How does the summoner compare to the spiritualist and hunter?

[Physicskid42]

It seems that the 2e summoner is intended to take the place of these two classes as well so it would be nice to consider comparing it to them as well as the 1e summoner.

[Invictus Novo]

Spiritualist I get, but I never played or saw a Hunter be played at any of my tables. Mind explaining why you believe the 2e Summoner is intended to take that role?

[Physicskid42]

Invictus Novo wrote:

Spiritualist I get, but I never played or saw a Hunter be played at any of my tables. Mind explaining why you believe the 2e Summoner is intended to take that role?

The beast type eidolon is like the animal companion the hunter gets. Especially if you got a ranger archetype . It’s not hugely alike right now but I doubt they will make a ranger now that the summon fills mostly the same role

[Temperans]

The Spiritualist gave you a choice of emotion and gave you powers based on that emotion. In that sense PF2 summoner is similar.
The Hunter is similar in that it just had a better animal companion.

However, Spiritualist, Hunters, and PF1 Summoner had nothing in common besides all being pet classes with 6th level casting.

Eidolons were incredibly versatile outsiders that could be customized both in mechanics and looks into almost any conceivable creature and have the mechanics to match them. They had monster abilities, defenses, and overall just awesome.

Phantoms were creatures whose only customization was their look and the choice of an emotion. Their powers were maybe being ethereal and emotion abilities.

Hunter Animal Companions were just that Animal Companions. But Hunters had feats and abilities to work great with them. They were the ultimate teamwork class. Given that they shared teamwork feats and had synergies.

***************************

The fact Summoner is being compared to the Hunter just makes me sad. Because I dont want a weird animal companion. I want a customizable eidolon.

[GM Sedoriku]

Temperans wrote:

The fact Summoner is being compared to the Hunter just makes me sad. Because I don't want a weird animal companion. I want a customizable eidolon.

Personally the comparison with the Hunter seems a bit far fetched (a class that uses an animal companion and some strong effects of working together sounds like a better Hunter than the playtest summoner). However, the weird animal companion and customizable (at least appearance and personality wise, if only slightly mecahnically) eidolon are available under the current playtest. Some people might just want a strong/weird animal companion!

[Temperans]

Agreed that Hunter as I described it sounds much better than the playtest summoner. Which makes sense given that is more or less the inspiration for the Beastmaster Archetype.

The current Playtest Summoner fails in the most important part of the Summoner. Having meaningful customization of the Eidolon, the fact its just cosmetic breaks my heart every time.

[Physicskid42]

Temperans wrote:

Agreed that Hunter as I described it sounds much better than the playtest summoner. Which makes sense given that is more or less the inspiration for the Beastmaster Archetype.

The current Playtest Summoner fails in the most important part of the Summoner. Having meaningful customization of the Eidolon, the fact its just cosmetic breaks my heart every time.

My reasoning was less that the hunter was overly similar to the summoner and more that I don’t think that Paizo will make a hunter now that they have a beast summoner.

[RexAliquid]

Just a reminder that the Beast type is distinct from Animal. Beasts are magical and weird, and not simply animals.

[Ventnor]

RexAliquid wrote:

Just a reminder that the Beast type is distinct from Animal. Beasts are magical and weird, and not simply animals.

A few examples of monsters classified as beasts in 2e: chimerae, hydras, pegasi, phoenixes, and wargs.

[Alchemic_Genius]

With a customizable spell list, and occult being one of those options, I'm rather glad that the spiritualist is getting merged into the summoner. Spiritualist imo felt like a wonky summoner with a psychic theme, and the prospect of a more customizable phantom is really cool to me. I love the prospect of my mortal soul buddy having a possibly warped body to reflect it's emotion and getting weird powers from it.

Not really sure I get Hunter vibes though; that to me just feels like a ranger with druid devotion

[Joyd]

While they weren't as loudly customizable as Eidolons, Phantoms were built as full normal characters just like pretty much every other creature in PF1, so there was still a moderate level of customization present. It's a little reductive to say that the only customization option present was the choice of emotional focus - that was just the only major phantom-specific axis of customization.

In practice, the overwhelming majority of the available feats weren't things you'd seriously consider giving a Phantom (or any character, really), but there was still a significant amount of mechanical customization that went into a Phantom above and beyond the emotional focus.

[Temperans]

Well yes, but then Animal companions used to also get feat.

If we are talking about the core ability of the different companions it would be:

* Eidolon == Evolution points to customize as you see fit.

* Phantom == Emotional foci.

* Animal Companion == What animal/magical beast with what archetype do you want?

* Mounts == same as Animal companion but more limited.

* Familiar == small creature + archetype.

Of that list, only familiars didn't get their own feats. In either case Eidolon and Phantom have gone from the most thematic to just meh. While Eidolon went from the most versatile/customizable to the same level as an Animal Companion.