Stop trying to reinvent the wheel with Magus and Summoner

[Stack]

Verzen wrote:

Uh no. I dont want "40 feats over the course of 20 levels" I want base line customization. Not simply "options spread out over the course of time"

Sorry, this is the PF2 board. You must be looking for some other system.

[Verzen]

Cyouni wrote:

Some people would complain that you had to select 20 independent pieces of stuff in order to play a level 2 summoner, between ancestry, heritage, background, and a ton of class selections

And they'd be right.

No. They wouldn't. Neither literally or allegorically.

[Cyouni]

Verzen wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Some people would complain that you had to select 20 independent pieces of stuff in order to play a level 2 summoner, between ancestry, heritage, background, and a ton of class selections

And they'd be right.

No. They wouldn't. Neither literally or allegorically.

Oh really? And how many independent points of customization did you want, given your comparison? The one where you stripped out 6 stats, ancestry, heritage, ancestry feat, skills, skill feat, class, eidolon type, and 2 spells to make the comparison of only getting one class feat?

Based on the exact comparison you provided, that would be 10 choices, coincidentally bringing the number to 20.

[Jason Bulmahn]

Folks, the tone and tenor of some of the posters in this thread is disappointing. If you cannot post without attacking or belittling other posters, perhaps you should not post at all.

[Verzen]

Cyouni wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Some people would complain that you had to select 20 independent pieces of stuff in order to play a level 2 summoner, between ancestry, heritage, background, and a ton of class selections

And they'd be right.

No. They wouldn't. Neither literally or allegorically.

Oh really? And how many independent points of customization did you want, given your comparison? The one where you stripped out 6 stats, ancestry, heritage, ancestry feat, skills, skill feat, class, eidolon type, and 2 spells to make the comparison of only getting one class feat?

Based on the exact comparison you provided, that would be 10 choices, coincidentally bringing the number to 20.

It's pretty simple.

Just give us creature type. Give us 2 or 3 kinds of attacks (physical or energy attacks)

give us 2 evolutions

And give us 1 active ability choice at level 1.

Then allow us our own custom stat array for the Eidolon.

[Capn Cupcake]

I feel like the general consensus (I'm certainly not saying everyone feels this way) is that Summoner with shared HP pool is interesting, but the Eidolons need more customization and I largely agree with that. I'd like to see more support like that currently. Right now Eidolon design reminds me a lot of the fluffier indie ttrpgs my friends prefer, with loose mechanics that can be reflavored how you want but my issue is the whole reason I like Pathfinder 2e is my decisions have a tangible, crunchy consequence to them. They mean something, and if I just scratch out unarmed claw attack and write in cool two handed sword from the heavens they both mean the same thing mechanically. I'd like to see just a little bit more crunch to the eidolons.

[graystone]

Capn Cupcake wrote:

I feel like the general consensus (I'm certainly not saying everyone feels this way) is that Summoner with shared HP pool is interesting

LOL Thinking that it's interesting and thinking it's a good idea are two different things. ;)

Capn Cupcake wrote:

but the Eidolons need more

customization

IMO, it's more about HOW they should be customized instead of how many customization.

[Verzen]

Capn Cupcake wrote:

I feel like the general consensus (I'm certainly not saying everyone feels this way) is that Summoner with shared HP pool is interesting, but the Eidolons need more customization and I largely agree with that. I'd like to see more support like that currently. Right now Eidolon design reminds me a lot of the fluffier indie ttrpgs my friends prefer, with loose mechanics that can be reflavored how you want but my issue is the whole reason I like Pathfinder 2e is my decisions have a tangible, crunchy consequence to them. They mean something, and if I just scratch out unarmed claw attack and write in cool two handed sword from the heavens they both mean the same thing mechanically. I'd like to see just a little bit more crunch to the eidolons.

My thoughts exactly. =)

[Cyouni]

Verzen wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Some people would complain that you had to select 20 independent pieces of stuff in order to play a level 2 summoner, between ancestry, heritage, background, and a ton of class selections

And they'd be right.

No. They wouldn't. Neither literally or allegorically.

Oh really? And how many independent points of customization did you want, given your comparison? The one where you stripped out 6 stats, ancestry, heritage, ancestry feat, skills, skill feat, class, eidolon type, and 2 spells to make the comparison of only getting one class feat?

Based on the exact comparison you provided, that would be 10 choices, coincidentally bringing the number to 20.

It's pretty simple.

Just give us creature type. Give us 2 or 3 kinds of attacks (physical or energy attacks)

give us 2 evolutions

And give us 1 active ability choice at level 1.

Then allow us our own custom stat array for the Eidolon.

I'm really struggling to see how this wouldn't just make the summoner literally the most powerful class in existence. To recap:

- 1 level 1 spell
- 5 cantrips
- expert in 2 saves
- 2 kinds of attacks from the eidolon *plus* creature type base
- 2 evolutions
- extra ability scores
- share senses/act together for action economy
All that in addition to what every other class gets. How is that not far over the budget? At the very least, this is asking for double the stuff of any other character.

Reminder, fighter gets 1 class feat, expert weapons, shield block, armour proficiency, and expert in two saves. Wizard gets 1 expert save, 2 level 1 spells, bonded object, spell school, and arcane thesis.

I could see it being plausible at having a level 1 class feat, which would translate into an extra evolution, but even a glance should say this is way too much.

[Verzen]

Cyouni wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Some people would complain that you had to select 20 independent pieces of stuff in order to play a level 2 summoner, between ancestry, heritage, background, and a ton of class selections

And they'd be right.

No. They wouldn't. Neither literally or allegorically.

Oh really? And how many independent points of customization did you want, given your comparison? The one where you stripped out 6 stats, ancestry, heritage, ancestry feat, skills, skill feat, class, eidolon type, and 2 spells to make the comparison of only getting one class feat?

Based on the exact comparison you provided, that would be 10 choices, coincidentally bringing the number to 20.

It's pretty simple.

Just give us creature type. Give us 2 or 3 kinds of attacks (physical or energy attacks)

give us 2 evolutions

And give us 1 active ability choice at level 1.

Then allow us our own custom stat array for the Eidolon.

I'm really struggling to see how this wouldn't just make the summoner literally the most powerful class in existence. To recap:

- 1 level 1 spell
- 5 cantrips
- expert in 2 saves
- 2 kinds of attacks from the eidolon *plus* creature type base
- 2 evolutions
- extra ability scores
- share senses/act together for action economy
All that in addition to what every other class gets. How is that not far over the budget? At the very least, this is asking for double the stuff of any other character.

Reminder, fighter gets 1 class feat, expert weapons, shield block, armour proficiency, and expert in two saves. Wizard gets 1 expert save, 2 level 1 spells, bonded object, spell school, and arcane thesis.

I could see it being plausible at having a level 1 class feat, which would translate into an extra evolution, but even a glance should say this is way too much.

As a fighter, they can get +2 more attack, an ancestry ability, a background, and a class feat. Plus their weapon can have any number of traits. Reach, trip, etc. If i was an elf, I can also get resistance to cold 1/2 level as well as the type of elf.

An eidolon would then be able to pick its 1d8 physical weapon OR 1d4 energy weapon. No traits.

2 evolutions. I can then select maybe reach or some other interesting evolution such as energy resistance 1/2 level.

We get rid of cantrips and spells. Its little. Summoner shouldn't be a caster. We have plenty. We don't have a monster tamer class.

So suummoner is perfect for that. Still give the summoner interesting focus spells. But it doesn't need 4 spells.

I'd trade out those 4 spells in a heartbeat for a more interesting Eidolon.

[Verzen]

From my view, Summoner is trying to make bother in tandem in some way but it comes across leaving both rather dull.

[Verzen]

Both* won't let me edit it

[Cyouni]

Verzen wrote:

As a fighter, they can get +2 more attack, an ancestry ability, a background, and a class feat. Plus their weapon can have any number of traits. Reach, trip, etc.

Ok, now let's compare exclusives:

Fighter: Expert weapons, trained armour, shield block, AoO, 1 class feat
Summoner: Eidolon, spells (focus or slot), 2 evolutions (2 class feats), eidolon bonuses (act together/share senses)
Sorcerer: bloodline, spells

I could do the wizard as well, but the point is really that each evolution is approximately equal to 1 class feat, and I see no real reason why summoner should have more than anyone else. If you look at power balancing, spells are generally considered equivalent to 1 class feat. Limited spells might be a good enough reason to slot in 1 evolution/feat, but even with no spells there's really no room for 2.

And I should definitely note that Summoner, as a half caster, derives a lot of its identity from casting spells. This isn't like ranger, where it wasn't as central to its identity - the summoner spells were known for being a major part.

(I'll also mention that you do have control over your eidolon attack types already.)

[Tremaine]

Cyouni wrote:

I'm going to point out that if you really took PF1's design decisions to be the be-all and end-all, then you'd hate the design of the Bard and Sorcerer, even if we put aside all the major changes to the other classes.

. I really dislike Bards, and that..thing that claims to be a War Priest, the limited slot Magus and Summoner however are..interesting, the concept seems solid, but needs some tuning, it could turn out to be a passable replacement for the old 1-6 casters.

[Verzen]

And evolutions, outside of mere class feats, were a huge part of the Summoner package as well. Why are you comfortable with stripping what made Summoners unique in pf1?

[Squeakmaan]

Verzen wrote:

And evolutions, outside of mere class feats, were a huge part of the Summoner package as well. Why are you comfortable with stripping what made Summoners unique in pf1?

Because paring it back (not stripping) is necessary to keep Summoner from completely overpowering all of the other classes, which happened with the 1e Summoner.

[Cyouni]

Verzen wrote:

And evolutions, outside of mere class feats, were a huge part of the Summoner package as well. Why are you comfortable with stripping what made Summoners unique in pf1?

Aside from the whole thing where PF2 wanted to move away from the PF1 design where build was 90% of the game? Aside from the fact that it's based off Unchained Summoner, which scaled from 1 evolution point to 15 at level 20, with a lot of evolutions taking more than 1 point?

Or did you really just want the Big Ball o' Tentacles?

[Verzen]

Squeakmaan wrote:

Verzen wrote:

And evolutions, outside of mere class feats, were a huge part of the Summoner package as well. Why are you comfortable with stripping what made Summoners unique in pf1?

Because paring it back (not stripping) is necessary to keep Summoner from completely overpowering all of the other classes, which happened with the 1e Summoner.

Extremes are extremes. I am not sure why you guys insist on arguing from extremes. Just because the 1e eidolon was OP does not mean the general 'system' was broken. Just the options and the tuning, of which MAP and 3 action economy took care of most of it.

For example.

With an Eidolon in 1e, I can make

at level 5

They get an evolution pool of 8.

Technically, I can pick Tentacle 7 times.

Quote:

An eidolon possesses a long, sinuous tentacle, granting it a tentacle attack. This attack is a secondary attack. The tentacle attack deals 1d4 points of damage (1d6 if Large, 1d8 if Huge). This evolution can be selected more than once.

And pounce

Now I have a level 5 Eidolon that has bite and 7 tentacles and pounce.

At level 5. That is WAY overpowered and no one is even suggesting anything CLOSE to that. But that's a problem with 1) Natural attacks. 2) Evolution selections. 3) Limits.

What isn't a problem is the base system of evolution points.

For example.

Instead of all that nonsense, 8 evolution points to play with.

I use 2 to give my Eidolon 1/2 level resistance to an element. Can only be selected once.

I use 1 to give my Eidolon Breath weapon of 1d4 I spend 1 more to make it 1d6. Then I spend 1 more to make it 1d8. Can't go above 1d8.

So I have already used 5 points. Now I have 3 more. Well, I spend 1 to give my Eidolon reach with 1 of his 2 attacks. (I have a 1d8 bite attack that deals piercing damage.) and he also has a tail made of fire that deals 1d4 fire damage. So I use reach on the tail, essentially making his tail longer.

Now I have 2 more evolutions. I spend the last 2 on a shield that if my Eidolon is dealt damage by a natural attack, the attacker would be dealt 1d6 damage.

SO with all that said.

At level 5, I'd have an Eidolon that has...

2 resistance to fire
3d8 breath weapon for fire
1d8 piercing bite attack
1d4 fire tail attack with a range of 10 feet
a 1d6 fire damage shield

COMPARED to a level 5 fighter that has
3 fighter feats which can include things like power attack, lunge, Swipe. If you're wielding a two handed weapon, you can be dealing 1d12 damage with each hit.
If you're a kobold fighter, you could even get a breath weapon for 3d6 damage on top of that.. AND 2 resistance to fire as well. The only thing you wouldnt get is the fire tail attack (but it deals as much damage as rain of embers stance) and a 1d6 fire damage shield, but the fighter would still deal more overall damage.

So the system of evolutions aren't a bad system. It was just significantly poorly implemented.

[Verzen]

And the reason I am comparing an Eidolon to a class like fighter is solely because I think the Eidolon should be on that power level (equal) to fighter and barbarian while the summoner is more like the social persona. Think vigilante identities, except instead two bodies instead of 1.

[Deriven Firelion]

ExOichoThrow wrote:

I for one, love the direction summoner has gone in, barring the lack of customization in the playtest.

I really think Paizo should listen to people who buy their products and support it, rather than people who throw tantrums over playtest not being what they want and then admitting they dont really play the game anyways and have just waited for it to "get better"

I'm really tired of 1e grogs expecting everything ever created to be catered to 1e players only.

I supported PF1 for all the years it was out. Bought tons of books and APs. I guess I'm the customer they want to lose. The one who played the summoner 6 or 7 times. Bought all the books like Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, APG, so many books I can't even remember all their names I still have sitting in boxes at my house. Kingmaker, Runelords, Carrion Crown, Giantslayer, Wrath of the Righteous, Mythic Adventures, and the like.

Sure. I'm just some grog that shouldn't be listened to by Paizo.

[Capn Cupcake]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

ExOichoThrow wrote:

I for one, love the direction summoner has gone in, barring the lack of customization in the playtest.

I really think Paizo should listen to people who buy their products and support it, rather than people who throw tantrums over playtest not being what they want and then admitting they dont really play the game anyways and have just waited for it to "get better"

I'm really tired of 1e grogs expecting everything ever created to be catered to 1e players only.

I supported PF1 for all the years it was out. Bought tons of books and APs. I guess I'm the customer they want to lose. The one who played the summoner 6 or 7 times. Bought all the books like Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, APG, so many books I can't even remember all their names I still have sitting in boxes at my house. Kingmaker, Runelords, Carrion Crown, Giantslayer, Wrath of the Righteous, Mythic Adventures, and the like.

Sure. I'm just some grog that shouldn't be listened to by Paizo.

That's an incredibly entitled opinion. They're not making the game for YOU specifically. If the summoner looked like the PF1 summoner I wouldn't have given it a second look, but this new direction and idea? I find it interesting, it tickles my imagination, I want to see what can be done with it. I don't think it's perfect, not by a long shot. It needs tweaks and work, but the core concept is enticing and enchanting and I want to play with it. I threw out my idea to play a Magus (my own personal PF1 favorite class) to play this instead in an upcoming campaign. But I certainly don't feel entitled to the Magus despite disagreeing with the current design choices. I realize its a bigger world than me, there are more people than me, and I'm willing to accept that things move on. I'm still gonna play the system because honestly it's amazing even if there are things I disagree with. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a great view. If you want to stop playing because they didn't do one class exactly how you want them to, that's your prerogative but again, it's a very entitled position to take.

[Verzen]

Capn Cupcake wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

ExOichoThrow wrote:

I for one, love the direction summoner has gone in, barring the lack of customization in the playtest.

I really think Paizo should listen to people who buy their products and support it, rather than people who throw tantrums over playtest not being what they want and then admitting they dont really play the game anyways and have just waited for it to "get better"

I'm really tired of 1e grogs expecting everything ever created to be catered to 1e players only.

I supported PF1 for all the years it was out. Bought tons of books and APs. I guess I'm the customer they want to lose. The one who played the summoner 6 or 7 times. Bought all the books like Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, APG, so many books I can't even remember all their names I still have sitting in boxes at my house. Kingmaker, Runelords, Carrion Crown, Giantslayer, Wrath of the Righteous, Mythic Adventures, and the like.

Sure. I'm just some grog that shouldn't be listened to by Paizo.

That's an incredibly entitled opinion. They're not making the game for YOU specifically. If the summoner looked like the PF1 summoner I wouldn't have given it a second look, but this new direction and idea? I find it interesting, it tickles my imagination, I want to see what can be done with it. I don't think it's perfect, not by a long shot. It needs tweaks and work, but the core concept is enticing and enchanting and I want to play with it. I threw out my idea to play a Magus (my own personal PF1 favorite class) to play this instead in an upcoming campaign. But I certainly don't feel entitled to the Magus despite disagreeing with the current design choices. I realize its a bigger world than me, there are more people than me, and I'm willing to accept that things move on. I'm still gonna play the system because honestly it's amazing even if there are things I disagree with. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a great view. If you want to stop playing because they...

1) If they rebalanced the point system, like my example, why wouldn't you have given it a look?

2) This 'new system' is just the old unchained system with no evolution points.

3) All opinions and views are valid.

[Cyouni]

Verzen wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Verzen wrote:

And evolutions, outside of mere class feats, were a huge part of the Summoner package as well. Why are you comfortable with stripping what made Summoners unique in pf1?

Aside from the whole thing where PF2 wanted to move away from the PF1 design where build was 90% of the game? Aside from the fact that it's based off Unchained Summoner, which scaled from 1 evolution point to 15 at level 20, with a lot of evolutions taking more than 1 point?

Or did you really just want the Big Ball o' Tentacles?

No one is arguing for a "big ball o' Tentacles." Please stop misrepresenting my argument. It's starting to get exhausting.

Then don't immediately make the argument where your eidolon has literally no flavour except for a ton of attachments bolted on. You know, literally the exact thing that led to Big Ball o' Tentacles.

And you're arguing for the power level of a fighter/barbarian in combat, with a second body as well, with a system that doesn't interface with PF2 systems or design in any way.

It's hard to have a discourse when you just want a PF1 design in a system that's completely different.

[Midnightoker]

I am warming to the concept of the partial casting they have, but its got the problem of "early levels it can't be any better" and "after you reach the point level 7/8 range you're in a spot".

They clearly knew this and hoped the Class Feats they each get to save spells (as well as Summoner's Heighten freely feature) would help alleviate it.

I haven't gotten to test it yet, and to be honest, I don't usually start games at higher level or get to test them there.

The highest party I'm running now is 4, so I might be able to squeeze out a level 8/9 Magus in a late story setting, but I'd hate to force it just so I can playtest the Magus, and even then, I'm the GM so more than likely this would be a BBEG and not representative of actual play (or at least, it would be an okay represenation of a CL-X depending on the PCs level).

But I do actually like it, and when I heard about "reduced casting" and thought of the existing spell lists, I was pretty bummed, because that sounded unfun.

But this? It's got potential.

Spellstrike, the action economy, and the Class Paths are way more problematic to me than the Partial Casting aspect.

Class Paths could honestly help a lot of these, so I really hope they give the Paths a real punch.

Like let's say Class Paths look more like this (stolen bits and pieces from others):
_______________________________________

Fury Magus
The clamor and carnage of battle call to you. The
process of channeling your arcane power into a large and
dangerous weapon fills your body with extra vitality.

You gain the Focus Spell Furious Return.

Triumphant Return - Focus 1
S,V
You may cast a spell in your spellbook of one level lower than the highest spell you can cast as long as you are the only target of that spell. You gain the effects of Sustaining Steel as if you had used Striking Spell.

Sustaining Steel
If you use Striking Spell to store a spell in a two-handed
weapon, when you finish Casting the Spell you gain
temporary Hit Points equal to either the twice spell’s level
if you used a spell slot, or its level if your spell didn’t use a
spell slot (such as a cantrip or focus spell). These temporary
HP last until the end of your next turn.

Spellblade Waltzreaction
Trigger: You land a Strike using Striking Spell
You may make a Step as part of landing the Strike.
__________________________________________________

It's probably too much for 1, but you get the idea. Class Path could be a really cool way to allow the different types of Magus' we saw across PF1.

I know a lot of Class Archetypes could really shake things up, but the Magus had a lot of really cool ones that could work in the Class Path space I think.

[PossibleCabbage]

I want a big ball of tentacles, and I don't care what it does.

(Probably some sort of aberration eidolon will be available as an occult alternative to the phantom).

But reach should be available via "weird anatomy" not just "bigness"- it's less valuable without AoO anyway.

[Rysky]

Verzen wrote:

And the reason I am comparing an Eidolon to a class like fighter is solely because I think the Eidolon should be on that power level (equal) to fighter and barbarian while the summoner is more like the social persona. Think vigilante identities, except instead two bodies instead of 1.

And I vehemently disagree with all of this. No the pet shouldn't equal the actual martial classes, and no the Summoner shouldn't be just a prop.

[Verzen]

Rysky wrote:

Verzen wrote:

And the reason I am comparing an Eidolon to a class like fighter is solely because I think the Eidolon should be on that power level (equal) to fighter and barbarian while the summoner is more like the social persona. Think vigilante identities, except instead two bodies instead of 1.

And I vehemently disagree with all of this. No the pet shouldn't equal the actual martial classes, and no the Summoner shouldn't be just a prop.

And that's fine. My example though is just an example. It can be 'tuned' in terms of power and the evolutions can be "depowered" to make room for the summoner to have more power if that's what you want. But the evolution POINT system isn't inherently broken. It's just that the tuning itself in PF1 was broken and not fair at all.

if that evolution system is put in place and the summoner gets focus spells or what not however it helps, then all that's left is tuning.

[Temperans]

Evolutions points is what Familiars currently used and Paizo tuned it to work for familiars.

There are 0 reasons why Paizo can't make the same for eidolons and just tune them accordingly. Instead people are pushing for the bottlenecked system that is not customizable enough and doesn't come across as the eidolon being an actual creature: Right now its just a marionette of the Summoner.

[Verzen]

Temperans wrote:

Evolutions points is what Familiars currently used and Paizo tuned it to work for familiars.

There are 0 reasons why Paizo can't make the same for eidolons and just tune them accordingly. Instead people are pushing for the bottlenecked system that is not customizable enough and doesn't come across as the eidolon being an actual creature: Right now its just a marionette of the Summoner.

100% spot on.

[Themetricsystem]

Temperans wrote:

There are 0 reasons why Paizo can't make the same for eidolons and just tune them accordingly. Instead people are pushing for the bottlenecked system that is not customizable enough and doesn't come across as the eidolon being an actual creature: Right now its just a marionette of the Summoner.

I mean, SOME people are advocating for that but certainly not all, or even most of us who participate here on the forums.

I think using the Familiar/Mater Ability system with tweaks and re-flavoring/rebalancing is an ideal way to pull this off. Give them perhaps one Evolution Ability/Point/Units per every two Levels and for things that are more powerful one could implement some Level Prereqs or even have some abilities to consume multiple Units.

This is also interesting because it can be setup so that the Summoner can take some of those Units and gain a benefit for the Summoner to use if there isn't anything that's particularly in-demand. Doing this would also allow them the change the Evolution benefits each morning during Spell Prep which I personally think is cool.

[Temperans]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Temperans wrote:

There are 0 reasons why Paizo can't make the same for eidolons and just tune them accordingly. Instead people are pushing for the bottlenecked system that is not customizable enough and doesn't come across as the eidolon being an actual creature: Right now its just a marionette of the Summoner.

I mean, SOME people are advocating for that but certainly not all, or even most of us who participate here on the forums.

I think using the Familiar/Mater Ability system with tweaks and re-flavoring/rebalancing is an ideal way to pull this off.

I mean if you look the Familiar system is very similar to the PF1 eidolon evolutions with tweaks to fit PF2 and familiars. People like that familiars are not longer just pick from a list.

But then people are advocating that Eidolons become something that you pick from a list. So I am super confused at how Familiar acting like Eidolons is fine, but Eidolons acting as Eidolons is impossible.

[Salamileg]

Temperans wrote:

Evolutions points is what Familiars currently used and Paizo tuned it to work for familiars.

There are 0 reasons why Paizo can't make the same for eidolons and just tune them accordingly. Instead people are pushing for the bottlenecked system that is not customizable enough and doesn't come across as the eidolon being an actual creature: Right now its just a marionette of the Summoner.

While I'm not inherently opposed to basing eidolons off the familiar system, it's worth mentioning that familiars are a subsystem meant to be used by around half a dozen classes, Familiar Masters, and gnomes. A more in depth and complex version of that for a single class might be a tall ask.

[Themetricsystem]

I agree completely, it's a bit odd that the PF2-PT version of the E is more like the 1e Familiar where you just pick one and the PF2 Familiar is like the 1e Eidolon where you can customize them.

Maybe this is another one of the more controversial "risky" experiments to see what people prefer and to get feedback that is more... passionate, perhaps?

[Deriven Firelion]

I'm reading over this summoner class again and again. It's hard to figure out how to add some dynamism and differentiation to the class. Right now all the creatures do exactly the same damage with exactly the same stats with slightly different powers.

It would have been nice to see some slight differentiation in stats and damage to account for the fact they are different creatures. Even slight differentiation like animal companions makes the creature feel slightly different. This extreme genericism makes the class feel very lacking.

The building them more like familiars isn't a terrible idea as customization was the big fun of the summoner class. I'd like to see the customization like familiars, but the stat array including starting hit points and damage more like animal companions so the creatures feel slightly different. Something to make them feel different as creatures.

The current boost eidolon ability just to keep up in damage is way too limiting. It's a very locked in way of playing.

I hope they can do something to make the summoner more dynamic and interesting. It was such a fun class with so much variability in PF1. When Pathfinder Unchained came out, you really felt like you were playing a creature of the type you chose. Now it feels like you're playing a facsimile or illusion of the creature.

At least with the building the eidolon like a familiar, then you can pick when it gets abilities like flying giving up more powerful abilities for movement or some other conceptual option that you would enjoy. Then min-maxers can max their combat builds and people who like to build different creatures can have fun making concepts they enjoy.

[Verzen]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I'm reading over this summoner class again and again. It's hard to figure out how to add some dynamism and differentiation to the class. Right now all the creatures do exactly the same damage with exactly the same stats with slightly different powers.

It would have been nice to see some slight differentiation in stats and damage to account for the fact they are different creatures. Even slight differentiation like animal companions makes the creature feel slightly different. This extreme genericism makes the class feel very lacking.

The building them more like familiars isn't a terrible idea as customization was the big fun of the summoner class. I'd like to see the customization like familiars, but the stat array including starting hit points and damage more like animal companions so the creatures feel slightly different. Something to make them feel different as creatures.

The current boost eidolon ability just to keep up in damage is way too limiting. It's a very locked in way of playing.

I hope they can do something to make the summoner more dynamic and interesting. It was such a fun class with so much variability in PF1. When Pathfinder Unchained came out, you really felt like you were playing a creature of the type you chose. Now it feels like you're playing a facsimile or illusion of the creature.

At least with the building the eidolon like a familiar, then you can pick when it gets abilities like flying giving up more powerful abilities for movement or some other conceptual option that you would enjoy. Then min-maxers can max their combat builds and people who like to build different creatures can have fun making concepts they enjoy.

I'd also like the option to completely gimp the summoner in order to bring Eidolon up to fighter/barbarian power.

One of my class fantasies I LOVE playing as is the slimy character with a huge body guard that is his muscle. I find this play style fun. I may not be powerful myself as a character, but I do have the brute that will enforce what I say.

This, too, is a form of "power fantasy" that currently is not featured in PF2e.

[Temperans]

Having the familiar customization with feats to make the Eidolon even stronger would be much better than the current version.

Then that way Verzen can have his Summoner with a strong Eidolon, other people can have the summoner be stronger. But in any case, the Eidolon would still feel like an Eidolon.

And be less of a marionette.

[Verzen]

Temperans wrote:

Having the familiar customization with feats to make the Eidolon even stronger would be much better than the current version.

Then that way Verzen can have his Summoner with a strong Eidolon, other people can have the summoner be stronger. But in any case, the Eidolon would still feel like an Eidolon.

And be less of a marionette.

Having the option to have varying Eidolon strength compared to the summoner controlling it would be amazing as well. It would also let the dedication provide the weakest "form" of Eidolon for your character, while the only way to get the strongest form of Eidolon is if you are a summoner as your main class.

[Temperans]

Exactly.

There is no reason that the Eidolon at base power needs to be as strong as martial if they have the options to be more versatile as compensation. Give it more customization options, add a power increase as part of the options, and then the player can make that choice.

Do you want more versatility or more power would be a more meaningful choice than just making Eidolon all power.

[Rysky]

Verzen wrote:

But the evolution POINT system isn't inherently broken.

It kinda is, having near absolute freedom, or at least the freedom and range you're asking for, is gonna lead to easy breakings.

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

Evolutions points is what Familiars currently used and Paizo tuned it to work for familiars.

Not it's not.

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

Then that way Verzen can have his Summoner with a strong Eidolon, other people can have the summoner be stronger. But in any case, the Eidolon would still feel like an Eidolon.

So Class Paths.

[Temperans]

Summoner class paths should be: Eidolon, Summoned Monsters, Synthesist.

Not what type of eidolon you want.

And the fact you dont think familiar options are just a version of eidolon evolutions does not stop them from being a version of eidolon evolutions. No matter how hard to deny it.

[Rysky]

I don't think anyone's said otherwise.

I'm partial to the Eidolon Class Path being named Herald.

Edit: The Familiar ability lets you pick 2 abilities from a list.

Evolution points were you spent points to buy abilities. Not the same thing.

By your reasoning the Evolution Points system and Feats are exactly the same.

[Verzen]

Rysky wrote:

Verzen wrote:

But the evolution POINT system isn't inherently broken.

It kinda is, having near absolute freedom, or at least the freedom and range you're asking for, is gonna lead to easy breakings.

Not really.. like.. at all. You just don't know how to balance a TTRPG. lol.

Is having PCs with ancestry feats and ancestral bonuses along with background feats and class feats an inherently broken system? No. All points do, is allow you to figure out how good a certain ability is and how many points it costs to get that ability. Like I said already. MAP and 3 action econ already fixes the inherently broken system that was 1e.

There is no reason why we should remove all the fun of what made summoner fun when we have the opportunity to rebalance and retune the system. I hate the idea that the summoner PC has an infinitely more customizable set up than their Eidolon. That does not feel good at all.

[Verzen]

Rysky wrote:

I don't think anyone's said otherwise.

I'm partial to the Eidolon Class Path being named Herald.

Edit: The Familiar ability lets you pick 2 abilities from a list.

Evolution points were you spent points to buy abilities. Not the same thing.

By your reasoning the Evolution Points system and Feats are exactly the same.

Having the option of just giving us a list of abilities at certain levels and having it open up more and more is still infinitely better than what we have now for being able to modify and customize the Eidolon. The idea of being able to modify the Eidolon in Pf2 was one of the things I got super excited for .. and then super let down on when the playtest was released.

[Verzen]

And no. I do not accept having 1 evolution every other level in place of a summoner feat is appropriate customization. There should be some middle ground.

[Themetricsystem]

I just wonder what happened to all of the Eidolons from 1st ed that had an unusual number of arms, legs, horns, extra tentacles, and heads given that these were the not only available but also, mechanically superior to their more regular cousins.