What does Charisma do for you?

[WatersLethe]

Putting together a playtest beast eidolon summoner, and I was wondering what charisma is useful for?

I don't plan on casting offensive spells, is there something else I'm missing?

[Verzen]

Pretty much nothing, tbh. It's our main stat, but it doesn't improve DC since we probably wont be using our spells for offense, just support or buffs.

[siegfriedliner]

It's going to set the dc for your eidolons abilities that causes saves, though currently only the dragon has one. It let's you use up bon mot, demoralise effectively and let's you pick up bard Multiclass so you can pick up much better single action cantrips. Bonus perks if you pick up inspired defenses at 8th level and realise it can be combined with boost.

[KrispyXIV]

Summoner Spell DC is on track for something like half the characters life span. Offensive spells are absolutely worth considering, with the understanding that they arent always a great pick.

[Dubious Scholar]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Summoner Spell DC is on track for something like half the characters life span. Offensive spells are absolutely worth considering, with the understanding that they arent always a great pick.

Specifically, levels 1-6 and 11-14. So exactly half, yes. Action economy will be a problem of course, but.

[shroudb]

Casting 2 action cantrips, as a damage source, seems only viable if the Eidolon is already in range to Strike with Act together.

Even then, i would love to see the math of a damage cantrip vs the Eidolon getting Flank+doing a second Strike (with boost).

For all other rounds, i simply dont see it viable to cast a cantrip instead of having your Eidolon doing 2 Strikes (since stride+Strike+act together gives him exactly that, as opposed to cantrip+act together just getting it in range)

[Invictus Novo]

Agreed, as things stand right now, the Summoner's primary stat just doesn't do much for us. Level 1 and up spells will likely be reserved for non-offensive means and as shroudb pointed out, damage Cantrips generally won't be worth casting.

Then there is the fact that even if we want to cast damage spells, levels 7-10 and 15-20 put us behind to a point that they will fail much more frequently, making them feel horrible to waist two actions on.

Frankly, I would prefer they either change our primary attribute (CON maybe to give us more HP) or give us something special to do with CHA (CHA to AC perhaps?)

[Dubious Scholar]

The idea I've liked the most is CHA to duration on the focus spells. Not sure how you'd scale it, as 1+CHA, or 2xCHA, or...? But...

[Samir Sardinha]

The summoner base stat should be CONS not CHA

[shroudb]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

The idea I've liked the most is CHA to duration on the focus spells. Not sure how you'd scale it, as 1+CHA, or 2xCHA, or...? But...

Yay! that was my idea from another thread!

It was as duration = Cha. I dont think it needs a leg up with something like 1+Cha, it's already is our primary, we need incentive to raise it. And 3-5 rounds (if we start with 16 as an example) is more than enough to give a bit of breathing room to the stiffled action economy of Summoner.

Do a boost, throw an intimidation on next round, raise a shield, stride, reapply the boost, etc

[SuperBidi]

Most 1-actionish spells are not damaging ones. So, I think you can safely dump Charisma on a Summoner. Still, damage spells complement the Eidolon gracefully as you can cast them when your Eidolon is either unable to reach the enemy or affected by so many debuff that it's better to wait before using it.

[graystone]

WatersLethe wrote:

Putting together a playtest beast eidolon summoner

Just remember that Primal Roar is just awful. Demoralize requires a common language spoken or you get a -4 and Primal Roar isn't speaking a language.

[KrispyXIV]

graystone wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Putting together a playtest beast eidolon summoner

Just remember that Primal Roar is just awful. Demoralize requires a common language spoken or you get a -4 and Primal Roar isn't speaking a language.

I presume this will be fixed, as its been identified multiple times and almost certainly is not intended.

[DrakoVongola1]

graystone wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Putting together a playtest beast eidolon summoner

Just remember that Primal Roar is just awful. Demoralize requires a common language spoken or you get a -4 and Primal Roar isn't speaking a language.

I think it's intended that the language component doesn't apply to animals roaring, that doesn't make any sense.

[graystone]

KrispyXIV wrote:

I presume this will be fixed, as its been identified multiple times and almost certainly is not intended.

We are playtesting what we are given NOT what we hope it will be. Until a DEV comes in and OFFICIALLY says it's fixed, I'll assume we are meant to use the extremely awful version we have now.

DrakoVongola1 wrote:

I think it's intended that the language component doesn't apply to animals roaring, that doesn't make any sense.

Intended and actually written someplace are two different things: I can't accurately playtest an assumption of what I think seems right. If I did that, the classes would look a WHOLE lot different.

As to it "doesn't make any sense", why does it make sense that a big fluffy bunny can make loud purr and gets to ignore language but a 7' tall orc barbarian doesn't when they growl? They both can speak languages...

[lemeres]

Samir Sardinha wrote:

The summoner base stat should be CONS not CHA

I know that this was brought up because we ALWAYS want con as a main stat (see the original version of the scarred witch doctor)... but it might actually be appropriate here.

You are a vessel for an otherworldly being that shares in your essence and lifeforce. Making Con the base stat would mean that you are a sturdier vessel. Mechanically, it would help with the shared HP issue.

I could also justify it with spell casting, since I would imagine your spell casting is drawn from the eidolon. So you can make yourself into a heavier duty faucet for that power.

[GM OfAnything]

You are allowed to playtest with assumptions and "fixes". Just make a note of them and why you used them and what difference it made when reporting results.

The point of the playtest is to find the parts that aren't working, not force you to play with them.

[graystone]

GM OfAnything wrote:

You are allowed to playtest with assumptions and "fixes". Just make a note of them and why you used them and what difference it made when reporting results.

Sure, but it doesn't have the same weight as playing what we actually have. I could play a Magus using the same roll for both the Strike and the spell for stellstrike too but I'm not sure how good the data is going to be for the survey if I do.

GM OfAnything wrote:

The point of the playtest is to find the parts that aren't working, not force you to play with them.

No one is ever forced to use abilities they use and that itself is important feedback. If I write down that I NEVER, EVER used the ability because my Beast had a crappy CHA and took a -4 on top of it, that's accurately saying what doesn't work.

[cavernshark]

Building a few play test summoners last night, I also felt like it was a weird choice and maybe just a legacy that Charisma is the primary attribute. Commanding creatures is a little bard/marshal/sorcerer like, so that tracks too, but outside of that the mechanics don't really support it.

There's definitely the possibility for a lot of synergy with specific skill actions (demoralize specifically) but that doesn't seem to have much support in the rest of the class.

[graystone]

cavernshark wrote:

Building a few play test summoners last night, I also felt like it was a weird choice and maybe just a legacy that Charisma is the primary attribute. Commanding creatures is a little bard/marshal/sorcerer like, so that tracks too, but outside of that the mechanics don't really support it.

There's definitely the possibility for a lot of synergy with specific skill actions (demoralize specifically) but that doesn't seem to have much support in the rest of the class.

Yeah, the class feels like it'd want Con, Wis and Dex over Cha. I think I might even bump Int before Cha if your 'pet' doesn't have any abilities with DC's. I was looking at a Phantom and there really isn't a reason I couldn't play an Orc taking Voluntary Flaws for +2 Con, +2 dex, -2 cha and starting with an 8 Cha, 12 Hit Points from your ancestry and Diehard.

[WWHsmackdown]

They could do a divine font for summon spells using your charisma modifier. Then you'll be encouraged to pump your casting stat more. Id also prefer the main stat to stay charisma bc bards, sorcs, and oracles seem like logical multiclasses for summoner.

[Joyd]

Depending on the frequency with which you fight flying enemies, it might be worth investing in Charisma to use cantrips to plink at things an Eidolon can't hit. That's not super exciting, though.

[graystone]

Joyd wrote:

Depending on the frequency with which you fight flying enemies, it might be worth investing in Charisma to use cantrips to plink at things an Eidolon can't hit. That's not super exciting, though.

Buy your Eidolon bolas: Ranged Athletics check to Trip and a Trip makes it fall: maul and repeat.

[Dubious Scholar]

Joyd wrote:

Depending on the frequency with which you fight flying enemies, it might be worth investing in Charisma to use cantrips to plink at things an Eidolon can't hit. That's not super exciting, though.

As currently written, your eidolon can be given flight via Evolution Surge at level 9, and everyone has that. Which isn't a total answer - flying nuisances can show up before that... I'd actually suggest moving it down to 7 maybe to match Ranger's option for it.

[Martialmasters]

unless you want to take a save/attack spell with your limited slots and knowing how you will be strictly and always behind actual casters in that dc/to hit chance. you can bump charisma.

myself, i see no reason, and will never do it. 10 cha with voluntary flaw all the way so i can have 16con, 16dex and whatever else i might want.

[shroudb]

Joyd wrote:

Depending on the frequency with which you fight flying enemies, it might be worth investing in Charisma to use cantrips to plink at things an Eidolon can't hit. That's not super exciting, though.

well, after level 9 you can evolution surge it to gain flight. Or at level 7 you can have fly as one of your spells just in case (since you can change them every level either way)

[Deadmanwalking]

graystone wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Putting together a playtest beast eidolon summoner

Just remember that Primal Roar is just awful. Demoralize requires a common language spoken or you get a -4 and Primal Roar isn't speaking a language.

I'm not sure this strictly follows. The Beast speaks languages, and I don't think the Feat actually prohibits using them, a roared 'I'll kill you all!' seems legal.

I absolutely agree it should be changed to not be language based and avoid the penalty, but I don't think it's required to not use any language at the moment.

[cavernshark]

I think with more spells, a font, or just generally more abilities that ran off class DC instead of spell DC would encourage more charisma use.

Alternatively, something that might be helpful are some feats that work with some of the charisma based skills. The first level rogue feat You're Next would be a cool way to use a reaction to demoralize if it could trigger off of your eidolon's kills. Or, a tandem feat that lets your eidolon spend your reaction when you Demoralize to increase the frightened effect one step, something like it backing up your threats.

[Invictus Novo]

For the record, im more of a fan of making CON the class ability as ot fits both mechanically and thematically with what is written.

That said, if CHA is kept, more incentive to use it is what we need. A few thoughts:

- The Eidolons AC seems to really be an issue, so why not give a bonus to AC based on the Summoner's CHA?

- Like many have said, a summoning font (though id rather this base off CON even if CHA is kept as the class ability)

- Bonus to Will saves based on CHA

- Bonus to Eidolon movement speed based on CHA (maybe 5ft for each +2 rounded down)

- Add to duration of focus spells (suggested elsewhere too by others)

- Heck, even bonus languages (there are those who are intuitive learners)

Not all of course, but a few ideas to give more reason to pump CHA

[PossibleCabbage]

Cha over Con as the class ability is fine for legacy reasons, but you should get something other than a benefit to your meager spellcasting for having high charisma.

[graystone]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

graystone wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Putting together a playtest beast eidolon summoner

Just remember that Primal Roar is just awful. Demoralize requires a common language spoken or you get a -4 and Primal Roar isn't speaking a language.

I'm not sure this strictly follows. The Beast speaks languages, and I don't think the Feat actually prohibits using them, a roared 'I'll kill you all!' seems legal.

I absolutely agree it should be changed to not be language based and avoid the penalty, but I don't think it's required to not use any language at the moment.

PRIMAL ROAR [two-actions]

AUDITORY EIDOLON
Your eidolon unleashes a primal roar, or another terrifying noise that fits your eidolon’s form. Your eidolon attempts Intimidate checks to Demoralize each foe that can hear the roar within 30 feet.

Is 'I'll kill you all!' "a primal roar, or another terrifying noise that fits your eidolon’s form"? No, no it's not. If it's intended to not have the -4, it needs the Linguistic trait or an explicit exception written in.

This reminds me of how a Bully Animal Companion gets Expert Intimidation even though it has no speech. So it doesn't seem odd that they'd make a similar issue here.

[graystone]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Cha over Con as the class ability is fine for legacy reasons, but you should get something other than a benefit to your meager spellcasting for having high charisma.

The Summoner can put on a cheerleader outfit, get some pompoms make some Perform Cheerleader checks. Go eidolon! ;)

[Deadmanwalking]

graystone wrote:

Is 'I'll kill you all!' "a primal roar, or another terrifying noise that fits your eidolon’s form"? No, no it's not. If it's intended to not have the -4, it needs the Linguistic trait or an explicit exception written in.

I mean, it can speak, how is speech not appropriate to its form? Centaurs are a Beast, and they certainly speak, and a battle cry is very appropriate to a centaur's form.

I'm not saying this is how it should work, but I do think it's how it does work.

[RexAliquid]

A Marshal Summoner would be interesting, giving out actions to party members as well as their eidolon.

[graystone]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I mean, it can speak, how is speech not appropriate to its form?

As EVERY form can speak, I'm not seeing speech as a meaningful addition on what is appropriate as it's a meaningless statement when read that way: when one way is meaningless and one isn't, I'm pretty sure which one is right. If they are never meant to take the -4 then "primal roar, or another terrifying noise" should be yell as who is going to voluntarily going to not use speech instead of a more thematic noise. I don't know about you but it seems lame if the mighty lion eidolon makes a 'your mommy's so stupid' quips instead of a mighty roar because of the penalty. :P

[shroudb]

RexAliquid wrote:

A Marshal Summoner would be interesting, giving out actions to party members as well as their eidolon.

Thought of it as well, but it really get's hampered with how quickened works.

Losing an action to give everyone quickened doesnt give an extra action to the Eidolon as well since Quickened/Slowed only applies at the start of your round to count your actions.

Since Eidolon plays on your round and uses your action count, by the time you give everyone Quickened, the Eidolon is already assigned the actions of its round.

The most you can get out of him, action economy wise, is the Charge one where you spend 2 actions to stride+strike in melee and give everyone a Stride. But that requires both you striding in melee and hitting with a melee strike just to give the Eidolon a Stride but also inflicting MAP on it.

[PossibleCabbage]

I do kind of like the phantom summoner who is constantly adjacent to their eidolon in inspiring marshall stance.

[Deadmanwalking]

graystone wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I mean, it can speak, how is speech not appropriate to its form?

As EVERY form can speak, I'm not seeing speech as a meaningful addition on what is appropriate as it's a meaningless statement when read that way: when one way is meaningless and one isn't, I'm pretty sure which one is right.

I mean, it's flavor text. It's meant to be evocative. Assuming mechanical meaning behind evocative names or phrases in the absence of evidence is usually a bad idea and gets weird quick in a lot of cases.

I mean, the very name of the Champion option 'Blade Ally' features a blade, therefore you must choose a bladed weapon to be your 'Blade Ally' rather than something like a warhammer. I mean, they wouldn't put Blade in the name unless it was a meaningful addition, after all.

See how much weirdness that sort of read on things results in? I mean, Blade Ally goes on to clarify what it can be used with (which is any weapon, plus handwraps), but arguably so does Primal Roar, what with not having a single bit of text prohibiting speech.

graystone wrote:

If they are never meant to take the -4 then "primal roar, or another terrifying noise" should be yell as who is going to voluntarily going to not use speech instead of a more thematic noise. I don't know about you but it seems lame if the mighty lion eidolon makes a 'your mommy's so stupid' quips instead of a mighty roar because of the penalty. :P

Oh, I absolutely agree they should remove the language necessity. I even said so. It is, in fact, super dumb. But so is the roar getting -4 in the first place, as I'm sure you'd agree.

I was purely addressing the mechanics question of whether they could, in fact, use a language with that ability, and there's nothing forbidding it, so I think it's pretty clear they can. Which, again, is a dumb thing for them to need to do, but I see no reason they can't do so.

[graystone]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I mean, it's flavor text. It's meant to be evocative. Assuming mechanical meaning behind evocative names or phrases in the absence of evidence is usually a bad idea and gets weird quick in a lot of cases.

While I agree with most of your post, I can't agree to this in this situation: I'll agree flavor text and names are just that but I disagree that this has no mechanical meaning: We are dealing with a mechanic that a SPECIFIC requirement for the type of Auditory actions you must take to roll without a penalty and this line is telling you you don't use that requirement for the ability. As such, I'll agree to disagree with you on how it read: to me, you take a -4 and may NOT speak with it.

Now on changing the wording, yeah it needs fixed no question. Is it "super dumb"? Sure. But so is Bully Companions Intimidate but it has a -4 too so I can't even say the intent isn't for it to take the -4. Maybe the crappy roll is to balance the multiple rolls?

[shroudb]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I do kind of like the phantom summoner who is constantly adjacent to their eidolon in inspiring marshall stance.

Yes, but (depending on Staff rulings) It's not really different than simply having the summoner have a staff of providence and casting Bless out of it on the start of combat.

For my Dark Knight build (it should be somewhere in the forum) that's how i went about for the +1 status to attacks while riding my Phantom

[Vidmaster7]

graystone wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

I presume this will be fixed, as its been identified multiple times and almost certainly is not intended.

We are playtesting what we are given NOT what we hope it will be. Until a DEV comes in and OFFICIALLY says it's fixed, I'll assume we are meant to use the extremely awful version we have now.

DrakoVongola1 wrote:

I think it's intended that the language component doesn't apply to animals roaring, that doesn't make any sense.

Intended and actually written someplace are two different things: I can't accurately playtest an assumption of what I think seems right. If I did that, the classes would look a WHOLE lot different.

As to it "doesn't make any sense", why does it make sense that a big fluffy bunny can make loud purr and gets to ignore language but a 7' tall orc barbarian doesn't when they growl? They both can speak languages...

Doesn't hurt to offer suggestion on how to fix it though!

[graystone]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Doesn't hurt to offer suggestion on how to fix it though!

Oh, I'm not saying that at all! Suggest away! I've been doing a LOT of that. ;)

The post I replies to though made it sound [to me] like they where saying it was going to be fixed so run it like it already is.

[Vidmaster7]

Oh ok. yeah for the play test best to run it how they put it out. probably for the best and if you notice a issue or have a idea how to fix it Share it.

If you play it how they didn't design and how you would expect them to fix it then they might not fix it so only you get to enjoy that fix. (I think that sentence made sense.)

(as far as charisma goes I still wish we had kept the item point thingys but just changed them a bit. I think alchemist would of been better for it.)

[Deadmanwalking]

graystone wrote:

While I agree with most of your post, I can't agree to this in this situation: I'll agree flavor text and names are just that but I disagree that this has no mechanical meaning: We are dealing with a mechanic that a SPECIFIC requirement for the type of Auditory actions you must take to roll without a penalty and this line is telling you you don't use that requirement for the ability. As such, I'll agree to disagree with you on how it read: to me, you take a -4 and may NOT speak with it.

There are wordings that would prohibit speech, the ability could describe itself as 'a wordless cry of rage and dominance' for example, or something to that effect. I don't think 'or another terrifying noise that fits your eidolon's form' qualifies as such language, though. Centaurs are, as I mentioned, a type of Beast, and a Centaur Battlecry would certainly satisfy that description if you have a centaur-shaped eidolon. And that can definitely involve words.

graystone wrote:

Now on changing the wording, yeah it needs fixed no question. Is it "super dumb"? Sure. But so is Bully Companions Intimidate but it has a -4 too so I can't even say the intent isn't for it to take the -4. Maybe the crappy roll is to balance the multiple rolls?

I don't think so. The actual mechanics are pretty much straight from the Barbarian's 'Terrifying Howl' Class Feat, only it's lower level and takes more actions. That particular Barbarian Feat just has Intimidating Glare as a prerequisite. So, easy mistake to make if just looking at the Feat you want to duplicate and not what its prerequisite does.

[graystone]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I don't think so. The actual mechanics are pretty much straight from the Barbarian's 'Terrifying Howl' Class Feat, only it's lower level and takes more actions. That particular Barbarian Feat just has Intimidating Glare as a prerequisite.

See, for me, Terrifying Howl is exactly why I think it reads as I said: if it worked without speech, why require the non-class prerequisite feat?

Deadmanwalking wrote:

So, easy mistake to make if just looking at the Feat you want to duplicate and not what its prerequisite does.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the requirements changed: it means they put the wrong words in the PDF if that's the case and need to fix the wording not that the current wording allows what the feat doesn't.

[Deadmanwalking]

graystone wrote:

See, for me, Terrifying Howl is exactly why I think it reads as I said: if it worked without speech, why require the non-class prerequisite feat?

Terrifying Howl doesn't technically prohibit speech either. You can certainly howl with words, and indeed I very much doubt most GMs would prevent screaming war cries as a use of the Feat. That fact is just irrelevant because of the prerequisite.

And Intimidating Glare is only sort of a non-Class Prerequisite. The actual expectation is that you'll take it with Raging Intimidation, which is a Class Feat. They were just trying to be nice and expand it slightly.

graystone wrote:

Sure, but that doesn't mean the requirements changed: it means they put the wrong words in the PDF if that's the case and need to fix the wording not that the current wording allows what the feat doesn't.

There's certainly an issue here, but it's not that you can't speak when using the Feat, it's that you must do so in order to avoid a major penalty, and even then only with those you share a language with, which is both counterintuitive and very against theme.

[WatersLethe]

Not to be rude to either of you, but this discussion about Terrifying Howl is really boring. Can you spice it up a bit? Maybe throw some insults around?

[graystone]

WatersLethe wrote:

Not to be rude to either of you, but this discussion about Terrifying Howl is really boring. Can you spice it up a bit? Maybe throw some insults around?

I would, but Terrifying Howl doesn't let you speak. ;)

WatersLethe wrote:

There's certainly an issue here, but it's not that you can't speak when using the Feat, it's that you must do so in order to avoid a major penalty, and even then only with those you share a language with, which is both counterintuitive and very against theme.

I again point to the Bully Companion: it's just as counter-intuitive and in the rules. Just because it looks dumb to us doesn't mean it's not correct. IMO bulk is dumb and counter-intuitive but I'm not going to argue it's not the rules.

PS: I really don't think we're going to change each others minds here and I can't think of anything new to bring to the table so I think I'll leave it here.

[Wind Chime]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Cha over Con as the class ability is fine for legacy reasons, but you should get something other than a benefit to your meager spellcasting for having high charisma.

Given the summoner is now sharing his life force with the eidolon con as key skill or having the option of con or cha makes sense.

I am not necessarily as convinced their spellcasting modfier should be con based.

[Dubious Scholar]

I'm hesitant to say any class should have CON as a key ability score, simply because it's already such an important stat. It's the most irreplaceable defensive stat.