| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think it should be written into the Eidolon that ANY increases to AC, attacks, increasing ranks, AC etc should also effect the Eidolon.
If I choose to take the bastion archetype and I get heavy armor, my Eidolon should reflect that increase in AC that I get for wearing heavy armor.
Hard disagree on this. The last thing I want is for the class to require me to go out and grab two general feats and an archetype dedication to get expected AC. Eidolons have comparable unbuffed AC to the Rogue levels 3-12, and it's actually higher at levels 5-9.
Hard disagree on this. The last thing I want is for the class to require me to go out and grab two general feats and an archetype dedication to get expected AC. Eidolons have comparable unbuffed AC to the Rogue levels 3-12, and it's actually higher at levels 5-9.Personally I think it should be written into the Eidolon that ANY increases to AC, attacks, increasing ranks, AC etc should also effect the Eidolon.
If I choose to take the bastion archetype and I get heavy armor, my Eidolon should reflect that increase in AC that I get for wearing heavy armor.
Don't forget access to a Pseudo-shield via stacking Shield Cantrip and Reinforce Eidolon, for an action cost that actually matches everyone elses if you use Act Together for both.
Hard disagree on this. The last thing I want is for the class to require me to go out and grab two general feats and an archetype dedication to get expected AC. Eidolons have comparable unbuffed AC to the Rogue levels 3-12, and it's actually higher at levels 5-9.Personally I think it should be written into the Eidolon that ANY increases to AC, attacks, increasing ranks, AC etc should also effect the Eidolon.
If I choose to take the bastion archetype and I get heavy armor, my Eidolon should reflect that increase in AC that I get for wearing heavy armor.
? No they don't. They have the AC of a wizard until level 3.
Rogues have AC 18 usually at level 1. Eidolons have AC 16.
At level 3, Rogues will have 20 AC and Eidolons will have 20 AC.
That's what he means. But AC of an Eidolon is just incredibly weak WITHOUT the strength or pew pewness of a wizard.
It's all glass, no cannon.
I'm all for moving Eidolon Expert Unarmored to level 1 so there's not a weird durability gap.
I'm not sure that making the Eidolon tougher than other martials is a great idea.
Rogues have AC 18 usually at level 1. Eidolons have AC 16.
At level 3, Rogues will have 20 AC and Eidolons will have 20 AC.
That's what he means. But AC of an Eidolon is just incredibly weak WITHOUT the strength or pew pewness of a wizard.
It's all glass, no cannon.
I'm all for moving Eidolon Expert Unarmored to level 1 so there's not a weird durability gap.
I'm not sure that making the Eidolon tougher than other martials is a great idea.
I agree they don't need to be tougher. You have actions you can invest and use to make them tougher. But I also agree they should have expert unarmored at level 1.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
More importantly, by making Eidolons Unarmored based you allow the Player to describe their defenses any way the player wishes. Angels can wear plate mail, a monster has impenetrable hide, a dragon has scales or a nymph is just too pretty to hit.
Tying their defense to armor impacts that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wearing armor brings up all sorts of questions, especially for Eidolons who's body shape does not conform with typical humanoids. That said, the AC is a real problem. I just did a small playtest with it and the Summoner was on the ground twice while the fellow melee investigator stood up to the test without going down at all.
One time was due to a 26 critting him and taking him down (would have been a regular hit on the Investigator).
Expert at level 1 would solve this, or a monk AC progression perhaps. But something really needs to be done, otherwise Summoners will be hard pressed to even get to lvl 3 or beyond.
I think a big problem they have is that they made summoner and magus gimped casters... When casters were ALREADY rather heavily nerfed in the first place in the transition from 1e to 2e, which I somehow think they did not take into account.
Not strictly true though more true for summoner than Magus. Eidolon and Magus are martial classes with some caster light options. Issue is those options are weak on a bare martial chassis. So they are weak.
|
And that some things are simply not in the playtest, like an undead eidolon.
If you read the intro blurb about Eidolons that's right before the bit about how to read a statblock, they call out a bunch of Eidolons that sound like they'll probably be in thr final book, includinv Construct and Amalgam (Alchemical by the sound of it) eidolons for Arcane, the expected Divine options, mention of other phantoms or otherworldly beings for Occult and Fey/Plant for Nature. Undead wasn't explicitly mentioned IIRC but the Phantoms do fill that niche to an extent, and one of the occult options might have more physicality, who knows.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Eidolon is slightly better than a well built druid animal companion, that's 5 feats worth of investment from a druid. The summoner gives up roughly 5 feats worth of multiclass spell casting in exchange for the Eidolon. So then the question is, does the core chassis plus feat choices equal out to what a druid +animal companion can do. I think the answer is no.
I like a lot of the mechanics for summoners, it just seems like they were terrified it could become too good, but I think the fact you share HP already fixes any issue with taking over a martials spot in the group, on top of not getting any martial core abilities or anything they can accomplish with feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't want the eidolon to be as powerful as it was in 1e either. However, the way they built the summoner for the playtest guaranteed that I won't playtest it at all. I tried to work out three separate builds for a character, and all of them turned out... I don't know how to put it right. I was frustrated and dismayed.
*Edits*
You mean 1e? =P
But yeah. Same. I love the class fantasy of summoner and loved the feel of 1e. I just think it needs to be toned down from the 1e version. Even the unchained was okay. Just give us some semblance of uniqueness and choices with how to build our Eidolon.
*edits* Yes, I meant 1e. *sighs*
I never played 1e so I have no reference there, I compare it to the other caster+pet and it seems to trade a lot of power for some gimmicks and rather fun thematic stuff.
There's so many different ways they could improve though, bumping certain things might hinder other ideas. I love the idea I can have a Dragon pet, or a spirit guardian like Aisling from Gigantic, or a toy that's magically brought to life similar to Anne from LoL, or a shifting character like Jake Long from American Dragon. Lots of interesting concepts to explore but how to get them to a place they can all feel good without stepping on each other's toes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right now I am not seeing how the Summoner really competes favourably with a sorc + beast master or Druid or really any caster.
The fix for action economy is more trouble than its worth. A simpler solution would be the summoner and eidolon each get 1 action and then 2 floating actions that can either be used by the Eidolon summoner or 1 action each. Current solution is overbaked and interferes with spell casting. There is nothing that much inherently stronger about an Eidolon over an AC to limit spell casting that much. Beastmaster's ability to sacrifice 2 actions to give their minion 3 is a much better fix imo.
I think maybe asking the question of is this now a fun class? Is this more fun than Bard + Beastmaster or Druid? Thematically I love the idea of the summoner but I struggle with the playtest execution. I think 2 spells per level would have been a better outcome. I think the Eidolon's stats being based off of the summoners would have been better with mentals and physicals being reversed. So Summoner CHA = Eidolon's STR, Sum Int = Eid's Dex and they share CON and WIS. Would have worked better.
None of the evolutions feel all that impactful and some are downright 'could this just be a DM fiat as it doesn't really affect anything.' I think the Eidolon sharing the summoner's special senses (rather than having their own) would have been a better option with evolutions to improve it for both.
Synthesis not being able to support or pretty much be anything other than a sack is disappointing. What about that ability says that it is fun? Summoner should still be able to use conduit cantrips and spells.
For the record I didn't play a summoner in PF1 and while I ran games where they were a little strong (I agree on toning down) the mechanical implementation in PF2e playtest feels like a lot of housekeeping and work for a subpar outcome. The only cool bit about it is that I can shape my animal companion into a cool fantasy creature (looks wise) which I could pretty much ask my GM to have my wolf look like a dragon. The riding drake as an Animal companion + bard is basically a better combo right now.
I get what Paizo was going for I just feel the awkwardness of the action economy 'fix', lack of spells and ability to cast them most of the time means the summoner falls a little flat in terms of a fun playstyle. The Eidolon lacks the combat effectiveness of a standard martial, the Summoner lacks the power and sustainability of an MC caster and can't even touch a full caster. The shared HP pool while it solves one problem creates others that I don't feel are worth it. A d6/d8 split (Sum/Eid) with a life link and a drained penalty to the summoner if their eidolon dies I think works better.
I would like the summoner to have more focus spells to give evolution buffs during combat. The conduit cantrips feel like bandaid. I would rather a Conduit spell that they cast on round 1 of combat to determine the eidolon's role during the combat.
I initially like where this was going but a playtest session where we played different encounters from EC at different levels really just felt clunky and ultimately unrewarding for the investment. Cosmetically the summoner is cool, in play it felt meh. Early levels (1-3) Eidolon was too weak to be on the front lines. Later levels I didn't see the point of having the summoner, have the eidolon choose a conduit cantrip buff round by round and it would have had the same effect with less micromanagement. I didn't feel like I had a good opportunity to really use spells in combat because of the clunkiness of the action economy so having 4 or none didn't seem to matter. Too little about the Eidolon had any thematic link to the summoner as in it didn't matter for the most part what the summoners stats were so long as constitution was high. That didn't feel fun.
How do people get 20 ac at 3rd level? I keep getting 18. 10 + 3 dex + 5 proficiency?Rogues have AC 18 usually at level 1. Eidolons have AC 16.
At level 3, Rogues will have 20 AC and Eidolons will have 20 AC.
That's what he means. But AC of an Eidolon is just incredibly weak WITHOUT the strength or pew pewness of a wizard.
It's all glass, no cannon.
Expert Unarmored for Eidolons at level 3.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I would honestly rather play anything else" does not necessarily indicate a class is bad, just that it doesn't really jive with your personal preferences or current frame of mind.
I could say "I would honestly rather play anything else" about a Pathfinder 1st edition Wizard, but that doesn't mean the class is weak.
"I would honestly rather play anything else" does not necessarily indicate a class is bad, just that it doesn't really jive with your personal preferences or current frame of mind.
I could say "I would honestly rather play anything else" about a Pathfinder 1st edition Wizard, but that doesn't mean the class is weak.
you just looking for nitpicks with this comment i feel
"I would honestly rather play anything else" does not necessarily indicate a class is bad, just that it doesn't really jive with your personal preferences or current frame of mind.
I could say "I would honestly rather play anything else" about a Pathfinder 1st edition Wizard, but that doesn't mean the class is weak.
I would be one thing if that was the only statement he made: He made a fairly substantial post including mechanical reasons. I don't see what's bad with a "I don't like it because' statement.