| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Deriven is right, shared HP complicates so much about the game that the devs will literally have to walk on eggshells forever when it comes to it.
There's no way this makes it out of playtest.
Animal Companions have health and 1e Eidolons had health, it is the easiest thing in the world to track. (Yes i know Eidolons are not animal companions, and yes i know this is 2e; that doesn't mean my point about tracking a separate HP bar is in any way less)
If all i have to do to avoid this nightmare of balancing is to track a separate HP bar? I'll take it.
| 2 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.
Drained doesn't stack that way because of both the condition stacking rules and also because it's only affecting one character with one HP pool, not two charactersentities with one HP pool. This is the first time HP has ever been calculated or done this way before, so no surprise that there's going to be hiccups and snafus regarding it.
Since Eidolons and Summoners only share HP, actions, MAP, as well as certain conditions and effects (if both are targeted), it's definitely a gray area that I can see ruling against the Summoner and Eidolon since other negative effects already do so to begin with. I mean, you're already having Misfortune rolls on Fireballs, why not have Misfortune effects on conditions, too?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
tbh if they decide to split the shared life mechanic, I support the Chaotic Neutral approach of Always Shared Life but base hit die of d4 and d4/d6. If the Eidolon gets its own Con Bonus in addition to the Summoner's and they share any form of life pooling, base hit die should be low as a tradeoff.
I'm not against the switch to separate HP but being able to transfer damage, just think those that are arguing for it are asking for more than is reasonable with this d10+d6+Con+Con stuff. Good arguments have been made for it being overly complex; if not for the players, then for balance and other people at the table that don't know your character. But, if we do go that route, then we aren't getting 20 hp/level coddling. Real summoners live life on the edge.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because not all of those are from the same effect. You can be slowed 1 from one ability, and stunned 2 from a different ability. Which one takes effect?
How about concealed? Normally a creature can be concealed while the other is visible. But then what happens with the summoner? Is he still concealed even when the Eidolon is visible?
What happens if only one failed versus a Deafened effect?
What happens if only one of you is immobilized?
Two separate creatures definitely should not both fall Prone if only one fails. So why does it happen to the Summoner?
As it stands. Any condition that stops one of you from taking actions does double duty and prevents both of you from taking any actions. And that is not how a Summoner should behave. The Eidolon is supposed to be independent not something that binds you up if it gets targeted by common abilities.
Oh man, you just added invisibility. So now a summoner can't turn invisible and avoid taking damage if the eidolon is visible?
So does it take two or one spell to turn the eidolon and summoner invisible? What about blur or blink? Two or one spell to get the benefit for both? If you get hit and only one has it on them, are they affected? How does that work with stoneskin, invisibility, blink, goldenmist elixir, juggernaut elixir, and the like?
This is getting annoying. I was actually starting to be ok with the shared hit point pool. But it's getting more complicated the more it is discussed.
How do buffs work?
How do effect spells like invisibity work?
How do mutlitarget attacks that target individuals work?
How about aura like frightening presence which give two chances to fail and critical fail? Or sickened? Or slowed? Two chances to fail a aoe spell?
How do consumables work? Or casting with items?
The list can go on.
| 2 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.
Not overthinking things in a game like PF where a huge thread arguing whether Bon Mot works if you roll a success against immune creatures allows you to gain panache has gone on and on and on. I know you've seen a ton of other rules threads where PF players go back and forth on the RAI and RAW and pulling rules from different parts of the book. You talking about that group of players? You want them not to overthink? Ok.
I'm already ready to ban this class from my games. I don't need these headaches. I already had to explain too many small rules in this game to get the players to remember that their MC spell DCs and attack spells are 2 behind their main caster spell DCs unless they are a war priest or a summoner, which makes my players grumble.
There are a lot of headaches cropping up with this 2 creatures as one approach. I don't need the arguments or a bunch of weird rule interactions that are cropping on top of only having 4 spells that I don't even know at this point if I have to use 2 slots to cast one buff on the eidolon and one on the summoner.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because not all of those are from the same effect. You can be slowed 1 from one ability, and stunned 2 from a different ability. Which one takes effect?
How about concealed? Normally a creature can be concealed while the other is visible. But then what happens with the summoner? Is he still concealed even when the Eidolon is visible?
What happens if only one failed versus a Deafened effect?
What happens if only one of you is immobilized?
Two separate creatures definitely should not both fall Prone if only one fails. So why does it happen to the Summoner?
As it stands. Any condition that stops one of you from taking actions does double duty and prevents both of you from taking any actions. And that is not how a Summoner should behave. The Eidolon is supposed to be independent not something that binds you up if it gets targeted by common abilities.
Oh man, you just added invisibility. So now a summoner can't turn invisible and avoid taking damage if the eidolon is visible?
So does it take two or one spell to turn the eidolon and summoner invisible? What about blur or blink? Two or one spell to get the benefit for both? If you get hit and only one has it on them, are they affected? How does that work with stoneskin, invisibility, blink, goldenmist elixir, juggernaut elixir, and the like?
This is getting annoying. I was actually starting to be ok with the shared hit point pool. But it's getting more complicated the more it is discussed.
How do buffs work?
How do effect spells like invisibity work?
How do mutlitarget attacks that target individuals work?
How about aura like frightening presence which give two chances to fail and critical fail? Or sickened? Or slowed? Two chances to fail a aoe spell?
How do consumables work? Or casting with items?
The list can go on.
After evaluating this in the main Summoner thread, I believe I've reached a deeper undersatanding of how to read the Summoner rules, and people are getting lost in the weeds.
Your eidolon is no mere minion; the two of you share the same life force and work together as equals. You and your eidolon share your actions, your Hit Points, and your multiple attack penalty. Each round, you can use any of your actions and reaction for yourself or your eidolon. Damage taken by either you or the eidolon reduces your Hit Points, while healing either of you restores your Hit Points. If you or your eidolon is affected by anything that would change a creature’s actions, it affects your shared actions. In any case, if you are both subject to the same effect, you take the effects only once (applying the worse effect, if applicable).
The next paragraph exists to give examples of the concepts stated in the prior.
For instance, if you and your eidolon are caught in an area effect that would heal or damage you both, only the greater amount of healing or damage applies.
This is an example of the bolded part of the prior paragraph. It is not a separate thought completely. So, likewise, if an effect would affect both you and your Eidolon, you would take the worse result of that effect and apply it to both. If it would only affect 1 of you, than only that target is affected. Which leads us into the next example given.
Similarly, if you or your eidolon is slowed, you would start your turn with fewer actions, but even if you were both slowed, it wouldn’t increase the effect. However, if you were slowed 1 and your eidolon slowed 2, you’d have 2 fewer actions because that’s the more severe effect.
This is not a case showing that if the Eidolon suffers a condition, so does the summoner. Instead, this is an example of the italicized text, showing that "If you or your eidolon is affected by anything that would change a creature’s actions, it affects your shared actions." As a result, with the current rules as written, we can deduce the following that has remained unchanged:
-You and your eidolon count as separate targets for Buffs.
-You and your Eidolon are separate targets for Debuffs. However, if an effect that would cause a debuff targets you both, you are both given the worse outcome of the effect. If only one of you would be targetted by the effect, only that target is subject to the debuff.
-The exception to the above are effects that modify your shared qualities, as you effectively count as a single creature for those effects, such as Slowed/Quickened.
The one exception that still remains as an outlier, assuming the above is correct, is the Drained condition; but, with how Quickened and Slowed are treated, it seems like it will work similarly, if only for the part that affects the targets HP pool. This would likely need to be clarified by the design team, but otherwise I feel very confident in this reading of the current rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Lost in the weeds" is a good way to put it. I think people get a warped view of a class when too long is spent talking about it without reading it or playing it. Which is probably why emphasis is placed on actual playtesting, and more spirited debaters may want to consider giving the playtest material another once-over before submitting feedback if they haven't already.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Lost in the weeds" is a good way to put it. I think people get a warped view of a class when too long is spent talking about it without reading it or playing it. Which is probably why emphasis is placed on actual playtesting, and more spirited debaters may want to consider giving the playtest material another once-over before submitting feedback if they haven't already.
Sounds reasonable, but Deriven Firelion who is raising these has actually submitted several action reports.
I'm still yet to get my group organised for this. It is not that easy to do in a COVID world.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except for things that deal with hit points, multiple attack penalties, or actions, nothing is shared.
What happens if only one failed versus a Deafened effect?
Then only one is deafened.
What happens if only one of you is immobilized?
Then...only one of you is immobilized...
Two separate creatures definitely should not both fall Prone if only one fails. So why does it happen to the Summoner?
It doesn't. If only the eidolon was tripped, the summoner does not suddenly fall prone.
As it stands. Any condition that stops one of you from taking actions does double duty and prevents both of you from taking any actions. And that is not how a Summoner should behave.
That's fair I guess.
The Eidolon is supposed to be independent not something that binds you up if it gets targeted by common abilities.
Um, most of the time it doesn't.
Oh man, you just added invisibility. So now a summoner can't turn invisible and avoid taking damage if the eidolon is visible?
That's...that's not how it works though.
So does it take two or one spell to turn the eidolon and summoner invisible?
It takes one spell each, assuming it is a single target spell.
What about blur or blink?
Those, like most of your examples, work normally, effecting only the creature(s) targeted.
Two or one spell to get the benefit for both?
If you're using a single target buff spell, you need to target them separately with two castings for both to be effected.
If you get hit and only one has it on them, are they affected?
Only one is affected unless it is something that impacts hit points, MAP, or actions.
How does that work with stoneskin, invisibility, blink, goldenmist elixir, juggernaut elixir, and the like?
Those all work just like they would on any other character.
How do buffs work?
They function just like they would on any other character.
How do effect spells like invisibity work?
They function just like they would on any other character.
How do mutlitarget attacks that target individuals work?
Things like fireball (which don't technically have targets) would apply the higher of the two damage rolls to the shared hit point pool.
Multitarget effects like magic missile's individually targeted bolts would apply their respective damage rolls to the shared hit point pool (note that this would have happened anyways even if the bolts weren't split up, but were focused on either the summoner or the eidolon).
How about aura like frightening presence which give two chances to fail and critical fail? Or sickened? Or slowed? Two chances to fail a aoe spell?
As it doesn't meet the criteria, the summoner and eidolon would roll separately against the effect and apply the effect to themselves separately.
How do consumables work? Or casting with items?
If they don't impact hit points, actions, or MAP, then they would function just like they do for anyone else (only impacting the character targeted).
The list can go on.
Please don't. That time would be better served by going over the rules again.
I hope that helps! :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Literally all of this would be fixed with separate HP pools.
Wrong.
You can separate the HP pools, but you are still sharing actions. Thus, all the things that affect actions (and a bunch of them have been named in this thread) are still not 'fixed'.But in general, you only take the worse result when you deal with abilities that affect shared things, so all the paralyzed, grappled, tripped, frightened stuff doesn't get more complicated than it normally is, shared HP or not.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shared HP is just one of the problems with the whole 2 bodies in one. That the Playtest Summoner is trying to do.
Shared actions is the other one.
And if either the Eidolon or Summoner is immobilized both are immobilized. That condition affects your actions, and thus affects both of you.
This is not true. The effects that affect actions are Stunned, Slowed and Quickened. Nothing else, as far as I can see.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not true. The effects that affect actions are Stunned, Slowed and Quickened. Nothing else, as far as I can see.Shared HP is just one of the problems with the whole 2 bodies in one. That the Playtest Summoner is trying to do.
Shared actions is the other one.
And if either the Eidolon or Summoner is immobilized both are immobilized. That condition affects your actions, and thus affects both of you.
* Controlled: Another creatures dictates how to use your actions.
* Facinated: Limits how to use your actions.
* Fleeing: Spend all your actions trying to escape.
* Grabbed: You are immobilized.
* Immobilized: Cannot use any action with the move trait.
* Paralyzed: Can only use mental actions.
* Petrified: Cannot use any action
* Prone: Limits move actions to only crael or Stand.
* Restrained: You are immobilized.
* Sickened: Can spend a single action trying to recover.
* Unconcious: Cannot take actions.
There are many things that affect actions.
That's... not at all what PW is saying, though. None of those "double up," so to speak as to affect both the summoner and the eidolon. Only conditions that "would change a creature's actions" would affect you both (much in the way that they sort of don't, by limiting or expanding your action pool).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost like we have a system that already works without all this obvious confusion with animal companions... I think it's time to take Occam's Razor and cut this HP pool in twain.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, I don't know, read the ability? Occam's Razor has no bearing here whatsoever (sorry, pet peeve with people applying that to literally everything).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost like we have a system that already works without all this obvious confusion with animal companions... I think it's time to take Occam's Razor and cut this HP pool in twain.
If you want an Eidolon with the capabilities of an animal companion, this is a great solution. Animal Companions are balanced by being inoffensively statted and heavily restricted in capabilities.
If you want an Eidolon that fights like a PC with a Martial class, we're gonna have to accept some limitations and restrictions.
Most of the issues being brought up here are overapplying rules and ignoring the fact that many of these situations are already addressed elsewhere in the core rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, I don't know, read the ability? Occam's Razor has no bearing here whatsoever (sorry, pet peeve with people applying that to literally everything).
Thing is that so many people have read the ability, and are drawing different conclusions. It means the ability certainly is not clear enough. This never was a issue with animal companions.
Perhaps it's not exactly Occam's Razor, granted, but it is trying to fix something that wasn't broken.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, I don't know, read the ability? Occam's Razor has no bearing here whatsoever (sorry, pet peeve with people applying that to literally everything).Thing is that so many people have read the ability, and are drawing different conclusions. It means the ability certainly is not clear enough. This never was a issue with animal companions.
Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, given that this is a playtest and something that devs are looking for (I assume) are comprehension issues, then this is something that requires more clarity in the language.
I'd rather not get rid of something that I see as an interesting mechanic that, to me, is very intuitive and replace it with a mechanic that we've already seen (and doesn't personally interest me).
|
|
I really want Mark to clear this up because the fact a few of you were actually playing with misinterpreted rules would mean your experiences playtesting were with changes and personal liberties taken to make the class play how you want and not how it actually was released for playtest.
Which is fine for proposed changes you want to see but not fine to believe that's how the class actually does play.
Or perhaps you’re the one playing with a misappreciation of the rules?
EDIT: To be clear, I think you’re probably correct in the interpretation as it applies to flurries and skittering strike, but the language is getting aggressive and a bit “I’m right and you’re an idiot” on all sides. You just happened to be the last person who commented when I replied.
I think it’s clear this ability could do with clarification in the final version, but I’m not sure it needs doing right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Krispy is right. The intent for "cannot target the same creature twice" abilities is to limit the damage each PC can take in a round. Those abilities should not be exposing the summoner to double crit damage. However, if a creature misses the summoner, they get another chance to hit or crit the eidolon if they so choose.I think it’s impossible to say which interpretation is correct at this point. Both are arguable, and both sides have points in their favour. Asserting preemptive correctness for your preferred interpretation shuts down the conversation.
Poison is the one claiming to know how the rules "actually" work. While we may disagree with whether the letter of the rules achieves the intended result, I don't see anyone disagreeing with the design principles Krispy has pointed out.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that its horrible that Summoner is being forced into that design of shared HP/actions when it really should not be anywhere near it.
Outside of Synthesist.
Your opinions have been noted.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your opinions have been noted.I think that its horrible that Summoner is being forced into that design of shared HP/actions when it really should not be anywhere near it.
Outside of Synthesist.
And consequently crumpled up and thrown in the dumpster in the office corner.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
And consequently crumpled up and thrown in the dumpster in the office corner.Your opinions have been noted.I think that its horrible that Summoner is being forced into that design of shared HP/actions when it really should not be anywhere near it.
Outside of Synthesist.
Thats not fair at all.
People have routinely addressed and rebutted Temperans concerns in great detail and good faith.
Your metaphor makes it sound like everyone simply dismissed those concerns - as opposed to them having good and clearly described reasons for disagreeing with the core position.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They didnt say they were specifically right but that some people were playing with the wrong rules.
Which is 100% a valid concern if people have spent the entire playtest so far playing with the wrong rules.
Giving proper feedback when everyone is playing a different thing is not helpful and may actually skew the data.
I intend to make note of whatever rules interpretation I go with in a particular instance. Heck, my current crunch writeup for Grim Symphony has the GM make the clutch decision that Confusion effected both the Summoner and the Eidolon, which is a ruling I no longer think is correct, and the ruling we used was called out in the writeup. I don't see a problem with it as long as you call out what interpretation of the rules you're using in your runs, as it shows A) something that was confusing to players in the moment, and B) the potential for how the rules would work if they were written differently, which could still be handy for the Design team to see in motion for future balance.
Honestly it just feels like good playtest etiquette to explain any rules interpretation used that required discussion at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poison is the one claiming to know how the rules "actually" work. While we may disagree with whether the letter of the rules achieves the intended result, I don't see anyone disagreeing with the design principles Krispy has pointed out.
Yes, i do believe i know how the rules work, just as Krispy has made their case to how they believe the rules work; i'm not special to that regard.
Check out any number of responses in the threads related to how this will complicate the math in future scenarios.
Obviously, i don't want the Summoner to be so vulnerable.
Obviously, i would like it so it doesn't not take extra damage.
But the way the playtest rules are written are pretty clear in that it really is only specifying when the Summoner and Eidolon are subject to the same effect.
If i strike the Summoner once it takes damage, if i strike the Eidolon once it takes damage. These may be the same "type of effect" in that they are being dealt damage from a strike, but they are not both being subject to the same effect; each strike is an individual effect. (I'm just talking regular strikes here, 1-action)
Now here's the crux to Krispy's argument: Are abilities that contain subordinate actions to be considered one effect, the very same, or are not?
If that's the case, that would mean something like Flurry of Blows would be one effect; that's when we get into some huge problems with how other rules are written.
Flurry of Blows states:
" If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses
That piece of information is important, it's a clause that's meant to illustrate that how Flurry works is adverse to how such an ability with subordinate strikes would normally work.
Normally, such an ability would be subject to resistance and weakness per strike. These abilities are not treated as if they are one effect.
What do we find when we read the rules on resistance?
Here is what we find:
"If you have resistance to a type of damage, each time you take that type of damage, you reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed amount (to a minimum of 0 damage).
So what have we discovered?
We've discovered that:
Abilities such as Flurry, Path of Iron, or Skittering Assault are not simply one effect, they are abilities that hold more than 1 effect; each strike is it's own instance of damage and effect.
I'm the one who has been accused of overapplying the rules, but i beg to differ in that i find those of you who seem to take the word "effect" so literally and applied so liberally to be the ones who are actually overapplying the rules in regards to what the Eidolon rules does and does not interact with.
Again, i'm very willing to hear the opposition out so long as they argue in good faith.
Which aside from my own experience being gaslit, i have noticed people like Temperans, Deriven, Graystone, or Gortle not be extended that courtesy.
But please, if you have any thoughts or objections to my analysis in regards to the interaction between abilities, interactions with rules such as resistance, and what constitutes an "effect" then i am very open to hearing you out.
Thank you friends.
Well, at the very least, getting two whole characters each with 3 actions and a separate HP pool for just 1 class level will never ever happen in PF2, judging from this turmoil that Team Paizo specifically brewed to avoid such situation (just look at the very existence of the Minion trait, which I have no strong feelings for/against).
Just look at how the old Leadership feat went down the way of the dodo...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that's the case, that would mean something like Flurry of Blows would be one effect; that's when we get into some huge problems with how other rules are written.Flurry of Blows states:
" If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses
That piece of information is important, it's a clause that's meant to illustrate that how Flurry works is adverse to how such an ability with subordinate strikes would normally work.
Normally, such an ability would be subject to resistance and weakness per strike. These abilities are not treated as if they are one effect.
You're inferring quite a bit here - and making a big leap.
The exception under Flurry of Blows means exactly what it says it means - combine damage for resistances and weaknesses.
Just because attacks are simultaneous/from the same source wouldn't result in weaknesses/resistances applying only once normally - they'd resolve per each instances of damage, even if that damage simultaneous. Flurry overrides that.
I still say that beyond all the other rules issues, the biggest problem with your interpretation of the rules is that it violates the apparent intent, which is to limit damage to the summoner from single effects that target both the Summoner and the Eidolon.
Your hang up here seems to be that the Flurry of Blows case 'doesn't make sense' from a logical standpoint, and to that I say - so what? Its a game, a grand abstraction.
All that said, there is one key point that might convince me that Flurry of Blows isn't a good example, and thats the fact that the two Strikee it makes fail to live up to the 'identical effects' clause in Summoner because the two Strikes are made with different bonuses due to MAP... which would make it different from effects such as Skittering Assault.
I maintain that it doesn't seem in line with the intent that Skittering Assault would cause damage to the Summoner twice, and that the rules can be read as supporting this - but it would definitely be nice to get some clarification.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still say that beyond all the other rules issues, the biggest problem with your interpretation of the rules is that it violates the apparent intent, which is to limit damage to the summoner from single effects that target both the Summoner and the Eidolon.Your hang up here seems to be that the Flurry of Blows case 'doesn't make sense' from a logical standpoint, and to that I say - so what? Its a game, a grand abstraction.
All that said, there is one key point that might convince me that Flurry of Blows isn't a good example, and thats the fact that the two Strikee it makes fail to live up to the 'identical effects' clause in Summoner because the two Strikes are made with different bonuses due to MAP... which would make it different from effects such as Skittering Assault.
I maintain that it doesn't seem in line with the intent that Skittering Assault would cause damage to the Summoner twice, and that the...
I agree with the idea that the devs' intent is to limit damage that targets both the Summoner and the Eidolon, i do not agree that extends to single-targeting damage that does not actually target both the Summoner and Eidolon.
If that were the case, you now introduce a host of issues with having to explain and list exceptions to several rules in place in 2e's system, but more-so there is not text found in the actual playtest that would support the idea that the Summoner and Eidolon do negate single-target damage that targets the Summoner and Eidolon separately.
It's not just Flurry of Blows, me and others keep bringing up all these issues that keep coming up if your line of reasoning is what's actually how the Summoner should be played; the reason the Flurry of Blows clause is important is to outline how subordinate actions of abilities are actually treated with regards to targeting, what constitutes an effect or instance of damage.
I just want to also throw out, i don't hate you Krispy; i understand where you are coming from. I also would really like for a dev or someone to pop in and say "Hey _BLANK_ is wrong; here is actually how it works and what type of things it does interact with"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And consequently crumpled up and thrown in the dumpster in the office corner.Your opinions have been noted.I think that its horrible that Summoner is being forced into that design of shared HP/actions when it really should not be anywhere near it.
Outside of Synthesist.
Thats not fair at all.
People have routinely addressed and rebutted Temperans concerns in great detail and good faith.
Your metaphor makes it sound like everyone simply dismissed those concerns - as opposed to them having good and clearly described reasons for disagreeing with the core position.
When one side gets to determine what is and isn't good faith, while the other side is forced to sit there and take it or move on to something else, it's a little hard not to come from the perspective that it was rigged from the start, and that feedback attempts are fruitless.
So yes, I agree, it's not fair at all. But I'm fine with it, because I never played a Summoner in PF1, and I don't see that changing in PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except for things that deal with hit points, multiple attack penalties, or actions, nothing is shared.
What happens if only one failed versus a Deafened effect?Then only one is deafened.
What happens if only one of you is immobilized?Then...only one of you is immobilized...
Two separate creatures definitely should not both fall Prone if only one fails. So why does it happen to the Summoner?It doesn't. If only the eidolon was tripped, the summoner does not suddenly fall prone.
As it stands. Any condition that stops one of you from taking actions does double duty and prevents both of you from taking any actions. And that is not how a Summoner should behave.That's fair I guess.
The Eidolon is supposed to be independent not something that binds you up if it gets targeted by common abilities.Um, most of the time it doesn't.
Oh man, you just added invisibility. So now a summoner can't turn invisible and avoid taking damage if the eidolon is visible?That's...that's not how it works though.
So does it take two or one spell to turn the eidolon and summoner invisible?It takes one spell each, assuming it is a single target spell.
What about blur or blink?Those, like most of your examples, work normally, effecting only the creature(s) targeted.
Two or one spell to get the benefit for both?If you're using a single target buff spell, you need to target them separately with two castings for both to be effected.
If you get hit and only one has it on them, are they affected?Only one is affected unless it is something that impacts hit points, MAP, or actions.
How does that work with stoneskin, invisibility, blink,...
The fact you don't see the problem with the above is surprising. You seem to fancy yourself an excellent tactician. Well, Mr. Tactician, if you are fighting a character with a shared hit point pool where the rules clearly state that you know this being is connected to the eidolon it shares the pool with, who do you attack first? How do you go about killing that character in the easiest and fastest way possible?
No, your post doesn't help. What I wrote pointed out weaknesses in the 2 as 1 scenario which you clearly showed is a problem. Why? Because with shared hit points if I put a defensive buff on one character, the other becomes the one to focus the attack on. With a shared hit point pool, you are one character in two bodies. So it will always be more effective to attack the weaker of the two bodies.
I was illustrating that it would take two spells to gain the benefits of a single buff. You have only four slots to cast. If you spend one on the eidolon, then you become the soft target. If you spend one on yourself, depending on what it is you might still be the soft target. It will always be better to kill the summoner first because he is substantially weaker than the eidolon and are it's hit points.
It's like having an Achilles Heel to exploit in battle.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see all types of exploits and headaches at the moment I'm hoping they come up with some way to mitigate.
As the summoner stands right now with 4 spell slots, shared MAP, shared actions, and shared hit point pools, you are in essence a single character in two bodies. These shared bodies provide two points of attack for everything from multipoint attacks, poisons, afflictions, AoE spells, AoE breath weapons, and lots of odd tactics to take you out that don't apply to other characters.
The shared body requires two buff spells to gain the fully effect of a single of the four spell slots you have or the weak point (second body) becomes the easier target to attack.
You roll twice for AoE attacks taking the lower of the number which happens quite often at later levels and can be devastating. There is no real way to stand out of the battle as the old summoner can do or a PC with an animal companion because the eidolon or the summoner will always be hit by the effect.
It's two points of attack, inseparable. Kill one, kill the other. Hit one, hit the other. Two chances of failure. A very exploitable state of game existence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact you don't see the problem with the above is surprising. You seem to fancy yourself an excellent tactician.
What the? Do you overthink absolutely everything?
Dude, I was just attempting to be helpful by answering the questions being asked. That's it.
Well, Mr. Tactician, if you are fighting a character with a shared hit point pool where the rules clearly state that you know this being is connected to the eidolon it shares the pool with, who do you attack first? How do you go about killing that character in the easiest and fastest way possible?
The rules indicate that it is obvious that there is a connection of some sort. It is also clear that the nature of said connection may itself not be so obvious. Magical connections could just as readily be shield other or any number of other active magical effects for all the general layman knows.
Most characters and enemies are unlikely to know anything about the shared hit point pool, much less be able to build strategies against it.
No, your post doesn't help.
Well I'm sorry then, man. I wasn't trying to fix the summoner, I was merely attempting to help people asking questions to better understand the rules.
If they were meant to be rhetorical, that was not clear to me, and I shall refrain from wasting any more of our time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven's goal here is to make the mechanic look as cumbersome as possible as a way of convincing people to join them in petitioning for the mechanic's removal.
Not only are the questions rhetorical, but even attempting to answer them is potentially undermining their crusade, which probably explains the passive aggression and naked hostility being thrown your way.
i agree with him it feels like a hassle, its too unnecessarily complicated
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i agree with him it feels like a hassle, its too unnecessarily complicatedDeriven's goal here is to make the mechanic look as cumbersome as possible as a way of convincing people to join them in petitioning for the mechanic's removal.
Not only are the questions rhetorical, but even attempting to answer them is potentially undermining their crusade, which probably explains the passive aggression and naked hostility being thrown your way.
Shhh... You'll reveal the secret cabal if you speak like that. ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven's goal here is to make the mechanic look as cumbersome as possible as a way of convincing people to join them in petitioning for the mechanic's removal.
Not only are the questions rhetorical, but even attempting to answer them is potentially undermining their crusade, which probably explains the passive aggression and naked hostility being thrown your way.
They can be answered, but that's not the point being made.
The Summoner in its current state requires the GM and players to know all of the new interactions that can be made with the character as a result of treating actions and HP and MAP combined.
For example, being able to Battle Medicine the Summoner effectively twice per day? Not being able to double-heal or damage Summoner and Eidolon? Only certain conditions affect one or both entities? These are things that would confuse many onlookers (and even players) that the rules might be ran incorrectly or be constantly looked up and referred to in rules, meaning focus changes from combat to "How does this interact with the Summoner/Eidolon?", to the point that having numerous summons out at the same time is less burdensome.
It adds a layer of unwanted complexity in a system that was made to cut down on that very same thing; especially when it's a level that PF1, a much more complicated system, did not cross, for this same exact reason.