| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many view the entire base concept of the summoner to be nearly unworkable and even the ones that think it can, find it more boring then dry bran cereal covered in sand.
Thus thread is for people to talk about how they would change the summoner.
I'd make it an actual summoner. Seperate hp pool. Eidolon would still get 10. But summoner would get 6.
This will cause a lot to happen. Completely divorcing all the silly negatives it has. It's still a intelligence being resulting in an the weird corner case stuff you wanted with skills and such.
The DC of eidolon abilities some key off summoners primary stat.
You can now spend one action to give you eidolon two actions.
Buff eidolons attacks to 1d10 and 1d6 agile.
Boost eidolon is a bad mechanic as it's boring as all hell. Need to find a way to roll this damage into the eidolon.
As summoner is right now. The only way I'd play one is as an NPC where the eidolon is the main character and the summoner is what the eidolon is stuck with and he's salty about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of the Eidolon flavours, choose from three distinct playstyles: Companion Eidolon, Synthesist Eidolon, and no eidolon but more interesting Summon X abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The linked HP pool is a critical piece of the Summoner not essentially being two characters instead of one added to the party. So long as its one hitpoint pool, and one pool of actions, that Player is still working with resources similar to everyone else at the table by default.
If you get rid of that, you're right back to where we were in 1E where Summoners were essentially sitting at the table with 2 PC's to everyone else's one.
And you're talking about giving this player 16 hp per level, with a Eidolon that isn't nearly as week as the crippled Animal Companions (and I don't even mean their combat numbers - they can't talk, operate doors, or do any of the other things an independent intelligent humanoid can that matter, but which are ignored because combat bonuses).
I know a lot of people who played things other than Summoners who hated this dynamic in Previous editions.
I also haven't seen real evidence that the linked HP pool and actions actually create real gameplay issues. I've seen hypothesizing, but the reality is that the Summoner themself is less vulnerable to attack than any other caster because they have +2hp/level, and the Eidolon's defense for most of its life is either Martial equivalent or downright good, except for a couple levels at the beginning of play.
Often, there's no real incentive for the Summoner to expose themselves to harm at all.
AOE's hurt, but they aren't as common as some people imply.
That said, all for making Summoners and Eidolons more interesting to play. I just don't want to throw out the good mechanics - the one's that level the playing field between Summoner's and other characters - thrown out for it.
The linked HP pool is a critical piece of the Summoner not essentially being two characters instead of one added to the party. So long as its one hitpoint pool, and one pool of actions, that Player is still working with resources similar to everyone else at the table by default.
If you get rid of that, you're right back to where we were in 1E where Summoners were essentially sitting at the table with 2 PC's to everyone else's one.
It's the same thing about eidolon not having their own pool of feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Krispy in actual play, summoner shared hp and actions has been nothing but a detriment to the class and gameplay.
I cannot disagree enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Krispy in actual play, summoner shared hp and actions has been nothing but a detriment to the class and gameplay.
I cannot disagree enough.
Its supposed to be a drawback compared to just having two PCs.
As a player, you should consider that your summoner is being limited in consideration of other players.
Other players are why balance matters at all.
Its essentially unthinkable that we'll have a final summoner that doesn't compromise somewhere on actions and survival - the current compromise seems intended to allow more power in other aspects.
Krispy in actual play, summoner shared hp and actions has been nothing but a detriment to the class and gameplay.
I cannot disagree enough.
Its supposed to be a drawback compared to just having two PCs.
As a player, you should consider that your summoner is being limited in consideration of other players.
Other players are why balance matters at all.
Its essentially unthinkable that we'll have a final summoner that doesn't compromise somewhere on actions and survival - the current compromise seems intended to allow more power in other aspects.
But it doesn't result in more power, it results in less.
But it doesn't result in more power, it results in less.Krispy in actual play, summoner shared hp and actions has been nothing but a detriment to the class and gameplay.
I cannot disagree enough.
Its supposed to be a drawback compared to just having two PCs.
As a player, you should consider that your summoner is being limited in consideration of other players.
Other players are why balance matters at all.
Its essentially unthinkable that we'll have a final summoner that doesn't compromise somewhere on actions and survival - the current compromise seems intended to allow more power in other aspects.
Elsewhere. More power elsewhere.
Elsewhere. More power elsewhere.But it doesn't result in more power, it results in less.Krispy in actual play, summoner shared hp and actions has been nothing but a detriment to the class and gameplay.
I cannot disagree enough.
Its supposed to be a drawback compared to just having two PCs.
As a player, you should consider that your summoner is being limited in consideration of other players.
Other players are why balance matters at all.
Its essentially unthinkable that we'll have a final summoner that doesn't compromise somewhere on actions and survival - the current compromise seems intended to allow more power in other aspects.
But it doesn't? Intention sure, just not the reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it doesn't? Intention sure, just not the reality.Elsewhere. More power elsewhere.Krispy in actual play, summoner shared hp and actions has been nothing but a detriment to the class and gameplay.
I cannot disagree enough.
Its supposed to be a drawback compared to just having two PCs.
As a player, you should consider that your summoner is being limited in consideration of other players.
Other players are why balance matters at all.
Its essentially unthinkable that we'll have a final summoner that doesn't compromise somewhere on actions and survival - the current compromise seems intended to allow more power in other aspects.
Ok! Not getting enough in return is a different discussion.
"Its a significant limitation and I think it needs more to offset it. " is a great argument for getting more power elsewhere
But it doesn't result in more power, it results in less.
That's a different issue - not getting enough in exchange!
Saying its a big limitation and should result in better stuff elsewhere is different than replacing it with something less bad.
Something less bad could take away from other abilities. I'd rather take a stronger limitation for better returns.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I like the idea of almost everything, what I don't necessary like is some of the execution. So far I've played in a few random encounters with the Summoner. Will be doing more over the weekend as well. Here are my thoughts so far.
Love:
1) Shared HP pool - really brings home that we are a true companion and equal to our Eidolon
2) Shared action economy - same as above
3) Eidolon type determining spell tradition
4) That Spiritualist is baked into the Summoner
Like:
1) The customizable weapon options for the Eidolon
2) That all the Eidolons feel unique (wouldn't mind something more here, but base is good)
3) Limited casting for Summoner
Would like to see changed:
1) More summoning support for the Summoner - using the limited slots for summoning spells just feels bad
2) Act Together to allow the action to be used as part of an activity (such as a multi-action spell)
3) Better martial capabilities for the Eidolon
A) Eidolon AC is just bad at early levels
B) While damage isn't exactly horrible at first glance, given that they cannot use any feats to make it better means they are very far behind other martials
4) CHA feels very lackluster as a primary stat. With so few spell slots and the Spell Proficiency lacking for half the summoner's career, I can't see investing in too many attack/save spells, but instead use them for support and buffing. As such, there is very little benefit of CHA pumping. I'd like to see either:
A) Make CON the primary ability - it makes sense with all the "life force" language used
B) Give me some more incentive/benefit to pumping CHA
5) Boost Eidolon feels like an action tax as it is now. Other classes can do much the same thing with either 1 action for the whole combat, or no spent actions. Having to use Boost Eidolon every round unnecessarily restricts the Summoner big time and feels horrible.
There is my two cents so far after playing a couple of battle scenarios. This weekend I'm playing in a full 5 hour session with the Summoner, so hopefully will have more thoughts then.
Frankly, I like the idea of almost everything, what I don't necessary like is some of the execution. So far I've played in a few random encounters with the Summoner. Will be doing more over the weekend as well. Here are my thoughts so far.
4) CHA feels very lackluster as a primary stat. With so few spell slots and the Spell Proficiency lacking for half the summoner's career, I can't see investing in too many attack/save spells, but instead use them for support and buffing. As such, there is very little benefit of CHA pumping. I'd like to see either:
A) Make CON the primary ability - it makes sense with all the "life force" language used
B) Give me some more incentive/benefit to pumping CHA
5) Boost Eidolon feels like an action tax as it is now. Other classes can do much the same thing with either 1 action for the whole combat, or no spent actions. Having to use Boost Eidolon every round unnecessarily restricts the Summoner big time and feels horrible.
CHA is useful as there are a number of CHA based skills that have single action abilities to do something useful and offensive. However I would be quite happy to go with CON as well. To my mind it make as much sense as a primary casting stat.
Boost Eidolon is an action tax. It probably fair but it makes it a little hard to move around. Kiting archers are going to cut Summoners to shreads. I think to should be eased and some point in the character progression before level 20.
So what was your typical round like?
Tandom action to both move, boost Eidolon, then one attack?