| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In addition, the PF1 Eidolon was specifically summoned.
"A summoner begins play with the ability to summon to his side a powerful outsider called an eidolon."
"Eidolons are treated as summoned creatures."
"A summoner can summon his eidolon in a ritual that takes 1 minute to perform."
First, and this is addressed to several people - Y'all know we aren't testing stuff like Summon Monster related class features because that doesn't need playtested, right? Mark essentially alluded to this in the main thread. Summoners will almost certainly have more Summoning in the main release.
Onto the specific quoted post -
You realize that in PF2E, that each of the lines you've quoted now has significantly different baggage that goes with the terms used there, right?
The first line refers to the Eidolon as an outsider, and the nature of outsiders vs. everyone else is a lot less strict now.
The second one identifies them as Summoned Creatures, and Summoned Creatures now come with baggage the Eidolon shouldn't have.
The third line refers to a Ritual, which is now actually a specific thing.
There are very good reasons for them to have changed how they refer to these things in 2E, which have nothing to do with whether an Eidolon counts as a Summoned Creature in the philosophical sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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".
Agree to disagree then. Paizo has had to make a name change to accommodate drastic rules changes like with the present day Champion, so it's not like it's impossible that these eidolon types (like Phantoms) may eventually be sub-labeled for Summoners (as Spiritualists, for example).
But they aren't fundamentally the same, though. You are having to roll twice and take the worse result on effects affecting both entities, you are receiving conditions when the other one gets them, with a forced health connection, and so on. That is a large fundamental difference from PF1, even if some of it was brought on via new edition rules. PF1 wasn't that restrictive or penalizing for what you gained (a super minion and some spellcasting with Summon bits), and compared to what you're getting now, it's one of the biggest nerfs out there, right along spellcasting in general. Even Unchained Summoner wasn't that badly nerfed.
Other forms of media have a definition of summoning that are vastly different from what Pathfinder does. Also, summoning even within universe (spells and rituals compared to this) is vastly different from one another. Summon spells to rituals to Eidolons are all completely different animals, so how can they be labeled the same thing?
They're synonyms. An Idola is another word for an Eidolon. Idola is more for ideals, whereas Eidolons are for specific entities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarians and Sorcerers are just bundled class features too, but no one's going to argue that they are not characters.
A familiar, animal companion, or eidolon is every bit as much a character within the story as any other--just maybe without quite as much of the spotlight. To say otherwise is being disingenuous.
Barbarians and Sorcerers aren't a class feature, they're an entire class, applied to a creature with an ancestry and background, all of which is chosen by a player. To me, that is what makes a player character. GMs make characters too, but that's not up for discussion.
By comparison, Animal Companions, Familiars, and Eidolons are not on the same level, by specific design, which means they are not characters, in the ways that Amiri or Seoni are.
|
Barbarians and Sorcerers are just bundled class features too, but no one's going to argue that they are not characters.
A familiar, animal companion, or eidolon is every bit as much a character within the story as any other--just maybe without quite as much of the spotlight. To say otherwise is being disingenuous.
Barbarians and Sorcerers aren't a class feature, they're an entire class, applied to a creature with an ancestry and background, all of which is chosen by a player. To me, that is what makes a player character. GMs make characters too, but that's not up for discussion.
By comparison, Animal Companions, Familiars, and Eidolons are not on the same level, by specific design, which means they are not characters, in the ways that Amiri or Seoni are.
Why are you assuming they can't have background?
And what does Ancestry have to do with any of that?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eidolons aren't characters, though.Aaaand you’re wrong.They're a class feature. It's like saying Animal Companions or Familiars are characters.They are.When it has levels and a class with maybe some feats and features they can acquire on their own, I'll agree with you.You’re confusing class and character.I still find it silly that we can have Evil Summoners with Angel Eidolons and people don't see, from a GM/worldbuilding perspective, how big of a problem this might pose in campaigns.They might limit that in the final in regards to alignments, since right now we only have Angels for the Extraplanar/Divine category. Or they could leave it open for role playing opportunity. Why is an Angel and an Evil Summoner bound together? Plenty of plot potential there.And the worst part is I can totally flavor it as an Evil Summoner torturing an Angel for its own amusement, and get away with it because of the same shenanigans we're allowing to fly here, something I'm very certain no sane GM would allow.You just ended your argument.
They aren't characters by my definition, any more than the monsters you kill in the woods are characters. They are entities which have a storyline impact, but are by no means characters, any more than a random rockfall impeding your path is a character.
I can't be confusing them when I state class is a part of a character. The trio don't have a class, and therefore aren't a character as a result. They can be part of a class, and impact the narrative but those are called features, and being a character isn't a requirement to impact the narrative.
I do agree that it can lead to interesting roleplay potential. But I also notice the potential of it likewise being a disruption to the table if left unchecked and as freeform as it currently is. After all, this is why every Evil-aligned option in the game is Uncommon or higher rarity, as a GM can just say "Yes/No," refer to rarity rules, and be justified to shut down the shenanigans before they start.
Because everyone plays with a sane GM, and has universal definitions for what does/does not make for a sane GM? If the only rule is "have fun," then even insane GMs might make that possible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarians and Sorcerers are just bundled class features too, but no one's going to argue that they are not characters.
A familiar, animal companion, or eidolon is every bit as much a character within the story as any other--just maybe without quite as much of the spotlight. To say otherwise is being disingenuous.
Barbarians and Sorcerers aren't a class feature, they're an entire class, applied to a creature with an ancestry and background, all of which is chosen by a player. To me, that is what makes a player character. GMs make characters too, but that's not up for discussion.
By comparison, Animal Companions, Familiars, and Eidolons are not on the same level, by specific design, which means they are not characters, in the ways that Amiri or Seoni are.
Why are you assuming they can't have background?
And what does Ancestry have to do with any of that?
In short, you do not construct them the same way you do actual PCs, meaning they aren't PCs.
But hey, I would love to see Blacksmith Bat Familiars who get free attributes and trained skills for free from a choice they don't get. Where in the rulebook does is say we can do that?
|
|
so it's not like it's impossible that these eidolon types (like Phantoms) may eventually be sub-labeled for Summoners (as Spiritualists, for example).No it's not.
But they aren't fundamentally the same, though.They are, both are about the bond between the Summoner and Eidolon and sharing lifeforce. The mechanics have been tweaked, that's all.
Other forms of media have a definition of summoning that are vastly different from what Pathfinder does. Also, summoning even within universe (spells and rituals compared to this) is vastly different from one another. Summon spells to rituals to Eidolons are all completely different animals, so how can they be labeled the same thing?Because those are all different types of summoning.
They're synonyms. An Idola is another word for an Eidolon. Idola is more for ideals, whereas Eidolons are for specific entities.
That's completely irrelevant to the question I asked you.
I asked what other Eidolons from media Pathfinder based theirs on that they must adhere to to avoid the "backlash" for not doing so that you claimed.
|
|
Barbarians and Sorcerers are just bundled class features too, but no one's going to argue that they are not characters.
A familiar, animal companion, or eidolon is every bit as much a character within the story as any other--just maybe without quite as much of the spotlight. To say otherwise is being disingenuous.
Barbarians and Sorcerers aren't a class feature, they're an entire class, applied to a creature with an ancestry and background, all of which is chosen by a player. To me, that is what makes a player character. GMs make characters too, but that's not up for discussion.
By comparison, Animal Companions, Familiars, and Eidolons are not on the same level, by specific design, which means they are not characters, in the ways that Amiri or Seoni are.
Why are you assuming they can't have background?
And what does Ancestry have to do with any of that?
In short, you do not construct them the same way you do actual PCs, meaning they aren't PCs.
But hey, I would love to see Blacksmith Bat Familiars who get free attributes and trained skills for free from a choice they don't get. Where in the rulebook does is say we can do that?
No one said anything about being PCs, but about being characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarians and Sorcerers aren't a class feature...
I never claimed that they were.
They aren't characters by my definition...
What is it with people making up new definitions for existing terms these days?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
so it's not like it's impossible that these eidolon types (like Phantoms) may eventually be sub-labeled for Summoners (as Spiritualists, for example).No it's not.But they aren't fundamentally the same, though.They are, both are about the bond between the Summoner and Eidolon and sharing lifeforce. The mechanics have been tweaked, that's all.Other forms of media have a definition of summoning that are vastly different from what Pathfinder does. Also, summoning even within universe (spells and rituals compared to this) is vastly different from one another. Summon spells to rituals to Eidolons are all completely different animals, so how can they be labeled the same thing?Because those are all different types of summoning.They're synonyms. An Idola is another word for an Eidolon. Idola is more for ideals, whereas Eidolons are for specific entities.That's completely irrelevant to the question I asked you.
I asked what other Eidolons from media Pathfinder based theirs on that they must adhere to to avoid the "backlash" for not doing so that you claimed.
Which is where the hang-up really is. A connection of this level is too strong/overbearing for us. The PF1 level of optional contribution felt better and more in-line with what we expected.
Or, they are fundamentally different from what "summoning" actually is, but aren't changed to label them as such for convenience. I can agree that there are different types of summoning, but I would only expand that to the 4 primary casting types. Rituals and Eidolons aren't actually summoning, though.
I understand the point you're getting at here, which is to say that Eidolons are super unique and aren't really replicated anywhere, nor do they follow identical rules for their application. But neither do spellcasting or combat, and guess what? Wizards still get compared to other pop culture things like Harry Potter and D&D because of them sharing an identical name. To suggest a Summoner can't be compared because there is no clearly listed basis for their comparison is like saying Zombies from The Walking Dead are original and nothing can compare or surpass it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They aren't characters by my definition, any more than the monsters you kill in the woods are characters. They are entities which have a storyline impact, but are by no means characters, any more than a random rockfall impeding your path is a character.You'll note that your definition is neither standard nor universal.
I can't be confusing them when I state class is a part of a character. The trio don't have a class, and therefore aren't a character as a result. They can be part of a class, and impact the narrative but those are called features, and being a character isn't a requirement to impact the narrative.Creatures don't have to have classes to be a character, that's a restriction of your own making.
I do agree that it can lead to interesting roleplay potential. But I also notice the potential of it likewise being a disruption to the table if left unchecked and as freeform as it currently is. After all, this is why every Evil-aligned option in the game is Uncommon or higher rarity, as a GM can just say "Yes/No," refer to rarity rules, and be justified to shut down the shenanigans before they start.Why are you assuming Eidolons being sapient is going to lead to negative shenanigans. That's not an Eidolon issue, that's a player issue.
Because everyone plays with a sane GM, and has universal definitions for what does/does not make for a sane GM? If the only rule is "have fun," then even insane GMs might make that possible.
Bad GMs aren't a system issue, nor something it can fix.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one said anything about being PCs, but about being characters.Barbarians and Sorcerers are just bundled class features too, but no one's going to argue that they are not characters.
A familiar, animal companion, or eidolon is every bit as much a character within the story as any other--just maybe without quite as much of the spotlight. To say otherwise is being disingenuous.
Barbarians and Sorcerers aren't a class feature, they're an entire class, applied to a creature with an ancestry and background, all of which is chosen by a player. To me, that is what makes a player character. GMs make characters too, but that's not up for discussion.
By comparison, Animal Companions, Familiars, and Eidolons are not on the same level, by specific design, which means they are not characters, in the ways that Amiri or Seoni are.
Why are you assuming they can't have background?
And what does Ancestry have to do with any of that?
In short, you do not construct them the same way you do actual PCs, meaning they aren't PCs.
But hey, I would love to see Blacksmith Bat Familiars who get free attributes and trained skills for free from a choice they don't get. Where in the rulebook does is say we can do that?
You should be saying the trio are also PCs, since the definition of a PC (a character controlled by a player) is also being met here. Players dictate what their AC/F/E do just like their character, and if they are characters too, are they not also PCs?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should be saying the trio are also PCs, since the definition of a PC (a character controlled by a player) is also being met here. Players dictate what their AC/F/E do just like their character, and if they are characters too, are they not also PCs?
You're not wrong.
PF2E is fairly strongly in the camp that companion characters are by default under the players control, as opposed to an NPC run by the GM.
...so yeah, they're probably technically PCs for all intents and purposes.
Also, and this is in relation to one of your earlier posts... but do random monsters in the woods not have names and backstories in games you play? Even AP's tend to give random kobold adversaries a proper name and a bit of characterization now and then - they absolutely have backgrounds, hopes and dreams even if no one knows what they are.
Its definitely a different game than the one's I play in if 'random NPCs' aren't treated like people in the context of the game world...
|
|
Which is where the hang-up really is. A connection of this level is too strong/overbearing for us.Speak for yourself.
The PF1 level of optional contribution felt better and more in-line with what we expected.Not really.
Or, they are fundamentally different from what "summoning" actually is, but aren't changed to label them as such for convenience. I can agree that there are different types of summoning, but I would only expand that to the 4 primary casting types. Rituals and Eidolons aren't actually summoning, though.
Orrrr those are all different types of summoning.
"Through magic I called this creature from far way instantly to my side"
That's summoning.
I understand the point you're getting at here, which is to say that Eidolons are super unique and aren't really replicated anywhere, nor do they follow identical rules for their application. But neither do spellcasting or combat, and guess what? Wizards still get compared to other pop culture things like Harry Potter and D&D because of them sharing an identical name. To suggest a Summoner can't be compared because there is no clearly listed basis for their comparison is like saying Zombies from The Walking Dead are original and nothing can compare or surpass it.
No one said you can't compare them.
But to claim you have to adhere to any specific media depiction of something similar I disagree with. Vehemently.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They aren't characters by my definition, any more than the monsters you kill in the woods are characters. They are entities which have a storyline impact, but are by no means characters, any more than a random rockfall impeding your path is a character.You'll note that your definition is neither standard nor universal.I can't be confusing them when I state class is a part of a character. The trio don't have a class, and therefore aren't a character as a result. They can be part of a class, and impact the narrative but those are called features, and being a character isn't a requirement to impact the narrative.Creatures don't have to have classes to be a character, that's a restriction of your own making.I do agree that it can lead to interesting roleplay potential. But I also notice the potential of it likewise being a disruption to the table if left unchecked and as freeform as it currently is. After all, this is why every Evil-aligned option in the game is Uncommon or higher rarity, as a GM can just say "Yes/No," refer to rarity rules, and be justified to shut down the shenanigans before they start.Why are you assuming Eidolons being sapient is going to lead to negative shenanigans. That's not an Eidolon issue, that's a player issue.Because everyone plays with a sane GM, and has universal definitions for what does/does not make for a sane GM? If the only rule is "have fun," then even insane GMs might make that possible.Bad GMs aren't a system issue, nor something it can fix.
It doesn't have to be in this case. It only has to match what Pathfinder's definition is. And for the most part, it does.
It is a restriction that the game makes, since it outright states so in the character creation section of the Core Rulebook. To suggest that I'm the one who made it would be like saying I'm Paizo. Fortunately for everyone, I'm not.
Because Murphy exists. He's a dick, and he's everywhere, even where you don't want him to be, such as at your gaming table. But to suggest Eidolons can't be disruptive via player shenanigans is an equally false platitude to suggest.
They are more of a system issue now that they have more control than in PF1. They don't have as much control as, say, the old Red Box days, but they certainly have more pull than the previous edition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should be saying the trio are also PCs, since the definition of a PC (a character controlled by a player) is also being met here. Players dictate what their AC/F/E do just like their character, and if they are characters too, are they not also PCs?You're not wrong.
PF2E is fairly strongly in the camp that companion characters are by default under the players control, as opposed to an NPC run by the GM.
...so yeah, they're probably technically PCs for all intents and purposes.
Also, and this is in relation to one of your earlier posts... but do random monsters in the woods not have names and backstories in games you play? Even AP's tend to give random kobold adversaries a proper name and a bit of characterization now and then - they absolutely have backgrounds, hopes and dreams even if no one knows what they are.
Its definitely a different game than the one's I play in if 'random NPCs' aren't treated like people in the context of the game world...
I would disagree about me being not wrong there. It's more accurate that Animal Companions, Eidolons, and Familiars get "lumped in" with the PCs for ease of convenience in reference to protagonists than it is because they are constructed with Ancestries, Backgrounds, and Classes like the game expects you to do as a PC. After all, where's my Bat Familiar's trained Crafting skill at? What about +2 to Strength and Intelligence scores?
If a creature has significant relevance to the narrative at hand, they might have aspirations and desires that may be monologued to the PCs, if they so ask for it. But more often than not? No, they don't. "The PCs encounter these creatures to fight and kill and loot and EXP" is about 90% of a creature's "character relevance" to the narrative. That isn't to say there isn't any, but that it should play a role in the story if it's really meant to be involved. The story relevance to "Mick the Kobold" who is a petty thief trying to get by and assaults the PCs to steal their gold isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) something that I want to waste precious table time on, and neither do my players, unless it turns out "Mick the Kobold" was sent by a serious crime head as a lead on a promising heist that the PCs want revenge on, or that "Mick the Kobold" can be linked to a serious crime syndicate going on in the city that the PCs are investigating.
I mean, it's not overly difficult to come up with names and aspirations on the spot, especially if I can ascertain beforehand what the PCs want to do, and plan around it. But even players are able to tell if something is worth investigating or wasting table time on, and needless to say, petty thieves like "Mick the Kobold" whose only motivations are to steal gold from would-be schmucks isn't worth the printing space or effort to bring into the story outside of being a roadblock for PCs to fight for fun.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would disagree about me being not wrong there. It's more accurate that Animal Companions, Eidolons, and Familiars get "lumped in" with the PCs for ease of convenience in reference to protagonists than it is because they are constructed with Ancestries, Backgrounds, and Classes like the game expects you to do as a PC. After all, where's my Bat Familiar's trained Crafting skill at? What about +2 to Strength and Intelligence scores?
Really now. A character only has a "Background" if it grants mechanical benefits, and not merely because their actual narrative Background is bartending?
That is ridiculous. Even Pathfinder is about more than just mechanics. The whole point is telling stories, and not running numbers games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is where the hang-up really is. A connection of this level is too strong/overbearing for us.Speak for yourself.The PF1 level of optional contribution felt better and more in-line with what we expected.Not really.Or, they are fundamentally different from what "summoning" actually is, but aren't changed to label them as such for convenience. I can agree that there are different types of summoning, but I would only expand that to the 4 primary casting types. Rituals and Eidolons aren't actually summoning, though.Orrrr those are all different types of summoning.
"Through magic I called this creature from far way instantly to my side"
That's summoning.
I understand the point you're getting at here, which is to say that Eidolons are super unique and aren't really replicated anywhere, nor do they follow identical rules for their application. But neither do spellcasting or combat, and guess what? Wizards still get compared to other pop culture things like Harry Potter and D&D because of them sharing an identical name. To suggest a Summoner can't be compared because there is no clearly listed basis for their comparison is like saying Zombies from The Walking Dead are original and nothing can compare or surpass it.No one said you can't compare them.
But to claim you have to adhere to any specific media depiction of something similar I disagree with. Vehemently.
Clearly, I am, but I'm not the only one who feels this way. A minority at this point, to be sure, but by no means the only one.
It could also be a matter of teleportation or even creation, depending on both perspective and mechanics. It's all conjuration, which I agree with (and so do the rules). But not everything done as you describe can be labeled as summoning, which does have its own specific rules.
I mean, they don't have to. If they think they can make more customers by going a different direction, more power to them. But comparisons will be made, regardless of mediums or differences, by label alone, and people will judge Paizo's content based on those comparisons, and decide if the content is worth their hard-earned dollar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would disagree about me being not wrong there. It's more accurate that Animal Companions, Eidolons, and Familiars get "lumped in" with the PCs for ease of convenience in reference to protagonists than it is because they are constructed with Ancestries, Backgrounds, and Classes like the game expects you to do as a PC. After all, where's my Bat Familiar's trained Crafting skill at? What about +2 to Strength and Intelligence scores?
Really now. A character only has a "Background" if it grants mechanical benefits, and not merely because their actual narrative Background is bartending?
That is ridiculous. Even Pathfinder is about more than just mechanics. The whole point is telling stories, and not running numbers games.
To be fair, mechanics and storytelling are hand-in-hand. I can't roll a failure on my check and claim it to be a success because I want to succeed in the story, unless my GM likewise does so for the same reason, but that's a bit different than telling the rules to screw themselves just because I don't like them at that particular point in time. Same concept here. I might be a Blacksmith background, but as a Bat Familiar, I can't really say that it's applicable because, well, I'm a Bat, and I'm a Familiar. Which isn't practical from a storytelling perspective, and also not a character you can create at Character Creation, per the rules. A GM might let you, but that's homebrew, and not par for the course here.
But a more apt argument, such as being a Bartender while not having any skills or abilities which back up your roleplaying capabilities, or being a Courtesan while having the skill and Charisma of a river troll, is not something the game's rules, as they are, can just "let fly" without consequences for those choices.
As a player, you can only go so far as what the rules (or your GM) let you. I can't cast 10th level spells as a 1st level Wizard or Fighter, I can't perform Power Attacks as a 20th level Sorcerer (or Ranger), even if I greatly outlevel its application. That's not me being "badwrongfun," that's just the game's design. How dare I follow the game's design to crap on other peoples' playstyle, I guess?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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".Agree to disagree then. Paizo has had to make a name change to accommodate drastic rules changes like with the present day Champion, so it's not like it's impossible that these eidolon types (like Phantoms) may eventually be sub-labeled for Summoners (as Spiritualists, for example).
But they aren't fundamentally the same, though. You are having to roll twice and take the worse result on effects affecting both entities, you are receiving conditions when the other one gets them, with a forced health...
No real way to send your pet in as a form of defense does kind of suck. In PF1 the summoner put his pet in harm's way and often stayed out of the battle. You can't do that in PF2 unfortunately.
Now we're going to have all these weird rules about how to apply effects, damage, and AoE attacks to a character in two bodies.
I like a lot of the concept of the summoner. But it is starting to seem like a class with overly complicated, weird mechanics I don't like as a player and more importantly as a DM. I DM most often in my group as well and I don't like the mechanics from a DM perspective. It's overly complicating DMing and DM tactical choices for no real advantage gained in the overall game.
PF2 is supposed to be a simpler game to run. In many ways it is, but this summoner is becoming a pain in the behind to run that is adding another complicated system that will lead to arguments and headaches between DMs and players.
I have to say at this point I'm likely to ban it from play. I don't want more "Does this attack affect both the summoner an the eidolon or just one or the other or can it hit both of them" or any of that. It's reached a needlessly complicated additional set of mechanics. I think I'm done with it.
Wish they would just make it as simple to play as a druid and animal companion. That element works without all the fiddly bits and additional rules we're seeing grow from this shared hit point pool and character in two bodies concept.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like a lot of the concept of the summoner. But it is starting to seem like a class with overly complicated, weird mechanics I don't like as a player and more importantly as a DM. I DM most often in my group as well and I don't like the mechanics from a DM perspective. It's overly complicating DMing and DM tactical choices for no real advantage gained in the overall game.
PF2 is supposed to be a simpler game to run. In many ways it is, but this summoner is becoming a pain in the behind to run that is adding another complicated system that will lead to arguments and headaches between DMs and players.
Its not complicated at all.
Ask 1 question - "Is the source of this specific effect one action or activity, and does it apply the same effect potentially to both the Summoner and Eidolon? If so, apply worst result. Otherwise, result as normal."
Thats it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit worse than that.
When a creature successfully drains you of blood or life force, you become less healthy. Drained always includes a value. You take a status penalty equal to your drained value on Constitution-based checks, such as Fortitude saves. You also lose a number of Hit Points equal to your level (minimum 1) times the drained value, and your maximum Hit Points are reduced by the same amount. For example, if you’re hit by an effect that inflicts drained 3 and you’re a 3rd-level character, you lose 9 Hit Points and reduce your maximum Hit Points by 9. Losing these Hit Points doesn’t count as taking damage.
Each time you get a full night’s rest, your drained value decreases by 1. This increases your maximum Hit Points, but you don’t immediately recover the lost Hit Points.
Let's say the Eidolon gets Drained 1. That means the Summoner gets Drained 1 as well. What happens with this?
Does the combined HP total get reduced twice, creating an effective "Drained 2," as both are Drained 1, or do the instant effects of the condition (such as loss of current and maximum HP) apply only once and the persistent effects (penalties to fortitude saves) apply to both?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit worse than that.
When a creature successfully drains you of blood or life force, you become less healthy. Drained always includes a value. You take a status penalty equal to your drained value on Constitution-based checks, such as Fortitude saves. You also lose a number of Hit Points equal to your level (minimum 1) times the drained value, and your maximum Hit Points are reduced by the same amount. For example, if you’re hit by an effect that inflicts drained 3 and you’re a 3rd-level character, you lose 9 Hit Points and reduce your maximum Hit Points by 9. Losing these Hit Points doesn’t count as taking damage.
Each time you get a full night’s rest, your drained value decreases by 1. This increases your maximum Hit Points, but you don’t immediately recover the lost Hit Points.
Let's say the Eidolon gets Drained 1. That means the Summoner gets Drained 1 as well. What happens with this?
Does the combined HP total get reduced twice, creating an effective "Drained 2," as both are Drained 1, or do the instant effects of the condition (such as loss of current and maximum HP) apply only once and the persistent effects (penalties to fortitude saves) apply to both?
Conditions don't stack unless they say they do. Drained 1 + Drained 1 does not equal Drained 2 by default.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit worse than that.
When a creature successfully drains you of blood or life force, you become less healthy. Drained always includes a value. You take a status penalty equal to your drained value on Constitution-based checks, such as Fortitude saves. You also lose a number of Hit Points equal to your level (minimum 1) times the drained value, and your maximum Hit Points are reduced by the same amount. For example, if you’re hit by an effect that inflicts drained 3 and you’re a 3rd-level character, you lose 9 Hit Points and reduce your maximum Hit Points by 9. Losing these Hit Points doesn’t count as taking damage.
Each time you get a full night’s rest, your drained value decreases by 1. This increases your maximum Hit Points, but you don’t immediately recover the lost Hit Points.
Let's say the Eidolon gets Drained 1. That means the Summoner gets Drained 1 as well. What happens with this?
Does the combined HP total get reduced twice, creating an effective "Drained 2," as both are Drained 1, or do the instant effects of the condition (such as loss of current and maximum HP) apply only once and the persistent effects (penalties to fortitude saves) apply to both?
These situations are mostly addressed in the rules.
However I fully expect it will thoroughly confuse players.
Which is another significant reason this whole shared HP pool is a problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously. But the Summoner is in a special case here. Both receive the Drained 1 condition as they are separate entities. Obviously, it doesn't go to Drained 2, but as both share the same HP pool, and the condition states that you lose HP (and Max HP) equal to the drained amount upon receiving the condition, they are "double-tapped" by the condition in the HP department. So while they would only suffer a -1 penalty to Fortitude Saves, as the condition doesn't increase, they lose twice the amount of HP (and Max HP) due that it's not tied to a bonus or penalty type, and since the HP (both current and max) is shared, with both applying each condition separately...you see where this is going.
A level 5 Summoner taking Drained 1 loses 10 HP and maximum HP. It's combined but not protected by the Life Link rules, which state conditions are shared between the two from negative effects, as well as damage only applies the worst per instance.
However, the Drained condition outright states that the HP loss from the condition does not count as damage taken, meaning any protections from the Life Link ability do not apply. Whether that's intended or not, who knows. But from my perspective, that Level 5 Summoner just lost 10 (Max) HP from Drained 1 applying to both them and the Eidolon.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a restriction that the game makes, since it outright states so in the character creation section of the Core Rulebook. To suggest that I'm the one who made it would be like saying I'm Paizo. Fortunately for everyone, I'm not.Again, you're conflating PCs and characters. Animal Companions, Familiars, Eidolons, and NPCs are all characters.
Because Murphy exists. He's a dick, and he's everywhere, even where you don't want him to be, such as at your gaming table. But to suggest Eidolons can't be disruptive via player shenanigans is an equally false platitude to suggest.Eidolons are not inherently disruptive, nor more disruptive than players of other classes, that's a ludicrous claim with absolutely nothing to back it up.
They are more of a system issue now that they have more control than in PF1. They don't have as much control as, say, the old Red Box days, but they certainly have more pull than the previous edition.GMs have some semblance of control over the game they're running is not a bad thing. They existed before P2, they exist outside of P2.
Clearly, I am, but I'm not the only one who feels this way. A minority at this point, to be sure, but by no means the only one.Then let them speak instead of claiming it's too hard for everyone.
It could also be a matter of teleportation or even creation, depending on both perspective and mechanics. It's all conjuration, which I agree with (and so do the rules). But not everything done as you describe can be labeled as summoning, which does have its own specific rules.Just because Summoning (big S) exists, doesn't make Manifesting and Calling not summoning. The things above are all types of summoning.
I mean, they don't have to. If they think they can make more customers by going a different direction, more power to them. But comparisons will be made, regardless of mediums or differences, by label alone, and people will judge Paizo's content based on those comparisons, and decide if the content is worth their hard-earned dollar.
Most people have the common sense to know they're not buying Final Fantaxy X the Tabletop RPG, or the JoJo tabletop RPG. Claiming there's going to be any discernable amount of backlash because Summoners and Eidolon didn't outright copy another Media's depiction of summoners is purely an issue of your own fabrication.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit worse than that.
When a creature successfully drains you of blood or life force, you become less healthy. Drained always includes a value. You take a status penalty equal to your drained value on Constitution-based checks, such as Fortitude saves. You also lose a number of Hit Points equal to your level (minimum 1) times the drained value, and your maximum Hit Points are reduced by the same amount. For example, if you’re hit by an effect that inflicts drained 3 and you’re a 3rd-level character, you lose 9 Hit Points and reduce your maximum Hit Points by 9. Losing these Hit Points doesn’t count as taking damage.
Each time you get a full night’s rest, your drained value decreases by 1. This increases your maximum Hit Points, but you don’t immediately recover the lost Hit Points.
Let's say the Eidolon gets Drained 1. That means the Summoner gets Drained 1 as well. What happens with this?
Does the combined HP total get reduced twice, creating an effective "Drained 2," as both are Drained 1, or do the instant effects of the condition (such as loss of current and maximum HP) apply only once and the persistent effects (penalties to fortitude saves) apply to both?
These situations are mostly addressed in the rules.
However I fully expect it will thoroughly confuse players.
Which is another significant reason this whole shared HP pool is a problem.
Or, it's not a problem and let's not assume to coddle the players?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a restriction that the game makes, since it outright states so in the character creation section of the Core Rulebook. To suggest that I'm the one who made it would be like saying I'm Paizo. Fortunately for everyone, I'm not.Again, you're conflating PCs and characters. Animal Companions, Familiars, Eidolons, and NPCs are all characters.Because Murphy exists. He's a dick, and he's everywhere, even where you don't want him to be, such as at your gaming table. But to suggest Eidolons can't be disruptive via player shenanigans is an equally false platitude to suggest.Eidolons are not inherently disruptive, nor more disruptive than players of other classes, that's a ludicrous claim with absolutely nothing to back it up.They are more of a system issue now that they have more control than in PF1. They don't have as much control as, say, the old Red Box days, but they certainly have more pull than the previous edition.GMs have some semblance of control over the game they're running is not a bad thing. They existed before P2, they exist outside of P2.Clearly, I am, but I'm not the only one who feels this way. A minority at this point, to be sure, but by no means the only one.Then let them speak instead of claiming it's too hard for everyone.It could also be a matter of teleportation or even creation, depending on both perspective and mechanics. It's all conjuration, which I agree with (and so do the rules). But not everything done as you describe can be labeled as summoning, which does have its own specific rules.Just because Summoning (big S) exists, doesn't make Manifesting and Calling not summoning. The things above are all types of summoning.I mean, they don't have to. If they think they can make more customers by going a different direction, more power to them. But comparisons...
Outside of NPCs, those are all PCs by your definition of characters and the concept of being a PC. The only conflation is what constitutes a character, which is narrative-dependent. The story doesn't care about what NPC #82 down the street does for a living, meaning he's not a character in the story any more than a rockfall is.
Demon/Devil Eidolons aren't disruptive to a Good-aligned group and vice-versa? And that's not getting into specifics of what the Eidolon actually is or does for the story. To suggest Eidolons cannot be disruptive is more ludicrous.
Never said it was bad. But it is different, and it changes the game quite a bit in that case if the GM decides "Hey, I don't like this rule, we're gonna run it like X instead." And for Society play, this is an even more prevalent issue as what you can do depends more on your table's GM than on the rules when a corner case arises.
They have spoken. Have you not been arguing/debating with them as you have with me? I mean...it's not like I'm trying to be some "speaker for those who don't have a voice." I'm a supporter like them, not a leader or martyr trying to make my viewpoints seem much bigger than what they are. Not only is that stupid and a waste of time, but it's not like people can't make accounts to sign up and post their own thoughts on the forums...
Actually, they are things of Conjuration, with Summoning being a subset of Conjuration. In fact, the Manifest Eidolon ability has the Conjuration and Teleportation traits, with Summon X spells not having a Teleportation trait and a Conjuration trait only. Meaning that it's a related yet completely different animal from Summoning.
Obviously, people know what the name of the product they're buying is, but if they take a look at the mechanics and realize "I don't like this mechanic, X game did it better," they are just going to buy/play X game instead of Pathfinder if they feel it's not worth their hard-earned dollar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously. But the Summoner is in a special case here. Both receive the Drained 1 condition as they are separate entities. Obviously, it doesn't go to Drained 2, but as both share the same HP pool, and the condition states that you lose HP (and Max HP) equal to the drained amount upon receiving the condition, they are "double-tapped" by the condition in the HP department. So while they would only suffer a -1 penalty to Fortitude Saves, as the condition doesn't increase, they lose twice the amount of HP (and Max HP) due that it's not tied to a bonus or penalty type, and since the HP (both current and max) is shared, with both applying each condition separately...you see where this is going.
A level 5 Summoner taking Drained 1 loses 10 HP and maximum HP. It's combined but not protected by the Life Link rules, which state conditions are shared between the two from negative effects, as well as damage only applies the worst per instance.
However, the Drained condition outright states that the HP loss from the condition does not count as damage taken, meaning any protections from the Life Link ability do not apply. Whether that's intended or not, who knows. But from my perspective, that Level 5 Summoner just lost 10 (Max) HP from Drained 1 applying to both them and the Eidolon.
Since it's affecting a shared pool I would rule it only applies once. Exactly how if both the eidolon and summoner are affected by slow 1 they only lose 1 action, not 2. Because it's not just damage that applies the worst effect, anything that would effect both the summoner and eidolon, the worst applies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since it's affecting a shared pool I would rule it only applies once. Exactly how if both the eidolon and summoner are affected by slow 1 they only lose 1 action, not 2. Because it's not just damage that applies the worst effect, anything that would effect both the summoner and eidolon, the worst applies.Obviously. But the Summoner is in a special case here. Both receive the Drained 1 condition as they are separate entities. Obviously, it doesn't go to Drained 2, but as both share the same HP pool, and the condition states that you lose HP (and Max HP) equal to the drained amount upon receiving the condition, they are "double-tapped" by the condition in the HP department. So while they would only suffer a -1 penalty to Fortitude Saves, as the condition doesn't increase, they lose twice the amount of HP (and Max HP) due that it's not tied to a bonus or penalty type, and since the HP (both current and max) is shared, with both applying each condition separately...you see where this is going.
A level 5 Summoner taking Drained 1 loses 10 HP and maximum HP. It's combined but not protected by the Life Link rules, which state conditions are shared between the two from negative effects, as well as damage only applies the worst per instance.
However, the Drained condition outright states that the HP loss from the condition does not count as damage taken, meaning any protections from the Life Link ability do not apply. Whether that's intended or not, who knows. But from my perspective, that Level 5 Summoner just lost 10 (Max) HP from Drained 1 applying to both them and the Eidolon.
The thing is that, yes, the condition is applying once to both characters, but the effects of it (reduction of maximum and current HP) is applying twice because 1. It's not a penalty or damage, and 2. It's affecting the same pool twice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but why? If you're drained 1 and your eidolon is drained 5 and your level five you lose 25 hit points because that's the worst effect. If you are slowed 1 and your eidolon is slowed 2 you lose two actions which is the worst effect. If you both eat a fireball and you take 10 points but your eidolon takes 30, you take 30 because that's the worst effect. Everything is always what's worse not doubled.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PF1 Phantom was specifically not a summoned creature. It was a "harbored" ethereal creature. Hence you "manifested" the Phantom from your consciousness.
Are they harbored in the mind of the Summoner in P2? No.
As for your constantly putting "manifest" in bunny ears please point out where that was a defined term in P1 and that those options specifically used that defined term.
Figment Familiars have the Manifest Dreams ability that gives them Evolution Points but it doesn't mention them "Manifesting" (Big M) anywhere.
Elemental Whispers are also not "Manifested" (big m)
Your claim that Manifest was this specific thing in P1 is complete bunk.
In P2 you summon your Eidolon.
Manifest is the name of the ability, it's not a Trait, it's not completely separate thing far and away from Summoning and Calling.
Until Paizo states otherwise, manifesting is summoning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that, yes, the condition is applying once to both characters, but the effects of it (reduction of maximum and current HP) is applying twice because 1. It's not a penalty or damage, and 2. It's affecting the same pool twice.Since it's affecting a shared pool I would rule it only applies once. Exactly how if both the eidolon and summoner are affected by slow 1 they only lose 1 action, not 2. Because it's not just damage that applies the worst effect, anything that would effect both the summoner and eidolon, the worst applies.Obviously. But the Summoner is in a special case here. Both receive the Drained 1 condition as they are separate entities. Obviously, it doesn't go to Drained 2, but as both share the same HP pool, and the condition states that you lose HP (and Max HP) equal to the drained amount upon receiving the condition, they are "double-tapped" by the condition in the HP department. So while they would only suffer a -1 penalty to Fortitude Saves, as the condition doesn't increase, they lose twice the amount of HP (and Max HP) due that it's not tied to a bonus or penalty type, and since the HP (both current and max) is shared, with both applying each condition separately...you see where this is going.
A level 5 Summoner taking Drained 1 loses 10 HP and maximum HP. It's combined but not protected by the Life Link rules, which state conditions are shared between the two from negative effects, as well as damage only applies the worst per instance.
However, the Drained condition outright states that the HP loss from the condition does not count as damage taken, meaning any protections from the Life Link ability do not apply. Whether that's intended or not, who knows. But from my perspective, that Level 5 Summoner just lost 10 (Max) HP from Drained 1 applying to both them and the Eidolon.
You're saying that the penalty is applied once but the effects of that penalty are somehow applied twice. If you become doomed 1 and your eidolon is doomed 3 your in a rough spot. But you don't insta-die
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, it's not a problem and let's not assume to coddle the players?Didn't i see you on another thread literally talk about acting on good faith?
lmao you don't seem to be doing it at all when it comes to Gortle's replies
Where's the good faith?
Darksol's claim is it's too overbearing, and Gortle here claimed it will thoroughly confuse players, when it hasn't really shown to be the case and underestimating and coddling players irks me.
I'm sorry but it will. The question is how many and how much. Just because you think something has been answered doesn't mean other people agree. It has certainly caused enough questions in the forums so far, and that is amongst the engaged playtesters.
No I don't like coddling players either.
I'm not seeing the benefit of this complication or why you would really think it desirable, its just complexity for complexity sake. And that drops my tolerance for it even lower.
If you really think I argue in bad faith I think you should look back at my old posts. I really do try to acknowledge both sides, and I do change my mind, and concede mistakes when I think they have occured. No I don't write a novel for every reply so if you want to take me, or anyone, out of context then you can. But yes I'm stubborn and independent. Get over it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're saying that the penalty is applied once but the effects of that penalty are somehow applied twice. If you become doomed 1 and your eidolon is doomed 3 your in a rough spot. But you don't insta-die
To a point.
What I am saying is that Drained reduces a resource that isn't limited to bonuses or penalties; HP.
Applying the Drained 1 condition twice doesn't reduce the Fortitude Save bonus by 2, but it does reduce the HP twice because it's two separate targets with the same HP.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Outside of NPCs, those are all PCs by your definition of characters and the concept of being a PC. The only conflation is what constitutes a character, which is narrative-dependent. The story doesn't care about what NPC #82 down the street does for a living, meaning he's not a character in the story any more than a rockfall is.
This statement is ridiculous. You not caring about them doesn't make them not be a character.
Demon/Devil Eidolons aren't disruptive to a Good-aligned group and vice-versa? And that's not getting into specifics of what the Eidolon actually is or does for the story. To suggest Eidolons cannot be disruptive is more ludicrous.Players playing Evil characters in a Good aligned group is just a disruptive, if Evil options are banned, Evil options are banned, why are you assuming they won't be? This "issue" is nonsense of your own making, not an actual legitimate issue.
Never said it was bad. But it is different, and it changes the game quite a bit in that case if the GM decides "Hey, I don't like this rule, we're gonna run it like X instead." And for Society play, this is an even more prevalent issue as what you can do depends more on your table's GM than on the rules when a corner case arises.And if your GM making rulings is such an "issue" with you, talk to them. Or find a new GM. Or GM yourself.
They have spoken. Have you not been arguing/debating with them as you have with me? I mean...it's not like I'm trying to be some "speaker for those who don't have a voice." I'm a supporter like them, not a leader or martyr trying to make my viewpoints seem much bigger than what they are. Not only is that stupid and a waste of time, but it's not like people can't make accounts to sign up and post their own thoughts on the forums...Then don't phrase your opinions like your speaking for more than yourself then, eh?
Actually, they are things of Conjuration, with Summoning being a subset of Conjuration. In fact, the Manifest Eidolon ability has the Conjuration and Teleportation traits, with Summon X spells not having a Teleportation trait and a Conjuration trait only. Meaning that it's a related yet completely different animal from Summoning.It's still summoning.
Obviously, people know what the name of the product they're buying is, but if they take a look at the mechanics and realize "I don't like this mechanic, X game did it better," they are just going to buy/play X game instead of Pathfinder if they feel it's not worth their hard-earned dollar.
If someone rather go play a video game or watch an anime over a tabletop rpg than so be it, not much to do about so kinda odd to bring up or try to compare? Of course tabletops handle things differently than videogames.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, it's not a problem and let's not assume to coddle the players?Didn't i see you on another thread literally talk about acting on good faith?
lmao you don't seem to be doing it at all when it comes to Gortle's replies
Where's the good faith?
Darksol's claim is it's too overbearing, and Gortle here claimed it will thoroughly confuse players, when it hasn't really shown to be the case and underestimating and coddling players irks me.
I'm sorry but it will. The question is how many and how much. Just because you think something has been answered doesn't mean other people agree. It has certainly caused enough questions in the forums so far, and that is amongst the engaged playtesters.
No I don't like coddling players either.
I'm not seeing the benefit of this complication or why you would really think it desirable, its just complexity for complexity sake. And that drops my tolerance for it even lower.
If you really think I argue in bad faith I think you should look back at my old posts. I really do try to acknowledge both sides, and I do change my mind, and concede mistakes when I think they have occured. No I don't write a novel for every reply so if you want to take me, or anyone, out of context then you can. But yes I'm stubborn and independent. Get over it.
By this rationale no new rules should be introduced ever, since forbid anyone actually read the rules of the game they're playing and think.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're saying that the penalty is applied once but the effects of that penalty are somehow applied twice. If you become doomed 1 and your eidolon is doomed 3 your in a rough spot. But you don't insta-dieTo a point.
What I am saying is that Drained reduces a resource that isn't limited to bonuses or penalties; HP.
Applying the Drained 1 condition twice doesn't reduce the Fortitude Save bonus by 2, but it does reduce the HP twice because it's two separate targets with the same HP.
The rule in question never says it's limited to bonuses or penalties.
In any case, if you are both subject to the same effect, you take the effects only once (applying the worse effect, if applicable).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
By this rationale no new rules should be introduced ever, since forbid anyone actually read the rules of the game they're playing and think.
And you think I'm acting in bad faith when you put up this position?
There is a big difference between adding a new feat or feature that adds something on to an existing part of a game, and adding a complication like two creature sharing the one hit point set but not always taking damage twice and significant saving throw and condition exceptions. Its part of the CORE of the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Outside of NPCs, those are all PCs by your definition of characters and the concept of being a PC. The only conflation is what constitutes a character, which is narrative-dependent. The story doesn't care about what NPC #82 down the street does for a living, meaning he's not a character in the story any more than a rockfall is.This statement is ridiculous. You not caring about them doesn't make them not be a character.
Demon/Devil Eidolons aren't disruptive to a Good-aligned group and vice-versa? And that's not getting into specifics of what the Eidolon actually is or does for the story. To suggest Eidolons cannot be disruptive is more ludicrous.Players playing Evil characters in a Good aligned group is just a disruptive, if Evil options are banned, Evil options are banned, why are you assuming they won't be? This "issue" is nonsense of your own making, not an actual legitimate issue.Never said it was bad. But it is different, and it changes the game quite a bit in that case if the GM decides "Hey, I don't like this rule, we're gonna run it like X instead." And for Society play, this is an even more prevalent issue as what you can do depends more on your table's GM than on the rules when a corner case arises.And if your GM making rulings is such an "issue" with you, talk to them. Or find a new GM. Or GM yourself.They have spoken. Have you not been arguing/debating with them as you have with me? I mean...it's not like I'm trying to be some "speaker for those who don't have a voice." I'm a supporter like them, not a leader or martyr trying to make my viewpoints seem much bigger than what they are. Not only is that stupid and a waste of time, but it's not like people can't make accounts to sign up and post their own thoughts on the forums...Then don't phrase your opinions like your speaking for more than yourself then, eh?
Actually, it does, when the story itself deems it irrelevant and not written up for it, which is what that was demonstrating. My personal attachment doesn't matter there, either.
Because not everyone runs with the "No Evil At My Table" rule, meaning just because it doesn't come up at your table doesn't mean it shouldn't ever come up. In fact, both of my groups don't. Alignment isn't some auto-detection thing in PF2 like it was in PF1, meaning a Good and Evil PC can certainly be in the same group for a while before something comes of it.
Tell that to PFS players, where that isn't an option. Or players who are too busy to do that. Or players who may not want to do that.
I am speaking for more than myself. I'm speaking for wanting a better game, the same as you.
It is as much of summoning as Black Tentacles or Wall of Stone is.
A simple and more apt comparison would be "5E does it better, so I'm going to play that game instead." In short, Paizo can lose profits to other tabletop companies if a class' design and feel go the wrong way. The Shifter is a prime example of that.
**EDIT** Fixed the formatting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're saying that the penalty is applied once but the effects of that penalty are somehow applied twice. If you become doomed 1 and your eidolon is doomed 3 your in a rough spot. But you don't insta-dieTo a point.
What I am saying is that Drained reduces a resource that isn't limited to bonuses or penalties; HP.
Applying the Drained 1 condition twice doesn't reduce the Fortitude Save bonus by 2, but it does reduce the HP twice because it's two separate targets with the same HP.
The rule in question never says it's limited to bonuses or penalties.
In any case, if you are both subject to the same effect, you take the effects only once (applying the worse effect, if applicable).
I'm not quite convinced. Largely because that entry refers to if something affects both the Eidolon and the Summoner, such as AoEs or conditions which affect things they share, which they reference Slowed as an example.
If an Eidolon becomes Drained 1, the HP is decreased and the Eidolon suffers a -1 to its Fortitude saving throws until they rest, but the Summoner would not suffer the -1 to its Fortitude saving throws. If a Summoner then becomes Drained 1 from a separate identical effect, the Summoner then suffers a -1 to its Fortitude saving throws, and again suffers the HP loss because it is being subtracted from the same pool. And because this is a separate effect, the "only take once, applying the worst" clause doesn't come into play, meaning double HP loss.
At best we can argue that "any case" would refer to whether or not both are targeted, but I remain unconvinced based on that it's a "take the worst" clause that requires targeting both entities simultaneously for it to apply.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Drained 1 + Drained 1 doesn't mean "double tap the hit points." Damage stacks like that, but the summoner/eidolon provides an exception. Drain doesn't stack like that in the first place, and the summoner/eidolon rules say to apply the worse effect, not stack them, so why would you think it would stack IN ANY WAY?
Say a 5th-level summoner and his eidolon both get drained 1 from the same effect. Okay.
Check 1: Has the summoner's current and max hit points been reduced by the appropriate amount? Yes. Good.
Check 2: Has the eidolon's current and max hit points been reduced by the appropriate amount? Yes, because it was already reduced by the summoner. Good. That means it meets the requirement of drained 1. No need to reduce it further.
Total Loss: 5 hit points. Not 10.
Now say that same pair were hit by two separate effects. The summoner gets hit with drain 1 and the eidolon gets hit with drain 4.
The summoner takes the penalties for drain 1. The eidolon takes the penalties for drain 4. Their shared hit point pool is down 20 hit points.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but why? If you're drained 1 and your eidolon is drained 5 and your level five you lose 25 hit points because that's the worst effect. If you are slowed 1 and your eidolon is slowed 2 you lose two actions which is the worst effect. If you both eat a fireball and you take 10 points but your eidolon takes 30, you take 30 because that's the worst effect. Everything is always what's worse not doubled.
2 chances to fail a save. 2 chances to be fightened with frightful presence. 2 chances to sickened by xulgath stink aura. 2 chances to fail AoE attack from dragon or fireball. 2 chances for failure.
Multiple chances to get hit by separate creatures, but I'm sure at some point players like Rysky and Krispy will make up some rule like if the summoner and the eidolon are attacked by completely different creatures or different attack actions, they only have to take the worse hit once of either creature getting into ever more convoluted rule scenarios.
What if the eidolon suffers a paralyze? is the summoner paralyzed? Apparently if the eidolon is hit by a phantasmal killer, the summoner is too once again proving they are not two separate characters but some kind of symbiont.
Then if your hit points are low, you can both get snuffed by a Power word kill. If one is poisoned, so is the other. We fought a shuln last night. I guess if the eidolon gets paralyzed for 2d6 hours, the summoner is paralyzed for 2d6 hours.
This shared hit point pool is going to require that the PF game designers review nearly every other rule this new mechanic can interact with to see what effect it might have on playability. And any new ability they create for a monster, they will have to think about how that interacts with this one creature in two body mechanic.
There's no getting around it. They will have to think about it and make calls on strange cases.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Literally all of this would be fixed with separate HP pools.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Literally all of this would be fixed with separate HP pools.
Or by people bothering to read the rules and not overthinking things.
Having separate hit point pools means either something else needs to give to maintain balance, or balance is lost. It also means more things for everyone to track, which can get pretty tedious.