| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more concerned that summoned creatures are too weak to be a viable threat against Boss Monster encounters of Challenge +1 or +2.
Reccomendation - a class feature that lets you "puppeteer" a summoned creature as part of sustaining, allowing it to use your Spell Attack modifier instead of its normal attack bonus on its next action.
Because a Summoners Spell Attack modifier isn't great, this should allow most summons to swing in the "2nd MAP attack" range for a Martial which is relevant, but not show stealing.
Is there a thread for this topic?
Its a relevant thing to discuss.
I've got Heal because I'm also the party healer. If I weren't, its still a potent back pocket trick thats probably worth one of your 4 spell picks.
Even if not, I'm not doing much with my characters hands... so carrying a potion in hand to drink is also viable.
I dont think its a problem if Summoners have to think hard and strategise to protect their personal safety.
Like yeah, i think it's rad what you've done with your Summoner, i'm not knocking it; I'd def take Heal as a Summoner that has access to it. I just don't feel that Heal should be THAT much of a must-pick just for the class to feel good to play.
I'm also not against Summoners having to think hard and strategize, like 100% i support a Summoner doing it's best to NOT be in the front-line (unless you're going for some like tag-team build) but the whole point is you build to support that playstyle. So like i 100% agree with you there.
I have only seen one instance of this, when me and a few others just said that all three of those together where to much. one or two would be fine, but 19 hp a level is a little much. If the summoner takes 1.2 times the damage, then it only needs 1.2 times the hp of a fighter, which has 13 hp a level starting out. so 15 (base 12) or maybe 16 (base 10 +eidolon con) at most would be fine and great, but all of it together is just overkill.
The healthy range obviously isn't throwing a d10 at the Summoner.
People don't like giving the Summoner a d12, Eidolon CON, CON as a key ability, or any of the other proposed solutions to try and rectify the current problem with Summoner in the 2e playtest which is it's survivability problem that a number of us have experienced.
So you'd be fine with 20% more HP overall then since it takes 20% more damage? (before disadvantage but we can work with that)
A Human Summoner or Human Fighter (8+10+2[CON]) starts with 20 HP.
20% more HP would bump it up to 24 starting HP.
So how do we factor that into Summoner?
(8+12+2[CON]+2[CON from Eidolon]) would equal 24, it would give the Summoner the 20% buffer it'd need.
That's by bumping the die up to d12 and by having the Eidolon CON contribute.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious as to how that is, considering that you are at Fighter HP at best with absolutely atrocious AC that is on par with Wizards and worse than Barbarians or Monks, not able to be shored up outside of multiclassing.
I'm never visible at the start of an encounter the party initiates (corners are OP) and anyone that wants to use actions to walk past Fighters and Monks with AOOs and Stand Still is heartily invited to do so. Its their actions to waste on moving, its like I Slowed them for no actions and with no save. I'm also claiming credit for any damage they suffer in their foolish pursuit.
Theyre unlikely to survive the round since they've walked to where aforementioned melee party members now flank with the summoner and are surrounded - and since they had to walk to get to me, they will almost certainly not have the damage to drop me from full with a single crit.
Ranged attackers simply aren't that common in APs with enough offensive potential to be particular scary, and they're fairly obvious - if we run into one, as noted above, corners are OP. Less OP than corners is prone + take cover, but its still effective.
Tactics and positioning are, and will always be, far superior to AC for survival.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more concerned that summoned creatures are too weak to be a viable threat against Boss Monster encounters of Challenge +1 or +2.Reccomendation - a class feature that lets you "puppeteer" a summoned creature as part of sustaining, allowing it to use your Spell Attack modifier instead of its normal attack bonus on its next action.
Because a Summoners Spell Attack modifier isn't great, this should allow most summons to swing in the "2nd MAP attack" range for a Martial which is relevant, but not show stealing.
Is there a thread for this topic?
Its a relevant thing to discuss.
*thumbs up* I approve! ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious as to how that is, considering that you are at Fighter HP at best with absolutely atrocious AC that is on par with Wizards and worse than Barbarians or Monks, not able to be shored up outside of multiclassing.I'm never visible at the start of an encounter the party initiates (corners are OP) and anyone that wants to use actions to walk past Fighters and Monks with AOOs and Stand Still is heartily invited to do so. Its their actions to waste on moving, its like I Slowed them for no actions and with no save. I'm also claiming credit for any damage they suffer in their foolish pursuit.
Theyre unlikely to survive the round since they've walked to where aforementioned melee party members now flank with the summoner and are surrounded - and since they had to walk to get to me, they will almost certainly not have the damage to drop me from full with a single crit.
Ranged attackers simply aren't that common in APs with enough offensive potential to be particular scary, and they're fairly obvious - if we run into one, as noted above, corners are OP. Less OP than corners is prone + take cover, but its still effective.
Tactics and positioning are, and will always be, far superior to AC for survival.
This is true, but that's really only relevant for yourself. Your eidolon, not so much. It has maybe 15 AC at most by 1st level, bumping to 19 by 3rd (still very weak). Are they just sitting in the back eating chips like you?
That being said, my analogy of Summoner gameplay akin to Bobby Fisher is spot on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is true, but that's really only relevant for yourself. Your eidolon, not so much. It has maybe 15 AC at most by 1st level, bumping to 19 by 3rd (still very weak). Are they just sitting in the back eating chips like you?That being said, my analogy of Summoner gameplay akin to Bobby Fisher is spot on.
As of level 3, the Eidolons AC goes from being bad to straight up Good. Its got the same AC as anyone else in Medium Armor, and at level 5 it goes up to "tied with Monks good" because of 18 Dex.
Eidolon AC drops back to "merely as good as everyone elses" when other classes get their Armor proficiencies, but it never goes back to bad after level 3.... and I'd struggle to name anyone who doesn't think that gap (at levels 1 and 2) shouldn't be removed.
In my case, I also took the Shield cantrip (10 extra hp per fight is nice, plus the AC) and Reinforce Eidolon so I can further play "fortress mode" and dissuade things from attacking my Eidolon in favor of an easier target.
At which point, until healing is needed we begin boostin' and beatin'.
...its really not boring at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don’t like it. It relegates the Eidolon back to a feeling of expendable while also encouraging ways for the Summoner to be untouchable and thus never have any threat or consequence. Meh.
Expendable? Again I totally reject that. An ediolon is a primary investment, it is not expendalbe. The player is vulnerable with out it.
Sorry, but that is a line in the sand Design Goal for me. Just like a wizard is not a wizard without a spell book. A summoner is not summoner unless there is at least some separation between the hitpoints of the summoner and his eidolon.
It is that central to the concept.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is that central to the concept.
But why? The concept of "Linked Life" was established in 1E - all they really did was make it even more important to the Summoner by establishing the link as univerally critical.
Drawing absolute lines like this, in a case where you're one voice among many, is setting yourself up for disappointment.
Maybe it does change - but if it doesnt, you're essentially locking yourself out regardless of what other improvements or concessions they make elsewhere.
I'm against seperate HP pools, but its not the end of the road if that happens. I just presume that if they go the route, I'm playing with an Eidolon that has capabilities closer to an Animal Companions than a Player Character- and I'd really prefer that not be the case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is that central to the concept.But why? The concept of "Linked Life" was established in 1E - all they really did was make it even more important to the Summoner by establishing the link as univerally critical.
Drawing absolute lines like this, in a case where you're one voice among many, is setting yourself up for disappointment.
Maybe it does change - but if it doesnt, you're essentially locking yourself out regardless of what other improvements or concessions they make elsewhere.
I'm against seperate HP pools, but its not the end of the road if that happens. I just presume that if they go the route, I'm playing with an Eidolon that has capabilities closer to an Animal Companions than a Player Character- and I'd really prefer that not be the case.
Linked life was an optional mechanic. I always disliked it. The old summoner would have worked with out it.
A summoner summons things. Its in the name. Its all through fantasy stories.
There being any sort of hit point connection between the two is an edge case.
No I'm not one voice. There are a lot of opinions in this list. Stop doing that. Stop trying to marginalise other opinions. The number of people expressing an opinion has very little to do with how valid it is.
The playtest summoner hitpoint mechanic is not reasonable for a summoner. Its very gamist. I don't mind that it is made but call it something else, and give us a real summoner. Don't pretend that this is a summoner.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don’t like it. It relegates the Eidolon back to a feeling of expendable while also encouraging ways for the Summoner to be untouchable and thus never have any threat or consequence. Meh.Expendable? Again I totally reject that. An ediolon is a primary investment, it is not expendalbe. The player is vulnerable with out it.
Sorry, but that is a line in the sand Design Goal for me. Just like a wizard is not a wizard without a spell book. A summoner is not summoner unless there is at least some separation between the hitpoints of the summoner and his eidolon.
It is that central to the concept.
Weird hangup but okay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1 it comes back the next day with half HP.
Do you really want that?
More so than what is being offered now?
YesAt least a 10 minute cool down after the Eidolon dies is required.
I think I'd prefer it to come back on 1 HP
Out of combat healing has been made cheap in PF2 and that has consequences. I don't disagree with that from a gameplay point of view. But it has an impact on this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is that central to the concept.But why? The concept of "Linked Life" was established in 1E - all they really did was make it even more important to the Summoner by establishing the link as univerally critical.
Drawing absolute lines like this, in a case where you're one voice among many, is setting yourself up for disappointment.
Maybe it does change - but if it doesnt, you're essentially locking yourself out regardless of what other improvements or concessions they make elsewhere.
I'm against seperate HP pools, but its not the end of the road if that happens. I just presume that if they go the route, I'm playing with an Eidolon that has capabilities closer to an Animal Companions than a Player Character- and I'd really prefer that not be the case.
Linked life was an optional mechanic. I always disliked it. The old summoner would have worked with out it.
A summoner summons things. Its in the name. Its all through fantasy stories.
There being any sort of hit point connection between the two is an edge case.
No I'm not one voice. There are a lot of opinions in this list. Stop doing that. Stop tring to marginalise other opinions.
The playtest summoner hitpoint mechanic is not reasonable for a summoner. Its very gamist. I don't mind that it is made but call it something else, and give us a real summoner. Don't pretend that this is a summoner.
Lifelink does not impede their ability to summon anything.
And no one is trying to marginalize any voices, the only one doing that is you with your ""I'm not one voice' there's more people with my opinion than yours" statement.
This is a very odd hangup to have, to completely disavow the Summoner just because they share their life force with their Eidolon, I honestly can't comprehend it. You don't like it, okay. But to state that because of this mechanic a Summoner isn't a Summoner is just absurd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is true, but that's really only relevant for yourself. Your eidolon, not so much. It has maybe 15 AC at most by 1st level, bumping to 19 by 3rd (still very weak). Are they just sitting in the back eating chips like you?That being said, my analogy of Summoner gameplay akin to Bobby Fisher is spot on.
As of level 3, the Eidolons AC goes from being bad to straight up Good. Its got the same AC as anyone else in Medium Armor, and at level 5 it goes up to "tied with Monks good" because of 18 Dex.
Eidolon AC drops back to "merely as good as everyone elses" when other classes get their Armor proficiencies, but it never goes back to bad after level 3.... and I'd struggle to name anyone who doesn't think that gap (at levels 1 and 2) shouldn't be removed.
In my case, I also took the Shield cantrip (10 extra hp per fight is nice, plus the AC) and Reinforce Eidolon so I can further play "fortress mode" and dissuade things from attacking my Eidolon in favor of an easier target.
At which point, until healing is needed we begin boostin' and beatin'.
...its really not boring at all.
How are you getting 18 Constitution and 16 Dexterity when Charisma is the Summoner's class boost? Are you taking voluntary flaws to reach those numbers?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And no one is trying to marginalize any voices, the only one doing that is you with your ""I'm not one voice' there's more people with my opinion than yours" statement.
I was not replying to your comment here
This is a very odd hangup to have, to completely disavow the Summoner just because they share their life force with their Eidolon, I honestly can't comprehend it. You don't like it, okay. But to state that because of this mechanic a Summoner isn't a Summoner is just absurd.
Well what is a summoner in a story? Not a summoner in a game.(Always been my point - I have not been making the balance arguments here)
Someone who summons another entity to do a job that he can't do, or is too dangerous to do himself.
Life link is not required in that description. In fact life link kind of defeats the purpose of a summoner.
|
|
I was not replying to your comment here
And no one is trying to marginalize any voices, the only one doing that is you with your ""I'm not one voice' there's more people with my opinion than yours" statement.
And?
This is a very odd hangup to have, to completely disavow the Summoner just because they share their life force with their Eidolon, I honestly can't comprehend it. You don't like it, okay. But to state that because of this mechanic a Summoner isn't a Summoner is just absurd.Well what is a summoner in a story? Not a summoner in a game.(Always been my point - I have not been making the balance arguments here)
Someone who summons another entity to do a job that he can't do, or is too dangerous to do himself.
Life link is not required in that description. In fact life link kind of defeats the purpose of a summoner.
It's not required for the visual or fantasy, but it doesn't "defeat" it, not in the slightest.
Sharing your life force with the strong creature is summon enhances the fantasy and visual of being a Summoner to me if I'm being honest.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest summoner hitpoint mechanic is not reasonable for a summoner. Its very gamist. I don't mind that it is made but call it something else, and give us a real summoner. Don't pretend that this is a summoner.
First, calling anyone that likes the current mechanic gameist is outright dismissing the possibility that someone other than yourself might find such a thing extremely appropriate for a summoner. I believe you asked others not to marginalize the opinions of others?
Second, neither you or any other individual- including myself - gets to determine what is or is not "a summoner". You can decide what you consider to be a summoner, and that's equally valid to anyone elses opinion on the matter.
I'm not "pretending" if I call the current iteration a Summoner. Its perfectly valid, and what's more its currently supported by the people who decide what ends up going in the book. It may not end that way, but it is what it currently is.
But ultimately as far as PF2E is concerned, what gets printed is what a Summoner is, and that's largely outside of any of our control.
Note that control and influence are distinct things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well, that works *if* you nerf the eidolons con to 14, the ratio gets more and more extreme as you level up due to you having 2 sources of bosting con. at level 5, a dwarf fighter would have 75 hp (10 +50 class +15 con) while a dwarven summoner would have 105 (10+ 60 class + 15 con + 15 con), or 1.4 times the hp. keeping the summoner at 10 hp a level (95 hp) would put it at 1.26 times the hp, or not adding in the eidolons con (90 hp) would put it at exactly 1.2 times the hp. And don't get me started on at level 20, that's a lot of math I don't want to do but the difference will only grow larger.
Yeah i'm nerfing the Eidolon's CON a little because i really don't think we're keeping the 16/16/16 stat array, but if you like i can use the Eidolon array.
I think you got it though, so what would be your solution?
d10 and Eidolon CON?
Lv.5 Human Summoner/Eidolon-93 HP
(8+50+15[CON]+20[Eidolon])
Lv.5 Human Fighter-73 HP
(8+50+15[CON])
That comes out to about ~x1.26/1.27 which is about in-line. (Again, not factoring in disadvantage)
Let me ask you, how do you see it working out with the Summoner's HP?
What i mean is, if Paizo were to go this route, would the Summoner just get the 20 HP contributed from the Eidolon whether it's manifested or not?
Or would you want a restriction where it only gains it if the Eidolon is manifested?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest summoner hitpoint mechanic is not reasonable for a summoner. Its very gamist. I don't mind that it is made but call it something else, and give us a real summoner. Don't pretend that this is a summoner.
First, calling anyone that likes the current mechanic gameist is outright dismissing the possibility that someone other than yourself might find such a thing extremely appropriate for a summoner. I believe you asked others not to marginalize the opinions of others?
Second, neither you or any other individual- including myself - gets to determine what is or is not "a summoner". You can decide what you consider to be a summoner, and that's equally valid to anyone elses opinion on the matter.
The word has meaning outside the broader context of the game. Its not unreasonable for me to defend its broader meaning and argue that some language consistency would be good.
I called your statement out - not for disagreeing with me or expressing a different opinion which are fair and reasonable - but because you are attacking the fact that I am expressing a different opinion. You have to accept that I disagree, and I'm not going to meekly give in to any perception you might have of majority opinion. I am pointing out that this is not something on which concensus will occur from my point.
This is a playtest. Feedback has been asked for.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I called your statement out - not for disagreeing with me or expressing a different opinion which are fair and reasonable - but because you are attacking the fact that I am expressing a different opinion. You have to accept that I disagree, and I'm not going to meekly give in to any perception you might have of majority opinion. I am pointing out that this is not something on which concensus will occur from my point.
It would be helpful if you didn't present your opinions as if they were facts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The word has meaning outside the broader context of the game. Its not unreasonable for me to defend its broader meaning and argue that some language consistency would be good.
That's kinda irrelevant though?
How a Summoner works in [Media that isn't Pathfinder] has absolutely no bearing or control on how the Summoner Class works in Pathfinder.
If you want to apply broader meaning to the term Summoner then you only have the fact they summon things to go on, which P2 Summoners do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The word has meaning outside the broader context of the game. Its not unreasonable for me to defend its broader meaning and argue that some language consistency would be good.That's kinda irrelevant though?
How a Summoner works in [Media that isn't Pathfinder] has absolutely no bearing or control on how the Summoner Class works in Pathfinder.
If you want to apply broader meaning to the term Summoner then you only have the fact they summon things to go on, which P2 Summoners do.
Imagine if Paizo decided that Fighters casted spells and Wizards swung swords the best. How many people would agree with those labels and find them appropriate for their designated roles? Not many, I imagine, largely because those labels have roots deep in D&D territory, and that is a primary fan base that Paizo has (and wants) as customers. There are other fictional factions at work here, but even those would most likely agree that those labels are largely incorrect. After all, who wants to hear the "You're a Fighter, Harry!" meme from the upcoming Pathfinder adventure path? It'd be funny and ironic, but by no means "appropriate" to their pre-defined definitions.
While the Summoner is more complicated and less black-and-white than this, the above point does call to question whether calling it a "summoner" is appropriate, both as its PF1 holdover, as well as its general connotations. Obviously, the most notable mechanic to the Summoner in PF1 has always been the Eidolon and the ability to cast spells, Summoning in particular. It most definitely wasn't "Me and the Eidolon share HP involuntarily" as we're getting here in PF2, and if you try and argue otherwise with "Life Link in PF1 and PF2 are the same," not only is that outright false, but it's also conflated no more than a PF2 Wizard is equal to a 5E Wizard is equal to a GURPS Wizard. In label and nothing else. Nor were general Summoners in other medias physically or metaphysically bound to the things they summoned.
Obviously, Paizo can label anything in-universe whatever they want. It shouldn't be a shock that if they do things vastly different than what is commonly portrayed by those definitions that backlash and confusion will arise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The word has meaning outside the broader context of the game. Its not unreasonable for me to defend its broader meaning and argue that some language consistency would be good.That's kinda irrelevant though?
How a Summoner works in [Media that isn't Pathfinder] has absolutely no bearing or control on how the Summoner Class works in Pathfinder.
If you want to apply broader meaning to the term Summoner then you only have the fact they summon things to go on, which P2 Summoners do.
Plus, there's absolutely tons of fantasy media where the strongest bond to some sort of non-human creature you can make is one that's forged with your own life or soul - or of the idea that in order for a creature from another world to reside in the 'material' world, it requires some sort of anchor like its Summoner.
An Eidolon isn't merely some ephemeral summon, or bound planar entity held in the prime material by the magically charged bonds of a Summon - its held here, stable, because you're fueling its very existence with your own life force.
ALL of the above is extremely consistent with the concept of a Summoner, and works with the life link concept as presented.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The word has meaning outside the broader context of the game. Its not unreasonable for me to defend its broader meaning and argue that some language consistency would be good.That's kinda irrelevant though?
How a Summoner works in [Media that isn't Pathfinder] has absolutely no bearing or control on how the Summoner Class works in Pathfinder.
If you want to apply broader meaning to the term Summoner then you only have the fact they summon things to go on, which P2 Summoners do.
Plus, there's absolutely tons of fantasy media where the strongest bond to some sort of non-human creature you can make is one that's forged with your own life or soul - or of the idea that in order for a creature from another world to reside in the 'material' world, it requires some sort of anchor like its Summoner.
An Eidolon isn't merely some ephemeral summon, or bound planar entity held in the prime material by the magically charged bonds of a Summon - its held here, stable, because you're fueling its very existence with your own life force.
ALL of the above is extremely consistent with the concept of a Summoner, and works with the life link concept as presented.
Not exactly something done to have control or dominion over said being, usually done as bargain for something else precious to them, AKA a Pact. Something Devils and Demons in Pathfinder do all the time, no Summoner class needed. People selling their souls to save the lives of others, wealth, fame, etc. is not something a Summoner is known for, unless the Summoner is the one reaping the benefits of their souls. A Summoner is usually known for the capability to, well, summon, and bind powerful entities to serve their own purposes, and not be a servant to something else, something antithetical to their purpose.
Plus, there's no proof that Eidolons are sentient with their own goals, wants, or desires. It can be, if the GM allows it and if there are rules for it. As it stands? No rules, no purviews, no nothing. Eidolons are about as fleshed out as Animal Companions currently. Wouldn't be a bad idea to implement them, since even Patrons for Witches have more creative capability than Eidolons do. Something to put in a survey. But I don't expect it to be fleshed out enough for it to matter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine if Paizo decided that Fighters casted spells and Wizards swung swords the best.Not even remotely close to what's occurring here.
and if you try and argue otherwise with "Life Link in PF1 and PF2 are the same"
I don't think anyone is claiming they are the outright same mechanically.
But both P1 and P2 Lifelink involves sharing HP between the Eidolon and Summoner, the P2 version is a successor to the P1 version.
Nor were general Summoners in other medias physically or metaphysically bound to the things they summoned.This is an assumption you are having.
It shouldn't be a shock that if they do things vastly different than what is commonly portrayed by those definitions that backlash and confusion will arise.
Please point out all the other Media depictions of Eidolons that Pathfinder based theirs on, I'll wait.
Because that's the main component of the Pathfinder Summoner in either edition, not the metagame construct of HP and how they handle them.
Cause aside from the few arguing against it on these forums, there is going to be zero backlash against the summoner solely because of the share HP mechanic because you claim "that's not how Summoners work".
Nada. A newcomer to Pathfinder isn't going to open the book, see Lifelink and exclaim in rage "That's not how Summoners work!".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well, that works *if* you nerf the eidolons con to 14, the ratio gets more and more extreme as you level up due to you having 2 sources of bosting con. at level 5, a dwarf fighter would have 75 hp (10 +50 class +15 con) while a dwarven summoner would have 105 (10+ 60 class + 15 con + 15 con), or 1.4 times the hp. keeping the summoner at 10 hp a level (95 hp) would put it at 1.26 times the hp, or not adding in the eidolons con (90 hp) would put it at exactly 1.2 times the hp. And don't get me started on at level 20, that's a lot of math I don't want to do but the difference will only grow larger.
Yeah i'm nerfing the Eidolon's CON a little because i really don't think we're keeping the 16/16/16 stat array, but if you like i can use the Eidolon array.
I think you got it though, so what would be your solution?
d10 and Eidolon CON?Lv.5 Human Summoner/Eidolon-93 HP
(8+50+15[CON]+20[Eidolon])Lv.5 Human Fighter-73 HP
(8+50+15[CON])That comes out to about ~x1.26/1.27 which is about in-line. (Again, not factoring in disadvantage)
Let me ask you, how do you see it working out with the Summoner's HP?
What i mean is, if Paizo were to go this route, would the Summoner just get the 20 HP contributed from the Eidolon whether it's manifested or not?
Or would you want a restriction where it only gains it if the Eidolon is manifested?
Maybe leave out the eidolon CON for simplicity's sake and have d12 HP and Summoner CON for primary/casting. That would put a human at(8+12+4) 24 HP at first level. A fighter is at 20, so the 1.2*damage is accounted for.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, there's no proof that Eidolons are sentient with their own goals, wants, or desires. It can be, if the GM allows it and if there are rules for it. As it stands? No rules, no purviews, no nothing. Eidolons are about as fleshed out as Animal Companions currently. Wouldn't be a bad idea to implement them, since even Patrons for Witches have more creative capability than Eidolons do. Something to put in a survey. But I don't expect it to be fleshed out enough for it to matter.
Uh, yeah, about that...
"Your eidolon is a celestial messenger, a member of the angelic host with a unique link to you, allowing them to carry a special message to the mortal world at your side. ...Though a true angel,..."
Explicitly in the case of the Angel eidolon, you are incorrect. Its a real, honest to goodness (and sentient and independent) intelligent creature - and Angel! We know all of that because Angels are independent beings who are sentient with their own wants and desires.
Its also all but explicit in the case of Phantoms and Dragons (who explicitly have minds), and heavily implied outright for Beasts as well.
A GM ruling otherwise is a house rule, not the other way around.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, there's no proof that Eidolons are sentient with their own goals, wants, or desires. It can be, if the GM allows it and if there are rules for it. As it stands? No rules, no purviews, no nothing. Eidolons are about as fleshed out as Animal Companions currently. Wouldn't be a bad idea to implement them, since even Patrons for Witches have more creative capability than Eidolons do. Something to put in a survey. But I don't expect it to be fleshed out enough for it to matter.Uh, yeah, about that...
"Your eidolon is a celestial messenger, a member of the angelic host with a unique link to you, allowing them to carry a special message to the mortal world at your side. ...Though a true angel,..."
Explicitly in the case of the Angel eidolon, you are incorrect. Its a real, honest to goodness (and sentient and independent) intelligent creature - and Angel! We know all of that because Angels are independent beings who are sentient with their own wants and desires.
Its also all but explicit in the case of Phantoms and Dragons (who explicitly have minds), and heavily implied outright for Beasts as well.
A GM ruling otherwise is a house rule, not the other way around.
I agree. Note all of the eidolons have at least 8 intelligence (which is equal to a PC) and all can explicitly speak a language.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine if Paizo decided that Fighters casted spells and Wizards swung swords the best.Not even remotely close to what's occurring here.and if you try and argue otherwise with "Life Link in PF1 and PF2 are the same"I don't think anyone is claiming they are the outright same mechanically.
But both P1 and P2 Lifelink involves sharing HP between the Eidolon and Summoner, the P2 version is a successor to the P1 version.
Nor were general Summoners in other medias physically or metaphysically bound to the things they summoned.This is an assumption you are having.It shouldn't be a shock that if they do things vastly different than what is commonly portrayed by those definitions that backlash and confusion will arise.Please point out all the other Media depictions of Eidolons that Pathfinder based theirs on, I'll wait.
Because that's the main component of the Pathfinder Summoner in either edition, not the metagame construct of HP and how they handle them.
Cause aside from the few arguing against it on these forums, there is going to be zero backlash against the summoner solely because of the share HP mechanic because you claim "that's not how Summoners work".
Nada. A newcomer to Pathfinder isn't going to open the book, see Lifelink and exclaim in rage "That's not how Summoners work!".
It's close enough. A more apt example might be Paizo making Paladins a subset of Champions instead of it being its own actual class with subtypes upon release; point is, if Paizo has to drastically change how a PF1 class works for its PF2 counterpart, a name change might also have to be on the table to compensate. Paizo can feel that it's not necessary, but Champion has set precedent for it to be both possible, and done before.
You guys have been claiming that they're fundamentally the same since the playtest released and that nobody should have a problem with it. The Goal Posts have teleported from their previous location if that's no longer the case.
It's not an assumption when the source material in question outright states my apparent "assumption." At best you can argue that it still technically is, but they most certainly aren't bound the same way the PF2 Summoner is, where, if one dies, the other dies with them, and so on.
Eidolons come from the term "idola," which refers to a mental or spectral image or ideal. A metaphysical entity. In pop culture, Cthulhu would actually fall under this concept, and there are other medias besides Pathfinder and TTRPGs that expressly refer to this terminology.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, there's absolutely tons of fantasy media where the strongest bond to some sort of non-human creature you can make is one that's forged with your own life or soul - or of the idea that in order for a creature from another world to reside in the 'material' world, it requires some sort of anchor like its Summoner.
I don't disagree. I would argue that its only a minor portion, or than it is not a total link, but OK I agree.
ALL of the above is extremely consistent with the concept of a Summoner, and works with the life link concept as presented.
A partial life link is fine, I can ignore that or play it down and use the playtest summoner to tell my stories but a complete life link is a road block for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, there's no proof that Eidolons are sentient with their own goals, wants, or desires. It can be, if the GM allows it and if there are rules for it. As it stands? No rules, no purviews, no nothing. Eidolons are about as fleshed out as Animal Companions currently. Wouldn't be a bad idea to implement them, since even Patrons for Witches have more creative capability than Eidolons do. Something to put in a survey. But I don't expect it to be fleshed out enough for it to matter.Uh, yeah, about that...
"Your eidolon is a celestial messenger, a member of the angelic host with a unique link to you, allowing them to carry a special message to the mortal world at your side. ...Though a true angel,..."
Explicitly in the case of the Angel eidolon, you are incorrect. Its a real, honest to goodness (and sentient and independent) intelligent creature - and Angel! We know all of that because Angels are independent beings who are sentient with their own wants and desires.
Its also all but explicit in the case of Phantoms and Dragons (who explicitly have minds), and heavily implied outright for Beasts as well.
A GM ruling otherwise is a house rule, not the other way around.
So I'm wrong. Fine. It's merely a technicality, though, as this actually poses a major problem with how the creatures can be ran, especially if these creatures with their own wants and desires have disagreements with the Summoner's methods. Can it act against the Summoner if that's the case? Are there ways for an Eidolon manifested in such a way to "unbind" itself from the Summoner and strike them down for their heresy? Are there some "Asimov's Laws of Robotics" shenanigans going on here, where an Eidolon cannot act against the Summoner's wishes by the metaphysics of the universe? Or does a Summoner have complete and utter control over them and their desires to the point that they aren't any more "sentient" or "independent" than the Summoner themselves?
In short, it's very easy to claim it to flavor text if it's scrutinized enough, as above.
I'm more concerned that summoned creatures are too weak to be a viable threat against Boss Monster encounters of Challenge +1 or +2.Reccomendation - a class feature that lets you "puppeteer" a summoned creature as part of sustaining, allowing it to use your Spell Attack modifier instead of its normal attack bonus on its next action.
Because a Summoners Spell Attack modifier isn't great, this should allow most summons to swing in the "2nd MAP attack" range for a Martial which is relevant, but not show stealing.
Is there a thread for this topic?
Its a relevant thing to discuss.
I'm listing the results and recommendations in my playtest thread. I'll add more to it as I try more combinations.
I think adding a +2 status bonus attack roll to Boost Summons solves the problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And no one is trying to marginalize any voices, the only one doing that is you with your ""I'm not one voice' there's more people with my opinion than yours" statement.
I was not replying to your comment here
This is a very odd hangup to have, to completely disavow the Summoner just because they share their life force with their Eidolon, I honestly can't comprehend it. You don't like it, okay. But to state that because of this mechanic a Summoner isn't a Summoner is just absurd.Well what is a summoner in a story? Not a summoner in a game.(Always been my point - I have not been making the balance arguments here)
Someone who summons another entity to do a job that he can't do, or is too dangerous to do himself.
Life link is not required in that description. In fact life link kind of defeats the purpose of a summoner.
I'm not in the hardcore camp of separate hit point pools any more, but I would definitely prefer it from a concept standpoint. Like you state using summoned creatures is a certain type of mindset for a caster and having them separate from yourself is a big part of that mindset.
Sacrificing your eidolon because you know you can recover it easier than a party member is not expendable, just a summoner making a calculation based on the resources to bring back a party member versus the pain of temporary death of a summoned creature returning to its home plane to recover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well, that works *if* you nerf the eidolons con to 14, the ratio gets more and more extreme as you level up due to you having 2 sources of bosting con. at level 5, a dwarf fighter would have 75 hp (10 +50 class +15 con) while a dwarven summoner would have 105 (10+ 60 class + 15 con + 15 con), or 1.4 times the hp. keeping the summoner at 10 hp a level (95 hp) would put it at 1.26 times the hp, or not adding in the eidolons con (90 hp) would put it at exactly 1.2 times the hp. And don't get me started on at level 20, that's a lot of math I don't want to do but the difference will only grow larger.
Yeah i'm nerfing the Eidolon's CON a little because i really don't think we're keeping the 16/16/16 stat array, but if you like i can use the Eidolon array.
I think you got it though, so what would be your solution?
d10 and Eidolon CON?Lv.5 Human Summoner/Eidolon-93 HP
(8+50+15[CON]+20[Eidolon])Lv.5 Human Fighter-73 HP
(8+50+15[CON])That comes out to about ~x1.26/1.27 which is about in-line. (Again, not factoring in disadvantage)
Let me ask you, how do you see it working out with the Summoner's HP?
What i mean is, if Paizo were to go this route, would the Summoner just get the 20 HP contributed from the Eidolon whether it's manifested or not?
Or would you want a restriction where it only gains it if the Eidolon is manifested?
You're going to weaken it's fortitude save? I wouldn't do that.
|
|
It's close enough.It's literally not.
, a name change might also have to be on the table to compensateSummoners still have summon spells and still summon their Eidolon, new Lifelink doesn't radically alter the very nature of the class and how it functions.
You guys have been claiming that they're fundamentally the same since the playtest releasedYep.
and that nobody should have a problem with it.No one has said that. I have repeatedly pointed out the hypocrisy of people saying the share life mechanic doesn't make sense for the Summoner to have... but immediately say the share life mechanic from P1 was great and fine. You not liking it is valid, but claiming it "doesn't make sense" on the basis on sharing HP but P1 Lifelink did is disingenuous.
It's not an assumption when the source material in question outright states my apparent "assumption."What source material? What Ur-Summoner are thinking of that you believe Pathfinder based theirs on and has to base theirs on???
Eidolons come from the term "idola,"
I wasn't asking for the literary definition, I asked what Eidolons, actual Eidolons, not what "technically" may be an Eidolon by a literary definition, Pathfinder had to base theirs on that they must adhere to or face backlash on how "they're commonly portayed".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe leave out the eidolon CON for simplicity's sake and have d12 HP and Summoner CON for primary/casting. That would put a human at(8+12+4) 24 HP at first level. A fighter is at 20, so the 1.2*damage is accounted for.
Lv.15
Human Summoner/Eidolon-263 HP
(8+180+75[CON])
Human Fighter-218 HP
(8+150+60[CON])
Yeah actually; that works out. (I also checked what it would be at lv.10)
With those changes the Summoner stays pretty constantly at about x1.2
I'd support this, even if disadvantage rolls are not factored in, at the very least it would really help out Summoner in everywhere outside of AoEs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Such edge cases usually have two paths in PF2;
1. The character is breaking an anathema (which is almost always resolved with a "fix your sh*t" and an atonement ritual)
2. Roleplay and GM fiat (such as what happens if a bard's muse wants to not be your muse anymore)
As it stands your eidolon is a sentient (8 intelligence), sapient (it can speak), entity that is bound to do what you say. It doesn't have to be happy about it, but there's no anathema to break that would cause mechanics changes yet.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm wrong. Fine. It's merely a technicality, though, as this actually poses a major problem with how the creatures can be ran, especially if these creatures with their own wants and desires have disagreements with the Summoner's methods. Can it act against the Summoner if that's the case? Are there ways for an Eidolon manifested in such a way to "unbind" itself from the Summoner and strike them down for their heresy? Are there some "Asimov's Laws of Robotics" shenanigans going on here, where an Eidolon cannot act against the Summoner's wishes by the metaphysics of the universe? Or does a Summoner have complete and utter control over them and their desires to the point that they aren't any more "sentient" or "independent" than the Summoner themselves?That's fully for the Summoner's character to work out, since the Eidolon is their character too.
In short, it's very easy to claim it to flavor text if it's scrutinized enough, as above.
This isn't arguing in good faith.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Summoners still have summon spells and still summon their Eidolon
That is factually incorrect: Eidolon are manifested, not summoned a specifically different thing as summoned is a specific trait Eidolon lack. As to summoning spells, they are uniquely the worse caster at them: they have less spells to use on them that other casters and must forgo their action granting ability to cast them. So calling them summoners is a really bad joke.
As an aside, does anyone have a link to where that 1.2/20% more statistic comes from?
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around, how if the number of attackers and number of attacks are the same, the summoner is taking more damage than anyone else in the party. (Aside from AOE, obviously.)
But I'm definitely not one to argue with cold hard math, so I'd love to see the post where this comes from.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around, how if the number of attackers and number of attacks are the same, the summoner is taking more damage than anyone else in the party.
As 2 creatures, there are times that both summoner and Eidolon are attacked: there is also the fact that if both are hit with an area attack, you take the worst save for damage. As such, they should be taking more damage overall. I'm not sure on a specific percentage/number.
Fair enough. I was just wondering if there was playtest anecdotes yet or if it was just theory crafting.
Thank you for responding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside, does anyone have a link to where that 1.2/20% more statistic comes from?
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around, how if the number of attackers and number of attacks are the same, the summoner is taking more damage than anyone else in the party.
But I'm definitely not one to argue with cold hard math, so I'd love to see the post where this comes from.
It's a number people have seemed to independently calculated that keeps coming up, when i first saw it i had to check the math too. I can't remember which thread i first saw it on.
Me and some guide authors are creating a review guide for Summoner with data tables (proficiency, progression, etc.) and one of them is a tableset with this x1.2/20% number being tracked.
Basically, what it amounts to is that because the Summoner is the most vulnerable class in that it takes more hits on average than any other class (thanks to 2 targets draining 1 resource; the shared HP pool) it amounts to at least about 20% more damage compared to other classes. This is strictly due to the fact the Summoner and the Eidolon shared the same HP pool and that number only comes up before factoring disadvantage to rolls. So the extra damage to Summoner is not simply how rolling twice affects the math but how having 2 separate targets affects the math.
Basically, it's not about the idea that the enemies get more actions or do extra damage to the Summoner through weakness or anything. It's solely how there being 2 targets for the Summoner now opens it up to being hit far more than before, especially since one of those targets is now a frontlining martial; the Eidolon.
Disadvantage is harder to quantify over a period of time, the number would go up beyond 20% but i haven't seen anyone track by how much it would on average and based on what variables. It's easy to say "Oh well you have to roll twice and take the worst result so that's like 50% right?" But that's not exactly how the math works and even if it did while AoEs are common enough, they are not in every encounter so you have to track for that as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And again, while that's probably the best white room way to calculate it, it's probably a higher percentage then what will happen at the table.
Or they might be damaged more: if you're saying you need to see real life data, it's hard to say if the estimate is high or low: difference in DM, campaigns, sandbox vs dungeon vs city based locations, tactic of both foes and party, ect. I'm not sure how you can use 'probably'.