|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I actually think Summoner is an interesting, decently balanced, Class as is. Maybe a tad on the weak side in terms of utility, but certainly viable.
But, as discussions have come up I've noticed more and more little things that it lacks that are just feel bad moments when they come up. Do all of them need to be changed? Probably not, but I thought I'd enumerate them anyway.
1. Eidolon Ability Scores. Eidolons don't actually get superhumanly strong, or agile, or anything like that. This is...kind of a feel bad moment, actually. They're supposed to be these fantastic creatures, and yet they're restricted to very middle of the road PC stats for their level. Replacing some of their higher Proficiencies with higher Ability Scores would really help make them feel better, at least IMO. An Eidolon with only Expert attacks but +7 Str feels a lot more like a powerful creature than one with Master but only +5 Str.
Constitution also does a lot less for them than for PCs, as does Intelligence, which makes it weird they increase those in the same manner as PCs and at the same cost to their other stats (since Con doesn't give HP, and Int doesn't grant Skills). Really, them increasing stats like PCs is weird and has weird knock-on effects, and something more like how an animal companion raises Ability scores might be good in that respect.
As a related, actual math, issue, Eidolons fall behind all other PCs in combat very specifically at 17th level due to lack of access to Apex Items. Some solution for that, either letting them take advantage of the Summoner's Apex Item or an equivalent stat bump, seems warranted.
2. Summoners don't actually summon anything. There's a bit of Feat support, but with only four spells a day, and likewise only four in your repertoire, I'm not even sure the Feats are really worth it. Some inherent Summon ability, perhaps as a pool like Clerics have for Heal or Harm seems like it would be a good option. This is a power up, but frankly not a very big one given the action economy hassles involved. Feats to expand creature types like Wild Shape has seem like they'd be a must with this set up.
3. No 1st level or free Eidolon customizability. Beyond picking a creature type, the Eidolon cannot be customized outside of Feats. That's no big deal for combat capabilities, but it's harsh on fun, theme, and utility options. Someone suggested something on par with, and similar to, Familiar Abilities and I think that's a great idea. I'm thinking things like Burrower, Resistance to a specific Element, an extra language, an extra Skill, things like that. They wouldn't need a huge number (two at 1st level would be plenty, and maybe more as you level) for this to feel really good, and really help out people who miss Eidolon customizability from PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Constitution also does a lot less for them than for PCs, as does Intelligence, which makes it weird they increase those in the same manner as PCs and at the same cost to their other stats (since Con doesn't give HP, and Int doesn't grant Skills). Really, them increasing stats like PCs is weird and has weird knock-on effects, and something more like how an animal companion raises Ability scores might be good in that respect.
Letting them use these stats for some of their abilities instead of the spell casting DC of the summoner could fix this.
They wouldn't need a huge number (two at 1st level would be plenty, and maybe more as you level)
Or maybe via a feat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
8 hp per level instead of 10, but you add the Eidolon's CON mod to your own to determine your max HP.
That would make me feel much better about the moments I am worried most about-- being a detriment to the party because both eidolon and summoner are injured in 1 turn, forcing the party healer to expend resources on me instead of assessing that we're both above half and will probably be OK later to medicine.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Letting them use these stats for some of their abilities instead of the spell casting DC of the summoner could fix this.
Definitely a possibility, yeah. If they're gonna cost the same to raise, they should be equally useful.
They wouldn't need a huge number (two at 1st level would be plenty, and maybe more as you level)Or maybe via a feat?
I think they should definitely get some at base, but having any more than, say, the 'base two' be a Feat seems entirely reasonable.
If willing to make the abilities a bit better and have the options scale with level, things like 'Sensory Evolution' or 'Climbing Evolution' could be rolled into this subsystem. Or not. Keeping them very 'flavor' based an those separate would also work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd honestly rather have it built into the Eidolon. We get so few feats as they are, feat choices need to be thoughtful.Constitution also does a lot less for them than for PCs, as does Intelligence, which makes it weird they increase those in the same manner as PCs and at the same cost to their other stats (since Con doesn't give HP, and Int doesn't grant Skills). Really, them increasing stats like PCs is weird and has weird knock-on effects, and something more like how an animal companion raises Ability scores might be good in that respect.Letting them use these stats for some of their abilities instead of the spell casting DC of the summoner could fix this.
They wouldn't need a huge number (two at 1st level would be plenty, and maybe more as you level)Or maybe via a feat?
Hum. I think there is a misunderstanding here. I wanted to suggest 2~3 free at level 1 and extra as a feat... My bad...
Item #1, specifically, feels like a "luxury" item to fix. Their current proficiency progression works out for the most part on the math side for most of the eidolons life. Messing with that without hurting the current balance on the math is tricky.
Giving them an additional Attribute Boost when the Summoner first invests an Apex item is both simple and would allow them to actually get one of their starting 16s to 22 instead of just 21 though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So basically an animal companion is more superhuman than an eidolon along with an attending character being vastly more powerful than a summoner. The animal companion will have stronger stats, saves, and it's own hit point pool.
I'm still not happy that when an eidolon hits zero hit points, you also hit zero hit points dropping unconscious at the same time. You're basically a melee character from range with a chance of having your hit point pool reduced in multiple ways.
If you the summoner are in melee range of a creature with a multiple attack hit that hits both you and the eidolon, you are in essence taking double damage including the crits. Or if you're in a damage aura, your taking double damage from the aura. If you hit a creature with a damage shield, you are taking double damage from the damage shield.
And doing so with a hit point pool smaller than an animal companion and a much tougher base character combined.
The very first thing we need to do to compare these things is build an animal companion at various levels up to 20, see how they compare to an eidolon in terms of defenses, saving throws, and the like. If they don't compare well, the summoner class is dead on arrival for people looking to be effective in combat.
I'm going to do that first.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that the class should be renamed completely. They are not summoners. As someone said before elsewhere, they are Eidolon Masters.
All of the summon spells are already nearly pointless due to the weakness of the creature being so much lower in level than whatever enemy the caster is fighting. Such a summons doesn't have a good chance to hit, or to survive damage, even with a use of augment summoning. The higher the level, the worse the difference between them becomes.
I was so hoping that the Summoner would get better feats or abilities to sustain their summons, i.e. buffs or equal levels or something.
If I have to spend one spell slot and also one action each round to keep it in play, then it should be worth using.
The small bonus to damage from the Summoner feat still doesn't address the weakness of the chance to hit in the first place.
So basically an animal companion is more superhuman than an eidolon along with an attending character being vastly more powerful than a summoner.
All NPCs have inflated stat modifiers, without a proper ability score. That's the scale Animal Companions on.
Eidolons are on the player scale, which is not directly comparable.
That does not make them less superhuman.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically an animal companion is more superhuman than an eidolon along with an attending character being vastly more powerful than a summoner.All NPCs have inflated stat modifiers, without a proper ability score. That's the scale Animal Companions on.
Eidolons are on the player scale, which is not directly comparable.
That does not make them less superhuman.
The numbers go into the same combat system, so they are directly comparable.
If their bonus is lower, they're objectively less superhuman.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All NPCs have inflated stat modifiers, without a proper ability score. That's the scale Animal Companions on.
This is not strictly true, AoA (which was an error in this regard) aside, NPCs (as opposed to monsters) almost always have fairly close to a number of modifiers on par with PCs of around their level or a little higher.
But yes, the difference is mostly purely aesthetic, but aesthetics are still important.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are not summoners. As someone said before elsewhere, they are Eidolon Masters.
The eidolons they... summon, you mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not call what they are currently giving Eidolons. At best they are weak Phantoms.
Baby Eidolons are still Eidolons. ;)
They are not summoners. As someone said before elsewhere, they are Eidolon Masters.The eidolons they... summon, you mean?
They don't summon them [they do not gain the summoned trait]: they manifest they. Close but no cigar for you. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not call what they are currently giving Eidolons. At best they are weak Phantoms.Baby Eidolons are still Eidolons. ;)
They don't summon them [they do not gain the summoned trait]: they manifest they. Close but no cigar for you. ;)They are not summoners. As someone said before elsewhere, they are Eidolon Masters.The eidolons they... summon, you mean?
So it should be named the manifester...
2. Summoners don't actually summon anything. There's a bit of Feat support, but with only four spells a day, and likewise only four in your repertoire, I'm not even sure the Feats are really worth it. Some inherent Summon ability, perhaps as a pool like Clerics have for Heal or Harm seems like it would be a good option. This is a power up, but frankly not a very big one given the action economy...
I'm against this idea, at least as far as comparing it to clerics' divine font. If summmoners get do get bonus summon spells, I really think they should be gated behind a feat, not built-in as a class feature.
I've said this before, but I think keeping the name "summoner" was a mistake. Binder, invoker, caller, eidolist... anything that doesn't set up the expectation that conventional minion summoning is their modus operandi.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or just have different paths for different types of summoners as has been suggested before.
It seems clear to me that the different eidolons are intended to be the different paths for the class. They're analogous to sorcerer bloodlines or witch patrons. Different paths beyond that point should be relegated to feat trees.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
2. Summoners don't actually summon anything. There's a bit of Feat support, but with only four spells a day, and likewise only four in your repertoire, I'm not even sure the Feats are really worth it. Some inherent Summon ability, perhaps as a pool like Clerics have for Heal or Harm seems like it would be a good option. This is a power up, but frankly not a very big one given the action economy...
This is the one that bothers me the most. With the action economy how it is in 2e, we don't run the same risk of overpowered issues like in 1e. Honestly I'd like 1 of 2 things.
1. As many have mentioned, a type of Summoning Font like the cleric. However, it should NOT be based on CHA as that is the Summoner's primary stat. I'd love it to be based on CON as that seems to be the secondary ability and even in the language of the summoner, you are summoning with your life force, so it would be interesting to use CON in this unique way.
OR
2. Go the easier route and make it a Conduit Spell using your focus pool. Doing it this way also keeps with the spirit of 1e in that the Eidolon and summon SLA use the same energy. While I would hate for it to unmanifest the Eidolon (that would feel horrible), it does prevent you from buffing them that round and using your focus pool resource. Something like:
------
Summoning - Focus 1
Traits: Conjuration, Summoner, [matching Eidolon's Trait]
Cast: 2 actions
Duration: Sustain up to 1 minute
You conjure an otherworldly being to fight for you. Choose a creature sharing the trait of your Eidolon whose level is -1. Heightening the spell increases the maximum level of creature you summon.
-----
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm against this idea, at least as far as comparing it to clerics' divine font. If summmoners get do get bonus summon spells, I really think they should be gated behind a feat, not built-in as a class feature.
I've said this before, but I think keeping the name "summoner" was a mistake. Binder, invoker, caller, eidolist... anything that doesn't set up the expectation that conventional minion summoning is their modus operandi.
Having it as an option instead of their current spellcasting is one thing Mark Seifter just mentioned. I'd be fine with that, and it allows you to choose which you get, which sounds workable to me.
Having it as an option instead of their current spellcasting is one thing Mark Seifter just mentioned. I'd be fine with that, and it allows you to choose which you get, which sounds workable to me.I'm against this idea, at least as far as comparing it to clerics' divine font. If summmoners get do get bonus summon spells, I really think they should be gated behind a feat, not built-in as a class feature.
I've said this before, but I think keeping the name "summoner" was a mistake. Binder, invoker, caller, eidolist... anything that doesn't set up the expectation that conventional minion summoning is their modus operandi.
Yeah, so long as its an optional swap I'm on board with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or just have different paths for different types of summoners as has been suggested before.It seems clear to me that the different eidolons are intended to be the different paths for the class. They're analogous to sorcerer bloodlines or witch patrons. Different paths beyond that point should be relegated to feat trees.
And it also has been stated why this isn't a satisfying solution. Let's take the synthesis summoner for example :
It currently cost you a level 1 feat and isn't a good/viable combat option among other things. To make it a great combat option, it would require a few feats at least. This means that if you want to play a synthesis summoner and you don't really care about the standard eidolon, then you're forced to either play a gimped character or in a way you don't want to play and later on, you get a viable character, but with a gimped feat progression (because of feat taxes) and a bunch of abilities that you won't use at all...|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not doubting you, just curious so I can see for myself: When you say Mark "just mentioned" this, where did he mention it?
As Verzen notes it's in the 'Welcome to the Summoner Class Playtest!' thread just a little while ago.
It's entirely hypothetical at the moment, but it seems like a solid idea to me.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or just have different paths for different types of summoners as has been suggested before.It seems clear to me that the different eidolons are intended to be the different paths for the class. They're analogous to sorcerer bloodlines or witch patrons. Different paths beyond that point should be relegated to feat trees.And it also has been stated why this isn't a satisfying solution. Let's take the synthesis summoner for example :
It currently cost you a level 1 feat and isn't a good/viable combat option among other things. To make it a great combat option, it would require a few feats at least. This means that if you want to play a synthesis summoner and you don't really care about the standard eidolon, then you're forced to either play a gimped character or in a way you don't want to play and later on, you get viable character, but with a gimped feat progression (because of feat taxes) and a bunch of abilities that you won't use at all...
Yeah, Wizards get both a Thesis and a School. I think Summoners getting both an Eidolon Type and a Class Path is entirely reasonable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it should be named the manifester...I would not call what they are currently giving Eidolons. At best they are weak Phantoms.Baby Eidolons are still Eidolons. ;)
They don't summon them [they do not gain the summoned trait]: they manifest they. Close but no cigar for you. ;)They are not summoners. As someone said before elsewhere, they are Eidolon Masters.The eidolons they... summon, you mean?
Master of Manifestations? Manifesting Meister?
And it also has been stated why this isn't a satisfying solution. Let's take the synthesis summoner for example :
It currently cost you a level 1 feat and isn't a good/viable combat option among other things. To make it a great combat option, it would require a few feats at least. This means that if you want to play a synthesis summoner and you don't really care about the standard eidolon, then you're forced to either play a gimped character or in a way you don't want to play and later on, you get a viable character, but with a gimped feat progression (because of feat taxes) and a bunch of abilities that you won't use at all...
If you don't care about the standard eidolon, why are you playing a summoner? Summoners are the "conjures a powerful unique ally" class, not the "turns into a dragon/angel/ghost/beast" class.
Yeah, Wizards get both a Thesis and a School. I think Summoners getting both an Eidolon Type and a Class Path is entirely reasonable.
Apples to oranges. Sorcerers don't get an option to completely change how their bloodline spells manifest, nor do oracles get the option to significantly alter the way curses work. Not all class options are equally impactful; just because one class gets two lower-impact options doesn't mean all classes are entitled to two options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't care about the standard eidolon, why are you playing a summoner? Summoners are [...] not the "turns into a dragon/angel/ghost/beast" class.And it also has been stated why this isn't a satisfying solution. Let's take the synthesis summoner for example :
It currently cost you a level 1 feat and isn't a good/viable combat option among other things. To make it a great combat option, it would require a few feats at least. This means that if you want to play a synthesis summoner and you don't really care about the standard eidolon, then you're forced to either play a gimped character or in a way you don't want to play and later on, you get a viable character, but with a gimped feat progression (because of feat taxes) and a bunch of abilities that you won't use at all...
This is literally what's a synthesist was in 1E. With the synthesis feat, the dev are giving us the expectation that this playstyle should still be possible, but it isn't. It's exactly like the mutagenist alchemist (although the mutagenist was way worst).
Yeah, Wizards get both a Thesis and a School. I think Summoners getting both an Eidolon Type and a Class Path is entirely reasonable.Apples to oranges. Sorcerers don't get an option to completely change how their bloodline spells manifest, nor do oracles get the option to significantly alter the way curses work. Not all class options are equally impactful; just because one class gets two lower-impact options doesn't mean all classes are entitled to two options.
Many classes get a class path AND a level 1 feat, so giving the summoner an eidolon type and a class path wouldn't be that different. I used the wizard as a comparison since it's the easiest one to do, Arcane School being a theme option like the eidolon type and Arcane Thesis being more a "how you do your thing" option like the standard vs synthesis is.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't care about the standard eidolon, why are you playing a summoner? Summoners are the "conjures a powerful unique ally" class, not the "turns into a dragon/angel/ghost/beast" class.
But it can be both. Easily. There currently isn't a Class for 'be a Dragon', but it would be casually easy to make Summoner that Class with only a few very minor rules tweaks, and that being the case, why not do it?
Your vision of the Class would still be supported and other people would also be able to have theirs. Why must your version be the One True Version?
Apples to oranges. Sorcerers don't get an option to completely change how their bloodline spells manifest, nor do oracles get the option to significantly alter the way curses work. Not all class options are equally impactful; just because one class gets two lower-impact options doesn't mean all classes are entitled to two options.
Sure, but in comparison to Oracle Mysteries or Sorcerer Bloodlines, type of Eidolon currently has a very small impact. It determines Spell List, two skills, and literally nothing else on the Summoner, and only a few specific abilities on the Eidolon itself. There's plenty of room for another choice there.
But it can be both. Easily. There currently isn't a Class for 'be a Dragon', but it would be casually easy to make Summoner that Class with only a few very minor rules tweaks, and that being the case, why not do it?
Your vision of the Class would still be supported and other people would also be able to have theirs. Why must your version be the One True Version?
I'm opposed to summoner as a "you turn into a dragon" class because I feel that vision usurps the identity of the eidolon. Your eidolon is no longer an entity in its own right, it's just a suit you put on and take off. I'm more more in favor of "you can summon a dragon and also you can turn into that dragon." Save turning into other creatures for another class where that's the main focus.
I like the synthesis feat because it makes synthesis summoning optional. The feat doesn't need to be published as-is, it can be buffed or changed to fit the needs of the fantasy. If players are dead-set on synthesis manifesting being the only option for a dedicated synthesis summoner, then maybe the whole thing should be cut from the base class and made a class archetype, either in this book or a later one.
Sure, but in comparison to Oracle Mysteries or Sorcerer Bloodlines, type of Eidolon currently has a very small impact. It determines Spell List, two skills, and literally nothing else on the Summoner, and only a few specific abilities on the Eidolon itself. There's plenty of room for another choice there.
I'm totally fine with the final version of eidolons having more benefits and customization options. Some options include giving the summoner a unique focus spell, a bonus cantrip, or a special ability akin to blood magic or mystery benefits.
My problem is that most of the "customization" suggestions I've seen involve overhauling major features of the class (cutting spellcasting, changing manifesting your eidolon works, removing the eidolon entirely in favor of a bunch of summon spells). If those kind of options are ever presented, I think they're best saved for class archetypes.
I definitely agree with the first and the third points. I'd rather see monster-like stats on an Eidolon than PC-like stats, and I absolutely want to see more customization on the thing since fundamentally the whole appeal of the class is "you have a weird combat buddy."
I don't honestly care about summon spells though. You could rename the class God Caller, or Eidolon Buddy or anything else. I wouldn't even bother learning summon spells given the option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the synthesis feat because it makes synthesis summoning optional. The feat doesn't need to be published as-is, it can be buffed or changed to fit the needs of the fantasy. If players are dead-set on synthesis manifesting being the only option for a dedicated synthesis summoner, then maybe the whole thing should be cut from the base class and made a class archetype, either in this book or a later one.
Like I said in another thread, standard vs synthesis vs master could be class paths and it doesn't mean there won't be a feat to get a lesser version of the paths you haven't picked at level 1...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm opposed to summoner as a "you turn into a dragon" class because I feel that vision usurps the identity of the eidolon. Your eidolon is no longer an entity in its own right, it's just a suit you put on and take off. I'm more more in favor of "you can summon a dragon and also you can turn into that dragon." Save turning into other creatures for another class where that's the main focus.
According to who? This certainly wasn't invariably true in PF1. It need not be true going forward. For me, the theme of Summoner is someone with a profound connection to a magical being that allows them to manifest that being in some way. The nature of that being and that manifestation can vary quite a bit.
I like the synthesis feat because it makes synthesis summoning optional. The feat doesn't need to be published as-is, it can be buffed or changed to fit the needs of the fantasy. If players are dead-set on synthesis manifesting being the only option for a dedicated synthesis summoner, then maybe the whole thing should be cut from the base class and made a class archetype, either in this book or a later one.
I'd be fine with it being a Class Archetype...but why? The difference between a Path (like Thief or Ruffian) and an Archetype is mostly whether they came up with it early enough to make the Class have Paths that do that. The only thing doing it as an archetype does is potentially increase word count.
I'm totally fine with the final version of eidolons having more benefits and customization options. Some options include giving the summoner a unique focus spell, a bonus cantrip, or a special ability akin to blood magic or mystery benefits.
I'd be fine with those as well, but they aren't necessary. there is space to do something else instead.
My problem is that most of the "customization" suggestions I've seen involve overhauling major features of the class (cutting spellcasting, changing manifesting your eidolon works, removing the eidolon entirely in favor of a bunch of summon spells). If those kind of options are ever presented, I think they're best saved for class archetypes.
Why? Why are they better saved for Class Archetypes? I'm really unclear what your reasoning for that is beyond 'I don't like them thematically' which is valid, but specific to you rather than something game design decisions should necessarily be based on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also feel that Synthesis should be a path not a class archetype. Pretty much Archetypes are things that a lot of classes can MC into but Synthesis does not fit this mold at all - its too many mechanics to bolt onto another class but it fits nicely with the Summoner.
I don't feel it would overburden options or design space making it so that Summoners picked an eidolon (spell list and some minor window dressing) and a path.
I also feel that Synthesis should be a path not a class archetype. Pretty much Archetypes are things that a lot of classes can MC into but Synthesis does not fit this mold at all - its too many mechanics to bolt onto another class but it fits nicely with the Summoner.
You cannot multiclass into a class archetype. They replace features of the class that the multiclass dedication doesn't grant. Making Synthesis a summoner class archetype pretty much ensures you could not get it by multiclassing.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot multiclass into a class archetype. They replace features of the class that the multiclass dedication doesn't grant. Making Synthesis a summoner class archetype pretty much ensures you could not get it by multiclassing.I also feel that Synthesis should be a path not a class archetype. Pretty much Archetypes are things that a lot of classes can MC into but Synthesis does not fit this mold at all - its too many mechanics to bolt onto another class but it fits nicely with the Summoner.
This is correct, but it also means making it a Class Archetype rather than a Class Path in the book it comes out in just takes extra word count (since you need to list what it removes as well as grants, while listing it as a Class Path you just list what each path grants) and makes making future Class Paths/Archetypes for Summoner harder (since you have to do the 'what does it remove' part again), without really changing anything else about how it works.
It serves no purpose to do so.
Class Archetypes serve a real purpose, but it's to do stuff like change Proficiencies, not this.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be completely comfortable with an Eidolon class archetype that gave us, the actual characters, evolutions at 2nd level instead. It would allow me to be a fighter synthesis, a monk synthesis, a ranger synthesis, a cleric synthesis etc etc etc and it would provide the CLASS FANTASY that I desire from synthesis. Even more so.
It would just be like Beast Master archetype, but instead for synthesis. That might actually be the better option.
This assumes a lot in terms of how an Eidolon is going to work. If they actually went with point-based, 'I spend one point and have claws now' Evolutions, this would totally work...though many people desiring this concept would want it from 1st level, so a solution to that would be necessary.
I am deeply unconvinced they're going to do that kind of Evolutions, though. Indeed, I'm pretty much entirely convinced that they will not. A menu of additional options ala Familiars? Sure. Costing points for fundamental basics like claws? No chance. And that makes this not really work very well.
I wonder if eidolon focus spells would be enough to make synthesis feel better.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if eidolon focus spells would be enough to make synthesis feel better.
Depends on what the Focus Spells in question do.
However, given that Boost Eidolon is a math fixer, anything that denies them access to that is gonna be real bad. The same is true of Evolution Surge and utility.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the easiest change to synthesis is to allow the combined creature to cast conduit spells and self targeting spells from the summoner's spells known, using the summoner's slots.
And that any effect on the summoner migrates to the new combined creature.
I wonder if eidolon focus spells would be enough to make synthesis feel better.Depends on what the Focus Spells in question do.
However, given that Boost Eidolon is a math fixer, anything that denies them access to that is gonna be real bad. The same is true of Evolution Surge and utility.
What would it take? A persistent damage boost?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering the sheer number of abuses of the synthesist archetype in PF1 I'm pretty okay with Synthesis being a thing that a character would do purely for the aesthetics of it, and not for any sort of mechanical efficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the easiest change to synthesis is to allow the combined creature to cast conduit spells and self targeting spells from the summoner's spells known, using the summoner's slots.
And that any effect on the summoner migrates to the new combined creature.
That might not be enough. Having to spend 1 action / turn to compete in melee and not having a fourth action might make them not competitive option compared to martial classes. I would be more in favor of getting the bonus given by Boost Eidolon if you're merged with your eidolon (I assume synthesis would be a class path and not a feat).