold damage with ALL of his attacks. 1d8+3 cold damage. This is balanced in the same way bludgeoning/piercing/slashing is. Some species are resistant to cold. Some are weak vs cold. Just like bludgeoning, piercing, slashing. The only difference is, is that some monsters may be more common than others that are either weak or resistant, but I don't think that should take precedence over us wanting to customize our Eidolon in that way.

Same thing with resistances. I should be able to pick a resistance at level 1 that also comes with it a weakness.

Like, for example, my character is resistant to fire, but is weak against piercing. Make it 5 each. resistant 5 vs fire and weak 5 vs piercing. This would allow more customization.

Provide the ability to pick up monster traits for your Eidolon right off the beginning.

If I want an undead or celestial or ooze, I should be able to start with those traits as a level 1 for my Eidolon. None of which I think would make them just completely OP. It would allow for a lot of customizations and a lot of differences.

For example. I want to make an ooze eidolon that has 5 resistance bludgeoning and because I picked resistance, I need to pick a weakness. Well, I pick 5 weakness against fire. If he is dealt fire, it hurts really badly.

I think having side grade options right out the gate to customize a base form should be an option for those who want it.

[Katrixia]

shroudb wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Verzen wrote:

So just from your perspective and a design perspective, given the 3 attack action limit and MAP. would a system of having more open ended Eidolons similar to the APG be a lot more balanced than it was in APG just based on the game system alone? Or is that sort of open ended evolution system not even on the table to have more of a say on what our Eidolons look like and the customizations going into them? Or can you really not say atm?

I think no one here is wrong, but that there's a lot of argument when there could be common ground.

Let's look at the APG summoner as published in the APG and only those evolutions, since that was the release summoner:

Strikes (covered already in playtest summoner) Bite, Claws, Pincers, Slam, Sting, Tail Slap, Tentacle, Wing Buffet, Gore, Weapons

Just math (people seem to have agreed that it's better to give this for free): Improved Damage, Improved Natural Armor, Ability Increase, Skilled (though you share proficiencies so can have better skills on the eidolon without spending additional resources).

Body Part evolution that would restrict your concepts if it existed, currently available: Limbs, Tail

In the current playtest as options: Scent (which is an imprecise sense and so is the closest PF2 has to Blindsense), Climb, Gills and Swim (in one), Magic Attacks (gained automatically via sharing summoner's items, also applies to Energy Attacks), Mount (via hulking but people have pointed out that I might want to split those up), Pounce (restricted to quadruped in PF1, pounce style charge ability restricted to beast in playtest), Flight, Damage Reduction, Spell Resistance (status bonus to saves against spells is PF2's equivalent), Large (and Huge), Push, and Trip

No longer exists in PF2: Blindsight (but could be like a precise sense), Rake

Missing from the playtest: Burrow, Constrict, Grab, Immunity, Poison, Pull, Reach, Rend, Resistance (the one that gives energy resistance), Trample (this is sort

...

It would be nice to see evolutions with scaling effects as opposed to feat chains so that we can actually have a taste of concepts we want to play such as another commenter who posted earlier about trying to make a Shiva Eidolon like from Final Fantasy.

permanent Flight, understandably, has to be gated at a later level but maybe we pick up the flight evolution earlier and it allows us temporary and limited flight until we reach a certain level where permanent flight would be more appropriate.

[KrispyXIV]

Cydeth wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Mark yes there are some similar stuff. But how you get those is the problem.

The evolutions that PF2 offers are meh and or have a really high level for what they do.

Things like magical attack in PF2 could be done via Evolutions and Magic Items simultaneously in PF1.

The versatility and customization that made Eidolons fun just isnt there at the moment. Even if there are abilities that sound similar.

Agreed. I went ahead and created my faux Yuna/Shiva, and my biggest complaint is that there's so little to make the character match the theme. The action economy and shared hp aside (which I hate with the burning passion of a thousand suns), the only way to get even 1 point of cold damage to my attacks is the level 8 frost rune or the ranged evolution. If there were an evolution to add half my level as energy resistance, it would help. So would one to add even minor amounts of energy damage to the creature's unarmed strikes.

As it stands, I compared my eidolon and summoner to several level 8 creatures (balisse, lamia matriarch, and erinyes) and a level 10 barbarian my friend built, and found them just... underwhelming and boring. I'd rather have a slightly weaker but interesting and fun character to a boring powerful character. The summoner currently is both weak and boring for me.

Edit: To be clear, I found the eidolon on its own to look roughly equal to a level 8 creature. Maybe a touch stronger in some ways, but it definitely didn't have the abilities.

I just compared my Summoner (6th) to an equal level creature (Awakened Tree) and determined that by the math, I can just about grind it down expending minimal resources using a defensive action loadout - I more or less never lose if I expend one of my two Medic Enhanced Battle Medicines, much less any of my spell slots which include Heal Spells.

A quick review shows that I could probably solo grind through a number of Level +1 (7) creatures solo as well very reliably (a surprising number of foes here have a weakness to Good damage!). Glamorous and Exciting? Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure this build has more endurance than a Champion when you count in 4 slots of Heal and 2 uses of battle medicine - plus the potential to do things like take a risk and step in to flank and attempt to spike the enemy down quickly.

[KrispyXIV]

-Poison- wrote:

It would be nice to see evolutions with scaling effects as opposed to feat chains so that we can actually have a taste of concepts we want to play such as another commenter who posted earlier about trying to make a Shiva Eidolon like from Final Fantasy.

permanent Flight, understandably, has to be gated at a later level but maybe we pick up the flight evolution earlier and it allows us temporary and limited flight until we reach a certain level where permanent flight would be more appropriate.

You get temporary Flight for Free as part of Evolution Surge.

[KrispyXIV]

Mark Seifter wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Things like magical attack in PF2 could be done via Evolutions and Magic Items simultaneously in PF1.

This sounds like a bug that was fixed, to me.

I'm not clear on what a reasonable benefit for combining these would be - some sort of 'weapon bond' equivalent that gave an eidolon a elemental property rune that couldn't break the property rune cap?

If it's meant to deal extra damage on top of runes, that changes from "this is covered" to "this is pure bonus math that, if included, would be mandatory" like Improved Natural Attack.

Right, that was what I was getting at.

Removing the stacking of those two elements was a fix, not a flaw.

[Cydeth]

Oh, one thing that came up with the faux-Shiva I was trying for earlier.

The feat Ostentatious Arrival has two weird bits to it. First, the changing damage type only matters for Dragon eidolons at the moment and summons, so if I picked it, I wouldn't get cold damage like Shiva should have gotten.

Second, because of the way the damage is written, the eidolon's damage is a full die behind at odd levels (i.e. at level 7 a level 4 summon animal spell would deal 4d4 damage, but Manifesting your Eidolon only deals 3d4 because it's 1d4/2 levels). Maybe this is intentional, but it bothered me.

[Katrixia]

KrispyXIV wrote:

-Poison- wrote:

It would be nice to see evolutions with scaling effects as opposed to feat chains so that we can actually have a taste of concepts we want to play such as another commenter who posted earlier about trying to make a Shiva Eidolon like from Final Fantasy.

permanent Flight, understandably, has to be gated at a later level but maybe we pick up the flight evolution earlier and it allows us temporary and limited flight until we reach a certain level where permanent flight would be more appropriate.

You get temporary Flight for Free as part of Evolution Surge.

At 10th level.

Via a focus spell.
Not an Evolution feat.
And something that wouldn't work for a Synthesist.

[KrispyXIV]

-Poison- wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

-Poison- wrote:

It would be nice to see evolutions with scaling effects as opposed to feat chains so that we can actually have a taste of concepts we want to play such as another commenter who posted earlier about trying to make a Shiva Eidolon like from Final Fantasy.

permanent Flight, understandably, has to be gated at a later level but maybe we pick up the flight evolution earlier and it allows us temporary and limited flight until we reach a certain level where permanent flight would be more appropriate.

You get temporary Flight for Free as part of Evolution Surge.

At 10th level.

Via a focus spell.
Not an Evolution feat.
And something that wouldn't work for a Synthesist.

Yes, you get a reusable focus spell that as one of its many options can copy a proper 4th level spell slot, a whole 2 levels after Fly becomes available as a spell for the length of an entire encounter.

It cost you zero permanent resources, and you can turn on your Eidolons Wings/Flight.

How is that not totally better than spending a feat for temporary Flight prior to permanent flight? Its a powerful and excellent option.

I assume either the Synthesist thing will get adjusted, or it is strictly not meant to be, seeing as how popular the concept is.

[Cydeth]

KrispyXIV wrote:

I just compared my Summoner (6th) to an equal level creature (Awakened Tree) and determined that by the math, I can just about grind it down expending minimal resources using a defensive action loadout - I more or less never lose if I expend one of my two Medic Enhanced Battle Medicines, much less any of my spell slots which include Heal Spells.

A quick review shows that I could probably solo grind through a number of Level +1 (7) creatures solo as well very reliably (a surprising number of foes here have a weakness to Good damage!). Glamorous and Exciting? Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure this build has more endurance than a Champion when you count in 4 slots of Heal and 2 uses of battle medicine - plus the potential to do things like take a risk and step in to flank and attempt to spike the enemy down quickly.

And an erinyes, a level 8 monster, would kill the level 10 summoner and eidolon I built every time due to having both long range attacks and flight faster than the eidolon could get via the focus spell. What enemy you pick matters a lot.

[Dubious Scholar]

While Mark is correct that adding damage dice of an element would break the combat math, would an option to change the type of an attack be safe?

Like, just make it Versatile Cold, or something. (Or split the dice? I dunno, I've been thinking about it but haven't come to an option I really like).

[KrispyXIV]

Cydeth wrote:

And an erinyes, a level 8 monster, would kill the level 10 summoner and eidolon I built every time due to having both long range attacks and flight faster than the eidolon could get via the focus spell. What enemy you pick matters a lot.

It absolutely does. Choosing an Erinyes though is picking something that is more of a 'puzzle' encounter than a fight, and not everyone gets an easy solution to it - its the exact sort of 'kiting' creature that Mark described earlier. You need some way to deal with it within your party, very few single characters will do well.

[Dubious Scholar]

KrispyXIV wrote:

-Poison- wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

-Poison- wrote:

It would be nice to see evolutions with scaling effects as opposed to feat chains so that we can actually have a taste of concepts we want to play such as another commenter who posted earlier about trying to make a Shiva Eidolon like from Final Fantasy.

permanent Flight, understandably, has to be gated at a later level but maybe we pick up the flight evolution earlier and it allows us temporary and limited flight until we reach a certain level where permanent flight would be more appropriate.

You get temporary Flight for Free as part of Evolution Surge.

At 10th level.

Via a focus spell.
Not an Evolution feat.
And something that wouldn't work for a Synthesist.

Yes, you get a reusable focus spell that as one of its many options can copy a proper 4th level spell slot, a whole 2 levels after Fly becomes available as a spell for the length of an entire encounter.

It cost you zero permanent resources, and you can turn on your Eidolons Wings/Flight.

How is that not totally better than spending a feat for temporary Flight prior to permanent flight? Its a powerful and excellent option.

I assume either the Synthesist thing will get adjusted, or it is strictly not meant to be, seeing as how popular the concept is.

Worth noting that rangers get focus spell Fly at level 7, when a fourth level feat heightens to 4.

[KrispyXIV]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

While Mark is correct that adding damage dice of an element would break the combat math, would an option to change the type of an attack be safe?

Like, just make it Versatile Cold, or something. (Or split the dice? I dunno, I've been thinking about it but haven't come to an option I really like).

I personally super like the idea I suggested of adding a feat that lets you change the damage from Boost Eidolon to an element of your choice, which would let you add Cold Damage (or whatever) on demand.

[KrispyXIV]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Worth noting that rangers get focus spell Fly at level 7, when a fourth level feat heightens to 4.

Doesn't that actually cost a class feat though? Evolution Surge is completely free to obtain.

[Verzen]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

While Mark is correct that adding damage dice of an element would break the combat math, would an option to change the type of an attack be safe?

Like, just make it Versatile Cold, or something. (Or split the dice? I dunno, I've been thinking about it but haven't come to an option I really like).

Honestly, I think this is a great idea.

We have precedence in terms of things like Rain of Embers Stance where we turn 100% of the damage into the element of fire and this would be thematically amazing for those who want those type of Eidolons.

I also think, Mark, maybe there needs to be a GENERIC Eidolon option that gives more freedom for customization alongside preset packages.. so those that what a generic Eidolon option can choose it's creature type(construct, undead, etc), what kind of damage it deals (cold, fire, bludgeoning, negative etc). Tie in their creature type chosen to what spell list is tied to that creature type, but leave the packages open as an option for people that want to have an angel Eidolon.

[Dubious Scholar]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Dubious Scholar wrote:

While Mark is correct that adding damage dice of an element would break the combat math, would an option to change the type of an attack be safe?

Like, just make it Versatile Cold, or something. (Or split the dice? I dunno, I've been thinking about it but haven't come to an option I really like).

I personally super like the idea I suggested of adding a feat that lets you change the damage from Boost Eidolon to an element of your choice, which would let you add Cold Damage (or whatever) on demand.

Also valid, I was mostly trying to flavor specifically the Shiva case, where you'd probably want it leaning heavier to energy. Although getting ranged sooner probably is better there.

[Mark Seifter]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

While Mark is correct that adding damage dice of an element would break the combat math, would an option to change the type of an attack be safe?

Like, just make it Versatile Cold, or something. (Or split the dice? I dunno, I've been thinking about it but haven't come to an option I really like).

Versatile Cold (and other energy types) is actually pretty rad. It's a strong option too, since you can get around creatures' physical resistance unless they also resist cold.

[Verzen]

FYI - Even though my monk deals less damage and there is no additional stance feat support for Rain of Embers stance, it is probably my favorite stance just because of the flavor alone and flavor, not power, is what I am really after.