|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One unique way since now it have a shared HP and everything.
Constitution class attribute.
Its a way to enhance hit points and no other class have it yet.
And it avoids the Ancient elf "bug" where you can't get a dedication because you dont have the stats. ( Voluntary flaw int/dex to get con so you can get Con 16 and 12 on the rest )
-----------------------------------
Make subclasses like Rogues Racket, Cleric Doctrine, Barbarian Instinct, Druid Order.
Some possible options:
Transmogrifionist - Change the Eidolon to adapt quickly
Synthetist - Move around in the fused with the eidolon
Broodmother - Multiple weaker eidolons that can act together to accomplish something
Caller - Less focused on the eidolon, more focused on summons.
-----------------------------------
Evolution pool - Swap the Angel/Beast/Phantom/Dragon abilites to feats and give evolutions as a bonus.
-----------------------------------
Summoning focus spell
Cast Summon X as a focus spell
-----------------------------------
Summoning font
Similar to cleric Divine Font Cast Summon X, Cha/Con times per day
-----------------------------------
Make your Eidolon, they have the same initial stats as a player, let us make the character sheet!
2 free Ancestry
1 attribute based on body and a free ttribute
1 attribute based on type
4 Free attribute
-----------------------------------
Inherited proficiency
The Eidolon get the SAME proficieny as the summoner.
That would enable some multiclass combinations to give the Eidolon more options.
-----------------------------------
Emergency dismiss
Reaction
Your Eidolon would receive a deadly blow
Send your eidolon away avoind the strike/spell
You need to wait 10 minutes/ 1 hour / 1 day before call him again ( progressive ) and have at least half your hit points.
When you summon it again, you lose half your actual hit points.
Con based is interesting. I wouldn't have thought of that on my own, but I like it.
Most of the rest of your post I don't particularly agree with (though not so much that it's worth the argument), but Summoning as a focus spell and an Evolution pool seem needed.
Honestly I'm kind of surprised summoning as a focus spell wasn't included already. And not playtesting a more flexible version of the Eidolon is shocking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make subclasses like Rogues Racket, Cleric Doctrine, Barbarian Instinct, Druid Order.
Some possible options:
Transmogrifionist - Change the Eidolon to adapt quickly
Synthetist - Move around in the fused with the eidolon
Broodmother - Multiple weaker eidolons that can act together to accomplish something
Caller - Less focused on the eidolon, more focused on summons.
Summoner already has subclasses: the different eidolons. Same way witches have lessons, sorcerers have bloodlines, and oracles have mysteries.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A small disclaimer. I played a lot of Summoner, both chained and unchained in P1e. Summoners were bound by some 3.5 rule inheritance but were an original paizo creation. For me a summoner should give me the capability to at least have the same base feel/capability as the P1 summoner had, at least 50% of it. As is, its kind of doesn't work for me.That said I try to keep an open mind and understand the new dichotomies of P2e, and how most classes are just chassis that hold sets of abilities for the player to choose. That said... different isn't bad, but oh boy, summoner isn't a great chassis. The main 2 problems I see:
1) Summoners aren't that good at summoning.
The only accented summoning part is their eidolon. At least make it one of the "options" to be more of a summoner than a dude with an extra-dimensional animal companion. As is, you don't even get the option of Augment Summoning (that's a wizard exclusive thing now), or a better list of summons, or earlier access to summons, a pool of summons, ability to make summons better. Be in any way or form the thing your class is named after any meaningful way better than any other caster. Might as well rename summoner into Eidolon Caller or something, because that's the only thing your good at.
Adding 2 action focus power for a quick summon, would solve this quite well, and give the summoner an actual summoning edge. Later the ability to apply some conduit spells to summons. This is a nice ability to have in a pinch when you don't have 3 actions to summon your eidolon, or you don't feel that you need the particular set of skills you trained your eidolon into.
2) Evolutions and eidolons.
I am not talking about P1e cheese, with balls of tentacles and 20-armed gunslinger eidolon combos... But P1e gave you tools to make your eidolon unique since level 1.
Like how I love how P2e gives you tools to make your fighter or rogue unique with that abilities you choose. Your eidolon should be less rigidly defined with specific feat selections for specific niche abilities.
Making eidolons base chassis capable, as the base fighter/rogue/ranger chassis is, no matter what you pick - is a good idea. But leave the specifics to imagination. I liked how Unchained summoners got to pick a specific kind of eidolon but the evolution pool was still there to make it any kind of angel/demon/elemental.
What it to be a fire snake - do it, but you can also give it arms and weapon proficiency, make it focus on grappling, or skillful from day 1. I think looking at how familiars gains abilities is a better example, leaving summoner class feats for adding new options to the pool of what abilities we can add to the eidolon at any given day. Also gives an option to add a focus spell to transmogrify properly your eidolon for a short period of time.
I mean, this is like a 1e hunter with its abilities to boost 1 kind of animal with some special nature mumbo jumbo, only worse since it's mostly semi-permanent and doesn't add to the uniqueness of each eidalon. This is not what eidolons were.
Right now I see four level 3 summoners meet up, they are unique, have different feats and weapons, and gear, ancestries and experiences... their dragon eidolons? Same, but different color.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically. How I see it. Add a subclass focus, that can be expanded upon with class feats if you wish, like druids and their orders. You pick what kind of Summoner you are at level 1, for example:
- An Eidolon Caller with a set of outsiders and monsters to choose from, each with their set of quirks and eidolon abilities to choose from. Can always add more weird options here.
- A Spiritualist with a set of emotion-based spirits and emotion based abilities to choose from. Can add more weird spirits and ghosts here.
- A Syntheists, who is your "mutagenist" to your alchemist, you can also roll in the shifter angle here. You gain the offensive form, can be a back-up frontliner like the mutagenist alchemist with a set of abilities lifter from the eidolon caller. Piggybacks on Eidolon Caller.
- A Master Summoner, gets a smaller pick of abilities and eidolon, can't use the Act together thing, for example, gets its increased attack and defenses slower, but you are actually better at using your everyday summoning spells. Can evolve summons, have access to all/most summons, focus spells that make summons more powerful instead of the 7th and 17th level eidolon boosts, for example. You basically focus your eidolon to to a few things good to be your go-to aid, but in combat summon other creatures and be a an actual summoner. Piggybacks on Eidolon Caller.
This gives you options to add more possibilities later on.
Rework evolutions to be more like familiar abilities. Some 2-3 at level 1 and extra abilities every few levels at least. If daily ability changes are too much - make changing evolutions a ritual with a cost. You get your base form and 7th and 17th level abilities to make them feel mechanically different, everything else is a pool of abilities that allow us to make unique companions. Eidolon callers can spend their feats to give eidolons more abilities or some abilities lifted from other classes, kinda like giving dedication feats to eidonons. It's Pathfinder, some crunch is good, and a side sheet for a pet class is OK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea giving the Summoner the familiar evolotion to apply to the Eidolon would be nice and wouldn't even require new rules.
There would maybe habe to be some restrictions on the movement type evolutions though. A flying Eidolon at lvl 1 might be a bit strong.
I get that in PF2 the player character is the focus of customization but it's the Eidolon here - it should be customizable a bit even on level 1.
I never played a summoner so I don't feel as strongly about the eidolon pool of features. But the eidolon changing feats aren't enough to cover for that?
I never played a summoner so I don't feel as strongly about the eidolon pool of features. But the eidolon changing feats aren't enough to cover for that?
I think part of the issue is that it requires your feats at all, as opposed to being a progression inherent to the class?
Theres an issue with customization here that I have a hard time perceiving, because I'm a firm believer in player agency. You can currently accomplish a lot just based on the Eidolon type you choose, and description.
If you break out core Eidolon functionality into a resource based construction system, the result will be a less capable base Eidolon - because a core concern for the designers is balance, we aren't going to get something for nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never played a summoner so I don't feel as strongly about the eidolon pool of features. But the eidolon changing feats aren't enough to cover for that?I think part of the issue is that it requires your feats at all, as opposed to being a progression inherent to the class?
Theres an issue with customization here that I have a hard time perceiving, because I'm a firm believer in player agency. You can currently accomplish a lot just based on the Eidolon type you choose, and description.
If you break out core Eidolon functionality into a resource based construction system, the result will be a less capable base Eidolon - because a core concern for the designers is balance, we aren't going to get something for nothing.
I'd agree if it was balanced. But it's weak. So I disagree.
I never played a summoner so I don't feel as strongly about the eidolon pool of features. But the eidolon changing feats aren't enough to cover for that?I think part of the issue is that it requires your feats at all, as opposed to being a progression inherent to the class?
Theres an issue with customization here that I have a hard time perceiving, because I'm a firm believer in player agency. You can currently accomplish a lot just based on the Eidolon type you choose, and description.
If you break out core Eidolon functionality into a resource based construction system, the result will be a less capable base Eidolon - because a core concern for the designers is balance, we aren't going to get something for nothing.
To me the customization being available when you already got a good core(animal companion and eidolon) is better than full customization and a bad core(familiar).
But I guess people want something more similar to 1e a la carte menu instead of pf2 archetype-like eidolon with small extra options.Edit: Also how is the eidolon weak? The summoner feels like quite a strong class already to me and my table with small if any issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eidolons should not be sub classes. They are not meant to be subclasses. And treating them like subclasses is what created this mess in the first place were Eidolons dont have evolutions.I continue to think it is disingenuous to say that they don't have evolutions. They do. They very clearly have evolutions, 16 of them in this playtest.
What they don't have is:
a pool of evolution points
level 1 access to a large number of distinct and discreet options
rapidly stacking extra actions through extra limbs
a necessity to spend points to each a desired cosmetic appearance
malleable attributes
upgrades for armor, damage
early or unmatched access to monster abilities The question isn't "should they do this the way PF1E did", because such a system clearly doesn't fit as-is in 2E. Discreet options to increase damage or natural armor or attributes simply aren't something that jells with the system.
The bigger question is whether the initial Eidolon should have a familiar type pool of inoffensive options. But that still wouldn't be PF1E's pool. It would be things like senses, manual dexterity, skills, swim or climb speed, extra carrying capacity, and speech. Not stuff like greater darkvision, true flight, dimension door a few times per day, or greater constrict. If those are ever options, they are going to be through feats.
That does sound quite nice actually maybe choose between small options like those at first level instead of getting the whole chassis with the eidolon type will fix quite a few issues and removing the evolution cantrip for that instead choosing at each manifestation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never played a summoner so I don't feel as strongly about the eidolon pool of features. But the eidolon changing feats aren't enough to cover for that?I think part of the issue is that it requires your feats at all, as opposed to being a progression inherent to the class?
Theres an issue with customization here that I have a hard time perceiving, because I'm a firm believer in player agency. You can currently accomplish a lot just based on the Eidolon type you choose, and description.
If you break out core Eidolon functionality into a resource based construction system, the result will be a less capable base Eidolon - because a core concern for the designers is balance, we aren't going to get something for nothing.
To me the customization being available when you already got a good core(animal companion and eidolon) is better than full customization and a bad core(familiar).
But I guess people want something more similar to 1e a la carte menu instead of pf2 archetype-like eidolon with small extra options.Edit: Also how is the eidolon weak? The summoner feels like quite a strong class already to me and my table with small if any issues.
Your two characters with one hp pool. One is a weak body the other is a mediocre body. You take the worse effect on anything that affects you both.
Your combat body, your eidolon, has low ac until level 3 where it becomes average. It's low mental stats result in the DC of at least one ability for each eidolon is very weak.
Most of your feats get spent on not allowing you to excel, but making you not suck.
Boost eidolon competes with the more important reinforce and you can only use both if neither of you have to move at all
There is more. But the net result is your combat body is weaker then any other martial class, both defensively and offensively. Your caster body isn't much for casting but that's a smaller issue and not one at all.
You play a character that's weaker then other character's you could play while having more weaknesses and your feats are spent on making the class work as opposed to making you Excell at something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eidolons should not be sub classes. They are not meant to be subclasses. And treating them like subclasses is what created this mess in the first place were Eidolons dont have evolutions.I continue to think it is disingenuous to say that they don't have evolutions. They do. They very clearly have evolutions, 16 of them in this playtest.
What they don't have is:
a pool of evolution points
level 1 access to a large number of distinct and discreet options
rapidly stacking extra actions through extra limbs
a necessity to spend points to each a desired cosmetic appearance
malleable attributes
upgrades for armor, damage
early or unmatched access to monster abilities The question isn't "should they do this the way PF1E did", because such a system clearly doesn't fit as-is in 2E. Discreet options to increase damage or natural armor or attributes simply aren't something that jells with the system.
The bigger question is whether the initial Eidolon should have a familiar type pool of inoffensive options. But that still wouldn't be PF1E's pool. It would be things like senses, manual dexterity, skills, swim or climb speed, extra carrying capacity, and speech. Not stuff like greater darkvision, true flight, dimension door a few times per day, or greater constrict. If those are ever options, they are going to be through feats.
I dont think potentially forcing me to choose between my Angel eidolon having access to Darkvision or Manual Dexterity improves my ability to enjoy the class. Nor do I want to go back to a system that forces me to pay for cosmetic aspects of my Eidolon.
I'd much rather the base chassis come with all that built in, and allow the player to decide which bits are relevant to them.
Eidolons are not a minor feature like a basic familiar - familiars have to compromise on that stuff because they're easily measured by feat investment. It's a separate deal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you break out core Eidolon functionality into a resource based construction system, the result will be a less capable base Eidolon - because a core concern for the designers is balance, we aren't going to get something for nothing.
Yes, making the base Eidolon less capable and putting that functionality into something you can choose as you level is exactly what I would like to see.
Even if it was along the lines of familiars, where certain features were locked in, would be acceptable. All of them being set at level 1 unless you buy more with feats is pretty boring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your two characters with one hp pool.
You are one Player with one HP pool and set of actions. That is absolutely a distinction that helps Summoners not dominate the table from other Players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are one Player with one HP pool and set of actions. That is absolutely a distinction that helps Summoners not dominate the table from other Players.
Your two characters with one hp pool.
Also helps you die
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never played a summoner so I don't feel as strongly about the eidolon pool of features. But the eidolon changing feats aren't enough to cover for that?
Depends. To me it's more about eidolons feeling static and very pre-determined compared to what they were in 1E. One of the strength of 1e Summoner was that you could be a great secondary support caster and have a powerful, customizable ally on the frontline.
2e pets are gone and don't get nearly as many features they got in 1e, most of what they get comes out of your pocket and that's fine, that's how 2e rolls. But even compared to Familiars - they are quite limited. Which is weird, since when I saw how familiars forked the first time I already had a hunch this will be later used for summoner, but no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Eidolon/Summoner combo is not powerful enough to outshine other characters even without that weakness.
Determining this in play is the point of the playtest.
I'm not convinced of this level of weakness - a lot of the negative scenarios people are contemplating just don't happen in my experience.
I'm already preparing my explanations for my fellow players as to why its balanced that my pet has the same AC and attack bonus as them, because most people don't see that as appropriate for another players pet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Eidolon/Summoner combo is not powerful enough to outshine other characters even without that weakness.Determining this in play is the point of the playtest.
I'm not convinced of this level of weakness - a lot of the negative scenarios people are contemplating just don't happen in my experience.
I'm already preparing my explanations for my fellow players as to why its balanced that my pet has the same AC and attack bonus as them, because most people don't see that as appropriate for another players pet.
The one consistency I've seen from your posts is you have a very lenient DM that will suspend logical decisions by the enemies to make you feel like you are doing better. There are times for that narratively. But it isn't all the time.
The important thing is to divorce the straw man attempt that any difference or worry is down to DM style. Because yes any DM can ruin your day or make you godly.
Rather the concerns I have and expressed are ones I've routinely witnessed in some form and that's not the DM having it out for us, it was him role playing the encounters.
numerically, the eidolon is a non raging barbarian who didn't put his main stat to 18 and doesn't wear armor. He gains mild defensive feats and action economy boosters to fix the awkward summoner eidolon relationship though it doesn't alleviate it.
They don't get anything interesting to do in combat. They are actually weaker then any other martial. While also having the weakness that if they attacked the second body, they will have an even easier time hitting and critting.
It might be balanced in how many numbers it has, but 2e has been making the mistake that just because you have the same amount of numbers distributed within the classes, that it makes it balanced, without factoring the impact of those numbers due to where they are located.
Edit: as for last point. It's not a pet. That's all the justification you need. Rather. The summoner is the pet. If anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
people have already noted that a good point to start is figuring out what treatment the summoner should get and what people want from the summoner.To understand what is its direction.
Right now:
- it's not good at summoning despite its name. 1e summoner was very good at summoning.
- it has an eidolon but it's not as good as 1e eidolon, mostly in the vagueness of the role current eidolon fills in the 2e playtest. 1e eidolon could fill a multitude of roles determined by the player, and was good in them, no great, but very good.
- it isn't good at spellcasting. Until unchained version summoner 1e was bonkers good 6/9 caster. After unchained, summoners were still very good.
It also had a lot of cheese and was extremely easy to optimize, to the point that in a sub-optimal party - they stole a lot of the spotlight.
Should 2e summoner still be as good at everything as 1e summoner? I don't think so. Nor should it be this underwhelming jack of all trades.
That's why I believe it's a good idea to allow players a way to focus into some one aspect and be good at it. A subclass system for a eidolon-focused summoner, a summoning focused summoner and a synthesyst focused summoner. Allowing them to fill most niches and tropes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Eidolon/Summoner combo is not powerful enough to outshine other characters even without that weakness.Determining this in play is the point of the playtest.
I'm not convinced of this level of weakness - a lot of the negative scenarios people are contemplating just don't happen in my experience.
I'm already preparing my explanations for my fellow players as to why its balanced that my pet has the same AC and attack bonus as them, because most people don't see that as appropriate for another players pet.
The one consistency I've seen from your posts is you have a very lenient DM that will suspend logical decisions by the enemies to make you feel like you are doing better. There are times for that narratively. But it isn't all the time.
The important thing is to divorce the straw man attempt that any difference or worry is down to DM style. Because yes any DM can ruin your day or make you godly.
Rather the concerns I have and expressed are ones I've routinely witnessed in some form and that's not the DM having it out for us, it was him role playing the encounters.
numerically, the eidolon is a non raging barbarian who didn't put his main stat to 18 and doesn't wear armor. He gains mild defensive feats and action economy boosters to fix the awkward summoner eidolon relationship though it doesn't alleviate it.
They don't get anything interesting to do in combat. They are actually weaker then any other martial. While also having the weakness that if they attacked the second body, they will have an even easier time hitting and critting.
It might be balanced in how many numbers it has, but 2e has been making the mistake that just because you have the same amount of numbers distributed within the classes, that it makes it balanced, without factoring the impact of those numbers due to where they are located.
I mostly run games, and I run encounters as they are printed from a roleplaying perspective and not from a hardcore tactical minis game perspective (I do that too, in minis games).
I also run primarily published material.
And I can tell you that in published material, the number of times that the players face off against professional soldiers in superior numbers to themselves is minimal.
Mostly in those situations, theyre facing cultists, thieves, or other rogue elements held together by single individuals with extreme power or force of will, and limited and disloyal manpower. Not exactly special forces.
More often, players are facing independent or unintelligent creatures, where basic tactics like flanking are reasonable but "prioritize the summoner over the eidolon" are not.
Otherwise, theyre facing smaller numbers of foes where the players have a tactical advantage, and they quickly isolate, immobilize, and restrict the options of badguys making it essentially impossible to do the sort of backline targeting everyone is talking about without it being instant suicide due to AOOs and ending up in a tactically worse position because they just spent an additional action moving as opposed to reducing incoming threats.
Everyone seems to be acting like the Summoner and their party are just going to walk into a fight like a moron and everyone is just going to stand there and watch them die.
Thats... not how this game works? The summoner is going to stand two move actions back, be extremely inconvenient to get to based on positioning, and Take Cover from ranged attacks while their eidolon does a good Martial impression.
Id really like for Summoners to not be OP or excessively complicated so that when I do get to play, my not so lenient GM isnt going to tell me to pick something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The argument about eidolon ac isn't a huge issue so long as they move their expert ac to level 1.
If they don't do that, you have two levels where your eidolon is a bigger liability than it should be.
After that in a lot of ways it functions as a generic fighter puppet without the extra attack proficiency or abilities.
It's ac doesn't fall back again until level 19. By that level you have multiple ways to help deal with this deficiency. Just not at levels 1 and 2.
As for your reply krispy. It all assumes perfect tactics and your party having the leg up and initiating the combat themselves.
Conversely many naysayers take the other extreme. Where they never have the leg up or the tactical advantage.
Rather then using either of these hyperbolic scenarios, even if they can exist consistently if you have a questionable DM. Look at it as the bell curve. In Wich you will be in either scenario roughly 50 percent of the time to various degrees. Wich is about normal. In these instances, the summoner is punished more relatively speaking and has to spend feats to even shore up this weakness.
Reality is. You could make the eidolon Wear heavy armor and get to legendary in it by endgame. Either by chance or a semi intelligent enemy, all they have to do is hit the expert in unarmored defense second body. To say that will always happen is of course unrealistic. Just as saying it won't ever is also. But when it does happen it's a glaring weakness that must be acknowledged and not downplayed.
You can't use reinforce the same turn as boost and it's just like raise a shield action, but slightly better.
Can you cite the first half of this statement?
So far as I can see, you can use both so long as you reinforce second. Its action intensive, but doable.
As well, Eidolons can both be reinforced and use the shield cantrip - resulting in a pseudo shield with shield level AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, with reinforce and boost, I think they should just bake those into the actual class and you pick which one they go into much like stances. I think that could help a lot as well.
Given how action starved/hungry this class is I'd be one to agree.
You can't use reinforce the same turn as boost and it's just like raise a shield action, but slightly better.
Can you cite the first half of this statement?
So far as I can see, you can use both so long as you reinforce second. Its action intensive, but doable.
As well, Eidolons can both be reinforced and use the shield cantrip - resulting in a pseudo shield with shield level AC.
"You focus deeply on the link between you and your eidolon
and reinforce your eidolon’s defenses. Your eidolon gains a +1
status bonus to AC and saving throws, plus resistance to all
damage equal to half the spell’s level. Your eidolon can benefit
from either boost eidolon or reinforce eidolon, but not both. If
you cast one of them during the other’s duration, the newer
spell replaces the older spell"In particularly, "Your eidolon can benefit
from either boost eidolon or reinforce eidolon, but not both"
Right, your quote says explicitly what happens if you cast them in the same turn.
Meaning -
Action 1 - Act Together, cast Boost Eidolon, Eidolon Strikes
Action 2 - Eidolon Strikes
Action 3 - cast Reinforce Eidolon
Is totally valid once your Eidolon is stuck in the fight. Boost ends... after its already been relevant.
Single attack routines where your eidolon strides on action 1 are totally valid versus scary single foes, as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's a whole other can of worms. You found a way that, I believe, is not intended by paizo to be able to do. You're effectively gaining both benefits from them.
You can't use reinforce the same turn as boost and it's just like raise a shield action, but slightly better.
Can you cite the first half of this statement?
So far as I can see, you can use both so long as you reinforce second. Its action intensive, but doable.
As well, Eidolons can both be reinforced and use the shield cantrip - resulting in a pseudo shield with shield level AC.
"You focus deeply on the link between you and your eidolon
and reinforce your eidolon’s defenses. Your eidolon gains a +1
status bonus to AC and saving throws, plus resistance to all
damage equal to half the spell’s level. Your eidolon can benefit
from either boost eidolon or reinforce eidolon, but not both. If
you cast one of them during the other’s duration, the newer
spell replaces the older spell"In particularly, "Your eidolon can benefit
from either boost eidolon or reinforce eidolon, but not both"Right, your quote says explicitly what happens if you cast them in the same turn.
Meaning -
Action 1 - Act Together, cast Boost Eidolon, Eidolon Strikes
Action 2 - Eidolon Strikes
Action 3 - cast Reinforce EidolonIs totally valid once your Eidolon is stuck in the fight. Boost ends... after its already been relevant.
Single attack routines where your eidolon strides on action 1 are totally valid versus scary single foes, as well.
Id be inclined to agree if the text of the spell didn't explicitly address this scenario and what happens. It would have been easy to say you can't cast both in the same turn, and that's not what it says.
Yeah I'm not seeing any problem with Krispy's suggestion. You aren't benefitting from both simultaneously and you're spending two actions a round to do it which is quite a bit.