Welcome to the Summoner Class Playtest!

[Verzen]

Mark Seifter 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).

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.

So does rad mean it's too powerful or that it is a great idea? =)

[Verzen]

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.

I'd like it noted that I find it incredibly un fun to have boost Eidolon as a once per turn focus spell. I just don't like math fixes like that that use up an action.

[Mark Seifter]

Verzen wrote:

Mark Seifter 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).

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.

So does rad mean it's too powerful or that it is a great idea? =)

Great idea.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

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.

I'd like it noted that I find it incredibly un fun to have boost Eidolon as a once per turn focus spell. I just don't like math fixes like that that use up an action.

It technically only eats up your free action you get from Act Together. Thats not the same thing as eating up an action for anyone else.

[Verzen]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Mark Seifter 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).

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.

So does rad mean it's too powerful or that it is a great idea? =)

Great idea.

Excitement intensifying! =)

[Dubious Scholar]

Verzen wrote:

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.

Some stuff in columns and such has made me think it might be getting more feat support in the Society book, but I digress.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

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.

I'd like it noted that I find it incredibly un fun to have boost Eidolon as a once per turn focus spell. I just don't like math fixes like that that use up an action.

It technically only eats up your free action you get from Act Together. Thats not the same thing as eating up an action for anyone else.

Sure, but I still don't find it satisfying. I'd rather DO something with those actions rather than... add points of math to the Eidolon.

[shroudb]

BTW can we pleasepleaseplease have the Hulking/Towering Evolutions be an option you get to choose when you Manifest your Eidolon?

Since the vast power of the summoner is in the Eidolon, having your newly leveled 14 character suddenlly go "Oh, this instance of the adventure requires to go into a tight dungeon? Ok guys, see you after you clear it, i'll just stay here outside guarding the entrance till you complete the adventure" wouldnt be the position i'd like to find myself in...

[Dubious Scholar]

shroudb wrote:

BTW can we pleasepleaseplease have the Hulking/Towering Evolutions be an option you get to choose when you Manifest your Eidolon?

Since the vast power of the summoner is in the Eidolon, having your newly leveled 14 character suddenlly go "Oh, this instance of the adventure requires to go into a tight dungeon? Ok guys, see you after you clear it, i'll just stay here outside guarding the entrance till you complete the adventure" wouldnt be the position i'd like to find myself in...

Yes, known issue. You'd have to turn off their reach benefits (both should be increasing it by 5 imo) in exchange, but that's reasonable I think.

[Verzen]

I just thought of some ideas for focus spells. Rather than just merely adding math to the damage, the focus spells can be things that might distract the opponent for your Eidolon to thwap. (Enemy becomes flat footed for a turn). Increase the DC of an Eidolons monster ability. (Breath attack, constrict, etc). Essentially the way the summoner would assist is ways to debuff or help the Eidolon maneuver in such a way that they can more easily do their schtick.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

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.

I'd like it noted that I find it incredibly un fun to have boost Eidolon as a once per turn focus spell. I just don't like math fixes like that that use up an action.

It technically only eats up your free action you get from Act Together. Thats not the same thing as eating up an action for anyone else.

Sure, but I still don't find it satisfying. I'd rather DO something with those actions rather than... add points of math to the Eidolon.

I definitely think it could be better - imagine if there were feats to turn it into a mini offensive evolution surge, and could allow you to add traits to your attacks or something.

[thaX]

On the Mount subject. . .
Small PC's would be able to mount an Eidolon from level 1. Would the regular mounted combat rules come into play or would the Summoner have the effects as if he had the Evolution for the Size upgrade?

[Verzen]

shroudb wrote:

BTW can we pleasepleaseplease have the Hulking/Towering Evolutions be an option you get to choose when you Manifest your Eidolon?

Since the vast power of the summoner is in the Eidolon, having your newly leveled 14 character suddenlly go "Oh, this instance of the adventure requires to go into a tight dungeon? Ok guys, see you after you clear it, i'll just stay here outside guarding the entrance till you complete the adventure" wouldnt be the position i'd like to find myself in...

Why go into the dungeon when your towering Eidolon can just extract the dungeon from the ground and toss it aside to find the treasure buried underneath?

[Dubious Scholar]

thaX wrote:

On the Mount subject. . .

Small PC's would be able to mount an Eidolon from level 1. Would the regular mounted combat rules come into play or would the Summoner have the effects as if he had the Evolution for the Size upgrade?

As written, you'd still need the feat.

[thaX]

Still erks me that a Ranger Goblin can't ride his wolf animal companion until level 6.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

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.

I'd like it noted that I find it incredibly un fun to have boost Eidolon as a once per turn focus spell. I just don't like math fixes like that that use up an action.

It technically only eats up your free action you get from Act Together. Thats not the same thing as eating up an action for anyone else.

Sure, but I still don't find it satisfying. I'd rather DO something with those actions rather than... add points of math to the Eidolon.

I definitely think it could be better - imagine if there were feats to turn it into a mini offensive evolution surge, and could allow you to add traits to your attacks or something.

Like.. trip? Or reach? I could actually go for that.

[Verzen]

There should be an evolution or option for small PC's only that should allow them to be able to ride their medium sized Eidolon imo right from the get go.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

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.

I'd like it noted that I find it incredibly un fun to have boost Eidolon as a once per turn focus spell. I just don't like math fixes like that that use up an action.

It technically only eats up your free action you get from Act Together. Thats not the same thing as eating up an action for anyone else.

Sure, but I still don't find it satisfying. I'd rather DO something with those actions rather than... add points of math to the Eidolon.

I definitely think it could be better - imagine if there were feats to turn it into a mini offensive evolution surge, and could allow you to add traits to your attacks or something.

Like.. trip? Or reach? I could actually go for that.

Reach is on the stronger side, but I was thinking things like trip, grab, versatile, etc.

That said, if the feat to unlock reach is high enough, no reason you couldn't get reach at that point.

[Dubious Scholar]

Verzen wrote:

There should be an evolution or option for small PC's only that should allow them to be able to ride their medium sized Eidolon imo right from the get go.

It's why I think mounting and big reach boy should be split. Just have the mounting feat push to large without reach benefit for a medium PC (or a small PC, optionally). Same turn-off-able as hulking.

[Verzen]

Also I've been thinking about this, Mark, and I think that you should have a limit of the versatile options right from the get go.

Otherwise, my Eidolon can get past any resistance and effect any immunity as my Eidolon can do bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, fire, acid, cold, sonic, electricity damage. Just depends on the situation.

Making them too versatile may be way too powerful and how I read the Eidolon in the playtest, they can pretty much choose B,P,S and they all get B, P, S. So limiting the versatile options would be best.

"Choose 3 of this list of 8 that your Eidolon can do" for example.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

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.

I'd like it noted that I find it incredibly un fun to have boost Eidolon as a once per turn focus spell. I just don't like math fixes like that that use up an action.

It technically only eats up your free action you get from Act Together. Thats not the same thing as eating up an action for anyone else.

Sure, but I still don't find it satisfying. I'd rather DO something with those actions rather than... add points of math to the Eidolon.

I definitely think it could be better - imagine if there were feats to turn it into a mini offensive evolution surge, and could allow you to add traits to your attacks or something.

Like.. trip? Or reach? I could actually go for that.

Reach is on the stronger side, but I was thinking things like trip, grab, versatile, etc.

That said, if the feat to unlock reach is high enough, no reason you couldn't get reach at that point.

Why? A fighter can get a gnome flickmace at level 1... and it's 1d8 damage. Same as the Eidolon.

[Cydeth]

KrispyXIV wrote:

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.

Yes, but my point all along is that the level 10 eidolon on its own is about as powerful as a level 8 creature. Better in some ways, worse in others. With the summoner (and the right build), it might qualify as higher than level 9... but not by much, based on what I've seen. And even so, it's boring.

That said, the idea of allowing versatile cold, fire, or other options had briefly drifted through my head, but I dismissed it due to not remembering things like Rain of Embers Stance (despite trying it on my monk). Something like that would be good. It wouldn't fix all the issues I have with the class, not even close, but it's something.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

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.

I'd like it noted that I find it incredibly un fun to have boost Eidolon as a once per turn focus spell. I just don't like math fixes like that that use up an action.

It technically only eats up your free action you get from Act Together. Thats not the same thing as eating up an action for anyone else.

Sure, but I still don't find it satisfying. I'd rather DO something with those actions rather than... add points of math to the Eidolon.

I definitely think it could be better - imagine if there were feats to turn it into a mini offensive evolution surge, and could allow you to add traits to your attacks or something.

Like.. trip? Or reach? I could actually go for that.

Reach is on the stronger side, but I was thinking things like trip, grab, versatile, etc.

That said, if the feat to unlock reach is high enough, no reason you couldn't get reach at that point.

Why? A fighter can get a gnome flickmace at level 1... and it's 1d8 damage. Same as the Eidolon.

The gnome flickmace is something of a controversial weapon, if we're being honest. Lunge and Lunging stance for fighters are better comparisons.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

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.

I'd like it noted that I find it incredibly un fun to have boost Eidolon as a once per turn focus spell. I just don't like math fixes like that that use up an action.

It technically only eats up your free action you get from Act Together. Thats not the same thing as eating up an action for anyone else.

Sure, but I still don't find it satisfying. I'd rather DO something with those actions rather than... add points of math to the Eidolon.

I definitely think it could be better - imagine if there were feats to turn it into a mini offensive evolution surge, and could allow you to add traits to your attacks or something.

Like.. trip? Or reach? I could actually go for that.

Reach is on the stronger side, but I was thinking things like trip, grab, versatile, etc.

That said, if the feat to unlock reach is high enough, no reason you couldn't get reach at that point.

Why? A fighter can get a gnome flickmace at level 1... and it's 1d8 damage. Same as the Eidolon.

The gnome flickmace is something of a controversial weapon, if we're being honest. Lunge and Lunging stance for fighters are better comparisons.

Only because it is one handed and can be used with a shield. Eidolons do not get the raise a shield action.

Here are a list of weapons that have reach...
Bladed Scarf, Bo Staff, Fauchard, Glaive, Gnome Flickmace, Guisarme, Halberd, Horsechopper, Lance, Longspear, Meteor Hammer, Naginata, Ranseur, Scorpion Whip, Whip

[Katrixia]

[Snipped for sanity]

I have to agree with Verzen (you can get a raise shield action through an evolution feat tho) if simply having Reach be an early evolution is a dealbreaker, i don't see how you can be sincere about Eidolons being comparable to martials.

[Verzen]

One other thing I thought of, Mark. Make them have to choose between Agile or normal attacks.

Reason being - They will use whatever the situation calls for and when an Eidolon can just be shoe horned in with literally any attack at any moment even if they are level 10 and never needed to use that attack before, their eidolon magically knows it because the situation calls for it, it can cause problems imo.

[siegfriedliner]

I fell it might be a good idea to have more feats that differntiate the summoner from the eidiolon, at the moment apart from Dual Studies feat most of the mechanics support the concept of an ectoplasmic puppet more than a separate individual.

I would also like some more options for interesting things for the summoner to do when he is out of his four spells per day. Boost is OK but if you have a bard who likes to cast inspire courage it's going at feel really poor spending an action for a +1 damage boost.

Also teamwork feats, you have fluff about the eidolon and summoner having great coordination and so some Feats that give bonuses to the eidolon when the summoner does something or vice versur might be quite cool.

[Gaulin]

To stray a bit from the customization conversation, I would like to know where devs (and the general player base) are picturing where the summoner should be ranked, damage wise. To me it seems the magus is getting torn apart with dpr calcs but the summoner is largely untouched. From what I can see, the eidolon has no real combat feats, nothing to help with action economy, map, whatever else. Is the summoners damage buff cantrip the feature that bridges the gap?

I would also like to know, Mark, if you could say the things you are most interested in people playtesting? Sometimes I think players are too focused on things that are already planned to be in the final product (maybe all this talk to customization is basically going to be covered, maybe there's already solid plans on covering dpr worries).

[Verzen]

Gaulin wrote:

To stray a bit from the customization conversation, I would like to know where devs (and the general player base) are picturing where the summoner should be ranked, damage wise. To me it seems the magus is getting torn apart with dpr calcs but the summoner is largely untouched. From what I can see, the eidolon has no real combat feats, nothing to help with action economy, map, whatever else. Is the summoners damage buff cantrip the feature that bridges the gap?

I would also like to know, Mark, if you could say the things you are most interested in people playtesting? Sometimes I think players are too focused on things that are already planned to be in the final product (maybe all this talk to customization is basically going to be covered, maybe there's already solid plans on covering dpr worries).

Someone did some DPR calculations comparing Eidolon with Animal companion and it seemed to deal more DPS than an animal companion, but less than a martial. Kinda right in between them.

[Deriven Firelion]

PrinceOfPurple wrote:

Using debuff and flanking makes a normal summon viable (30% 40% hit on a boss) for a spell i can get prepared multiple time or have many slot to cast on many casters.

Where are you getting this math from?

The most recent boss in Age of Ashes had an AC of 42 against lvl 14 characters with a max of using a lvl 7 summon spell.

Let's say you're using Summon Dragon. You can summon up to a CR 9 dragon.

Dracolisk: +21 attack. Needs a 20 to hit AC 42.

Dragon Turtle: +21

Young Blue Dragon: +21 and +19.

A boss is equal to or 2 levels above a party. A summoned creature is usually 4 to 5 levels behind a party member including 4 or 5 points or more behind the to hit roll.

I've seen a lot of ACs of bosses this high. So maybe you're running into weaker creatures, but I'm not having that luck. Summoned creatures have been highly ineffective and a waste of a spell slot. Hard to imagine anyone would argue a good use of your highest level spell slot was to summon a creature to fight something.

Even a young gold dragon is +24 to hit needing an 18 to hit an AC of 42.

There is even an enemy at lvl 20 with a 54 AC. Even a lvl 15 summon isn't touching that AC using a 10th level slot.

Maybe it's encounter design, but regardless summoned creatures are pretty useless in most encounters. Insufficient damage for the cost of a high level spell slot.

[Gaulin]

Verzen wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

To stray a bit from the customization conversation, I would like to know where devs (and the general player base) are picturing where the summoner should be ranked, damage wise. To me it seems the magus is getting torn apart with dpr calcs but the summoner is largely untouched. From what I can see, the eidolon has no real combat feats, nothing to help with action economy, map, whatever else. Is the summoners damage buff cantrip the feature that bridges the gap?

I would also like to know, Mark, if you could say the things you are most interested in people playtesting? Sometimes I think players are too focused on things that are already planned to be in the final product (maybe all this talk to customization is basically going to be covered, maybe there's already solid plans on covering dpr worries).

Someone did some DPR calculations comparing Eidolon with Animal companion and it seemed to deal more DPS than an animal companion, but less than a martial. Kinda right in between them.

That seems odd to me, with very little access to weapon traits, no class features to boost damage, no feats to increase dpr like double slice or the like, etc. And summoner themselves have very little offensive presence, share map anyway, and have so few spells that I'm not sure they should be taken into account when it comes to damage.

Then again I'm not one who is good at making tables and such. I'll have to take the word of others for now.

[Deadmanwalking]

Gaulin wrote:

To stray a bit from the customization conversation, I would like to know where devs (and the general player base) are picturing where the summoner should be ranked, damage wise. To me it seems the magus is getting torn apart with dpr calcs but the summoner is largely untouched. From what I can see, the eidolon has no real combat feats, nothing to help with action economy, map, whatever else. Is the summoners damage buff cantrip the feature that bridges the gap?

People have actually done this math and Summoner is...not great. Not bad, but not great.

I think the comparison I saw had them doing 2/3 the damage of an optimized Swashbuckler at 20th.

Some of that is gonna be an artifact of 20th level, where they are two points of attack behind martials (it's one or zero at every other point in their career), but it's not outstanding.

Boost Eidolon does definitely help, though.

[Verzen]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

To stray a bit from the customization conversation, I would like to know where devs (and the general player base) are picturing where the summoner should be ranked, damage wise. To me it seems the magus is getting torn apart with dpr calcs but the summoner is largely untouched. From what I can see, the eidolon has no real combat feats, nothing to help with action economy, map, whatever else. Is the summoners damage buff cantrip the feature that bridges the gap?

People have actually done this math and Summoner is...not great. Not bad, but not great.

I think the comparison I saw had them doing 2/3 the damage of an optimized Swashbuckler at 20th.

Some of that is gonna be an artifact of 20th level, where they are two points of attack behind martials (it's one or zero at every other point in their career), but it's not outstanding.

Boost Eidolon does definitely help, though.

One of the reasons I am against boost Eidolon - If the Eidolon needs that damage to keep being competitive then just give them that damage as a bonus. Same with reinforce Eidolon. Just give that to the Eidolon as a feature. It doesn't feel good using an action to do a temporary 1 round buff that may or may not be useful.

[Mark Seifter]

Gaulin wrote:

I would also like to know, Mark, if you could say the things you are most interested in people playtesting? Sometimes I think players are too focused on things that are already planned to be in the final product

#1 for me is just going out there and trying a variety of builds of summoner at various levels in various situations throughout an entire story, including encounters, exploration, and downtime. Be my eyes and ears and find experiential data and weird corner case situations I would never have thought of on my own without your help.

That is not to say that nothing else is helpful, it's all helpful, and every one of you is contributing, but that's the #1 most valuable thing because I can turn my time into mathematical analysis or the like at a very efficient ratio, but I can't do that with gameplay, and you can. :)

[Verzen]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

I would also like to know, Mark, if you could say the things you are most interested in people playtesting? Sometimes I think players are too focused on things that are already planned to be in the final product

#1 for me is just going out there and trying a variety of builds of summoner at various levels in various situations throughout an entire story, including encounters, exploration, and downtime. Be my eyes and ears and find experiential data and weird corner case situations I would never have thought of on my own without your help.

That is not to say that nothing else is helpful, it's all helpful, and every one of you is contributing, but that's the #1 most valuable thing because I can turn my time into mathematical analysis or the like at a very efficient ratio, but I can't do that with gameplay, and you can. :)

I have a game scheduled for this Saturday!

[BACE]

I have a question for you, Mark, if you're still around.

There's a lot of talk here about giving the summoner more evolutions throughout their career than they currently have. I don't want to ask about your thoughts about the ideas themselves, because that seems a bit unfair and like I probably wouldn't get an answer anyway.

I am curious, though: Would this be feasible with the page count? Let's say, for the sake of this example, that such a system would require 40 class feats and 40 evolution feats, for a total of 80 feats. (Note that I don't think you would actually need 40 evolution feats, but for the sake of this question, we'll go with it.)

By my quick count, it looks like a page can hold about 10 feats. Would there, hypothetically, be room for 4-5 extra pages of feats in a book? I don't know how tight your page count would be in such a situation, so I was hoping you would be able to answer.

[Katrixia]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

I would also like to know, Mark, if you could say the things you are most interested in people playtesting? Sometimes I think players are too focused on things that are already planned to be in the final product

#1 for me is just going out there and trying a variety of builds of summoner at various levels in various situations throughout an entire story, including encounters, exploration, and downtime. Be my eyes and ears and find experiential data and weird corner case situations I would never have thought of on my own without your help.

That is not to say that nothing else is helpful, it's all helpful, and every one of you is contributing, but that's the #1 most valuable thing because I can turn my time into mathematical analysis or the like at a very efficient ratio, but I can't do that with gameplay, and you can. :)

I also have a game scheduled for this weekend for a Synth Summoner; thank you for keeping up with us Mark!

[manbearscientist]

As far as versatile energy damage, I don't think that has as big a power level budget as resistances. There is a good reason most player options for resistance start at level 9 or so: even a small amount of resistance scales up a lot when attacks are much smaller.

Versatile energy types largely bypass all physical resistances, which aren't too uncommon. Which is where the power comes in, more than weaknesses. Shifting the damage type without being able to shift back to physical types is way lower on the power budget. I'd almost rather be forced to punch fire ore punch bludgeoning, but not switch back and forth without a higher level feat for the full versatile option. I don't think that would be too concept locking, as you could have the other attack cover the physical side if you needed to represent both halves for a concept.

Resistances at level 1 would need to be set to 1 and not scale short of a feat, and even then they'd be more powerful than they'd seem. Even balanced versus a weakness, it could be a 'math says this is worth taking option'.

I'm not against it, mind you. I just think the weakness would have to be something like weakness 3 or 5 to make it a flavorful side-grade rather than a must-have option.

[Verzen]

Quote:

As far as versatile energy damage, I don't think that has as big a power level budget as resistances. There is a good reason most player options for resistance start at level 9 or so: even a small amount of resistance scales up a lot when attacks are much smaller.

Sure but it also depends. If you have versatile to EVERY single energy damage then you can just as easily switch from fire to ice when your Eidolon is .. suppose to be a fire elemental... and you just found that the monster has ice weakness... and I think that is a problem.

You should be locked in a specific path type.

Quote:

I'm not against it, mind you. I just think the weakness would have to be something like weakness 3 or 5 to make it a flavorful side-grade rather than a must-have option.

That's why I think all resistances should also come with a weakness of the same. 5 for instance. And it doesn't increase from there until level 15. But having 5 fire resistance, 5 ice weakness imo isn't op and it offers a bit more flavor.

This sort of concept is already built in to oracle. Tempest oracle gets this, "Moderate Curse Your minor curse's aura expands to a 10- foot emanation and carries rain on the winds. The whirling winds impose a –2 circumstance penalty on ranged attack rolls using physical ammunition that target you or originate from you. Your weakness to electricity increases to 5 or half your level, whichever is greater, but torrential rain grants you an equal amount of fire resistance." and you get this at level 1.

This would work the same, but only for your Eidolon, and you wouldn't calculate in the -2 penalty on ranged attacks as that wouldn't be a thing. So there is already a precedence set for that at level 1.

[Verzen]

Hell, if we fall in line with the oracle, we could even make it 5 resistance or 1/2 your level whichever is greater and it would still fall within precedence...

[Deriven Firelion]

If I were making changes to the current summoner I would do the following:

1. Angel, Dragon, and Phantom innate flight from level 1. Give the beast a 40 foot ground speed. Make the creatures feel like the creatures, not this watered down semi-PC thing.

2. Increase the damage die of the attacks. Get rid of boost eidolon or make it do other things like offer an optional damage boost, making the weapons silver or cold iron, or adding energy damage to the weapons.

Make boost eidolon a way to exploit weaknesses and enhance damage in an interesting way like boosting damage dice than this boring required spell every round just to keep up.

3. Give the eidolon independent actions boosted by the summoner.

4. It's own hit point pool or some kind of temporary hit point pool renewable per 10 minute refocus.

5. No more shared MAP just in case the summoner feels like doing something on his turn.

6. Boost him to Legendary in his casting. He already gives up a lot of slots, no use making those slots even weaker to use. And the Eidolon's DC for breath weapons and special abilities should be Legendary.

Those are some starter ideas.

[Dubious Scholar]

You'd have to copy the rules on AC mounts to stop permaflight mounts too early, and really riding the eidolon could come sooner as long as giving it flight is slower.

Should summoner just be given a class DC that advances properly so that eidolon effects can scale off of that? Casters haven't used it so far, but there's no reason summoners can't.

[Verzen]

The problem with permaflight at level 1 is that synthesis.. now the synthesis can permanently fly?

[Dubious Scholar]

Oh right, also that.

Familiars and ACs only get flight at level 1 because they have very tight boxes set up so that there's no way it leads to a player flying. Animal companions have an explicit rules clause to stop that, even, just in case.

[graystone]

Verzen wrote:

The problem with permaflight at level 1 is that synthesis.. now the synthesis can permanently fly?

And not much else but move and melee Strike... You aren't doing ranged Strikes till 8th so your best is Cantrips with Magic Evolution or dragon breathe every 1d4 rounds. With your cantrip ranged, you aren't getting out of return fire range... I guess it'd be bad if your foes are all melee but that's almost as true if you're all ranged in a wilderness game too.

[Temperans]

This is why its better to make Synthesist into its own path. That way you can make it be affected by Evolutions differently without messing with the balance of the class.

Ex: The Synthesist cannot grab the Flight evolutions before level 10. But the regular Summoner might get it at 1st or 5th depending on the Eidolon's base form.

[Arachnofiend]

graystone wrote:

Verzen wrote:

The problem with permaflight at level 1 is that synthesis.. now the synthesis can permanently fly?

And not much else but move and melee Strike... You aren't doing ranged Strikes till 8th so your best is Cantrips with Magic Evolution or dragon breathe every 1d4 rounds. With your cantrip ranged, you aren't getting out of return fire range... I guess it'd be bad if your foes are all melee but that's almost as true if you're all ranged in a wilderness game too.

All right, first level flight is balanced because the eidolon doesn't get a ranged attack until 8th level. Fair enough.

You willing to make it so there's never an eidolon that starts with a ranged attack to get that first level flight?

[Dubious Scholar]

Arachnofiend wrote:

graystone wrote:

Verzen wrote:

The problem with permaflight at level 1 is that synthesis.. now the synthesis can permanently fly?

And not much else but move and melee Strike... You aren't doing ranged Strikes till 8th so your best is Cantrips with Magic Evolution or dragon breathe every 1d4 rounds. With your cantrip ranged, you aren't getting out of return fire range... I guess it'd be bad if your foes are all melee but that's almost as true if you're all ranged in a wilderness game too.

All right, first level flight is balanced because the eidolon doesn't get a ranged attack until 8th level. Fair enough.

You willing to make it so there's never an eidolon that starts with a ranged attack to get that first level flight?

Not to mention, frankly... the 8th level feat could be moved up just fine (so could Wild Winds Stance, but I digress). Or given a weaker version early on, and then the level 8 boosts the damage die and adds useful traits (I was thinking propulsive, agile, etc as options).

Also, remind me - how much bulk is the party wizard for the eidolon to pick them up?

[graystone]

Arachnofiend wrote:

You willing to make it so there's never an eidolon that starts with a ranged attack to get that first level flight?

You're talking to the wrong person: I can ONLY comment on the material we are playtesting. I also can't guarantee there will never be a super awesome 1 action attack spell that totally break the Magus too because that isn't here. I can only infer with with the variables I have available to me.

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Also, remind me - how much bulk is the party wizard for the eidolon to pick them up?

Depends on the race. 3 for small and 6 for medium. [people have easy carry built into their backs]

[Mark Seifter]

BACE wrote:

I have a question for you, Mark, if you're still around.

There's a lot of talk here about giving the summoner more evolutions throughout their career than they currently have. I don't want to ask about your thoughts about the ideas themselves, because that seems a bit unfair and like I probably wouldn't get an answer anyway.

I am curious, though: Would this be feasible with the page count? Let's say, for the sake of this example, that such a system would require 40 class feats and 40 evolution feats, for a total of 80 feats. (Note that I don't think you would actually need 40 evolution feats, but for the sake of this question, we'll go with it.)

By my quick count, it looks like a page can hold about 10 feats. Would there, hypothetically, be room for 4-5 extra pages of feats in a book? I don't know how tight your page count would be in such a situation, so I was hoping you would be able to answer.

It would be a challenge to grab 4 or 6 pages from somewhere else (can't do 5), and something will always be lost to make that happen, that's sort of the way things are. Sometimes things also take more space than we expect in layout. Like in APG we lost some archetypes (that we will find a home for in a later book) because oracle and champion both took more space than we expected. If necessary, it'd probably mean we lose out on a whole bunch of brand new spells and magic items.