|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
What do people think of getting rid of the summoners casting and having all the classes power in the eidolon.
Functionally the summoner could shoot a bow or cast a cantrip with its weak proficiencies, and the eidolon would be the main character in combat. The summoner would have their basic proficiencies, ancestry and general feats, whatever they got from archetypes, and their skills.
Outside of combat the summoner would be the main character and use skills (limit the eidolons skills), but in combat the eidolon would contribute the vast majority, like the reverse of a druid and it's animal companion.
The eidolon could be a lot more powerful and complete with materials, and it would have room for interesting abilities. I think the eidolon should be able to take feats to get significant casting too.
Actions in combat would be as interesting as a martial with an animal companion, and their would be more power budget to build the eidolons people want. Synthesist would be easy to make too.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I think some people will like it, but players in general will find that it leaves a bad taste in their mouth.
I'm playing a Summoner to have a character and a companion, a peer.
The above is not to say you shouldn't be able to choose to invest in each to a different degree, stressing either the Summoner or the Eidolon through development.
i expect krispy to disagree
i think it woudl be fine, but i expect paizo is very married to the 4 slot thing.
edit: lol beat me to it
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The only issue with this approach is that it's not really a summoner as much as an eidolon with a familiar.
Exocist wrote: The only issue with this approach is that it's not really a summoner as much as an eidolon with a familiar. would that not be up to interpretation then?
would offer up some interesting roleplaying
As I've suggested before, this is the kind of thing that a Class Archetype would cover excellently. Trade out the summoner's slots for a more potent eidolon.
But the basic version of the released class needs to be able to cover each of the core elements of the Summoner, and forcing all of the eggs into the eidolon basket doesn't enable that.
What's the point of the summoner then? Just get rid of it entirely, and make the whole thing into a monster class that replaces ancestry.
QuidEst wrote: What's the point of the summoner then? Just get rid of it entirely, and make the whole thing into a monster class that replaces ancestry. Role-playing someone who has a protector they control. It's a lot different than just playing the monster.
I have often wondered if they shouldn't just have the summoner have to trance to control their eidolon extend the range to anywhere on the same plane keep the shared hit points. It would avoid doing anything to unbalanced the action economy and keep the summoner both in charge and absent.
citricking wrote: QuidEst wrote: What's the point of the summoner then? Just get rid of it entirely, and make the whole thing into a monster class that replaces ancestry. Role-playing someone who has a protector they control. It's a lot different than just playing the monster. Ah. No thanks for me, then. That would not be fun to play for me, and I don't think I'd care for playing with a useless character who is only kept around because somebody useful listens to them. A couple actual spells lets them pull off a useful trick once in a while at least.
QuidEst wrote: citricking wrote: QuidEst wrote: What's the point of the summoner then? Just get rid of it entirely, and make the whole thing into a monster class that replaces ancestry. Role-playing someone who has a protector they control. It's a lot different than just playing the monster. Ah. No thanks for me, then. That would not be fun to play for me, and I don't think I'd care for playing with a useless character who is only kept around because somebody useful listens to them. A couple actual spells lets them pull off a useful trick once in a while at least. that...is largely where the summoner sits currently.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Martialmasters wrote: QuidEst wrote: citricking wrote: QuidEst wrote: What's the point of the summoner then? Just get rid of it entirely, and make the whole thing into a monster class that replaces ancestry. Role-playing someone who has a protector they control. It's a lot different than just playing the monster. Ah. No thanks for me, then. That would not be fun to play for me, and I don't think I'd care for playing with a useless character who is only kept around because somebody useful listens to them. A couple actual spells lets them pull off a useful trick once in a while at least. that...is largely where the summoner sits currently. "A couple actual spells lets them pull off a useful trick once in a while at least."
That's the big difference. If I take Invisibility Sphere, my Summoner being able to turn the group invisible is a reason to have the character around beyond just "big stompy eidolon". They can, on occasion, do something that the rest of the group can't.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
I would 100% support this!!!
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
QuidEst wrote: Martialmasters wrote: QuidEst wrote: citricking wrote: QuidEst wrote: What's the point of the summoner then? Just get rid of it entirely, and make the whole thing into a monster class that replaces ancestry. Role-playing someone who has a protector they control. It's a lot different than just playing the monster. Ah. No thanks for me, then. That would not be fun to play for me, and I don't think I'd care for playing with a useless character who is only kept around because somebody useful listens to them. A couple actual spells lets them pull off a useful trick once in a while at least. that...is largely where the summoner sits currently. "A couple actual spells lets them pull off a useful trick once in a while at least."
That's the big difference. If I take Invisibility Sphere, my Summoner being able to turn the group invisible is a reason to have the character around beyond just "big stompy eidolon". They can, on occasion, do something that the rest of the group can't. Then turn any of those support spells into focus spells. But the Eidolon IS the class. If you want to play a caster, there are several out there to play. Choose one. There is no Eidolon class. Let the monster be the class.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Verzen wrote: QuidEst wrote: Martialmasters wrote: QuidEst wrote: citricking wrote: QuidEst wrote: What's the point of the summoner then? Just get rid of it entirely, and make the whole thing into a monster class that replaces ancestry. Role-playing someone who has a protector they control. It's a lot different than just playing the monster. Ah. No thanks for me, then. That would not be fun to play for me, and I don't think I'd care for playing with a useless character who is only kept around because somebody useful listens to them. A couple actual spells lets them pull off a useful trick once in a while at least. that...is largely where the summoner sits currently. "A couple actual spells lets them pull off a useful trick once in a while at least."
That's the big difference. If I take Invisibility Sphere, my Summoner being able to turn the group invisible is a reason to have the character around beyond just "big stompy eidolon". They can, on occasion, do something that the rest of the group can't. Then turn any of those support spells into focus spells. But the Eidolon IS the class. If you want to play a caster, there are several out there to play. Choose one. There is no Eidolon class. Let the monster be the class. Since it's a new day, a friendly reminder:
Your conceptualization of the summoner doesn't necessarily match that of other players, nor even the majority of the other players actually testing this and it's really unnecessary to try and scare off those people who have a different view point than you.
cavernshark wrote: Verzen wrote: QuidEst wrote: Martialmasters wrote: QuidEst wrote: citricking wrote: QuidEst wrote: What's the point of the summoner then? Just get rid of it entirely, and make the whole thing into a monster class that replaces ancestry. Role-playing someone who has a protector they control. It's a lot different than just playing the monster. Ah. No thanks for me, then. That would not be fun to play for me, and I don't think I'd care for playing with a useless character who is only kept around because somebody useful listens to them. A couple actual spells lets them pull off a useful trick once in a while at least. that...is largely where the summoner sits currently. "A couple actual spells lets them pull off a useful trick once in a while at least."
That's the big difference. If I take Invisibility Sphere, my Summoner being able to turn the group invisible is a reason to have the character around beyond just "big stompy eidolon". They can, on occasion, do something that the rest of the group can't. Then turn any of those support spells into focus spells. But the Eidolon IS the class. If you want to play a caster, there are several out there to play. Choose one. There is no Eidolon class. Let the monster be the class. Since it's a new day, a friendly reminder:
Your conceptualization of the summoner doesn't necessarily match that of other players, nor even the majority of the other players actually testing this and it's really unnecessary to try and scare off those people who have a different view point than you. that largely goes for everyone
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
cavernshark wrote: Verzen wrote: QuidEst wrote: Martialmasters wrote: QuidEst wrote: citricking wrote: QuidEst wrote: What's the point of the summoner then? Just get rid of it entirely, and make the whole thing into a monster class that replaces ancestry. Role-playing someone who has a protector they control. It's a lot different than just playing the monster. Ah. No thanks for me, then. That would not be fun to play for me, and I don't think I'd care for playing with a useless character who is only kept around because somebody useful listens to them. A couple actual spells lets them pull off a useful trick once in a while at least. that...is largely where the summoner sits currently. "A couple actual spells lets them pull off a useful trick once in a while at least."
That's the big difference. If I take Invisibility Sphere, my Summoner being able to turn the group invisible is a reason to have the character around beyond just "big stompy eidolon". They can, on occasion, do something that the rest of the group can't. Then turn any of those support spells into focus spells. But the Eidolon IS the class. If you want to play a caster, there are several out there to play. Choose one. There is no Eidolon class. Let the monster be the class. Since it's a new day, a friendly reminder:
Your conceptualization of the summoner doesn't necessarily match that of other players, nor even the majority of the other players actually testing this and it's really unnecessary to try and scare off those people who have a different view point than you. How many casters do we have?
We have wizard, sorc, cleric, witch, oracle, druid. Thats 6. 6 dedicated classes for casters.
How many MONSTER TAMER classes do we have? .. 0.. zilch.. nada..
It will never make sense to me why a person who plays summoner just wants to be another flavor of sorc.
You want spells and a weakened Eidolon? Fine. Cool. Theres a class for YOU! SORCERER gets JUST that! Just take DEDICATION SUMMONER. You will get a less powerful Eidolon AND your spells!
But let main stay Summoners have a more powerful Eidolon. Get rid of spells.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Verzen wrote: How many casters do we have?
We have wizard, sorc, cleric, witch, oracle, druid. Thats 6. 6 dedicated classes for casters.
How many MONSTER TAMER classes do we have? .. 0.. zilch.. nada..
It will never make sense to me why a person who plays summoner just wants to be another flavor of sorc.
You want spells and a weakened Eidolon? Fine. Cool. Theres a...
Okay, let's try this is a different way.
Go play a barbarian then. You can turn into a giant, any number of animals, even a dragon. You can perform super human feats of strength and don't need to be worried about spells -- in fact you can't cast them. You can use weapons, including ones with reach, and / or get natural attacks with properties generally only found on monsters. You can add energy to your attacks, even positive or negative energy!
You may not realize it, but the more you shift off of the summoner and onto the eidolon, the closer you're getting to a barbarian. And when you realize that you can see that most of your suggestions are coming way too early to realistically see the light of day.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You forgot Bard.
More seriously, people wanting Summoners to stay casters don't want them to be "another flavor of Sorcerer", they want them to remain casters because that's what they've been (a sentiment you should be familiar with), and it gives the actual character themselves something to do and not just be a prop.
I'm either or honestly.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
cavernshark wrote: Verzen wrote: How many casters do we have?
We have wizard, sorc, cleric, witch, oracle, druid. Thats 6. 6 dedicated classes for casters.
How many MONSTER TAMER classes do we have? .. 0.. zilch.. nada..
It will never make sense to me why a person who plays summoner just wants to be another flavor of sorc.
You want spells and a weakened Eidolon? Fine. Cool. Theres a...
Okay, let's try this is a different way.
Go play a barbarian then. You can turn into a giant, any number of animals, even a dragon. You can perform super human feats of strength and don't need to be worried about spells -- in fact you can't cast them. You can use weapons, including ones with reach, and / or get natural attacks with properties generally only found on monsters. You can add energy to your attacks, even positive or negative energy!
You may not realize it, but the more you shift off of the summoner and onto the eidolon, the closer you're getting to a barbarian. And when you realize that you can see that most of your suggestions are coming way too early to realistically see the light of day. Nice false equivalency. Summoner was NOTHING like a barbarian.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote: You forgot Bard.
More seriously, people wanting Summoners to stay casters don't want them to be "another flavor of Sorcerer", they want them to remain casters because that's what they've been (a sentiment you should be familiar with), and it gives the actual character themselves something to do and not just be a prop.
I'm either or honestly.
Woops. I always forget bard.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
here's the thing though.. they weakened Eidolons to fit in casting and now it sucks st both.
citricking wrote: What do people think of getting rid of the summoners casting and having all the classes power in the eidolon.
Functionally the summoner could shoot a bow or cast a cantrip with its weak proficiencies, and the eidolon would be the main character in combat. The summoner would have their basic proficiencies, ancestry and general feats, whatever they got from archetypes, and their skills.
Outside of combat the summoner would be the main character and use skills (limit the eidolons skills), but in combat the eidolon would contribute the vast majority, like the reverse of a druid and it's animal companion.
The eidolon could be a lot more powerful and complete with materials, and it would have room for interesting abilities. I think the eidolon should be able to take feats to get significant casting too.
Actions in combat would be as interesting as a martial with an animal companion, and their would be more power budget to build the eidolons people want. Synthesist would be easy to make too.
You can already kind of do that. I'm planning to play a Divine Summoner at some point as I find that cool. His main spells would be Heal (and then Beacon of Life) and Heroism to heal and boost his Eidolon. My Summoner will be a support character and my eidolon my main combat asset.
Also, in current state of the game, I think the Eidolon is the combat character already. The Summoner can fight during 4 rounds and that's it. Outside that, he boosts his Eidolon.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote: citricking wrote: What do people think of getting rid of the summoners casting and having all the classes power in the eidolon.
Functionally the summoner could shoot a bow or cast a cantrip with its weak proficiencies, and the eidolon would be the main character in combat. The summoner would have their basic proficiencies, ancestry and general feats, whatever they got from archetypes, and their skills.
Outside of combat the summoner would be the main character and use skills (limit the eidolons skills), but in combat the eidolon would contribute the vast majority, like the reverse of a druid and it's animal companion.
The eidolon could be a lot more powerful and complete with materials, and it would have room for interesting abilities. I think the eidolon should be able to take feats to get significant casting too.
Actions in combat would be as interesting as a martial with an animal companion, and their would be more power budget to build the eidolons people want. Synthesist would be easy to make too.
You can already kind of do that. I'm planning to play a Divine Summoner at some point as I find that cool. His main spells would be Heal (and then Beacon of Life) and Heroism to heal and boost his Eidolon. My Summoner will be a support character and my eidolon my main combat asset.
Also, in current state of the game, I think the Eidolon is the combat character already. The Summoner can fight during 4 rounds and that's it. Outside that, he boosts his Eidolon. I do not feel like having 4 slots per day will be very useful as a support unfortunately.
Verzen wrote: Nice false equivalency. Summoner was NOTHING like a barbarian. But the barbarian in this edition is a lot like an eidolon. Base martial chassis, emphasis on natural attacks with monster like abilities, increasingly more like a monster as it levels, and with a static damage boost (rage is just sustained Boost Eidolon, prove me wrong).
Isn't it frustrating when I tell you to "just play a barbarian, we've got enough monster-like martials already in the game."
I am opposed to any change that makes the summoner itself less interesting. It feels like bargaining, not solid class design.
In a game where classes have to fulfill some sort of power fantasy, I just think it is fundamentally a bad idea to start with the idea of "you personally are a pathetic waste of space".
A familiar being weak isn't a problem. You aren't supposed to put yourselves in the shoes of a familiar. A player character, in contrast, has to fulfill that role.
Even with a powerful companion, they have to live in the space of "only I can control this" or "my mastery of magic has led to this, my ultimate creation!"
They don't need to have spells to do that, but they need something as interesting and useful as a replacement. Not just an even bigger, scarier monster. That just reinforces the idea that the party would literally be stronger if you didn't exist.
Playing a flawed character is fine. Flaws can be interesting. Playing a character that is only a weakness isn't. That is fine for a story, but not suited to am RPG.
I feel that a spell-less Summoner needs to fall more into the line of a very capable supporter, using wits and guile to open up opportunities for their Eidolon and team. That means a big focus on tandem feats, and probably no conceptual room for a Synthesist subclass.
That's not an impossible jump (monster tamer rather summoner), but it is at best a lateral sidegrade and I seriously doubt it would come with the monster focus people are bargaining for.
Even if the draw of the class is the Eidolon, the Summoner is still the player and still needs a class fantasy. Giving up more from the base class will lead to a different but equal main half, and I only see the Eidolon getting more interesting if it indirectly benefits from the sidegrade (IE, the 'command' options lend it more combat versatility).
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
manbearscientist wrote: I am opposed to any change that makes the summoner itself less interesting. It feels like bargaining, not solid class design.
In a game where classes have to fulfill some sort of power fantasy, I just think it is fundamentally a bad idea to start with the idea of "you personally are a pathetic waste of space".
A familiar being weak isn't a problem. You aren't supposed to put yourselves in the shoes of a familiar. A player character, in contrast, has to fulfill that role.
Even with a powerful companion, they have to live in the space of "only I can control this" or "my mastery of magic has led to this, my ultimate creation!"
They don't need to have spells to do that, but they need something as interesting and useful as a replacement. Not just an even bigger, scarier monster. That just reinforces the idea that the party would literally be stronger if you didn't exist.
Playing a flawed character is fine. Flaws can be interesting. Playing a character that is only a weakness isn't. That is fine for a story, but not suited to am RPG.
I feel that a spell-less Summoner needs to fall more into the line of a very capable supporter, using wits and guile to open up opportunities for their Eidolon and team. That means a big focus on tandem feats, and probably no conceptual room for a Synthesist subclass.
That's not an impossible jump (monster tamer rather summoner), but it is at best a lateral sidegrade and I seriously doubt it would come with the monster focus people are bargaining for.
Even if the draw of the class is the Eidolon, the Summoner is still the player and still needs a class fantasy. Giving up more from the base class will lead to a different but equal main half, and I only see the Eidolon getting more interesting if it indirectly benefits from the sidegrade (IE, the 'command' options lend it more combat versatility).
I like the class fantasy idea of Master blaster or being the greedy tax collector with his brute force. I cant do anything by myself. But my brute force certainly can!
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote: feel that a spell-less Summoner needs to fall more into the line of a very capable supporter, using wits and guile to open up opportunities for their Eidolon and team. That means a big focus on tandem feats, and probably no conceptual room for a Synthesist subclass Aanndd here is where you lost me!
Many want just the strong Eidolon and a synthesis sub class.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
What I meant by that is that doubling down in any way on "the summoner is weak" makes removing the summoner 'too good".
Imagine making the witch share half their hit points with the familiar, making their lore all about their connection to their familiar, making the familiar itself the primary weakness of the witch. And then, at the end of all of that, making the familiar optional.
No one would want to take a familiar. And those that did would be taking a trap feature for flavor.
Even if you trade spells for more direct Eidolon support, you are still going down that path. The class itself would be even more about Eidolon support. Your existence is justified by the fact that you empower the beast, making up for the fact that otherwise you are below average at nearly everything. By being less independent, it is harder to justify the synthesist as a side-grade. You aren't giving up the advantage of an independent character in their own right.
I'm excited about the synthesis feature but there are too many drawbacks. there are a few changes I and my summoner player want to see in it. we are already coming up with a couple home brew along with a machine/golem eidolon.
Recent threads in Summoner Class
|
