Animal Companion versus Eidolon Lvl 20


Summoner Class

51 to 100 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I suppose none of you ever fielded or saw a bipedal Eidolon with a greatsword that made a Fighter with a greatsword look scrawny, and then proceeded to make them feel completely unnecessary for the rest of a session.

So what if it wasn't technically as good as an ideal, fully optimized, built from a thousand books fighter?

They made most other players feel bad, because an Eidolon was a second PC run by the Summoner and they were great regardless of what you did with them.

As noted, some were just way more broken than others - but there wasn't one that didn't roll straight off the assembly line as a second martial player character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm with Krispy, here. Having 2 characters makes the Summoner straight up broken. For it to be on par with other classes, both characters need to be so tuned down that it's impossible for a player to find that interesting.
Current Summoner is, in my opinion, more on the broken side of things from a pure balance point of view but still most people feel it's bad and not funny.

I'm pretty sure the final Summoner will be broken as you can't release a balanced Summoner and interest anyone with it.

Just for fun, a balanced Summoner with the Eidolon if we consider completely independant characters with all their actions should have compared to a normal character of their level (using the monster creation guidelines):
-3 AC. Final Proficiency: Trained.
-3 attack. Final proficiency: Trained.
-2/3 saves. Final saves: Trained, Trained, Trained.
-3/4 to all skills. You end up Expert in 6 skills.
I don't see how anyone would love to play such pieces of garbage.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:


I'm pretty sure the final Summoner will be broken as you can't release a balanced Summoner and interest anyone with it.

I dont know that you can't do it, but you do need to make it with balance in mind and you need to make it clear that the balance is in being able to be two places at once, and not in having superior hitpoints, actions, and capabilities to everyone else.

I honestly think the current mechanics for the Eidolon are actually very strong, by default. A great place to start from, for a reasonably balanced result.

What they need to add now is the meaningful mechanical options people crave (note that I didnt say "customization", because thats already in place) like alternate attack options and routines, and the ability to do things with the Eidolon like Rage or Power(ful) Attack at reasonable levels.

And there's good idea for that swirling around already.

What needs to not happen is for people to throw out the base chassis for bad because those mechanical options don't yet exist...

Grand Lodge Contributor

SuperBidi wrote:

The Summoner was very popular because it was broken.

...
A balanced Summoner is no fun at all.
...
I don't think anyone who loved PF1 Summoner will ever loved a balanced Summoner.

Summoner offered one of the most versatile ways to make weird and stupidly fun characters regardless of power level. And as mentioned above, the foundation of 2e has really put up speed bumps for anyone who overpowered situations with pets / summons.

I made the Prince from Katamari Damacy. The eidolon was a quadruped with grab, swallow whole, and skilled (Perform (sing)) for the song.

I knew a guy who made "The finest ship in the Andoran navy" that was an aquatic eidolon with a reach+grab "harpoon" natural weapon.

A friend of mine made Yoshi as a biped with mount, reach, grab, and swallow whole. He was a halfling named Toad.

This thread shows that the eidolon itself is plenty strong compared to the other combat-pets but the "spellcaster" behind it doesn't keep up. You could make the eidolon stronger than a Fighter dualwielding flaming chainsaws, and I still wouldn't play it if all the Summoner got to do is cast Inspire Eidolon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:
Summoner offered one of the most versatile ways to make weird and stupidly fun characters regardless of power level.

Because it was overpowered. You made fun and stupid builds that were functional because you were starting from a character that was way above the norm.

If you had to make the very same builds from a balanced character, your builds would have been so bad you would have stopped playing the character.
Being overpowered add a lot of versatility as you can easily sacrifice optimized options for funny options without ending with a non functional character.

With a balanced Summoner, all the weird builds would be weak. And that's no fun.


May I just say that most people think the summoner is closer to a martial but I think he is closer to a caster? I mean I think he might be closer to an warpriest instead of a ranger with a pet.
I would rather see him get some less combat feats and more useful ones, he gets the second best spell progression full caster with reduced slots instead of 2-3 slots behind a full caster with limited slots like a multiclass character.
The eidolon needs to be a fair bit behind martials IMO, and from the stats I see it seems fair to say that. I do think he needs some better 1 action abilities and some more eidolon 1 action cantrips. Also probably a summon pool as some pointed out that summon feats with 4 slots feels bad.
But outside that... The class seems to be on the range I hoped it would be. Bellow a caster in versatility and bellow a martial in combat.


oholoko wrote:

May I just say that most people think the summoner is closer to a martial but I think he is closer to a caster? I mean I think he might be closer to an warpriest instead of a ranger with a pet.

I would rather see him get some less combat feats and more useful ones, he gets the second best spell progression full caster with reduced slots instead of 2-3 slots behind a full caster with limited slots like a multiclass character.
The eidolon needs to be a fair bit behind martials IMO, and from the stats I see it seems fair to say that. I do think he needs some better 1 action abilities and some more eidolon 1 action cantrips. Also probably a summon pool as some pointed out that summon feats with 4 slots feels bad.
But outside that... The class seems to be on the range I hoped it would be. Bellow a caster in versatility and bellow a martial in combat.

Your last bit. The bit at the end. They means useless.

The summoner lack of proficiency and no real incentive for their main casting stat means their few slots are far and away better used on just buffing your fighter, not even your eidolon.

It has nothing else on its own. Everything else is the eidolon.

So yes not even a good hybrid. Magus with all it's faults is so far ahead of the summoner while still being weaker than other martials. If the only benefit of the summoner is being a masochist than I feel it's wasted design space for an actual class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
oholoko wrote:

May I just say that most people think the summoner is closer to a martial but I think he is closer to a caster? I mean I think he might be closer to an warpriest instead of a ranger with a pet.

I would rather see him get some less combat feats and more useful ones, he gets the second best spell progression full caster with reduced slots instead of 2-3 slots behind a full caster with limited slots like a multiclass character.
The eidolon needs to be a fair bit behind martials IMO, and from the stats I see it seems fair to say that. I do think he needs some better 1 action abilities and some more eidolon 1 action cantrips. Also probably a summon pool as some pointed out that summon feats with 4 slots feels bad.
But outside that... The class seems to be on the range I hoped it would be. Bellow a caster in versatility and bellow a martial in combat.

No not at all. The biggest thing about being suboptimal at two things is that you are able to be decent at both.

If you are the best at one thing or close to the best at it... You will be crippled completely in the other.

Your last bit. The bit at the end. They means useless.

The summoner lack of proficiency and no real incentive for their main casting stat means their few slots are far and away better used on just buffing your fighter, not even your eidolon.

It has nothing else on its own. Everything else is the eidolon.

So yes not even a good hybrid. Magus with all it's faults is so far ahead of the summoner while still being weaker than other martials. If the only benefit of the summoner is being a masochist than I feel it's wasted design space for an actual class.

I feel just the opposite being not perfect in any area an being suboptimal in both is amazing. And different from the magus that suffers from having to boost both casting and melee the summoner can even ignore charisma and just focus on support spells and his hp. Everything else is a fun role for him. Summoner space isn't being a martial or being a caster. Is being a caster with a martial pet.

He might not be the best or even the optimal choice in both. But just not having to multiclass 4 feats away out of the 10 you have on a pet or casting and having both onto the get go is so awesome.
I've yet to see the class in play of course and this week work got me too good to make a few analisys of how they compare to a martial,pet,caster but it seems to be exactly on the right spot where an useful class should be.


oholoko wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
oholoko wrote:

May I just say that most people think the summoner is closer to a martial but I think he is closer to a caster? I mean I think he might be closer to an warpriest instead of a ranger with a pet.

I would rather see him get some less combat feats and more useful ones, he gets the second best spell progression full caster with reduced slots instead of 2-3 slots behind a full caster with limited slots like a multiclass character.
The eidolon needs to be a fair bit behind martials IMO, and from the stats I see it seems fair to say that. I do think he needs some better 1 action abilities and some more eidolon 1 action cantrips. Also probably a summon pool as some pointed out that summon feats with 4 slots feels bad.
But outside that... The class seems to be on the range I hoped it would be. Bellow a caster in versatility and bellow a martial in combat.

No not at all. The biggest thing about being suboptimal at two things is that you are able to be decent at both.

If you are the best at one thing or close to the best at it... You will be crippled completely in the other.

Your last bit. The bit at the end. They means useless.

The summoner lack of proficiency and no real incentive for their main casting stat means their few slots are far and away better used on just buffing your fighter, not even your eidolon.

It has nothing else on its own. Everything else is the eidolon.

So yes not even a good hybrid. Magus with all it's faults is so far ahead of the summoner while still being weaker than other martials. If the only benefit of the summoner is being a masochist than I feel it's wasted design space for an actual class.

I feel just the opposite being not perfect in any area an being suboptimal in both is amazing. And different from the magus that suffers from having to boost both casting and melee the summoner can even ignore charisma and just focus on support spells and his hp. Everything else is a fun role for him. Summoner space...

In my play the only time it's been useful is the skill check trick. Everything else my party would have been better with any other class. Or better with a martial they multicass into a caster archetype. So right now that's been the only benefit.


Martialmasters wrote:
In my play the only time it's been useful is the skill check trick. Everything else my party would have been better with any other class. Or better with a martial they multicass into a caster archetype. So right now that's been the only benefit.

I didn't play to give my whole experience. But at least from what you showed on your post of the combat it seems to do fine in combat as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
I feel just the opposite being not perfect in any area an being suboptimal in both is amazing. And different from the magus that suffers from having to boost both casting and melee the summoner can even ignore charisma and just focus on support spells and his hp. Everything else is a fun

You SHOULD be worse than everyone at their best thing, whatever that is.

You have a different perk.

Your best thing is versatity and a companion body. Capitalize on that.

If at any point you are competing with a Barbarian for damage, the class is broken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
I feel just the opposite being not perfect in any area an being suboptimal in both is amazing. And different from the magus that suffers from having to boost both casting and melee the summoner can even ignore charisma and just focus on support spells and his hp. Everything else is a fun

You SHOULD be worse than everyone at their best thing, whatever that is.

You have a different perk.

Your best thing is versatity and a companion body. Capitalize on that.

If at any point you are competing with a Barbarian for damage, the class is broken.

If the shtick of any class is to be worse than every class, it has no purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
I feel just the opposite being not perfect in any area an being suboptimal in both is amazing. And different from the magus that suffers from having to boost both casting and melee the summoner can even ignore charisma and just focus on support spells and his hp. Everything else is a fun

You SHOULD be worse than everyone at their best thing, whatever that is.

You have a different perk.

Your best thing is versatity and a companion body. Capitalize on that.

If at any point you are competing with a Barbarian for damage, the class is broken.

If the shtick of any class is to be worse than every class, it has no purpose.

You keep ignoring the part where you do have an advantage over other classes.

Its in your second companion body, and the inherent and subjective benefits that brings.

You need to choose to capitalize on that, and start looking for how to do so.


Martialmasters wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
I feel just the opposite being not perfect in any area an being suboptimal in both is amazing. And different from the magus that suffers from having to boost both casting and melee the summoner can even ignore charisma and just focus on support spells and his hp. Everything else is a fun

You SHOULD be worse than everyone at their best thing, whatever that is.

You have a different perk.

Your best thing is versatity and a companion body. Capitalize on that.

If at any point you are competing with a Barbarian for damage, the class is broken.

If the shtick of any class is to be worse than every class, it has no purpose.

Or have no best thing. Warpriest is for example a class with no best thing that fills a niche role if you class lack a frontliner and a healer that way you can provide both even if you aren't the best at both.


oholoko wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
I feel just the opposite being not perfect in any area an being suboptimal in both is amazing. And different from the magus that suffers from having to boost both casting and melee the summoner can even ignore charisma and just focus on support spells and his hp. Everything else is a fun

You SHOULD be worse than everyone at their best thing, whatever that is.

You have a different perk.

Your best thing is versatity and a companion body. Capitalize on that.

If at any point you are competing with a Barbarian for damage, the class is broken.

If the shtick of any class is to be worse than every class, it has no purpose.
Or have no best thing. Warpriest is for example a class with no best thing that fills a niche role if you class lack a frontliner and a healer that way you can provide both even if you aren't the best at both.

You seem to mistake some of my previous comments for saying warpriest is in any way good. It isn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:


You seem to mistake some of my previous comments for saying warpriest is in any way good. It isn't.

Its bad, but its not unplayably bad. As of the APG, a Warpriest Sentinel with Sturdy Shield is definitely the best Frontline endurance healer possible.

Its got some small niches, but they do exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
I feel just the opposite being not perfect in any area an being suboptimal in both is amazing. And different from the magus that suffers from having to boost both casting and melee the summoner can even ignore charisma and just focus on support spells and his hp. Everything else is a fun

You SHOULD be worse than everyone at their best thing, whatever that is.

You have a different perk.

Your best thing is versatity and a companion body. Capitalize on that.

If at any point you are competing with a Barbarian for damage, the class is broken.

If the shtick of any class is to be worse than every class, it has no purpose.
Or have no best thing. Warpriest is for example a class with no best thing that fills a niche role if you class lack a frontliner and a healer that way you can provide both even if you aren't the best at both.
You seem to mistake some of my previous comments for saying warpriest is in any way good. It isn't.

Oh I don't care about your comment at all don't worry. I had a whole campaign with an warpriest by my side ending at level 20 and he was in the whole thing useful interesting and overall a useful character so yeah he is good.


A big portion of warpriest's issues I think are just proficiency numbers. They cap out at expert in their favored weapon and master spellcasting, and get master spellcasting slower than a champion does.

The other part is that they're crazy MAD as a class. Summoner definitely avoids this one though.


I think it is important to note that Deriven Firelion's play experience isn't necessarily saying that the Summoner is weak. Rather, it coming in a little close to par. Solid defenses, and consistent but lowish damage. Maybe a little worse on both metrics than a monk.

No, the bigger concern I'm seeing voiced is the linked issues of being boring to play and not having options. The low damage is also of note, but simple doing the same thing with a d12 damage dice wouldn't necessarily make it more fun. A boring, strong character that uses basic actions isn't better for the game than a boring, weak character doing the same.

Of course, pretty much everyone agrees on the front that the Eidolon needs to do more varied things. That seems to be the biggest source of disgruntlement with the playtest class, and while I'm sure the message will be heard I'll continue to amplify the signal.

Here is my rambling below on what is causing the class to feel martial-centric, and contributing to feelings of a set routine in combat. Warning, it is pretty long.

Comparing the Eidolon to Monk, it is easy to see the discrepancy in option choice. A monk can build for a wide variety of stances, each granting special actions. They get a great action economy bonus, giving freedom to use their other two actions in other ways: skills, basic actions (Stride, Leap, Step), stance actions, etc. They feel engaging to play not because of their numbers, but because of how well they work in the 3 action economy.

What about the Eidolon + Summoner pair? Even with more Rends and Constricts in the mix, how much freedom can they have with the current action economy? Unfortunately, they don't have the same freedom. Act Together + Tandem Move is almost always the best option to maximize action economy, and that leaves you at just one action to split between the two characters. Worse, Act Together almost always pushes you into using Boost Eidolon.

This means two-action and three-action monster abilities are hard to fit in, making it hard for them to do their job sprucing up routines. We should see this even with the abilities granted by the bases. Even swapping in other basic actions for the Stride + Strike combo is hard to do, giving us a lot less flexibility than the monk even with more hypothetical options in the mix.

Basically, being tied to Boost Eidolon eliminates the pseudo-4 action economy, and gaining action economy through Act Together and Tandem Move really limits what you can do (pretty much no spells, and limited abilities). A monk's action economy is tied to Flurry, but they get two whole actions to play with, with more combinations because the Flurry can come in any order. You pretty much need to Boost Eidolon before attacking, and probably Tandem Move or Stride to get in range. So one action, only at the end.

Visually:

Monk

  • Flurry, Action, Action
  • Action, Flurry, Action
  • Action, Action, Flurry
  • Two Action Activity, Flurry
  • Flurry, Two-Action Activity

    Summoner

  • Tandem Move, Act Together (Boost/Strike), Action

    Casters get around having a boring routine through having a diverse set of spells, and being able to use the free action to either soften-up a foe with a first action (Strike, Demoralize), get into/out of range (Stride), or play for defense (Shield/Raise Shield).

    This action routine can't even do that. It doesn't make much sense to make another Strike, it can't take much advantage of putting the action early, and they can't use a diverse set of spells with their peak action economy (No way to use 2-Action spell | Stride + Strike with Eidolon). They are very much locked into the equivalent of Stride + Strike + limited action.


  • Boost and Reinforce really need some action economy changes - either longer duration, functioning as stances, or something.

    Once eidolons have more access to unique attacks (especially various monster attacks, the things they're uniquely capable of) it should help the variety, when you have choices like going for a constrict attack for control+damage, or poison/bleed, etc.

    I think some of the ideas on evolution changes go too far with complexity (in terms of "add all the evolutions", and getting too close to 1e volume), though I agree that a little more level 1 customization would be good (I lean towards minor stat shifts to specialize in some area and make mental stats useful, and then one or two early evolutions maybe to set base capability like attack traits, and prerequisites for later stronger attacks?).


    Dubious Scholar wrote:

    Boost and Reinforce really need some action economy changes - either longer duration, functioning as stances, or something.

    I just made a thread to discuss potentially implementing this via focus spell. I'd love to hear other peoples thoughts!


    manbearscientist wrote:

    I think it is important to note that Deriven Firelion's play experience isn't necessarily saying that the Summoner is weak. Rather, it coming in a little close to par. Solid defenses, and consistent but lowish damage. Maybe a little worse on both metrics than a monk.

    No, the bigger concern I'm seeing voiced is the linked issues of being boring to play and not having options. The low damage is also of note, but simple doing the same thing with a d12 damage dice wouldn't necessarily make it more fun. A boring, strong character that uses basic actions isn't better for the game than a boring, weak character doing the same.

    Of course, pretty much everyone agrees on the front that the Eidolon needs to do more varied things. That seems to be the biggest source of disgruntlement with the playtest class, and while I'm sure the message will be heard I'll continue to amplify the signal.

    Here is my rambling below on what is causing the class to feel martial-centric, and contributing to feelings of a set routine in combat. Warning, it is pretty long.

    Comparing the Eidolon to Monk, it is easy to see the discrepancy in option choice. A monk can build for a wide variety of stances, each granting special actions. They get a great action economy bonus, giving freedom to use their other two actions in other ways: skills, basic actions (Stride, Leap, Step), stance actions, etc. They feel engaging to play not because of their numbers, but because of how well they work in the 3 action economy.

    What about the Eidolon + Summoner pair? Even with more Rends and Constricts in the mix, how much freedom can they have with the current action economy? Unfortunately, they don't have the same freedom. Act Together + Tandem Move is almost always the best option to maximize action economy, and that leaves you at just one action to split between the two characters. Worse, Act Together almost always pushes you into using Boost Eidolon.

    This means two-action and three-action monster abilities are...

    That's a fair point but isn't their action economy too good already? I mean they get "4 actions" divided how they choose with two obrigatory single actions for each. Normally the single ones are strike-stride/boost but then that leaves 2 for casting or special eidolon actions.

    If you mean they need special attacks or something similar that sounds a bit nice. Maybe giving eidolon access to special actions granted by feats from the summoner could fix that. That way if you want a more combatent eidolon you can multiclass a martial for better actions or if you want casting you can multiclass a caster for yourself.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    oholoko wrote:

    That's a fair point but isn't their action economy too good already? I mean they get "4 actions" divided how they choose with two obrigatory single actions for each. Normally the single ones are strike-stride/boost but then that leaves 2 for casting or special eidolon actions.

    If you mean they need special attacks or something similar that sounds a bit nice. Maybe giving eidolon access to special actions granted by feats from the summoner could fix that. That way if you want a more combatent eidolon you can multiclass a martial for better actions or if you want casting you can multiclass a caster for yourself.

    More action economy virtualizers like Draconic Frenzy or the Beasts charge would be excellent.

    Things like Strike + Grapple (no MAP) or Strike + Trip (no MAP), or Strike Twice (-2 each).

    This sort of thing makes limited actions go further without changing the power economy of those actions dramatically.


    The action economy boost is good, baseline the same as monk (3 actions to get 4). However, the devil in the details makes it less fulfilling. It ends up being a worse-off-all-worlds combination of a caster (two-action routine + one-action) and melee (often best off using combinations of Stride + Strike), where they have a locked in order, can't use diverse spells, and can't throw in diverse abilities.

    Less reliance on Boost Eidolon (and later, Tandem Move), more options for the last spare action, and perhaps some way to use Act Together's action as part of an activity (to cast spells or use 2-action monster abilities) would go a long way.

    Monk's 4-in-3 let's them easily incorporate different orders, and two-action activities. Summoner's 4-in-3 makes it almost impossible for either body to get in a two-action activity or swap the order.


    Problem is how to give them combat things without being mandatory. One options is to give the eidolon 1-2 free evolutions that focus on combat. One is to bake that in evolutions. Another one is to put them into the class feats.
    All have advantages and disadvantages as long as they aren't blatantly more powerful than strike.


    If Act Together allowed using 2-action activities, it would work out better. Still makes it hard to use Boost/Reinforce and do anything else on the summoner, but the pain is reduced.


    oholoko wrote:

    Problem is how to give them combat things without being mandatory. One options is to give the eidolon 1-2 free evolutions that focus on combat. One is to bake that in evolutions. Another one is to put them into the class feats.

    All have advantages and disadvantages as long as they aren't blatantly more powerful than strike.

    The dark secret about things like Draconic Frenzy is that 2 actions for three attacks isn't actually that much more powerful than 2 actions for two attacks, since that third attack is so much less valuable.

    As long as you keep things in that range, they don't become auto-takes.


    Sorry but tandem move is an action you barely use once or twice per combat.
    Normally you will go act together, two action activity.
    I can see how it is worse than monk/ranger bit otherwise seems fine outside of eidolons that do not gain any two action activity.
    And beast even does not want to use tandem move at all.


    KrispyXIV wrote:
    oholoko wrote:

    Problem is how to give them combat things without being mandatory. One options is to give the eidolon 1-2 free evolutions that focus on combat. One is to bake that in evolutions. Another one is to put them into the class feats.

    All have advantages and disadvantages as long as they aren't blatantly more powerful than strike.

    The dark secret about things like Draconic Frenzy is that 2 actions for three attacks isn't actually that much more powerful than 2 actions for two attacks, since that third attack is so much less valuable.

    As long as you keep things in that range, they don't become auto-takes.

    Agreed but even so combine frenzy with breath you have a pretty good chance to crit(0.05 in each attack after all) and refresh the breath weapon that you should use decently often if you are close to multiple opponents.

    I might be overvaluing those actions but to me they seem fine enough for now. They just need more options dragon seems fine, but outside of the beast the rest seem... In need of some touchups.


    oholoko wrote:

    Sorry but tandem move is an action you barely use once or twice per combat.

    Normally you will go act together, two action activity.
    I can see how it is worse than monk/ranger bit otherwise seems fine outside of eidolons that do not gain any two action activity.
    And beast even does not want to use tandem move at all.

    The problem is that even outside of Tandem Move, you are nearly locked into doing Act Together first for Boost Eidolon. A monk isn't tied to doing Flurry first, and can slip it into a bunch of different combinations. This is true even for many two-action abilities the Eidolon can make.

    It's the difference between a permutation and a combination. A monk has closer to 5! (120) permutations of viable actions rather than 5. A Summoner a very low, specific number (2-4ish) of combinations.


    Maybe they should give higher damage dice to the Eidolon (d10, d6) and reduce the strength of Boost Eidolon so Boost Eidolon will become less mandatory and more of a third action when there's nothing else to do.


    SuperBidi wrote:
    Maybe they should give higher damage dice to the Eidolon (d10, d6) and reduce the strength of Boost Eidolon so Boost Eidolon will become less mandatory and more of a third action when there's nothing else to do.

    Uhmmm... Eidolon specific items should change those instead?

    I mean that might be better than baking it in the class.


    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    WWHsmackdown wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    Martialmasters wrote:

    Not too mention the eidolon has this awesome benefit where it has this caster body hurt box floating around for extra chances to be crit.

    Summoner is such a hard pass for me on even bring viable. Because viable to me means on par. And blowing my 4 spells to make their damage not straight suck is irrelevant as you could cast they on the barbarian and be of a better help to the party.

    It was a huge downgrade to go from a barbarian to a summoner.

    The druid vastly overshadowed the summoner with her combined abilities of animal companion and full spell casting.

    Animal companion with a separate hit point pool and independent actions is much more useful and versatile than a shared hit point pool and shared actions.

    It feels less like a summoner and more like some weird martial hybrid class. The creature doesn't feel separate at all. It feels like a monk with a MC caster attachment.

    I'm super disappointed one of my favorite PF1 classes has been turned into this. I don't think the 4 slot casters are a good idea myself. I hope they have some kind of backup plan or this is going to be one terrible book.

    The Magus and the Summoner were incredibly popular classes in PF1. If this is their final version of both of these classes or they continue down this path, that will not be the case in PF2. These two classes will be looked upon as terrible, the most terrible crippling of two of the most popular PF1 classes that makes the wizard nerfs seem small by comparison.

    In fact, I predict if they continue on the current path with the summoner and magus with 4 slot casting and this terrible eidolon-summoner hybrid they are headed for a 4E level of failure.

    They are not listening to fans of the summoner and magus and making them what they should be. The designers are dictating to the player base what they want the summoner and eidolon should be. That is the same arrogance and disregard for the fan base 4E

    ...

    Honestly what I would want from the Magus is something like the 4th Edition D&D Hexblade, although to be fair I’ve not played Pathfinder 1E.

    I have never played a character like the Hexblade in 4E D&D and it’s been frustrating. I will never forget the first time I read, and then used Tyranny of Flame, making a weapon strike and then having a gout of fire erupt below them and forcing them prone as they burn. I want literal Weapon attack + actual spells and to sometimes just use spells as spells. Having a viable option of melee and spells, ranged and close combat, a true hybrid. I think 4E D&D May have done Gishes the best I’ve ever seen.

    Grand Lodge Contributor

    SuperBidi wrote:
    Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:
    Summoner offered one of the most versatile ways to make weird and stupidly fun characters regardless of power level.

    Because it was overpowered. You made fun and stupid builds that were functional because you were starting from a character that was way above the norm.

    If you had to make the very same builds from a balanced character, your builds would have been so bad you would have stopped playing the character.
    Being overpowered add a lot of versatility as you can easily sacrifice optimized options for funny options without ending with a non functional character.

    With a balanced Summoner, all the weird builds would be weak. And that's no fun.

    You seem to equate power with fun a lot. Overpowered = more fun, a weak build = only fun if in an overpowered class to balance out. So, sincerely, what classes do you play in 2e? I honestly wonder what classes fit your idea of 'good' in what we already have, since we seem to have very differing approaches to this.

    I will point out that my favorite class since all the way back in 3.5 has been Bard, which has never been considered an OP class. And I would make fun and stupid builds with them and still have a blast, weak or no. But that's me. And I'm sure lots of people wouldn't be happy without more power. Just not everybody.

    You are right that a class with a higher baseline of power offers a different form of versatility since it needs less support to remain 'effective' in builds. I firmly believe the 2eSummoner desperately needs more spells since right now they seem to spend most turns doing nothing but Boost or Reinforce. Lower level spells lose a lot of potency in higher levels, but they give you something to do.

    Since class feats are limited, they offer a good place to have really powerful options, in particular past level 10 so MCD can't grab them. We all know the feats listed in the playtest won't be everything, but a few good feats would go a long way. Evolutions being feats seems fine as a limiting / balancing factor between your power and your eidolon's, but without spells and/or feats for the Summoner half, it sort of falls flat whereas the Eidolon half will always at least function as it levels even without a bunch of class-support.


    SuperBidi wrote:
    Maybe they should give higher damage dice to the Eidolon (d10, d6) and reduce the strength of Boost Eidolon so Boost Eidolon will become less mandatory and more of a third action when there's nothing else to do.

    That would just make MC bard even more irresistible.


    citricking wrote:
    SuperBidi wrote:
    Maybe they should give higher damage dice to the Eidolon (d10, d6) and reduce the strength of Boost Eidolon so Boost Eidolon will become less mandatory and more of a third action when there's nothing else to do.
    That would just make MC bard even more irresistible.

    its arguable that every class or subclass has a near irresistible option to them.

    but i do think that boost eidolon is not necessary given how action strapped a summoner already is. why not bake that damage into the eidolon somehow and free up that last action for you to do things depending on the skills and feats you have taken? would open up a summoner's turn a lot while still keeping the eidolon behind other martials.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    SuperBidi wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    The Magus and the Summoner were incredibly popular classes in PF1.

    The Summoner was very popular because it was broken. And being broken is part of its design. The Summoner is 2 creatures. In PF2, one creature of a level is equivalent to 2 level-2 creatures. Just look at level-2 creatures and guess what fun there is to play 2 1-round snacks for monsters? What's the fun in playing a creature that can't hit a boss monster on anything under a 15 on the die?

    There's no fun at all. A balanced Summoner is no fun at all.

    So, Paizo is trying to make only one creature out of 2 while still maintaining the illusion there are 2 creatures. Hence the common hit point and action pools. They face an impossible challenge. I don't think anyone who loved PF1 Summoner will ever loved a balanced Summoner.

    The druid is fun and powerful. No reason that summoner cannot be.

    The fun for people who enjoy summoning is having a creature that is good in combat, fun to play, and conceptually interesting.


    KrispyXIV wrote:

    I suppose none of you ever fielded or saw a bipedal Eidolon with a greatsword that made a Fighter with a greatsword look scrawny, and then proceeded to make them feel completely unnecessary for the rest of a session.

    So what if it wasn't technically as good as an ideal, fully optimized, built from a thousand books fighter?

    They made most other players feel bad, because an Eidolon was a second PC run by the Summoner and they were great regardless of what you did with them.

    As noted, some were just way more broken than others - but there wasn't one that didn't roll straight off the assembly line as a second martial player character.

    The fighter was one of the worst classes in PF1. That is not the case in PF2. An eidolon will not be stronger than a PF2 fighter even if it is an independent creature.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    KrispyXIV wrote:
    Martialmasters wrote:
    KrispyXIV wrote:
    Martialmasters wrote:
    I feel just the opposite being not perfect in any area an being suboptimal in both is amazing. And different from the magus that suffers from having to boost both casting and melee the summoner can even ignore charisma and just focus on support spells and his hp. Everything else is a fun

    You SHOULD be worse than everyone at their best thing, whatever that is.

    You have a different perk.

    Your best thing is versatity and a companion body. Capitalize on that.

    If at any point you are competing with a Barbarian for damage, the class is broken.

    If the shtick of any class is to be worse than every class, it has no purpose.

    You keep ignoring the part where you do have an advantage over other classes.

    Its in your second companion body, and the inherent and subjective benefits that brings.

    You need to choose to capitalize on that, and start looking for how to do so.

    What part of not on equal footing to a druid or ranger who also has a companion? Having a second companion with versatility if someone else isn't doing what you do better.

    You keep bring that part up but not admitting that any other class with an animal companion can get many of the same advantages as an eidolon with full class abilities on top of that.


    manbearscientist wrote:

    I think it is important to note that Deriven Firelion's play experience isn't necessarily saying that the Summoner is weak. Rather, it coming in a little close to par. Solid defenses, and consistent but lowish damage. Maybe a little worse on both metrics than a monk.

    No, the bigger concern I'm seeing voiced is the linked issues of being boring to play and not having options. The low damage is also of note, but simple doing the same thing with a d12 damage dice wouldn't necessarily make it more fun. A boring, strong character that uses basic actions isn't better for the game than a boring, weak character doing the same.

    Of course, pretty much everyone agrees on the front that the Eidolon needs to do more varied things. That seems to be the biggest source of disgruntlement with the playtest class, and while I'm sure the message will be heard I'll continue to amplify the signal.

    Here is my rambling below on what is causing the class to feel martial-centric, and contributing to feelings of a set routine in combat. Warning, it is pretty long.

    Comparing the Eidolon to Monk, it is easy to see the discrepancy in option choice. A monk can build for a wide variety of stances, each granting special actions. They get a great action economy bonus, giving freedom to use their other two actions in other ways: skills, basic actions (Stride, Leap, Step), stance actions, etc. They feel engaging to play not because of their numbers, but because of how well they work in the 3 action economy.

    What about the Eidolon + Summoner pair? Even with more Rends and Constricts in the mix, how much freedom can they have with the current action economy? Unfortunately, they don't have the same freedom. Act Together + Tandem Move is almost always the best option to maximize action economy, and that leaves you at just one action to split between the two characters. Worse, Act Together almost always pushes you into using Boost Eidolon.

    This means two-action and three-action monster abilities are...

    I'm glad someone can see what I'm saying. I didn't say the class wasn't viable as it is right now. It does about monk damage. It reminds me greatly of a monk with a lot of versatility leading to a lower damage output, but very little useful versatility in round to round combat like the monk.

    I always hear monk has incredible mobility like that matters once you're in range to hit things. It doesn't. So the barbarian or fighter take an extra action to get into battle, while the monk's mobility gets him beat on first. Then the fighter and barbarian start laying down the pain, while the monk looks pretty sad in battle comparatively.

    That's the summoner right now. It's like, "Gee cool, I made my eidolon bigger. Wait a minute that didn't do anything for him because it provides no benefit and he has no abilities to take advantage of it."

    Versatility is only a worth the tradeoff when it can be applied to important aspects of the game, otherwise it's just fluff.

    And as you said, the boring gameplay of boost eidolon every round is super boring.

    I'm working on designing my own summoner and magus. If Paizo continues on this terrible design path, I'll take advantage of it with the open license producing a balanced, but far more interesting iteration of both classes. One thing about PF2, it's super easy to build game mechanics.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    KrispyXIV wrote:

    I suppose none of you ever fielded or saw a bipedal Eidolon with a greatsword that made a Fighter with a greatsword look scrawny, and then proceeded to make them feel completely unnecessary for the rest of a session.

    So what if it wasn't technically as good as an ideal, fully optimized, built from a thousand books fighter?

    They made most other players feel bad, because an Eidolon was a second PC run by the Summoner and they were great regardless of what you did with them.

    As noted, some were just way more broken than others - but there wasn't one that didn't roll straight off the assembly line as a second martial player character.

    The Fighter could outdo a non-absurd Unchained Eidolon (Pounce + Reach is hard to match no matter what) without Summoner support. Large/Huge were absurdly good too which is why they halved the bonuses in Unchained.

    The Eidolon had better raw Str and damage dice (if Large/Huge) but the Fighter had higher HD + Weapon Training +Armor Training or whatever archetype he picked. To-Hit wise the Eidolon ended up behind a well geared Fighter and AC wise they had to share items with the summoner so they'd end up behind there over time as well. The Fighter would also have double the amount of feats. Now the Eidolon did get a Summoner to cast buffs on it which was a massive boon, but in a straight Eidolon vs Fighter comparison the Fighter comes out better in almost every metric (ignoring Chained Large/Huge and Pounce).


    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    manbearscientist wrote:

    I think it is important to note that Deriven Firelion's play experience isn't necessarily saying that the Summoner is weak. Rather, it coming in a little close to par. Solid defenses, and consistent but lowish damage. Maybe a little worse on both metrics than a monk.

    No, the bigger concern I'm seeing voiced is the linked issues of being boring to play and not having options. The low damage is also of note, but simple doing the same thing with a d12 damage dice wouldn't necessarily make it more fun. A boring, strong character that uses basic actions isn't better for the game than a boring, weak character doing the same.

    Of course, pretty much everyone agrees on the front that the Eidolon needs to do more varied things. That seems to be the biggest source of disgruntlement with the playtest class, and while I'm sure the message will be heard I'll continue to amplify the signal.

    Here is my rambling below on what is causing the class to feel martial-centric, and contributing to feelings of a set routine in combat. Warning, it is pretty long.

    Comparing the Eidolon to Monk, it is easy to see the discrepancy in option choice. A monk can build for a wide variety of stances, each granting special actions. They get a great action economy bonus, giving freedom to use their other two actions in other ways: skills, basic actions (Stride, Leap, Step), stance actions, etc. They feel engaging to play not because of their numbers, but because of how well they work in the 3 action economy.

    What about the Eidolon + Summoner pair? Even with more Rends and Constricts in the mix, how much freedom can they have with the current action economy? Unfortunately, they don't have the same freedom. Act Together + Tandem Move is almost always the best option to maximize action economy, and that leaves you at just one action to split between the two characters. Worse, Act Together almost always pushes you into using Boost Eidolon.

    This means two-action and

    ...

    Stride, Flurry, Stride is a valid monk combat routine. A lot of enemies then spend two actions to just get into position to hit the monk. A monk who has flurry of maneuvers could make that a trip>strike flurry and then the enemy can't hit back at all if it succeeds. Sitting and trading blows is not the only melee option now that not everything can AoO.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Deriven Firelion wrote:


    You keep bring that part up but not admitting that any other class with an animal companion can get many of the same advantages as an eidolon with full class abilities on top of that.

    An Animal Companion can't hold a conversation, Recall Knowledge, disarm a trap, or count to ten before entering a room.

    It can't even open a jar of pickles.

    There's so many advantages to 'an Eidolon is an intelligent independent creature' that matter any time you're not rolling dice in combat its not even funny.

    You shouldn't just look at the fact that an Animal companion can do like, two thirds as much in combat, when comparing them to an Eidolon.

    They aren't even in the same ball park.


    I could be wrong but I feel animal companion + full class has a lot of power in general. Not sure if there is any class that is actually worse for having an animal companion.

    As far as I know this is probably true for Summoner too. Why not just have both an animal companion+eidolon, currently I think it is allowed, but personally I feel it shouldnt be. I really dont want players walking around with 3+ characters all the time.

    I admit I loved my Summoner in PF1 but that game wasn't trying to have good balance. I actually like that the new summoner isn't at odds with itself like in PF1. PF1 summon monsters were fun but the entire characters eidolon feature basically couldn't be used then except for master summoner. I have never played with a master summoner but they just seemed ridiculous.


    Dubious Scholar wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:
    manbearscientist wrote:

    I think it is important to note that Deriven Firelion's play experience isn't necessarily saying that the Summoner is weak. Rather, it coming in a little close to par. Solid defenses, and consistent but lowish damage. Maybe a little worse on both metrics than a monk.

    No, the bigger concern I'm seeing voiced is the linked issues of being boring to play and not having options. The low damage is also of note, but simple doing the same thing with a d12 damage dice wouldn't necessarily make it more fun. A boring, strong character that uses basic actions isn't better for the game than a boring, weak character doing the same.

    Of course, pretty much everyone agrees on the front that the Eidolon needs to do more varied things. That seems to be the biggest source of disgruntlement with the playtest class, and while I'm sure the message will be heard I'll continue to amplify the signal.

    Here is my rambling below on what is causing the class to feel martial-centric, and contributing to feelings of a set routine in combat. Warning, it is pretty long.

    Comparing the Eidolon to Monk, it is easy to see the discrepancy in option choice. A monk can build for a wide variety of stances, each granting special actions. They get a great action economy bonus, giving freedom to use their other two actions in other ways: skills, basic actions (Stride, Leap, Step), stance actions, etc. They feel engaging to play not because of their numbers, but because of how well they work in the 3 action economy.

    What about the Eidolon + Summoner pair? Even with more Rends and Constricts in the mix, how much freedom can they have with the current action economy? Unfortunately, they don't have the same freedom. Act Together + Tandem Move is almost always the best option to maximize action economy, and that leaves you at just one action to split between the two characters. Worse, Act Together almost always pushes you into using Boost

    ...

    Are you picturing doing this when the monk is alone? How exactly is this a useful combat routine, especially in a dungeon where the entire room is 30 by 30? What if the creature has AoO or ranged attacks and still hit you when you're backing out or in? Or just decides to go after the casters or some other class because you do low damage and aren't much of a threat alone? You play a monk alone kiting creatures? How does this help you when the barb, fighter, and rogue are all standing in the fight and attacking multiple times a round without having to move? You get two attacks with one action, then move out taking no damage, the barb stands in there and does two attacks that blow the creature up. It's not coming after the monk anyway with a raging barbarian doing far more damage standing there.

    Why bring up this attack routine like it is interesting. So you can run in and out of battle getting a monk flurry doing inferior damage while most other classes stand in the battle and deliver bigger damage or just hit from range.

    A ranger after hunting prey can move in and out of battle, but never does because they have a flurry ability that let's them hit much better getting more attacks.

    Whereas the only interesting feature the monk has is running in and out of battle faster than anyone else. What an incredible ability to be the best at that no one else really even wants and most ranged characters can do getting full attacks.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    KrispyXIV wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:


    You keep bring that part up but not admitting that any other class with an animal companion can get many of the same advantages as an eidolon with full class abilities on top of that.

    An Animal Companion can't hold a conversation, Recall Knowledge, disarm a trap, or count to ten before entering a room.

    It can't even open a jar of pickles.

    There's so many advantages to 'an Eidolon is an intelligent independent creature' that matter any time you're not rolling dice in combat its not even funny.

    You shouldn't just look at the fact that an Animal companion can do like, two thirds as much in combat, when comparing them to an Eidolon.

    They aren't even in the same ball park.

    It is not an independent creature. It uses your actions. Period. It literally never receives an independent action and cannot act independently of you. You vastly overestimate all of the above, as usual. Vastly overestimate those abilities that can be done by other classes more effectively than an eidolon with low mental stastistics.

    And it is not expendable at all. If it takes damage from a trap, you take damage from a trap. If it hits zero it points or dies, you die. Do you not understand how this works? If a trap hazard launches a death spell at the eidolon with a high save, it rolls and if it fails you are down and maybe dead.

    You seem to be intent on defending inferior options. I don't know why you're doing this, but in this case you are in complete denial as to how inferior this combination is.

    I can clearly see the animal companion can do 2/3rd as much as an eidolon. What I'm looking at is the ranger and druid with the animal companion can do 150% of the effectiveness of the summoner, maybe more.

    That is the part you don't want to admit to. An animal companion that is a truly independent creature with an independent action and an independent hit point pool with a character with full class abilities is much superior to a summoner-eidolon hybrid.


    RPGnoremac wrote:

    I could be wrong but I feel animal companion + full class has a lot of power in general. Not sure if there is any class that is actually worse for having an animal companion.

    As far as I know this is probably true for Summoner too. Why not just have both an animal companion+eidolon, currently I think it is allowed, but personally I feel it shouldnt be. I really dont want players walking around with 3+ characters all the time.

    I admit I loved my Summoner in PF1 but that game wasn't trying to have good balance. I actually like that the new summoner isn't at odds with itself like in PF1. PF1 summon monsters were fun but the entire characters eidolon feature basically couldn't be used then except for master summoner. I have never played with a master summoner but they just seemed ridiculous.

    You can make a balanced summoner without going in this seriously hamstrung direction with the class.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:
    You seem to equate power with fun a lot.

    That is a reality. Look at all the threads about classes power. The number of people stating: In current state, I won't play such class because it's way too weak.

    Power equals fun. Not necessarily more power, but less power has a direct impact on fun. My first D&D character was a poorly built Fighter unable to perform his main schtick: Fighting monsters at melee range. It was no fun beeing played.
    Taking your Eidolon examples, your Prince had Grapple and Perform. But if, to just be average efficient in Grapple, you would have needed Improved Grapple, you would have ended with a Prince that is able to Grapple but never succeed at it. Which is no fun.

    I'm also a big Bard player (before PF2, I dislike PF2 Bard). I'm not at all a powergamer. And my current main character in PF2 is an Angelic Sorcerer built as a blaster. Not exactly the most overpowered combination.


    As it currently stands the Eidolon is not even a creature.

    At best its just a marionette with the damage of a Monk with 0 feats.


    KrispyXIV wrote:
    Deriven Firelion wrote:


    You keep bring that part up but not admitting that any other class with an animal companion can get many of the same advantages as an eidolon with full class abilities on top of that.

    An Animal Companion can't hold a conversation, Recall Knowledge, disarm a trap, or count to ten before entering a room.

    It can't even open a jar of pickles.

    There's so many advantages to 'an Eidolon is an intelligent independent creature' that matter any time you're not rolling dice in combat its not even funny.

    You shouldn't just look at the fact that an Animal companion can do like, two thirds as much in combat, when comparing them to an Eidolon.

    They aren't even in the same ball park.

    What kind if useful conversation can an Eidolon hold?

    They aren't going to be the "face", they stick out too much, and they don't have the feats to back it up.
    They aren't good for scouting, they are no more stealthy and just a vulnerable.
    The fact they are tied to your hit points makes them no more useful at disarming traps than you are.
    Not sure how useful the counting or jar of pickle thing is, but I'm pretty sure the ape could open the jar.
    He could even climb a wall and open said jar,at second level.

    Recall Knowledge? No, they(animal companions) can't do that.

    As they exist the Eidolon is a creature of combat.
    They bring nothing else to the table.
    You'd have to spend a feat to even get them a skill that you don't already have.
    Even in combat it has few options.
    Heck, they don't even have ranged attacks.

    I would like to be able to give my feats to my Eidolon.
    General, skilled, class, ancestry, background, whatever.
    If they are not OP on the PC, they should be fine on the Eidolon.
    They would be more interesting that what is currently on offer.

    Let them (eidolons)use magic items.
    That is a thing "intelligent independent creatures" should do.
    There isn't going to be more treasure because you brought two bodies to the party, so every piece of gear it has is one that you do without.

    51 to 100 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Secrets of Magic Playtest / Summoner Class / Animal Companion versus Eidolon Lvl 20 All Messageboards