Stop trying to reinvent the wheel with Magus and Summoner

[Cyouni]

I do think some of the more power-type options (like Alacritous Evolution) should come baked in to the class body. The class feats should be more for stuff like Amphibious Evolution, ones that give versatility, or things that grant eidolon-specific actions. Shield Evolution, especially, feels weird because it's just something done better by taking a shield on the summoner instead of a level 6 class feat.

[Verzen]

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

Verzen wrote:

I don't feel happy to have to spend precious feats on flavor. Like climbing or amphibious... things that are as powerful as heritages for ancestries.

As a side note, these are things that can be covered by evolution surge.

Climbing speeds and swim speeds aren't JUST flavour. They do have mechanical impact, and that means it costs a little bit of the class' power budget.

And if you want to flavour your eidolon as being, and use evolution surge to enable that when it's mechanically appropriate, that's already possible.

Evolution surge is, however, incredibly boring.

Right now the class is incredibly dull and lacks any of the fun magic of PF1.

I for one will not be playing this class if it's the same as release. Why play something that puts me to sleep?

[Physicskid42]

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

Verzen wrote:

So what I mean by the customization for Eidolons. We should have as much customization for our Eidolons that we do for a PC. As in, we should be able to pick a heritage -ability- (As in, what plane does it deal in? Is it aquatic? An affinity for elements? What?) There are heritages that give 1/2 level resistance. There are ancestry feats and backgrounds we can pick.

I don't know why you guys have so much resistance to wanting us to have more customization. I am absolutely baffled by the push back.

I'm not saying that these are bad ideas.

I'm saying that these ideas are awkward to fit into the framework of PF2E.

PF2E is built such that it's more manageable for new players. That means limiting the number of choices and features at 1st level, and compartmentalizing a lot of choices at any level. At the same time, the development of a consistent series of frameworks for how classes develop (subclasses, class feats, and the spellcasting, companion, and familiar subsystems) helps ensure that classes are easily understandable when moving from one to the next, and more easily balanced in relation to each other.

Having eidolons that are a complex as PCs at 1st level goes against the first principle. Having an entire points based evolution system separately to their class feats pushes up against the third principle, and does some funky things with the second principle.

Even having frameworks for eidolons is pushing it, since that's essentially two or three subclass options (eidolon type and framework getting rolled out at 1st level).

That's why I'm arguing for frameworks and attacks to be choices at 1st level, because I can argue for things that will bend the system, but I won't waste my time arguing for things that will break the system. And I don't just mean power level.

We're in a brave new world, and that means that a lot of what used to be possible isn't anymore.

I just don’t see how an evolution tree of maybe 30 options is any more complicated then spell lists.

And we’re a few years into the system now. I don’t introducing classes with more unique subsystems has to be the end of the world. I know Paizo strives for a degree of uniformity but if Legendary could squeeze something as unwieldy as the Kineticist into the system I’m sure they can mange a custom pseudo spell list

[Amaya/Polaris]

graystone wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

What does it give up?

Individual HP pools, independent actions with their own MAP's, MANY, MANY, MANY spells, ect. Proficiencies even out [drop casting one for gaining in weapons].

They gain shared skills and better pet damage.

I don't think it's a winning argument to say a summoner balances out to a druid.

Proficiencies very much do not even out! Martial proficiencies are What Martials Get To Make Up For Spells, and having a few spells anyway makes the casting proficiency drop less of a big deal given that support spells generally aren't affected. Both Summoners and Eidolons have better saves and HP than Druids, while the Eidolons also get better defense and weapons. (I don't remember how animal companions stack up but I assume they're generally adequate.) Individual HP pools are great unless AOEs occur and lose the pair even more than they would for the Summoner and Eidolon (especially with the worse saves), and the shared MAP isn't much of a big deal given neither Druid nor Summoner is at much of an advantage going for attack trait things. Assuming Act Together is fixed to allow activities, Summoner+Eidolons get either more or more flexible actions, so that part's not a big deal either.

Little input on the current conversation, I just wanted to note that I think they balance out fine. Druid's got a more conventional kit that remains quite effective, and I'd like to see Summoners go for more varied and esoteric strengths.

[RaptorBonz]

I feel like I might be jumping into the cookpot here, but I also want to say my piece about the class designs and this is an active thread for sure so here we go:
things I like
B-The way spells are limited. seems really cool to say your magic scales but doesn't broaden. the numbers need a hard look (2/2; 3/2/1; 4/4; 1/2/1; something else idk) and there should be language to clarify if they count as meeting prereqs for lower level casting
B-feats in general look well tuned/interesting for both more or less
S-a starting chassis for eidolons that dictate your source and grant abilities as you level (I'd really like a combat suit styled construct, but I know that is pretty far from the current iteration)
S- Tandem feats to improve 2xcharacter action economy issues and shard health

things that I'd workshop a minor fundamental change to
S-eidolon abilities/evolutions like witch lessons, maybe they even get a few naturally and can get more through feats
S-die when eidolon dies. Maybe have a snapback effect like (reaction) when your eidolon takes lethal damage instead unsummon it and take damage =your level so when it is down you are not necessarily out too. lets summoners be a little riskier than other classes; might allow a "bomb" style summon one day
S-shared MAP, possibly they have weak attack progression (possibly even none beyond T) but not share MAP, related-ish I might like them better as a Wis caster
S-a few variation choices early could be nice, even if its choose 1-2 attacks and 0-1 specials from Big dmg, Med dmg+minor weapon trait, sml dmg+special trait (like splash or ele type), alt limited move option, or utility innate ability (like fast squeezing or light generation, don't quote me on balance)
M-spell strike being 2 rolls. will it break if it is just 1? What would it feel like to choose to A. make a weapon attack and resolve a spell attack OR B. cast a spell with a save and resolve a weapon strike... even as a 3-action activity
M-focus spells that emphasize the magical combatant feel- terrain manipulation, spatial distortion/movement, illusion/befuddling effects- or the other way, focus spells are what you strike with and your spell list is for these style effects? (would people be happy if the only spell you could spell strike with was a focus cantrip which you could metamagic conditions into?)

If nothing really changes but the balance is solid, I'll probably be more or less satisfied with them, but these are directions I'd be happy to know were well explored.

[Temperans]

It really confusing how people can say that:

* ~40 options (using the potential evolutions I listed on my thread based on PF1 unchained)
* Divided between 4 tiers
* Getting 3 evolution points at level 1
* Getting 1 evolution point every even level

is any more complicated than what most casters get:

* ~1,000+ options (estimated based on ~10 spell per school per level+200 for spells that are not shared between lists)
* Divided between 10 tiers.
* Getting 10 cantrip and 5 1st level spells at level 1
* Getting 2 spells every time you gain a level
* Can only prepare 3-4 spells of every level.

Clerics and Druids are worse, they don't have to pick spells and then pick from those spells. They have to pick from all the spells of all the spell levels they have access to.

The "its too complicated" or "there are too many choices" reasoning makes no sense given how many choices casters are forced to make.

[Grankless]

Paizo probably doesn't want to dedicate 30 pages of SoM to the summoner.

[graystone]

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

graystone wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

What does it give up?

Individual HP pools, independent actions with their own MAP's, MANY, MANY, MANY spells, ect. Proficiencies even out [drop casting one for gaining in weapons].

They gain shared skills and better pet damage.

I don't think it's a winning argument to say a summoner balances out to a druid.

Proficiencies very much do not even out! Martial proficiencies are What Martials Get To Make Up For Spells, and having a few spells anyway makes the casting proficiency drop less of a big deal given that support spells generally aren't affected.

I don't agree. They have spell proficiency that you can multiclass for but at an even LOWER rate and with lower slots AND they keep lower level ones. And with weapon proficiency, all they have to Strike to use it with. Plain old Strike. For my it's an issue when a fighter/wizard is BETTER than you as a straight class.

[Temperans]

Grankless 40 evolutions would not be 30 pages its roughly 5 (depends on formatting). Even then its a lot less space than it would take to write down all the feats, and those 40 evolutions include more than are needed for the initial release.

You can cut the initial release to ~30 evolutions which drops the page count to ~3.5 pages (depending on formating).

Still a less pages than would be needed to make a bunch of static eidolons, or a bunch of Eidolon feats. And because evolution points are easier to balance and a lot more diverse, there is a much smaller need to release more evolution option in later books, which means they can be spent on releasing more Summoner feats, items, spells and archetypes.

[Temperans]

Yep Graystone.

What is the point of Magus being able to blend martial and casting, when a Fighter/Wizard does your job better and with more spells?

[WatersLethe]

I don't feel like a 50-50 caster-martial as Magus. It feels closer to 25-75, which is about the same as a Fighter/wizard.

Getting top level slots is powerful, but it feels more like having a handful of 1/day magic items than being a good caster.

Where are my low level slots for random utlity spells? Why can a Fighter/Wizard cast more spells per day than me at mid levels?

It's certainly an interesting paradigm, likely better suited for PF1 half casters like Bloodrager, it's just not hitting the mark for me.

[Midnightoker]

WatersLethe wrote:

I don't feel like a 50-50 caster-martial as Magus. It feels closer to 25-75, which is about the same as a Fighter/wizard.

Getting top level slots is powerful, but it feels more like having a handful of 1/day magic items than being a good caster.

Where are my low level slots for random utlity spells? Why can a Fighter/Wizard cast more spells per day than me at mid levels?

It's certainly an interesting paradigm, likely better suited for PF1 half casters like Bloodrager, it's just not hitting the mark for me.

I wonder if the "wave" spell format was considered.

where you retain a single slot of each level, and then your max level is 1 at the odds and 2 at the evens and then your second highest is always 2.

That would feel really good and it would solve the Summoner "losing spells they know" as they level issue as well.

[WatersLethe]

Midnightoker wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I don't feel like a 50-50 caster-martial as Magus. It feels closer to 25-75, which is about the same as a Fighter/wizard.

Getting top level slots is powerful, but it feels more like having a handful of 1/day magic items than being a good caster.

Where are my low level slots for random utlity spells? Why can a Fighter/Wizard cast more spells per day than me at mid levels?

It's certainly an interesting paradigm, likely better suited for PF1 half casters like Bloodrager, it's just not hitting the mark for me.

I wonder if the "wave" spell format was considered.

where you retain a single slot of each level, and then your max level is 1 at the odds and 2 at the evens and then your second highest is always 2.

That would feel really good and it would solve the Summoner "losing spells they know" as they level issue as well.

I would consider that a big improvement, certainly!

[Kyrone]

Midnightoker wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I don't feel like a 50-50 caster-martial as Magus. It feels closer to 25-75, which is about the same as a Fighter/wizard.

Getting top level slots is powerful, but it feels more like having a handful of 1/day magic items than being a good caster.

Where are my low level slots for random utlity spells? Why can a Fighter/Wizard cast more spells per day than me at mid levels?

It's certainly an interesting paradigm, likely better suited for PF1 half casters like Bloodrager, it's just not hitting the mark for me.

I wonder if the "wave" spell format was considered.

where you retain a single slot of each level, and then your max level is 1 at the odds and 2 at the evens and then your second highest is always 2.

That would feel really good and it would solve the Summoner "losing spells they know" as they level issue as well.

Like this?

[Midnightoker]

Kyrone wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I don't feel like a 50-50 caster-martial as Magus. It feels closer to 25-75, which is about the same as a Fighter/wizard.

Getting top level slots is powerful, but it feels more like having a handful of 1/day magic items than being a good caster.

Where are my low level slots for random utlity spells? Why can a Fighter/Wizard cast more spells per day than me at mid levels?

It's certainly an interesting paradigm, likely better suited for PF1 half casters like Bloodrager, it's just not hitting the mark for me.

I wonder if the "wave" spell format was considered.

where you retain a single slot of each level, and then your max level is 1 at the odds and 2 at the evens and then your second highest is always 2.

That would feel really good and it would solve the Summoner "losing spells they know" as they level issue as well.

Like this?

Precisely like that :)

Thanks for the visual!

[Lightdroplet]

Kyrone wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I don't feel like a 50-50 caster-martial as Magus. It feels closer to 25-75, which is about the same as a Fighter/wizard.

Getting top level slots is powerful, but it feels more like having a handful of 1/day magic items than being a good caster.

Where are my low level slots for random utlity spells? Why can a Fighter/Wizard cast more spells per day than me at mid levels?

It's certainly an interesting paradigm, likely better suited for PF1 half casters like Bloodrager, it's just not hitting the mark for me.

I wonder if the "wave" spell format was considered.

where you retain a single slot of each level, and then your max level is 1 at the odds and 2 at the evens and then your second highest is always 2.

That would feel really good and it would solve the Summoner "losing spells they know" as they level issue as well.

Like this?

I like that setup too. It wouldn't significantly increase Magus' nova power since the number of max and max-1 slots stays the same, but would still give you more spellcasting options throughout the day. All in all, it would of course give more power to the class, but without being overbearing given how lower level slots still lose some value as time goes on, and would really help sell the fantasy of the class.

[Midnightoker]

Yeah in reality, those spells can really only be used for minor utility or slight boosts to damage in the case of Spell Attack Roll spells because Save DCs won't be increasing and the effects will be that of the effective level.

So like Enlarge and Truestrike can still be used, which are nice little boons to be had, because they have strictly scaling benefit.

Then it comes down to which actions you want to spend your time doing.

This also allows Magus to stay on par with movement abilities (haste, fly, etc.) without having to spend their higher level slots to accomplish that (which is a bit taxing when you only have 4).

I was toying with a "domain"/"bloodline" idea to see if that would suffice, but the toughest part was deciding what goes in those bonus lists, which was tough even when tethered to the Class Path (all 3 want Truestrike, most want Fly/Haste, etc.)

Ultimately, I found that it should come down to the Magus choice themselves, thus the "wave" format.

[Rysky]

Verzen wrote:

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.

And neither did the designers apparently, since they outright retconned the system for Unchained, and then flat out removed it in the Playtest. The system was easily breakable, that was an observable fact. Just because you had people choose not to break it didn’t make it any less so.

Verzen wrote:

There is no reason why we should remove all the fun of what made summoner fun

All the fun hasn’t been, you liked the build-a-bear-pick-a-point, not everyone did. You have a buddy you summon, that’s the main appeal of the class and it’s point, it’s still here.

[Themetricsystem]

I disagree Rysky. The build-a-bear-pick-a-point customization was ALWAYS the primary draw the Eidolon for anyone and everyone I ever played with.

The draw was to create your own monster and make it look like and do whatever you want, within mechanical reason(ish), and also imagination, not that they can mimic SOME of the features and form of the various creatures from the bestiary.

The whole imagination aspect is totally and utterly missing in the PT and without drastic changes, I'm not sure how ANY 1st edition Summoners can ever be converted faithfully without throwing out everything that makes their E unique and cool... which is half the point anyway. As it stands the E is essentially: Like a Dragon/Angel/Beast/Phantom but also far less distinct, powerful, or capable.

[Midnightoker]

Themetricsystem wrote:

I disagree Rysky. The build-a-bear-pick-a-point customization was ALWAYS the primary draw the Eidolon for anyone and everyone I ever played with.

The draw was to create your own monster and make it look like and do whatever you want, within mechanical reason(ish), and also imagination, not that they can mimic SOME of the features and form of the various creatures from the bestiary.

The whole imagination aspect is totally and utterly missing in the PT and without drastic changes, I'm not sure how ANY 1st edition Summoners can ever be converted faithfully without throwing out everything that makes their E unique and cool... which is half the point anyway.

I'm all for them being a little more customizable, but the heavily customized part should probably be reserved for ribbons, utility, and out of combat.

I don't want to fall into the same trap of the original which lead to 9 claw attacks with pounce for the sake of "customization".

Potentially, they can create "mini-archetypes" that each Eidolon could potentially take, which foster increases in some kind of power (Breath Weapons, a Spell, Darkvision, etc.) that is combat related, but it would need to be air tight.

Something akin to the Nimble/Savage setup could work in that regard (not exact, just in terms of picking one locks you out of the other).

It can't just be "make your own", make your own was problematic on so many sides of the table. It required GM inspection, perfect clarity on what was compatible, and even then it still had opportunities to hit the fringe of "wait, is this too strong?".

The base choice should limit what you can choose to a strong degree, but custom options from there can certainly work if done delicately.

[RexAliquid]

My first edition eidolons were a fire elemental and a skillful psychopomp. While not in the playtest, I'm excited to see how I'll be able to recreate them in the final product.

[Verzen]

Midnightoker wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

I disagree Rysky. The build-a-bear-pick-a-point customization was ALWAYS the primary draw the Eidolon for anyone and everyone I ever played with.

The draw was to create your own monster and make it look like and do whatever you want, within mechanical reason(ish), and also imagination, not that they can mimic SOME of the features and form of the various creatures from the bestiary.

The whole imagination aspect is totally and utterly missing in the PT and without drastic changes, I'm not sure how ANY 1st edition Summoners can ever be converted faithfully without throwing out everything that makes their E unique and cool... which is half the point anyway.

I'm all for them being a little more customizable, but the heavily customized part should probably be reserved for ribbons, utility, and out of combat.

I don't want to fall into the same trap of the original which lead to 9 claw attacks with pounce for the sake of "customization".

Potentially, they can create "mini-archetypes" that each Eidolon could potentially take, which foster increases in some kind of power (Breath Weapons, a Spell, Darkvision, etc.) that is combat related, but it would need to be air tight.

Something akin to the Nimble/Savage setup could work in that regard (not exact, just in terms of picking one locks you out of the other).

It can't just be "make your own", make your own was problematic on so many sides of the table. It required GM inspection, perfect clarity on what was compatible, and even then it still had opportunities to hit the fringe of "wait, is this too strong?".

The base choice should limit what you can choose to a strong degree, but custom options from there can certainly work if done delicately.

MAP and 3 action econ prevents that brokenness with pounce.

I already suggested an idea.

Creature type (pick a creature type from this list)
Pick 2 attack types. b/p/s(1d8 dmg), b/p/s(1d6 ranged), b/p/s/energy(agile and 1d4 ranged or melee)
Resistance. (Gain 1/2 level resistance)
Pick monster ability (1/5/10/15/20) (list of various active abilities such as breath attack)
Pick monster resistance (3/7/11/17) (essentially what your monster type gets in the bestiary locked behind level)

This alone would make it infinitely more customizable without the broken crunch of 1e.

[Midnightoker]

Verzen wrote:

MAP and 3 action econ prevents that brokenness with pounce.

I wasn't speaking specifically on that making return, so much as I was pointing out that people will push the folds of "Customization" to derive results that are, well, broken/unbalanced/weird (the example isn't even OP if I remember, because the dang thing exploded in one hit).

Quote:

Creature type (pick a creature type from this list)
Pick 2 attack types. b/p/s(1d8 dmg), b/p/s(1d6 ranged), b/p/s/energy(agile and 1d4 ranged or melee)
Resistance. (Gain 1/2 level resistance)
Pick monster ability (1/5/10/15/20) (list of various active abilities such as breath attack)
Pick monster resistance (3/7/11/17) (essentially what your monster type gets in the bestiary locked behind level)

This alone would make it infinitely more customizable without the broken crunch of 1e.

See this falls into the same trap though.

It should be something like this:

Select a Creature type:

Dragon, Angel, Beast, Spirit

Choose two attack types that have the same trait as the creature type:

Claws [Dragon][Beast][Spirit]
Weapon [Spirit][Angel]
Bite [Dragon][Beast]
Horns [Beast][Dragon]

and so on and so forth with the other options.

Basically, print the options sure, but they need to be limited to who you can actually add them to and that will provide a little more structure to prevent the "fringe building" that can occur with total customization.

Think of it as a compromise for the sake of balance, less confusion, and less choice paralysis.

[Verzen]

Midnightoker wrote:

Verzen wrote:

MAP and 3 action econ prevents that brokenness with pounce.

I wasn't speaking specifically on that making return, so much as I was pointing out that people will push the folds of "Customization" to derive results that are, well, broken/unbalanced/weird (the example isn't even OP if I remember, because the dang thing exploded in one hit).

Quote:

Creature type (pick a creature type from this list)
Pick 2 attack types. b/p/s(1d8 dmg), b/p/s(1d6 ranged), b/p/s/energy(agile and 1d4 ranged or melee)
Resistance. (Gain 1/2 level resistance)
Pick monster ability (1/5/10/15/20) (list of various active abilities such as breath attack)
Pick monster resistance (3/7/11/17) (essentially what your monster type gets in the bestiary locked behind level)

This alone would make it infinitely more customizable without the broken crunch of 1e.

See this falls into the same trap though.

It should be something like this:

Select a Creature type:

Dragon, Angel, Beast, Spirit

Choose two attack types that have the same trait as the creature type:

Claws [Dragon][Beast][Spirit]
Weapon [Spirit][Angel]
Bite [Dragon][Beast]
Horns [Beast][Dragon]

and so on and so forth with the other options.

Basically, print the options sure, but they need to be limited to who you can actually add them to and that will provide a little more structure to prevent the "fringe building" that can occur with total customization.

Think of it as a compromise for the sake of balance, less confusion, and less choice paralysis.

I entirely disagree. If I want a storm cloud that has bludgeoning 1d8 for attack, is considered an elemental, has resistance 1/2 level to electricity, and also has 1d4 agile electricity attack and the "monster" ability is an electricity breath attack, I should be able to get that. I don't know why you guys are so hell bent on preventing people from having fun with this class. Nothing would be unbalanced about a modified build-a-bear if done right.

[RexAliquid]

One of the biggest reasons I prefer a feat based system over a point system is that I want the summoner to continue to be supported. Mark could absolutely implement a well designed point system for Secrets of Magic, but because it is not a feat currency, anyone looking to expand eidolon capabilities in the future will need to learn the system as well as its balance. Whereas, the class feat is a well understood system with plenty of examples for level appropriate abilities.

If you want summoner options in more books than just Secrets of Magic, you should be looking to work within the class feat paradigm.

[Grankless]

I mean, the elemental eidolon that is mentioned in the Primal entry will probably be capable of getting stuff like that. Maybe not the breath weapon, but who knows.

[Midnightoker]

Verzen wrote:

If I want a storm cloud that has bludgeoning 1d8 for attack, is considered an elemental, has resistance 1/2 level to electricity, and also has 1d4 agile electricity attack and the "monster" ability is an electricity breath attack, I should be able to get that.

Where in my response did I state this type of thing wouldn't be possible?

The example you provided those would simply be traited properly.

The important piece is that Fire Elementals, Spirits, and Beasts (who have their own choices) can't pick up Lightning Resist, Lightning Attacks, with a Lightning breath weapon.

But Maybe a Dragon could get the Breath Weapon too, and a Fire elemental could get the Fire equivalents, the Angel could get the Lightning Resist.

No one is trying to ruin your fun man, and honestly, if you're going to say that to anyone who feels differently than you then you probably need to reevaluate what people are saying.

[Physicskid42]

RexAliquid wrote:

One of the biggest reasons I prefer a feat based system over a point system is that I want the summoner to continue to be supported. Mark could absolutely implement a well designed point system for Secrets of Magic, but because it is not a feat currency, anyone looking to expand eidolon capabilities in the future will need to learn the system as well as its balance. Whereas, the class feat is a well understood system with plenty of examples for level appropriate abilities.

If you want summoner options in more books than just Secrets of Magic, you should be looking to work within the class feat paradigm.

Not necessarily. The spell list could also be a guide. If for some reason they decided that they needed to add invisibility, they could just look at the spell and say “ ok, so at 6th level your eidolon can go invisible 3 per day”

I’ve said in another thread how I don’t mind if a class is slightly underpowered if it is interesting. That goes in reverse as well. Developers shouldn’t live in fear of some devious player devising some game breaking combo, because I don’t think that behavior is all that common.

[RexAliquid]

Verzen wrote:

The crunch is what is fun for me. Saying, "Oh. Just reskin it" is not fun. The build-a-bear IS fun. Saying, "Let's not have the build-a-bear system" IS removing my fun for the class. It's what made the class special.

I think the disconnect might be right there. I’m looking for a class that’s fun to play at the table. I do enjoy sitting at home with my rulebooks putting together a character, by my biggest concern is always going to be gameplay. Character puzzles arise naturally from a class that is compelling to play.

[RexAliquid]

Midnightoker wrote:

When I mentioned archetypes before, one thing that came to mind when discussing what a Base-limited customizations schema was things like a "Fire" template or a "Shadow" template.

Kinda similar to the old templates from PF1 in the Bestiary.

These templates could then open up choices for other properly traited "evolutions".

So maybe Beast can't get a Breath Weapon, but, if they grab the Fire template (at say level X) then they can acquire a Fire-based abilities that were available to the other bases earlier, but maybe at say "half" level or something to that effect (not to disimilar from MCDs).

If the customization is organic with character growth, that might soften the power blow.

I would love an opportunity to get a poison breath weapon on my gorgon Beast. As long as template feats have their own benefits, I like that idea for allowing limited access to cross-type abilities.

[Midnightoker]

RexAliquid wrote:

I would love an opportunity to get a poison breath weapon on my gorgon Beast. As long as template feats have their own benefits, I like that idea for allowing limited access to cross-type abilities.

My only concern is complexity.

And it would effectively add a decent amount of pages to the book (at least enough to get the Templates on there as well as the necessary evolutions to support them).

I think 7/15 they get a template (so they'd have two at 15) that might work.

Honestly, a base "non-template" option would be nice too, so those that just want to lean into the Dragon and not make them a Shadow/Monstrous Dragon just because they feel like they have to choose a Template.

[graystone]

RexAliquid wrote:

One of the biggest reasons I prefer a feat based system over a point system is that I want the summoner to continue to be supported. Mark could absolutely implement a well designed point system for Secrets of Magic, but because it is not a feat currency, anyone looking to expand eidolon capabilities in the future will need to learn the system as well as its balance. Whereas, the class feat is a well understood system with plenty of examples for level appropriate abilities.

If you want summoner options in more books than just Secrets of Magic, you should be looking to work within the class feat paradigm.

I don't think it's a big ask for someone playing a class to read and understand it. For instance, bards have compositions which have special rules: it's a system. Or playing a witch and being FORCED to understand the familiar system or an animal ranger having to learn the animal companion system. So I don't see how it can be seen as bad if it has something to learn about the class and how it works.

Now I can see if you think a system is too complicated or something but I don't get having to learn something new. Every class has something new to learn: if there isn't, why is it a new class?

[WWHsmackdown]

A little bit of customization at level 1 and summoner class feats consisting of tuned bestiary monster abilities would be cool for me. That would make for plenty of unique eidelons imo

[Kalaam]

Verzen wrote:

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

From my point of view, the eidolons are evil.

[Salamileg]

RexAliquid wrote:

Verzen wrote:

The crunch is what is fun for me. Saying, "Oh. Just reskin it" is not fun. The build-a-bear IS fun. Saying, "Let's not have the build-a-bear system" IS removing my fun for the class. It's what made the class special.

I think the disconnect might be right there. I’m looking for a class that’s fun to play at the table. I do enjoy sitting at home with my rulebooks putting together a character, by my biggest concern is always going to be gameplay. Character puzzles arise naturally from a class that is compelling to play.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. While I certainly appreciate the freedom I have in building my character in PF2, the reason I like the system is because it encourages you to not fall into a simple routine every turn and actually use tactics.

I don't actually think the Summoner fulfills this, mainly due to the requirement that you need Boost Eidolon up all the time to compete damage-wise and they don't have the interesting feats that martials do (like Power Attack, Bashing Charge, or Double Slice) but adding in a point based evolution system wouldn't inherently fix my issues with the class.

[RexAliquid]

I'd like to spend more time on the kinds of 1- and 2-action activities we would like to see generally available for the eidolon. Beast and Dragon have some options, but Angel and Phantom just end up using Strikes round after round.

[ExOichoThrow]

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.

Guess what? Lots of us bought pf1 books. The difference is, some of us realized that pathfinder 2 was going t be different than pathfinder 1. Instead of wanting the exact same game I'd rather have them take things in a new direction and explore design decisions.

You know why? Because if I wanted to play pathfinder 1, I have the books necessary. I'd just go play pathfinder 1.

Throwing tantrums because a new game isnt the same as the old game is as childish as it gets.

[ExOichoThrow]

Verzen wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

Verzen wrote:

MAP and 3 action econ prevents that brokenness with pounce.

I wasn't speaking specifically on that making return, so much as I was pointing out that people will push the folds of "Customization" to derive results that are, well, broken/unbalanced/weird (the example isn't even OP if I remember, because the dang thing exploded in one hit).

Quote:

Creature type (pick a creature type from this list)
Pick 2 attack types. b/p/s(1d8 dmg), b/p/s(1d6 ranged), b/p/s/energy(agile and 1d4 ranged or melee)
Resistance. (Gain 1/2 level resistance)
Pick monster ability (1/5/10/15/20) (list of various active abilities such as breath attack)
Pick monster resistance (3/7/11/17) (essentially what your monster type gets in the bestiary locked behind level)

This alone would make it infinitely more customizable without the broken crunch of 1e.

See this falls into the same trap though.

It should be something like this:

Select a Creature type:

Dragon, Angel, Beast, Spirit

Choose two attack types that have the same trait as the creature type:

Claws [Dragon][Beast][Spirit]
Weapon [Spirit][Angel]
Bite [Dragon][Beast]
Horns [Beast][Dragon]

and so on and so forth with the other options.

Basically, print the options sure, but they need to be limited to who you can actually add them to and that will provide a little more structure to prevent the "fringe building" that can occur with total customization.

Think of it as a compromise for the sake of balance, less confusion, and less choice paralysis.

I entirely disagree. If I want a storm cloud that has bludgeoning 1d8 for attack, is considered an elemental, has resistance 1/2 level to electricity, and also has 1d4 agile electricity attack and the "monster" ability is an electricity breath attack, I should be able to get that. I don't know why you guys are so hell bent on preventing people from having fun with this class. Nothing would be unbalanced about a modified build-a-bear...

Has it ever occurred to you that people arent trying to prevent others from having fun, but are considering what would be better for the game and ergo for fun for the most amount of people?

You clearly think people disagreeing with you literally directly want to ruin your fun. It's really, really strange.

[Capn Cupcake]

Posted this in a couple of other threads but given that this has now devolved into arguing about Eidolons, I'm adding it here as well. For the record I think Eidolons could use a *little* more customization, but honestly I don't really want to go through a ton more than that. Just a choice or two would more than do it for me, which is why I came up with the below.

I think a lot of customization can be built in by just giving a small list of keywords you can apply to your weapons at level 1. Suddenly my 1d4 Bludgeoning Tripping Tail attack is completely different from your 1d4 Slashing Disarming Crab Claw attack.

Weapons in Pathfinder 2e are, largely, very similar to each other but they FEEL different because the mechanical differences carry enough weight for our imaginations. Just give us some keywords to play with so we can attribute some of that weight to our own Eidolons and make them feel that much more tangible.

[TheGentlemanDM]

Capn Cupcake wrote:

Posted this in a couple of other threads but given that this has now devolved into arguing about Eidolons, I'm adding it here as well. For the record I think Eidolons could use a *little* more customization, but honestly I don't really want to go through a ton more than that. Just a choice or two would more than do it for me, which is why I came up with the below.

I think a lot of customization can be built in by just giving a small list of keywords you can apply to your weapons at level 1. Suddenly my 1d4 Bludgeoning Tripping Tail attack is completely different from your 1d4 Slashing Disarming Crab Claw attack.

Weapons in Pathfinder 2e are, largely, very similar to each other but they FEEL different because the mechanical differences carry enough weight for our imaginations. Just give us some keywords to play with so we can attribute some of that weight to our own Eidolons and make them feel that much more tangible.

This seems pretty good.

A d8 trip isn't overpowered at 1st level. It gives eidolons a little more options in combat with more powerful uses of Athletics manoeuvres. It provides meaningful distinction between eidolons, can be built upon with "Monstrous Unarmed Evolution" style upgrades later, and removes the need for the Unarmed Evolution feat... all without significantly overwhelming or overpowering 1st level.

[HumbleGamer]

Aren't all unarmed attacks meant to also provide the effects of a free hand ( and because so, able to performa all maneuvers )?

[TheGentlemanDM]

The main benefit is getting item bonuses from the handwraps/weapon to the Athletics check.

Also potentially finesse to the checks.

[Verzen]

ExOichoThrow 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.

Guess what? Lots of us bought pf1 books. The difference is, some of us realized that pathfinder 2 was going t be different than pathfinder 1. Instead of wanting the exact same game I'd rather have them take things in a new direction and explore design decisions.

You know why? Because if I wanted to play pathfinder 1, I have the books necessary. I'd just go play pathfinder 1.

Throwing tantrums because a new game isnt the same as the old game is as childish as it gets.

I think we want a rebalanced version of the class with the same spirit as the original. This new class has nothing similar to the same spirit of the original class.

[Verzen]

ExOichoThrow wrote:

Verzen wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

Verzen wrote:

MAP and 3 action econ prevents that brokenness with pounce.

I wasn't speaking specifically on that making return, so much as I was pointing out that people will push the folds of "Customization" to derive results that are, well, broken/unbalanced/weird (the example isn't even OP if I remember, because the dang thing exploded in one hit).

Quote:

Creature type (pick a creature type from this list)
Pick 2 attack types. b/p/s(1d8 dmg), b/p/s(1d6 ranged), b/p/s/energy(agile and 1d4 ranged or melee)
Resistance. (Gain 1/2 level resistance)
Pick monster ability (1/5/10/15/20) (list of various active abilities such as breath attack)
Pick monster resistance (3/7/11/17) (essentially what your monster type gets in the bestiary locked behind level)

This alone would make it infinitely more customizable without the broken crunch of 1e.

See this falls into the same trap though.

It should be something like this:

Select a Creature type:

Dragon, Angel, Beast, Spirit

Choose two attack types that have the same trait as the creature type:

Claws [Dragon][Beast][Spirit]
Weapon [Spirit][Angel]
Bite [Dragon][Beast]
Horns [Beast][Dragon]

and so on and so forth with the other options.

Basically, print the options sure, but they need to be limited to who you can actually add them to and that will provide a little more structure to prevent the "fringe building" that can occur with total customization.

Think of it as a compromise for the sake of balance, less confusion, and less choice paralysis.

I entirely disagree. If I want a storm cloud that has bludgeoning 1d8 for attack, is considered an elemental, has resistance 1/2 level to electricity, and also has 1d4 agile electricity attack and the "monster" ability is an electricity breath attack, I should be able to get that. I don't know why you guys are so hell bent on preventing people from having fun with this class. Nothing would be unbalanced about

...

No. Whats strange is thinking pregens are fun for everyone. Having a bit of customization for your Eidolon outside of mere feats was fun.. it was a lot of fun. Fun that no longer exists in this new iteration.

[Verzen]

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

Capn Cupcake wrote:

Posted this in a couple of other threads but given that this has now devolved into arguing about Eidolons, I'm adding it here as well. For the record I think Eidolons could use a *little* more customization, but honestly I don't really want to go through a ton more than that. Just a choice or two would more than do it for me, which is why I came up with the below.

I think a lot of customization can be built in by just giving a small list of keywords you can apply to your weapons at level 1. Suddenly my 1d4 Bludgeoning Tripping Tail attack is completely different from your 1d4 Slashing Disarming Crab Claw attack.

Weapons in Pathfinder 2e are, largely, very similar to each other but they FEEL different because the mechanical differences carry enough weight for our imaginations. Just give us some keywords to play with so we can attribute some of that weight to our own Eidolons and make them feel that much more tangible.

This seems pretty good.

A d8 trip isn't overpowered at 1st level. It gives eidolons a little more options in combat with more powerful uses of Athletics manoeuvres. It provides meaningful distinction between eidolons, can be built upon with "Monstrous Unarmed Evolution" style upgrades later, and removes the need for the Unarmed Evolution feat... all without significantly overwhelming or overpowering 1st level.

I'd really like an option to deal 1d4 energy damage instead of 1d8 damage. Monks have a feat to do this already with fire. Id love it if my Eidolon can deal 1d4 cold damage or 1d4 acid damage.