|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
I think that we should remove spellcasting entirely. It doesn't feel like it complete fits in with the whole pf2e summoner feel. We have conduit spells and cantrips which improves the Eidolon which is, quite frankly, what our spell list did in 1e.
What are are missing though is evolutions.
We went from having way too many evolutions to having a restricted package and some evolution gain to not having any evolutions at all and it feels pretty bad. Especially when you need to use feats to get more customization on your Eidolon.
Instead, have wizard progression in terms of what spells they get, but instead of spells, give them evolutions and a list of evolutions.
At 1st level, they get 2 1st level evolutions. At 2nd level, they get 3 1st level evolutions. At 4th level they get 3 1st and 2nd level evolutions. At 9th level, they get 3 evolutions per level. Or if this is too much, just do wizard progression -1. 1 at 1st level, then 2 1st level evolutions at 2nd, so on and so forth. This will provide a lot of the customization that a lot of us desired, but were left disappointed on. We don't want an OP Eidolon, but we would like that "create-a-monster" feeling.
|
8 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
No thank you.
While I understand where you're coming from, I'm happy to be breaking new ground on these prototype "mid casters".
I'm also concerned that by going the direction you're describing, we end up in a situation where we have a pet that won't satisfy what people want (it cannot exceed any martial character, as they all are a class that doesn't get two bodies and a unique action economy) and you'll end up paying for things that are currently free and largely cosmetic.
I'm just not sure that what you're wanting is going to yield anything that really does what you want, without crossing the invisible barriers PF2E has created with its internal balance and its commitment to making sure classes have a sort of identity where others can't cross into.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: I'm also concerned that by going the direction you're describing, we end up in a situation where we have a pet that won't satisfy what people want (it cannot exceed any martial character, as they all are a class that doesn't get two bodies and a unique action economy) and you'll end up paying for things that are currently free and largely cosmetic. Well, right now our Eidolon is worse than any martial and our summoner body doesn't really do much to offset things.
With this action economy schtick, I honestly don't think that summoners will over be as broken as their 1e counterparts even if they tried recreating that exact class in pf2e. Even the original ones. One of the main issues was the Eidolon's action economy was far more than literally any other class by magnitudes. You can have 8 tentacles for example and attack 8 times. No other class could do that. They also had incredibly AC to boot.
What we should get is an Eidolon that is on PAR.. as in EQUAL TO a martial character and the summoner in all this may be used to just issue slight buffs to his Eidolon which is not unlike a fighter deciding to use power attack or double slice.
I do not agree with the idea of paying for cosmetic things. If it is purely cosmetic and not mechanical, it should be free. But we should pay for things that aren't cosmetic like.. water breathing for our serpentine like Eidolons.. or elemental attacks.
I do like the shared action economy and hit points of the summoner. I just think they really need to consider making it into more of a martial class without spellcasting and the Eidolon itself is your martial counterpart and should be equal to any other martial class in terms of power.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Right NOW the eidolon is weaker than any other martial class and the expectation is for the Eidolon to be in martial situations.
To be honest, I don't think summoner needs spellcasting beside cantrips and focus spells, but I don't really want to separate evolution from feats.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote: Right NOW the eidolon is weaker than any other martial class and the expectation is for the Eidolon to be in martial situations. For what its worth, I'm not opposed to improving the class or the Eidolon. I just want any such improvement to be conservative and careful, because they already gave the Eidolon martial math for the most part and that's a good get.
For instance, I think moving Expert Unarmored to level 1 is... pretty darned obvious.
I also don't think your outline in your post here is a bad idea... I just don't know that it fits well with the expectations for a core/base class in PF2E looks like. And I think it comes with complications.
I think we will see more evolution feats in the main release, and more focus spells, that may address a number of these concerns - its simply not practical to cover absolutely everything in the playtest.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
KrispyXIV wrote: Verzen wrote: Right NOW the eidolon is weaker than any other martial class and the expectation is for the Eidolon to be in martial situations. For what its worth, I'm not opposed to improving the class or the Eidolon. I just want any such improvement to be conservative and careful, because they already gave the Eidolon martial math for the most part and that's a good get.
For instance, I think moving Expert Unarmored to level 1 is... pretty darned obvious.
I also don't think your outline in your post here is a bad idea... I just don't know that it fits well with the expectations for a core/base class in PF2E looks like. And I think it comes with complications.
I think we will see more evolution feats in the main release, and more focus spells, that may address a number of these concerns - its simply not practical to cover absolutely everything in the playtest. What martial math are you talking about? Can you please put down the math they gave them? Because right now I do not see it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote: KrispyXIV wrote: Verzen wrote: Right NOW the eidolon is weaker than any other martial class and the expectation is for the Eidolon to be in martial situations. For what its worth, I'm not opposed to improving the class or the Eidolon. I just want any such improvement to be conservative and careful, because they already gave the Eidolon martial math for the most part and that's a good get.
For instance, I think moving Expert Unarmored to level 1 is... pretty darned obvious.
I also don't think your outline in your post here is a bad idea... I just don't know that it fits well with the expectations for a core/base class in PF2E looks like. And I think it comes with complications.
I think we will see more evolution feats in the main release, and more focus spells, that may address a number of these concerns - its simply not practical to cover absolutely everything in the playtest. What martial math are you talking about? Can you please put down the math they gave them? Because right now I do not see it. I'm referring to the fact that Eidolons get Martial level proficiencies, item bonuses, and are only a point behind on attribute bonuses on some levels.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: I'm referring to the fact that Eidolons get Martial level proficiencies, item bonuses, and are only a point behind on attribute bonuses on some levels. That's just not true though. Eidolons get unarmed attack proficiency of trained. Just like literally everyone else. You could equally make the claim that they more closely resemble a wizard that decided to get 16 strength. You wouldn't call a 16 str wizard someone who has, "martial math" would you?
Because despite a wizard having 16 strength, they aren't going to be nearly as good as a martial when it comes to combat. Since the Eidolon has 16 str, trained in unarmed attacks, trained in unarmored defense, has 16 dex, but can't wear armor themselves, I'd say they have caster trying to melee math without the spell capabilities to support themselves further.
Verzen wrote: I think that we should remove spellcasting entirely. It doesn't feel like it complete fits in with the whole pf2e summoner feel. We have conduit spells and cantrips which improves the Eidolon which is, quite frankly, what our spell list did in 1e.
What are are missing though is evolutions.
We went from having way too many evolutions to having a restricted package and some evolution gain to not having any evolutions at all and it feels pretty bad. Especially when you need to use feats to get more customization on your Eidolon.
Instead, have wizard progression in terms of what spells they get, but instead of spells, give them evolutions and a list of evolutions.
At 1st level, they get 2 1st level evolutions. At 2nd level, they get 3 1st level evolutions. At 4th level they get 3 1st and 2nd level evolutions. At 9th level, they get 3 evolutions per level. Or if this is too much, just do wizard progression -1. 1 at 1st level, then 2 1st level evolutions at 2nd, so on and so forth. This will provide a lot of the customization that a lot of us desired, but were left disappointed on. We don't want an OP Eidolon, but we would like that "create-a-monster" feeling.
This seems to be solved better through an initial familiar-esque pool and more interesting feats than by eliminating the summoner.
And yes, I'd call it eliminating the summoner. Your character, remember. With spell slots, they can at least fill in as a functional member of a party a few times per day. Without them, they are what? A weak spot that throws out buffs. At its worst, that could feel like permanently being stuck in an escort quest.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: A weak spot that throws out buffs. At its worst, that could feel like permanently being stuck in an escort quest. I mean.. this is kinda what the pf1e summoner felt like.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote: Quote: I'm referring to the fact that Eidolons get Martial level proficiencies, item bonuses, and are only a point behind on attribute bonuses on some levels. That's just not true though. Eidolons get unarmed attack proficiency of trained. Just like literally everyone else. You could equally make the claim that they more closely resemble a wizard that decided to get 16 strength. You wouldn't call a 16 str wizard someone who has, "martial math" would you?
Because despite a wizard having 16 strength, they aren't going to be nearly as good as a martial when it comes to combat. Since the Eidolon has 16 str, trained in unarmed attacks, trained in unarmored defense, has 16 dex, but can't wear armor themselves, I'd say they have caster trying to melee math without the spell capabilities to support themselves further. Uh... I'm referring to proficiency progression, as level 1 proficiencies are pretty uniform for everyone except for a couple of exceptions.
Eidolons progress proficiency when Martial Characters (rogue, ranger, monk, etc) do.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
KrispyXIV wrote: Verzen wrote: Quote: I'm referring to the fact that Eidolons get Martial level proficiencies, item bonuses, and are only a point behind on attribute bonuses on some levels. That's just not true though. Eidolons get unarmed attack proficiency of trained. Just like literally everyone else. You could equally make the claim that they more closely resemble a wizard that decided to get 16 strength. You wouldn't call a 16 str wizard someone who has, "martial math" would you?
Because despite a wizard having 16 strength, they aren't going to be nearly as good as a martial when it comes to combat. Since the Eidolon has 16 str, trained in unarmed attacks, trained in unarmored defense, has 16 dex, but can't wear armor themselves, I'd say they have caster trying to melee math without the spell capabilities to support themselves further. Uh... I'm referring to proficiency progression, as level 1 proficiencies are pretty uniform for everyone except for a couple of exceptions.
Eidolons progress proficiency when Martial Characters (rogue, ranger, monk, etc) do. Okay. They get expert at 5. And? If I was playing this in PFS, that's like half of my journey in PFS since it only goes up to level 8 atm. From 1-4 he will be strictly worse than martials in every way. He might improve to be on par with martials at later levels but those later levels, I will never play. Most of my game experience is from levels 1-4 anyway.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote: KrispyXIV wrote: Verzen wrote: Quote: I'm referring to the fact that Eidolons get Martial level proficiencies, item bonuses, and are only a point behind on attribute bonuses on some levels. That's just not true though. Eidolons get unarmed attack proficiency of trained. Just like literally everyone else. You could equally make the claim that they more closely resemble a wizard that decided to get 16 strength. You wouldn't call a 16 str wizard someone who has, "martial math" would you?
Because despite a wizard having 16 strength, they aren't going to be nearly as good as a martial when it comes to combat. Since the Eidolon has 16 str, trained in unarmed attacks, trained in unarmored defense, has 16 dex, but can't wear armor themselves, I'd say they have caster trying to melee math without the spell capabilities to support themselves further. Uh... I'm referring to proficiency progression, as level 1 proficiencies are pretty uniform for everyone except for a couple of exceptions.
Eidolons progress proficiency when Martial Characters (rogue, ranger, monk, etc) do. Okay. They get expert at 5. And? If I was playing this in PFS, that's like half of my journey in PFS since it only goes up to level 8 atm. From 1-4 he will be strictly worse than martials in every way. He might improve to be on par with martials at later levels but those later levels, I will never play. Most of my game experience is from levels 1-4 anyway.
1 point behind from level 1-4. Thats not game breaking.
Then they get expert at the same time as all the other martial classes, and the same attribute modifiers from 5-9.
I'm sorry you're stuck at low levels, that is a shame because one of the best things about 2e is that it functions well all the way to 20.
One way to kind of sort of vaguely make this an option for a relatively low cost would be to add spells that last a reasonably long time and give some kind evolution-like benefit explicitly to an Eidolon. That way, Summoners that don't want to worry too much about spellcasting throughout the day can just cast those spells on their Eidolon in the morning and be good to go - effectively trading spell slots for another "evolution." Not exactly the same mechanics by any stretch of the imagination, but sort of the same general vibe.
This definitely comes with the cost of sort of busying up the spell lists with spells that only summoners realistically want, but I don't think you'd need very many such spells - you could maybe get away with as few as one, if it was written super flexibly.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: 1 point behind from level 1-4. Thats not game breaking. What do you mean 1 point behind?
They are 1 point behind on attack, maybe. But they have significantly less AC and significantly less damage per attack if you're comparing them to barbarians.
3 points behind on attack if you're comparing them to fighters.
And with rangers, you're going from 7/5/3 with flurry. But with Eidolon it is 6/2/-2. So in terms of reiterative attacks, rangers still come out on top in terms of damage potential.
And if you're looking at the AC, they have the same HP as any other martial, but the AC will increase damage and greatly increase crit chance. When playing PFS, I often encounter guys that hit for 26+ at level 1. It's possible that I will be one shot quite often if they target my Eidolon. That makes sense if, say, you're a caster and you're standing way back. That distance helps mitigate a lot of danger. But if you're up close? Not only that, AOE fireball. Roll twice. Take the highest result in damage. Even if I crit succeed as my summoner and I fail as my Eidolon. That counts as a failure. So it is not just disadvantage on the damage, but the saves as well for AOEs. AOE fear? Oh look. Disadvantage on that as well. I really don't see how this iteration of the summoner is at all functional.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: I'm sorry you're stuck at low levels, that is a shame because one of the best things about 2e is that it functions well all the way to 20. Don't be condescending. I've probably been tabletop gaming longer than you've been alive.
80-90% of home games run at low level due to attrition. They never make it to high levels. In PFS, PFS maxes out at level 8 atm.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Joyd wrote: One way to kind of sort of vaguely make this an option for a relatively low cost would be to add spells that last a reasonably long time and give some kind evolution-like benefit explicitly to an Eidolon. That way, Summoners that don't want to worry too much about spellcasting throughout the day can just cast those spells on their Eidolon in the morning and be good to go - effectively trading spell slots for another "evolution." Not exactly the same mechanics by any stretch of the imagination, but sort of the same general vibe.
This definitely comes with the cost of sort of busying up the spell lists with spells that only summoners realistically want, but I don't think you'd need very many such spells - you could maybe get away with as few as one, if it was written super flexibly.
I'd support this concept. Like an ability that changes buff spells to all day buffs for the Eidolon. I really like this concept.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote: Quote: 1 point behind from level 1-4. Thats not game breaking. What do you mean 1 point behind?
They are 1 point behind on attack, maybe. But they have significantly less AC and significantly less damage per attack if you're comparing them to barbarians.
3 points behind on attack if you're comparing them to fighters.
And with rangers, you're going from 7/5/3 with flurry. But with Eidolon it is 6/2/-2. So in terms of reiterative attacks, rangers still come out on top in terms of damage potential.
And if you're looking at the AC, they have the same HP as any other martial, but the AC will increase damage and greatly increase crit chance. When playing PFS, I often encounter guys that hit for 26+ at level 1. It's possible that I will be one shot quite often if they target my Eidolon. That makes sense if, say, you're a caster and you're standing way back. That distance helps mitigate a lot of danger. But if you're up close? Not only that, AOE fireball. Roll twice. Take the highest result in damage. Even if I crit succeed as my summoner and I fail as my Eidolon. That counts as a failure. So it is not just disadvantage on the damage, but the saves as well for AOEs. AOE fear? Oh look. Disadvantage on that as well. I really don't see how this iteration of the summoner is at all functional. I think there's a lot of consensus that Eidolons should have expert unarmored and therefore 18 AC at level 1.
Damage wise, d8+5 (assuming Boost) is behind some classes for a one handed attack, but not cripplingly so. Its quite respectable Barbarians hit harder, but that is there thing. No one else gets that thing. Don't covet their thing.
AOEs should not be being dropped at level 1 that are big enough to cause issues... if they are, that may be an encounter design thing. Thats pretty early to encounter fireballs.
Beyond that though... remember that you've got two bodies and extra actions. Thats what you got by trading off by being slightly worse than everyone else at whatever they're good at. Learn to leverage that, because it is your iconic and unique advantage.
That means you have good stats for physical and mental skill obstacles. It means you can see from two places at once. It means you can flank with yourself (risky), or have twice as many potions in hand and ready to apply or drink (weird, but I've seen it come up).
This class is going to be made on leveraging the whole two bodies thing, because that's what makes a summoner.
And I sincerely doubt thats going to change.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote: Quote: I'm sorry you're stuck at low levels, that is a shame because one of the best things about 2e is that it functions well all the way to 20. Don't be condescending. I've probably been tabletop gaming longer than you've been alive.
80-90% of home games run at low level due to attrition. They never make it to high levels. In PFS, PFS maxes out at level 8 atm. I wasn't attempting to be condescending, that was legitimate sympathy. I've taken two campaigns past mid levels now, and the system works great for it unlike any version of DnD since 2e I've had experience with.
Levels 1-4 are not where the majority of PF2Es design concerns are any longer.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
You don't really have extra actions though. The act together is just the summoners version of flurry. Sure it's a little more flexible but it's not really the 'oumph' that makes it all come together. It's not going to be effective. Combat simulations have already taken place and the summoner is very much on the weak end of the spectrum atm.
The summoner comes across as two bodies doing two things and coming away far less than the sum of their parts. They just aren't good.
Verzen wrote: Quote: A weak spot that throws out buffs. At its worst, that could feel like permanently being stuck in an escort quest. I mean.. this is kinda what the pf1e summoner felt like. 1E summoner (Unchained) had the best spell list in the entire game (Haste before anyone else, for instance) and quicker spell-like summoning abilities. They were a powerful character in their own right.
This would literally be incapable of interacting in combat at the level of a PC. Not even on a temporary basis. A 13th level Summoner as-is can cast a 7th-level haste on the whole party twice per day, a dramatic and powerful ability that a martial couldn't match. Or transform with dragon form and fight tooth and claw with their Eidolon.
I think that is dramatically different from having the Summoner be a pile of worst-in-class proficiencies that you are obligated to protect.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Also I really don't think a book called Secrets of Magic is going to have a class that doesn't have - in some form or fashion - the ability to cast spells that aren't Focus Spells.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Verzen wrote: I think that we should remove spellcasting entirely. It doesn't feel like it complete fits in with the whole pf2e summoner feel. We have conduit spells and cantrips which improves the Eidolon which is, quite frankly, what our spell list did in 1e.
What are are missing though is evolutions.
We went from having way too many evolutions to having a restricted package and some evolution gain to not having any evolutions at all and it feels pretty bad. Especially when you need to use feats to get more customization on your Eidolon.
Instead, have wizard progression in terms of what spells they get, but instead of spells, give them evolutions and a list of evolutions.
At 1st level, they get 2 1st level evolutions. At 2nd level, they get 3 1st level evolutions. At 4th level they get 3 1st and 2nd level evolutions. At 9th level, they get 3 evolutions per level. Or if this is too much, just do wizard progression -1. 1 at 1st level, then 2 1st level evolutions at 2nd, so on and so forth. This will provide a lot of the customization that a lot of us desired, but were left disappointed on. We don't want an OP Eidolon, but we would like that "create-a-monster" feeling.
I'm just here to balance the scales a bit and say that that I would abandon this class in a heartbeat if it loses spell casting. I *like* how these Eidolons work on paper where you can optionally buy into evolutions if it works for you, or stay with the standard package and do other things. If anything, I'd like to see some feat support for adding more spell slots like the Magus got (but I can also deal with grabbing a multiclass dedication if that's the answer).
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
cavernshark wrote: Verzen wrote: I think that we should remove spellcasting entirely. It doesn't feel like it complete fits in with the whole pf2e summoner feel. We have conduit spells and cantrips which improves the Eidolon which is, quite frankly, what our spell list did in 1e.
What are are missing though is evolutions.
We went from having way too many evolutions to having a restricted package and some evolution gain to not having any evolutions at all and it feels pretty bad. Especially when you need to use feats to get more customization on your Eidolon.
Instead, have wizard progression in terms of what spells they get, but instead of spells, give them evolutions and a list of evolutions.
At 1st level, they get 2 1st level evolutions. At 2nd level, they get 3 1st level evolutions. At 4th level they get 3 1st and 2nd level evolutions. At 9th level, they get 3 evolutions per level. Or if this is too much, just do wizard progression -1. 1 at 1st level, then 2 1st level evolutions at 2nd, so on and so forth. This will provide a lot of the customization that a lot of us desired, but were left disappointed on. We don't want an OP Eidolon, but we would like that "create-a-monster" feeling.
I'm just here to balance the scales a bit and say that that I would abandon this class in a heartbeat if it loses spell casting. I *like* how these Eidolons work on paper where you can optionally buy into evolutions if it works for you, or stay with the standard package and do other things. If anything, I'd like to see some feat support for adding more spell slots like the Magus got (but I can also deal with grabbing a multiclass dedication if that's the answer).
I think the Summoner version of Martial Casting is the Magical Evolution chain, which also grants 2 additional spell slots - with freedom of choice in exchange for spell level.
YMMV on if that's equivalent though.
KrispyXIV wrote: I think the Summoner version of Martial Casting is the Magical Evolution chain, which also grants 2 additional spell slots - with freedom of choice in exchange for spell level.
YMMV on if that's equivalent though.
For sure, and I do like that feat chain for entirely different reasons. Making a casting/support eidolon was something I wanted to do in 1E, so the fact that his is an option between the Magical Evolutions and Ranged attack is pretty great.
I just can't see the summoner without spell casting and I definitely wouldn't want to sacrifice that mechanic for additional evolution pools.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
cavernshark wrote: KrispyXIV wrote: I think the Summoner version of Martial Casting is the Magical Evolution chain, which also grants 2 additional spell slots - with freedom of choice in exchange for spell level.
YMMV on if that's equivalent though.
For sure, and I do like that feat chain for entirely different reasons. Making a casting/support eidolon was something I wanted to do in 1E, so the fact that his is an option between the Magical Evolutions and Ranged attack is pretty great.
I just can't see the summoner without spell casting and I definitely wouldn't want to sacrifice that mechanic for additional evolution pools. I just feel like the spells wont do much and the summoner comes across doing both melee and spellcasting incredibly poorly.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote: cavernshark wrote: KrispyXIV wrote: I think the Summoner version of Martial Casting is the Magical Evolution chain, which also grants 2 additional spell slots - with freedom of choice in exchange for spell level.
YMMV on if that's equivalent though.
For sure, and I do like that feat chain for entirely different reasons. Making a casting/support eidolon was something I wanted to do in 1E, so the fact that his is an option between the Magical Evolutions and Ranged attack is pretty great.
I just can't see the summoner without spell casting and I definitely wouldn't want to sacrifice that mechanic for additional evolution pools. I just feel like the spells wont do much and the summoner comes across doing both melee and spellcasting incredibly poorly. I posted as much in another thread, but im sitting down on Monday with a Cleric converted into a summoner and my character, as a whole is going to cover a lot of bases.
My eidolon has the same attack bonus and AC as either monk in the party. It has better damage than either on a hit, by a significant margin if I Boost.
For every single skill I'm trained in, I'm going to either be best or second best because I have an effective 18 (str, dex, cha) in 3 of the 4 attributes relevant for skills (because the eidolon shares my skill proficiencies), and only a 14 in the other 2 (int, wis).
That's a significant amount of one upsmanship, and probably at least two monks wondering if their "soft" bonuses warrant a player pet having the same bonuses they do.
If I can still pull off keeping the party conscious- and I expect I can, between Medic Dedication and only one less Heal spell than my Cleric had on font - I have zero doubts "underpowered" is going to be a consideration for the rest of the table.
Party level is 6.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: My eidolon has the same attack bonus and AC as either monk in the party. It has better damage than either on a hit, by a significant margin if I Boost. Just by going on stats alone.. The stats look fairly comparable as a monk of equal level except the Eidolon lacks flurry of blows himself. The AC does manage to catch up at 6. Maybe the issue is primarily 1) lack of customization and 2) level 1 and 2 is going to be rough.. plus disadvantage on AoEs may be rough as well.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote: Quote: My eidolon has the same attack bonus and AC as either monk in the party. It has better damage than either on a hit, by a significant margin if I Boost. Just by going on stats alone.. The stats look fairly comparable as a monk of equal level except the Eidolon lacks flurry of blows himself. The AC does manage to catch up at 6. Maybe the issue is primarily 1) lack of customization and 2) level 1 and 2 is going to be rough.. plus disadvantage on AoEs may be rough as well. I count Flurry of blows as a "soft" bonus, as it doesnt really effect damage output so much as it enhances action economy... and action economy is also a strong point of summoner.
If both the Eidolon and a Monk swings twice in one turn, the results may actually favor the Eidolon - how they got there matters, as does stuff like Stunning Fist, but not all of that is necessarily apparent.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: I count Flurry of blows as a "soft" bonus, as it doesnt really effect damage output so much as it enhances action economy... and action economy is also a strong point of summoner. Tell that to my monk who scored two crits in one flurry the other day. ;)
9 avg dmg * 4 = 36 dmg in one turn.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ok, bringing this back up because I've come partially around. How would people feel about the following -
Remove spellcasting from Summoner, except for Cantrips.
Replace with Evolution Feats at ALL Odd levels, including level 1.
At level 2, give Summoner access to Basic Spellcasting as a feat. This would work like the Multiclass Basic Spellcasting feats, except that you get 1 slot of each level at the level you could normally cast it (1 thru 9, a new slot at each odd level) for 1st thru 3rd spell levels.
At 8 and 14, Expert and Master Spellcasting feats become available. These provide proficiency increases after the required level to take them, at the current proficiency progression.
Spellcasting Breadth for additional lower level slots would also be available.
Now, Summoner is defaulted to Eidolon Summoning and customization. If Spellcasting is important to you, you can pick it up with Class Feats (that dont stop you from building up your eidolon), with a progression of spells that is more limited on the high end but has all of the lower level utility and slots people seem to miss.
Thoughts?
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
That would be interesting and that is precisely the system I was talking about that you guys are arguing with me previously about lol.
Essentially. Except I'd fall on this path. but instead of "spells" replace it with "evolution feats"
I'm even comfortable with adjusting the Eidolon's initial stats and power on himself as long as I get the customization of being able to design my own Eidolon rather than select a preset package.
Your Level Evolution Level
Cantrips 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
1 5 2 — — — — — — — — —
2 5 3 — — — — — — — — —
3 5 3 2 — — — — — — — —
4 5 3 3 — — — — — — — —
5 5 3 3 2 — — — — — — —
6 5 3 3 3 — — — — — — —
7 5 3 3 3 2 — — — — — —
8 5 3 3 3 3 — — — — — —
9 5 3 3 3 3 2 — — — — —
10 5 3 3 3 3 3 — — — — —
11 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 — — — —
12 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 — — — —
13 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 — — —
14 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 — — —
15 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 — —
16 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 — —
17 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 —
18 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 —
19 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1*
20 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1*
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Verzen wrote: That would be interesting and that is precisely the system I was talking about that you guys are arguing with me previously about lol.
Essentially. Except I'd fall on this path. but instead of "spells" replace it with "evolution feats"
I'm even comfortable with adjusting the Eidolon's initial stats and power on himself as long as I get the customization of being able to design my own Eidolon rather than select a preset package.
Your Level Evolution Level
Cantrips 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
1 5 2 — — — — — — — — —
2 5 3 — — — — — — — — —
3 5 3 2 — — — — — — — —
4 5 3 3 — — — — — — — —
5 5 3 3 2 — — — — — — —
6 5 3 3 3 — — — — — — —
7 5 3 3 3 2 — — — — — —
8 5 3 3 3 3 — — — — — —
9 5 3 3 3 3 2 — — — — —
10 5 3 3 3 3 3 — — — — —
11 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 — — — —
12 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 — — — —
13 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 — — —
14 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 — — —
15 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 — —
16 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 — —
17 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 —
18 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 —
19 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1*
20 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1*
As I mentioned before, this would require a tremendous amount of work, and likely wouldn't create as many new options as you'd expect.
You are talking about spending an amount of creative energy on a single class as it took to make options for an tradition of spells. Anything less, would make this very limited and unfulfilling (you've reached level 5, pick 3 from these 5).
The CRB, for instance, had 537 spells. The APG 149. Subtract out focus spells and limit to one tradition and you are still talking about having to make at least twice as many options as feats would require. And this almost certainly includes splitting things up that don't need it (making each selection less powerful), and locking stuff like climbing up behind higher levels slots when they really could be justified as level 1 inclusions.
It also almost certainly forces Paizo to make math fixing evolutions. +2 AC! Proficiency! 1d12 attacks! Yes, more individuality, but it means not taking these is a trap option the likes of which they've usually avoided in 2E.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
manbearscientist wrote: Verzen wrote: That would be interesting and that is precisely the system I was talking about that you guys are arguing with me previously about lol.
Essentially. Except I'd fall on this path. but instead of "spells" replace it with "evolution feats"
I'm even comfortable with adjusting the Eidolon's initial stats and power on himself as long as I get the customization of being able to design my own Eidolon rather than select a preset package.
Your Level Evolution Level
Cantrips 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
1 5 2 — — — — — — — — —
2 5 3 — — — — — — — — —
3 5 3 2 — — — — — — — —
4 5 3 3 — — — — — — — —
5 5 3 3 2 — — — — — — —
6 5 3 3 3 — — — — — — —
7 5 3 3 3 2 — — — — — —
8 5 3 3 3 3 — — — — — —
9 5 3 3 3 3 2 — — — — —
10 5 3 3 3 3 3 — — — — —
11 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 — — — —
12 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 — — — —
13 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 — — —
14 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 — — —
15 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 — —
16 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 — —
17 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 —
18 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 —
19 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1*
20 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1*
As I mentioned before, this would require a tremendous amount of work, and likely wouldn't create as many new options as you'd expect.
You are talking about spending an amount of creative energy on a single class as it took to make options for an tradition of spells. Anything less, would make this very limited and unfulfilling (you've reached level 5, pick 3 from these 5).
The CRB, for instance, had 537 spells. The APG 149. Subtract out focus spells and limit to one tradition and you are still talking about having to make at least twice as many options as feats would require. And this almost certainly includes splitting things up that don't need it (making each selection less powerful), and locking stuff like climbing up behind higher levels slots when they really could be justified as level 1 inclusions.
It also almost certainly forces Paizo to make math fixing evolutions. +2 AC! Proficiency! 1d12 attacks! Yes, more individuality, but it means not taking... You're still confusing the implementation of the system with the base system.
Do you have a problem with ancestry feats? No? How come?
Do you have a problem with general feats? No? How come?
Do you have a problem with skill feats? No? How come?
Do you have a problem with class feats? No? How come?
Why can't the Eidolon trade all of those feats for an equal number of evolution feats?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote: Why can't the Eidolon trade all of those feats for an equal number of evolution feats? Because making enough Evolution Feats at level 1 for their to be three meaningful choices is too much work - plus, the only way to do it would be to break out basic functionality and make such things faux optional.
As in, it looks like its optional but it isnt because its basic functionality.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: Because making enough Evolution Feats at level 1 for their to be three meaningful choices is too much work - plus, the only way to do it would be to break out basic functionality and make such things faux optional.
As in, it looks like its optional but it isnt because its basic functionality.
And how exactly doesn't this occur with ancestry feats, class feats, general feats, and skill feats, Krispy? It's weird how your fears don't work with any of those other feat options but it's all of a sudden a concern with evolution feats.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Verzen wrote:
You're still confusing the implementation of the system with the base system.
Do you have a problem with ancestry feats? No? How come?
Do you have a problem with general feats? No? How come?
Do you have a problem with skill feats? No? How come?
Do you have a problem with class feats? No? How come?
Why can't the Eidolon trade all of those feats for an equal number of evolution feats?
Ancestry feats - The amount of effort used to create them was distributing for a benefit that could apply to every class.
General feats - The amount of effort used to create them was distributing for a benefit that could apply to every class.
Skill feats - The amount of effort used to create them was distributing for a benefit that could apply to every class.
Class feats - They need less options overall.
Is it really surprising that I don't think it is possible to justify giving a single class the amount of creative effort as whole subsections of the game meant to satisfy multiple classes?
Wizards benefit from those feats just as much as Fighter. Only the summoner benefits from evolution feats, and that is something that has to be considered.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote: Quote: Because making enough Evolution Feats at level 1 for their to be three meaningful choices is too much work - plus, the only way to do it would be to break out basic functionality and make such things faux optional.
As in, it looks like its optional but it isnt because its basic functionality.
And how exactly doesn't this occur with ancestry feats, class feats, general feats, and skill feats, Krispy? It's weird how your fears don't work with any of those other feat options but it's all of a sudden a concern with evolution feats. Uh, all of those other things apply to every character made regardless of class. Not just to one class feature of one class of characters.
Theres a larger development capacity for mechanics that affect all players, versus a tiny subset of them.
Verzen wrote: Quote: Because making enough Evolution Feats at level 1 for their to be three meaningful choices is too much work - plus, the only way to do it would be to break out basic functionality and make such things faux optional.
As in, it looks like its optional but it isnt because its basic functionality.
And how exactly doesn't this occur with ancestry feats, class feats, general feats, and skill feats, Krispy? It's weird how your fears don't work with any of those other feat options but it's all of a sudden a concern with evolution feats. Ancestry and skill feats already exist. They don't have to print 100 new ancestry and skill feats to make the class work. With your system, they would have to print a bunch of evolutions. And class feats neat 3-4 options per level. If you're taking 3 evolutions at level 1, you're going to want 8-12 options to choose from, most likely. That's a huge difference.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
manbearscientist wrote: Verzen wrote:
You're still confusing the implementation of the system with the base system.
Do you have a problem with ancestry feats? No? How come?
Do you have a problem with general feats? No? How come?
Do you have a problem with skill feats? No? How come?
Do you have a problem with class feats? No? How come?
Why can't the Eidolon trade all of those feats for an equal number of evolution feats?
Ancestry feats - The amount of effort used to create them was distributing for a benefit that could apply to every class.
General feats - The amount of effort used to create them was distributing for a benefit that could apply to every class.
Skill feats - The amount of effort used to create them was distributing for a benefit that could apply to every class.
Class feats - They need less options overall.
Is it really surprising that I don't think it is possible to justify giving a single class the amount of creative effort as whole subsections of the game meant to satisfy multiple classes?
Wizards benefit from those feats just as much as Fighter. Only the summoner benefits from evolution feats, and that is something that has to be considered. Unless you create a Synthesis archetype which grants access to evolution feats.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I totally agree with OP.
Trash number of Spell Slots for EXTREMELY weak casting a total of 4-6 times a day depending what Magic Items you invested or if you choose Arcane is totally brain dead.
Remove non-cantrip spell casting altogether, give them a splash more Focus Spells as they level up based on their Tradition and add 4 full pages (no art) of Evolutions to customize and kit out your Eidolon and Summons you cast from your new Focus Spell versions of them.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
My problem with this approach is, at that point why play a Summoner instead of a Barbarian?
In other words, if all of the Summoner's class features just revolve around making the Eidolon better, what is the point of the Summoner themselves existing at all? What are they doing turn by turn other than being a liability?
Also, a Summoner that can't cast summon spells is a complete non-starter for me. I'm already annoyed that they can't cast level 10 summon spells, as is.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote: My problem with this approach is, at that point why play a Summoner instead of a Barbarian?
In other words, if all of the Summoner's class features just revolve around making the Eidolon better, what is the point of the Summoner themselves existing at all? What are they doing turn by turn other than being a liability?
Also, a Summoner that can't cast summon spells is a complete non-starter for me. I'm already annoyed that they can't cast level 10 summon spells, as is.
The inclusion of feats like ostentatious arrival indicates to me they are dedicated to making sure Summoner is in the final writeup, regardless. Mark said essentially yesterday though that as they knew effectively how Summon Spells performed already, they weren't the focus of this playtest.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote: My problem with this approach is, at that point why play a Summoner instead of a Barbarian?
In other words, if all of the Summoner's class features just revolve around making the Eidolon better, what is the point of the Summoner themselves existing at all? What are they doing turn by turn other than being a liability?
Also, a Summoner that can't cast summon spells is a complete non-starter for me. I'm already annoyed that they can't cast level 10 summon spells, as is.
The entire point of the summoner is having a permanent monster under your thumb.
I've also already suggested to Mark to give them a summoning font that goes up to level 10 and he is considering it. But that doesn't need a limited spell list to accomplish.
Themetricsystem wrote: I totally agree with OP.
Trash number of Spell Slots for EXTREMELY weak casting a total of 4-6 times a day depending what Magic Items you invested or if you choose Arcane is totally brain dead.
Remove non-cantrip spell casting altogether, give them a splash more Focus Spells as they level up based on their Tradition and add 4 full pages (no art) of Evolutions to customize and kit out your Eidolon and Summons you cast from your new Focus Spell versions of them.
You make it sound so simple, as if 4 full pages of evolutions can just be conjured out of the aether.
What sort of evolutions would you propose that aren't trap options, are interesting, and aren't replacements for things that should have been base functions?
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
DrakoVongola1 wrote: Themetricsystem wrote: I totally agree with OP.
Trash number of Spell Slots for EXTREMELY weak casting a total of 4-6 times a day depending what Magic Items you invested or if you choose Arcane is totally brain dead.
Remove non-cantrip spell casting altogether, give them a splash more Focus Spells as they level up based on their Tradition and add 4 full pages (no art) of Evolutions to customize and kit out your Eidolon and Summons you cast from your new Focus Spell versions of them.
You make it sound so simple, as if 4 full pages of evolutions can just be conjured out of the aether.
What sort of evolutions would you propose that aren't trap options, are interesting, and aren't replacements for things that should have been base functions? Manifest trait (1)
Evolution feat
Pick a creature type or element. Your Eidolon becomes the creature type of your choice and gain those creature traits. If you pick an element, the Eidolon becomes resistant to that element and weak to its opposite element.
Fire/Cold
Acid/Electricity
Good/Evil
Positive/Negative (for Void based or light based eidolons)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Verzen wrote: MaxAstro wrote: My problem with this approach is, at that point why play a Summoner instead of a Barbarian?
In other words, if all of the Summoner's class features just revolve around making the Eidolon better, what is the point of the Summoner themselves existing at all? What are they doing turn by turn other than being a liability?
Also, a Summoner that can't cast summon spells is a complete non-starter for me. I'm already annoyed that they can't cast level 10 summon spells, as is.
The entire point of the summoner is having a permanent monster under your thumb.
I've also already suggested to Mark to give them a summoning font that goes up to level 10 and he is considering it. But that doesn't need a limited spell list to accomplish. Frankly, you're not the quarterback of summoner play test and it's okay that there are people that disagree with you. Your vocal suggestions to Mark notwithstanding, people are allowed to voice their opposition to your idea without you challenging each and every person on every thread. Maybe take a night off or something? The test will still run and I'm sure your feedback will still dominate this forum on Monday.
I'm with MaxAstro. I don't like your idea. I don't like the idea of giving up spells for "evolution feats" on odd levels either. The summoner needs spellcasting for me to even consider it, specifically beyond just summon monster. We can separately discuss whether the 4 spells is sufficient to that regard, but that's a different discussion. I don't need more evolutions personally and would be really disappointed if spells went away in favor of the baseline.
Maybe that can be an optional thing you can buy into for a different kind of summoner (class archetype or specific class path like a doctrine -- one path gets a free evolution feat at odd levels, the other gets new level of spells).
DrakoVongola1 wrote: You make it sound so simple, as if 4 full pages of evolutions can just be conjured out of the aether.
What sort of evolutions would you propose that aren't trap options, are interesting, and aren't replacements for things that should have been base functions?
I mean, it's not simple or easy at all but I do think that they can pretty strike a line of balance between Ancestry Feats and Class feats in terms of what kind of effect they can/should have and what level the Evolutions should come online at.
Sure, the Evolutions shouldn't have a "Power Attack" feature but something along the lines of an Evolution that causes their anatomy to drastically shift into an unnaturally dense/heavy form in order to deal additional Weapon Damage Dice is both flavorful and mechanically worthwhile.
Plus imagine Evolutions that allow your Eidolon to take/gain/copy Ancestry Benefits that your PC has. Imagine a Bouncy Dragon E that roams around with their Goblin Summoner, makes sense to me but I'm really just spitballing.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: Plus imagine Evolutions that allow your Eidolon to take/gain/copy Ancestry Benefits that your PC has. Imagine a Bouncy Dragon E that roams around with their Goblin Summoner, makes sense to me but I'm really just spitballing. I really want this now. The visuals! LOL
|
