| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having my HP tied to another creature isn't any more interesting or thematic than the Shield Other spell being applied to/from an ally. In fact, I'd rather have the Shield Other spell because I can choose to disable or dispel it if I want, such as if it's going to get us both killed, at least one of us staying alive still has a chance to save the other.
It's also not what made the Summoner the Summoner in Pathfinder. This is more like a psychic projection ghost thingy you mentally control to do things you couldn't normally do, but its essence and being is intrinsically tied to your own life force and physicality. Which is neat, don't get me wrong. But I don't find it compelling for a summoner class. A spiritualist or psychic, sure. But not a summoner.
I personally felt the shared hit point pool didn't really clash with the summon aspect of the class because I am imagining it as the Summoner using their very lifeforce to help power the spell that's brought a fragment of a much greater entity into this world.
That "fragment of a greater being" solves a lot of problems, like dragons not being able to fly (you haven't trained enough to be able to bring through its magical abilities that assist flight).
It also is *more* like a summon than normal summoning spells which just generate a generic copy of the entity you're summoning that has no memory or persistence outside of the summon.
or... Just let the player decide how they want to do it.
Shared HP (default)
Shares body (synchronise feat)
Separate HP (another feat)
Then everyone can play the way they want.
|
I'm not arguing that the summoner could/couldn't use a boost, but it seems many people are arguing that it should balance around martial characters (with a shared HP pool). I'm arguing that an eidolon balanced around martial characters with separate hit point pools would possibly overshadow the characters it shares a power level with. Sorry if that has been unclear.I personally want a strong Eidolon and a weak summoner that just stands around. Its what I played in 1e.
That sounds horrible honestly, and would be a nightmare to balance I'd wager.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the shared HP just don't make sense for the summoner.They literally had Lifelink for both versions in P1.
This isn't lifelink, there is almost none of Lifelink's mechanics present; i'd 100% support bringing back lifelink and 2 separate HP pools though.
|
|
This isn't lifelink, there is almost none of Lifelink's mechanics present; i'd 100% support bringing back lifelink and 2 separate HP pools though.Yeah the shared HP just don't make sense for the summoner.They literally had Lifelink for both versions in P1.
No it's not Lifelink.
Saying the current shared HP doesn't sense when they had lifelink previously though in how similarly they function kills that argument.
That sounds horrible honestly, and would be a nightmare to balance I'd wager.I'm not arguing that the summoner could/couldn't use a boost, but it seems many people are arguing that it should balance around martial characters (with a shared HP pool). I'm arguing that an eidolon balanced around martial characters with separate hit point pools would possibly overshadow the characters it shares a power level with. Sorry if that has been unclear.I personally want a strong Eidolon and a weak summoner that just stands around. Its what I played in 1e.
not really.
A add a way to sacrifice spell slots to boost the summon. Along with the already existing cantrip to eat up your actions.
Something like.
Manifest Magic.
When you manifest your eidilon, you can expend a spell slot to give it temporary hit points equal to 1d6+4 times the slots level.
And just let you use both boost and resilient cantrips.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shared HP (default)
Shares body (synchronise feat)
Separate HP (another feat)Then everyone can play the way they want.
A feat that let you divide your total hp between yourself and your eidolon and have separate hp pools (which couldn't be healed above your native total between them) afterwards wouldnt be terrible if it didn't come with an increase to the current hp level.
In fact, it'd be a compelling and extremely dangerous risk, but there could be benefits associated with it as well.
A solution like this I don't hate, because its not an excuse to increase the survivability of the summoner by increasing effective hp.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't lifelink, there is almost none of Lifelink's mechanics present; i'd 100% support bringing back lifelink and 2 separate HP pools though.Yeah the shared HP just don't make sense for the summoner.They literally had Lifelink for both versions in P1.No it's not Lifelink.
Saying the current shared HP doesn't sense when they had lifelink previously though in how similarly they function kills that argument.
It really doesn't, i completely understand Temperans' argument; they do not function similarly, the mechanics are not at all the same.
Lifelink is a consensual exchange that joined 2 separate HP pools and did not knock you (the summoner) out unconscious just because your Eidolon ate a fat crit.
That is what Temperans is saying and he's right to feel it doesn't make sense.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't lifelink, there is almost none of Lifelink's mechanics present; i'd 100% support bringing back lifelink and 2 separate HP pools though.Yeah the shared HP just don't make sense for the summoner.They literally had Lifelink for both versions in P1.No it's not Lifelink.
Saying the current shared HP doesn't sense when they had lifelink previously though in how similarly they function kills that argument.
It really doesn't, i completely understand Temperans' argument; they do not function similarly, the mechanics are not at all the same.
Lifelink is a consensual exchange that joined 2 separate HP pools and did not knock you (the summoner) out unconscious just because your Eidolon ate a fat crit.
That is what Temperans is saying and he's right to feel it doesn't make sense.
Its not literally the same.
Its thematically similar.
The argument that its not thematically similar isn't really sensible - the Summoner and Eidolons life forces are joined.
The mechanics have evolved in the new edition.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the mechanical differences are irrelevant to the question of whether a shared HP pool is on-theme for the summoner (and that was the question).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not the aesthetic of a summoner.Depends on the Summoner. Pathfinder's is not Final Fantasy's is not World of Warcraft's.
Whether card games, MMORPGs, video games, fiction, and the like, the aesthetic of a summoner was to summon powerful beings from other planes bound to you. Expendable, powerful, unquestioned servants that battle on your behalf.Again, depends on the Summoner and Media. That was an option for Summoner through their summon spells, but it certainly wasn't the aesthetic of the Eidolon.
They aren't connected to you in a way where it can kill you if they die. They are a separate being you can conjure again.Again, depends on the Summoner and media they're in, it's not universal.
It was that way all of PF1. It was the basis for the class. Now you're making this argument like you never evened played a PF1 summoner or any summoning class in any game other than perhaps Pokemon I guess?Not everyone played their Eidolons as mindless automatons that did whatever no matter the consequences to them. Actually having the Eidolons be characters and not mindless statblocks was fully supported in all versions of the Pathfinder Summoner, and other media as well.
I know what a summoner is. I have played them many times. I know what they are in fiction, MMORPGs, and the like. I gravitate towards them.The Summoner as you describe is not universal and the same across all media, you've played Summoners you've liked in different media, that's it.
When they made the summoner the first time in PF1, I was incredibly excited to finally play a formidable summoned creature like I always wanted to do in D&D. And it wasn't a shared health pool. That is something else.You had Lifelink, we now have a spiritual successor that functions similarly and in my opinion flows much better overall in feel.
I"m wondering if this comes from Pokemon rather than the traditional summoner type the PF1 summoner was built on.
Insulting people over what other media they like, cute. There's other types of Summoner than the one you're fixated on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds horrible honestly, and would be a nightmare to balance I'd wager.I'm not arguing that the summoner could/couldn't use a boost, but it seems many people are arguing that it should balance around martial characters (with a shared HP pool). I'm arguing that an eidolon balanced around martial characters with separate hit point pools would possibly overshadow the characters it shares a power level with. Sorry if that has been unclear.I personally want a strong Eidolon and a weak summoner that just stands around. Its what I played in 1e.not really.
A add a way to sacrifice spell slots to boost the summon. Along with the already existing cantrip to eat up your actions.
Something like.
Manifest Magic.
When you manifest your eidilon, you can expend a spell slot to give it temporary hit points equal to 1d6+4 times the slots level.And just let you use both boost and resilient cantrips.
A summoner spending their resources and actions to buff their Eidolon is a world's difference from "just stands around".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its not literally the same.
Its thematically similar.
The argument that its not thematically similar isn't really sensible - the Summoner and Eidolons life forces are joined.
The mechanics have evolved in the new edition.
The mechanics have devolved in a lot of our eyes, not in such a way that is a benefit to 2e or the class itself; that's pretty much what's directly led to playtest Summoner's survivability problem.
Again, Temperans' arguments are very valid, i don't see any reason to diminish them or to pretend that he's talking out of nowhere.Lifelink was a more elegant solution whereas the current shared HP feature is a step back.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanics and feelings do play into each other to an extent, and it kind of seems like it would have been more fun with Expert AC at Lv 1 (and maybe stat adjustments if necessary), a damage mechanic that's anything other than Boost/having more action economy freedom, and having other things to do in the class itself for the Summoner or the team as a whole. Those are pretty common sentiments, and I noticed the shared HP pool wasn't mentioned -- think it could work out without them being separated further, or was that subject just excluded from your writeup?My summoner feelings feedback from actual play.
...
i don't like shared hp, it doesnt feel good to play unless i pretend im a stand user from jojo bizarre adventure. at wich point im more of a psychic than a summoner.
but i have a larger issue with feeling generally both underwhelming, and action locked out of interesting choices to not be as underwhelming as i could be.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't lifelink, there is almost none of Lifelink's mechanics present; i'd 100% support bringing back lifelink and 2 separate HP pools though.Yeah the shared HP just don't make sense for the summoner.They literally had Lifelink for both versions in P1.No it's not Lifelink.
Saying the current shared HP doesn't sense when they had lifelink previously though in how similarly they function kills that argument.
It really doesn't, i completely understand Temperans' argument; they do not function similarly, the mechanics are not at all the same.
Lifelink is a consensual exchange that joined 2 separate HP pools and did not knock you (the summoner) out unconscious just because your Eidolon ate a fat crit.
That is what Temperans is saying and he's right to feel it doesn't make sense.Its not literally the same.
Its thematically similar.
The argument that its not thematically similar isn't really sensible - the Summoner and Eidolons life forces are joined.
The mechanics have evolved in the new edition.
the mechanics have not evolved, they have been changed for an attempt at a perceived balance point (contentious) and the fluff was added in to compensate that reality.
lets not pretty up what actually happened?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its not literally the same.
Its thematically similar.
The argument that its not thematically similar isn't really sensible - the Summoner and Eidolons life forces are joined.
The mechanics have evolved in the new edition.
The mechanics have devolved in a lot of our eyes, not in such a way that is a benefit to 2e or the class itself; that's pretty much what's directly led to playtest Summoner's survivability problem.
Again, Temperans' arguments are very valid, i don't see any reason to diminish them or to pretend that he's talking out of nowhere.
Lifelink was a more elegant solution whereas the current shared HP feature is a step back.
"I don't like shared HP/Lifelink was better" is a valid opinion.
"Shared HP doesn't make sense for Summoner and Eidolon" isn't.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't lifelink, there is almost none of Lifelink's mechanics present; i'd 100% support bringing back lifelink and 2 separate HP pools though.Yeah the shared HP just don't make sense for the summoner.They literally had Lifelink for both versions in P1.No it's not Lifelink.
Saying the current shared HP doesn't sense when they had lifelink previously though in how similarly they function kills that argument.
It really doesn't, i completely understand Temperans' argument; they do not function similarly, the mechanics are not at all the same.
Lifelink is a consensual exchange that joined 2 separate HP pools and did not knock you (the summoner) out unconscious just because your Eidolon ate a fat crit.
That is what Temperans is saying and he's right to feel it doesn't make sense.Its not literally the same.
Its thematically similar.
The argument that its not thematically similar isn't really sensible - the Summoner and Eidolons life forces are joined.
The mechanics have evolved in the new edition.
the mechanics have not evolved, they have been changed for an attempt at a perceived balance point (contentious) and the fluff was added in to compensate that reality.
lets not pretty up what actually happened?
Let's not go out of way to insult and demean and ascribe malicious motivations just because we don't like current implementation that other people like, shall we?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not literally the same.
Its thematically similar.
The argument that its not thematically similar isn't really sensible - the Summoner and Eidolons life forces are joined.
The mechanics have evolved in the new edition.
The mechanics have devolved in a lot of our eyes, not in such a way that is a benefit to 2e or the class itself; that's pretty much what's directly led to playtest Summoner's survivability problem.
Again, Temperans' arguments are very valid, i don't see any reason to diminish them or to pretend that he's talking out of nowhere.
Lifelink was a more elegant solution whereas the current shared HP feature is a step back."I don't like shared HP/Lifelink was better" is a valid opinion.
"Shared HP doesn't make sense for Summoner and Eidolon" isn't.
wait, did the summoner actually share hp in 1e?
|
|
wait, did the summoner actually share hp in 1e?Its not literally the same.
Its thematically similar.
The argument that its not thematically similar isn't really sensible - the Summoner and Eidolons life forces are joined.
The mechanics have evolved in the new edition.
The mechanics have devolved in a lot of our eyes, not in such a way that is a benefit to 2e or the class itself; that's pretty much what's directly led to playtest Summoner's survivability problem.
Again, Temperans' arguments are very valid, i don't see any reason to diminish them or to pretend that he's talking out of nowhere.
Lifelink was a more elegant solution whereas the current shared HP feature is a step back."I don't like shared HP/Lifelink was better" is a valid opinion.
"Shared HP doesn't make sense for Summoner and Eidolon" isn't.
Yes, through Lifelink.
Yes, through Lifelink.wait, did the summoner actually share hp in 1e?Its not literally the same.
Its thematically similar.
The argument that its not thematically similar isn't really sensible - the Summoner and Eidolons life forces are joined.
The mechanics have evolved in the new edition.
The mechanics have devolved in a lot of our eyes, not in such a way that is a benefit to 2e or the class itself; that's pretty much what's directly led to playtest Summoner's survivability problem.
Again, Temperans' arguments are very valid, i don't see any reason to diminish them or to pretend that he's talking out of nowhere.
Lifelink was a more elegant solution whereas the current shared HP feature is a step back."I don't like shared HP/Lifelink was better" is a valid opinion.
"Shared HP doesn't make sense for Summoner and Eidolon" isn't.
ok, i never played one in 1e, was it a baseline ability? required? or an optional choice? ill go look it up.
|
|
ok, i never played one in 1e, was it a baseline ability? required? or an optional choice? ill go look it up.Yes, through Lifelink.wait, did the summoner actually share hp in 1e?Its not literally the same.
Its thematically similar.
The argument that its not thematically similar isn't really sensible - the Summoner and Eidolons life forces are joined.
The mechanics have evolved in the new edition.
The mechanics have devolved in a lot of our eyes, not in such a way that is a benefit to 2e or the class itself; that's pretty much what's directly led to playtest Summoner's survivability problem.
Again, Temperans' arguments are very valid, i don't see any reason to diminish them or to pretend that he's talking out of nowhere.
Lifelink was a more elegant solution whereas the current shared HP feature is a step back."I don't like shared HP/Lifelink was better" is a valid opinion.
"Shared HP doesn't make sense for Summoner and Eidolon" isn't.
It was baseline.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Life Link (Su)
Starting at 1st level, a summoner forms a close bond with his eidolon. Whenever the eidolon takes enough damage to send it back to its home plane, the summoner can sacrifice any number of hit points. Each hit point sacrificed in this way prevents 1 point of damage done to the eidolon. This can prevent the eidolon from being sent back to its home plane.
In addition, the eidolon and the summoner must remain within 100 feet of one another for the eidolon to remain at full strength. If the eidolon is beyond 100 feet but closer than 1,000 feet, its current and maximum hit point totals are reduced by 50%. If the eidolon is more than 1,000 feet away but closer than 10,000 feet, its current and maximum hit point totals are reduced by 75%. If the eidolon is more than 10,000 feet away, it is immediately returned to its home plane. Current hit points lost in this way are not restored when the eidolon gets closer to its summoner, but its maximum hit point total does return to normal.
id like a version of this more. but thats me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly want to minimize the number of separate values I need to track.
I honestly really like that since healing PCs is so easy, you can heal the Eidolon who is over there by healing the PC who is over here.
And "the Eidolon getting reduced to 0 HP so it goes away until tomorrow" is not as good as "the Eidolon disappears and the Summoner faints, but can resummon the Eidolon once they're healed up."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly want to minimize the number of separate values I need to track.
I honestly really like that since healing PCs is so easy, you can heal the Eidolon who is over there by healing the PC who is over here.
And "the Eidolon getting reduced to 0 HP so it goes away until tomorrow" is not as good as "the Eidolon disappears and the Summoner faints, but can resummon the Eidolon once they're healed up."
I think a lot more people would be a lot more apt to the idea if the current Summoner survivability didn't feel so bad.
Right now it really sucks that you're the easiest person to knock out, thanks to your Eidolon, and i think a lot of people would like some alternative where if the Eidolon knocks out, you can still contribute in a combat encounter.An easy way to satisfy both parties would be to employ separate HP pools linked together via lifelink where if the Eidolon does knock out then the Summoner has the option to consensually give a portion of their HP to keep the Eidolon from knocking out or to let the Eidolon knock out but the Summoner still be able to contribute in the combat encounter.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its not literally the same.
Its thematically similar.
The argument that its not thematically similar isn't really sensible - the Summoner and Eidolons life forces are joined.
The mechanics have evolved in the new edition.
The mechanics have devolved in a lot of our eyes, not in such a way that is a benefit to 2e or the class itself; that's pretty much what's directly led to playtest Summoner's survivability problem.
Again, Temperans' arguments are very valid, i don't see any reason to diminish them or to pretend that he's talking out of nowhere.
Lifelink was a more elegant solution whereas the current shared HP feature is a step back."I don't like shared HP/Lifelink was better" is a valid opinion.
"Shared HP doesn't make sense for Summoner and Eidolon" isn't.
I'm not quite sure I follow the logic here. Why is one a valid opinion and the other isn't? Is it because it wasn't told from their perspective, or is it because you disagree that vehemently about the statement that you discount it via personal bias?
I'm not quite sure I follow the logic here. Why is one a valid opinion and the other isn't? Is it because it wasn't told from their perspective, or is it because you disagree that vehemently about the statement that you discount it via personal bias?Its not literally the same.
Its thematically similar.
The argument that its not thematically similar isn't really sensible - the Summoner and Eidolons life forces are joined.
The mechanics have evolved in the new edition.
The mechanics have devolved in a lot of our eyes, not in such a way that is a benefit to 2e or the class itself; that's pretty much what's directly led to playtest Summoner's survivability problem.
Again, Temperans' arguments are very valid, i don't see any reason to diminish them or to pretend that he's talking out of nowhere.
Lifelink was a more elegant solution whereas the current shared HP feature is a step back."I don't like shared HP/Lifelink was better" is a valid opinion.
"Shared HP doesn't make sense for Summoner and Eidolon" isn't.
im sure nobody has any biases at all in here.