What if we kept the shared health pool, but we gave the Summoner a defensive reaction to "the Eidolon would take damage" that completely negates that damage at the cost of unsummoning the Eidolon and being unable to resummon it without taking a 10 minute rest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo is also free to change/alter/retcon anything they wish to in terms of Summoner lore/iconics or whatever else.
It is their game and they can do as they wish. If that means it conflicts with your idea of what a summoner is, that sucks, but it is their game and if they decide something is the new lore paradigm, then it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Easiest person to knock out other than all the casters with fewer hitpoints and no alternate higher defense body in harms way, you mean.
Easiest person to knock out unless you're one of the three spellcasting disciplines with access to potent healing, you mean.
Easiest person to knock out unless you've got access to powerful defensive spells like invisibility or mirror image, you mean.
Seriously, every single summoner has highly potent defensive options available and actions to utilize them.
Summoners aren't squishy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if we kept the shared health pool, but we gave the Summoner a defensive reaction to "the Eidolon would take damage" that completely negates that damage at the cost of unsummoning the Eidolon and being unable to resummon it without taking a 10 minute rest.
i think where you lost most of them is at (kept the shared health pool)
|
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.
Saying shared HP, the spiritual successor to Lifelink doesn't make sense because of the connection between Eidolon and Summoner "isn't that strong" but you were fine with Lifelink? Yeah that doesn't make much sense to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Easiest person to knock out other than all the casters with fewer hitpoints and no alternate higher defense body in harms way, you mean.
Easiest person to knock out unless you're one of the three spellcasting disciplines with access to potent healing, you mean.
Easiest person to knock out unless you've got access to powerful defensive spells like invisibility or mirror image, you mean.
Seriously, every single summoner has highly potent defensive options available and actions to utilize them.
Summoners aren't squishy.
if you are less likely to be knocked out because you are seen as not worth the time, it probably means you are not worth playing relative to ..well..any other character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where have they said they retconned him? Picking a new iconic doesn't mean it is retconned and he ceases to exist.Paizo is also free to change/alter/retcon anything they wish to in terms of Summoner lore/iconics or whatever else.
It is their game and they can do as they wish. If that means it conflicts with your idea of what a summoner is, that sucks, but it is their game and if they decide something is the new lore paradigm, then it is.
I didn't claim they did anything - I'm simply stating they are free to do so, if they wish, in order to better fulfill their vision of the summoner in 2E.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right here.
https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Summoner
You can't just ignore the history in the game out of convenience.
The only thing I see that might contradict is fleshwarping reasearch and this might be a signal that there retconing and it wouldn't be there first lore to get changes either. So the general lore I got from the wiki this seem to be in line with. If you think differently please point out specifically.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right here.
https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Summoner
You can't just ignore the history in the game out of convenience.
I'm not ignoring anything. They aren't the Iconics anymore, and got retconned to be different in P1 with Unchained, and got retconned again with the new rules. Build-a-bear from anywhere out of left field isn't a thing anymore.
APG was a world neutral book, aside from the Iconic's backstory was this version of the Summoner and Eidolon referenced anywhere else in books? No it wasn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More than the wizard? Give the summoner more defenses (light armor probably) if it feels to flimsy, and expert in unarmored at level one is almost universally clammed as needed for the eidolon, but after level 3 it's not that bad. Look at the problem, and find solutions, don't just find a solution and ignore the rest.
Yes; the Summoner is more vulnerable than a Wizard, especially in later levels.
Ya know it really is strange to see how for 8 levels the Eidolon has the exact same AC as a Wizard and that it gets Expert at lv.3.
It almost seems like nothing just to let it start in Expert, i will say that the Eidolon being restricted to unarmored does hurt it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if you are less likely to be knocked out because you are seen as not worth the time, it probably means you are not worth playing relative to ..well..any other character.
Yeah, that comment is pure drama.
As a class, every single Summoner has access to potent defensive or survival/healing magic.
If you're worried about drawing attention, pack defensive options.
A powerful heal that counters a turn of incoming attacks is essentially Stunned 3, with no save.
Invisibility renders you undetected, or at the very leasts gives you a 50% miss chance - also, scrolls of it become dirt cheap at various points of game progression.
Its not going to be hard to stay conscious as a Summoner.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
if you are less likely to be knocked out because you are seen as not worth the time, it probably means you are not worth playing relative to ..well..any other character.
Yeah, that comment is pure drama.
As a class, every single Summoner has access to potent defensive or survival/healing magic.
If you're worried about drawing attention, pack defensive options.
A powerful heal that counters a turn of incoming attacks is essentially Stunned 3, with no save.
Invisibility renders you undetected, or at the very leasts gives you a 50% miss chance - also, scrolls of it become dirt cheap at various points of game progression.
Its not going to be hard to stay conscious as a Summoner.
thats just it im not worried of drawing attention so much as im worried about being useful.
from my playtesting, i havent been useful, ive been a token experience.
|
|
I didn't claim they did anything - I'm simply stating they are free to do so, if they wish, in order to better fulfill their vision of the summoner in 2E.Where have they said they retconned him? Picking a new iconic doesn't mean it is retconned and he ceases to exist.Paizo is also free to change/alter/retcon anything they wish to in terms of Summoner lore/iconics or whatever else.
It is their game and they can do as they wish. If that means it conflicts with your idea of what a summoner is, that sucks, but it is their game and if they decide something is the new lore paradigm, then it is.
Here's the thing though. THAT is an assumption. Rysky said specifically nothing in the history of PF leads us to having an Eidolon that resembles the FF summons. That's just strictly not true. I point it out and you are talking about, "Well, what if they retconned him"
That's blatantly switching the goal posts.
Rysky said it wasn't part of the history. I proved him wrong. He is part of the history.
Switching the goal posts to be, "Well, what if they retconned it" isn't being an honest player. Of course if they RETCONNED, he'd cease to exist. Sure. But until they do, my point still stands. He IS part of the history of Golarion.
Where else aside from the backstory of the Iconic who aren't Iconics anymore is this lore brought up?
It's not. The build-a-bear-pick-a-point Eidolon was something Paizo regretted so they retconned the class itself with Unchained, every mechanical thing after referenced Unchained, not APG.
Trying to hold up the backstory of a class that the creators view as a mistake in how they implemented and didn't reference it elsewhere cause they retconned the mechanics and then later replaced said Iconics isn't a rock solid argument.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying shared HP, the spiritual successor to Lifelink doesn't make sense because of the connection between Eidolon and Summoner "isn't that strong" but you were fine with Lifelink? Yeah that doesn't make much sense to me.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.
I'd say it's still valid because it's not the same thing, both mechanically and historically, which is precisely why they are arguing against the new mechanic and using the old mechanic as a reference to what they would prefer.
In PF1, Eidolons that were struck from being summoned (AKA "killed") doesn't mean the Summoner likewise died, which is what the PF2 mechanic does currently (Eidolon goes splat means Summoner goes splat). While you can argue "Well, a dead Summoner means an Eidolon fades out of existence," that's still true in PF2 if the Summoner, a separate entity from the Eidolon, dies, and can no longer maintain the Eidolon's connection to the Material Plane. The inverse of that (A dead Eidolon is a dead Summoner) was not true in PF1, and now the mechanics have drastically changed to where that is now in place.
Also consider the ramifications of this major problem in combat. In PF2, effects which affect the Eidolon affect you, and vice-versa, and they stack. So if both you and the Eidolon are in a Fireball spell, as an example, that means you take twice the damage, full stop (unless you both critically succeed, which is highly unlikely unless you have taken a liking to the gods). Eidolon gets Enfeebled 1, Drained 1, etc., so do you.
None of those shenanigans took place whatsoever in PF1. What affected the Eidolon affected the Eidolon, what affected you affected you, and so on. This crazy super uber Shield Other tether that's unbreakable and even worse than any Oracle curse in existence is not worth it for what you get in return that can be easily replaced with other entities (like summoned monsters, animal companions, even familiars aren't this stingy).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easiest person to knock out other than all the casters with fewer hitpoints and no alternate higher defense body in harms way, you mean.
Easiest person to knock out unless you're one of the three spellcasting disciplines with access to potent healing, you mean.
Easiest person to knock out unless you've got access to powerful defensive spells like invisibility or mirror image, you mean.
Seriously, every single summoner has highly potent defensive options available and actions to utilize them.
Summoners aren't squishy.
No.
I mean easiest person to knock out.I mean easiest person to knock out because i don't have the kind of expendable slots to be popping off heals or defense spells so often.
I mean the easiest person to knock out because i am much more likely to be hit than any other class, thus taking more damage.
I mean the easiest person to knock out because i roll disadvantage in a large portion of encounters.
I mean the easiest person to knock out because i'm sharing an HP pool with two separate targets that both will drain that 1 resource.
I mean the easiest person to knock out because the Eidolon has the same AC as a myself or a Wizard for 8 levels and restricted to unarmored.
Summoners have a survivability problem.
It's of the opinion of many of us that it is not fun or satisfying in it's current incarnation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
thats just it im not worried of drawing attention so much as im worried about being useful.
from my playtesting, i havent been useful, ive been a token experience.
Seeing as how my Summoner is both the party healer, and technically the toughest character in the party, I have no worries about finding a niche in my party as the healer/damage sponge. My damage will be respectable, if not party dominating, as well.
Have you looked at your party, and determined what niche needs filled?
Because Summoner has a lot of tools for doing so, but its going to help you a LOT if you actually are needed to cover something and build to accommodate that.
If you just set out to do whatever without regard for whether that fits well... you're going to have a bad time, regardless of class.
|
|
Right here.
https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Summoner
You can't just ignore the history in the game out of convenience.
I'm not ignoring anything. They aren't the Iconics anymore, and got retconned to be different in P1 with Unchained, and got retconned again with the new rules. Build-a-bear from anywhere out of left field isn't a thing anymore.
APG was a world neutral book, aside from the Iconic's backstory was this version of the Summoner and Eidolon referenced anywhere else in books? No it wasn't.
So aside from all the backstory of the Eidolon and the iconic, if you ignore every place he's mentioned then no. None of the books mentioned the Iconic.
-_-
Just like the same can be said for literally every iconic.
The Backstory of the FORMER Iconics is all you have.
But the books mentioned Barbarians and Wizards and Rogues and the like, you know what they don't mention? Build-a-bear Eidolons that can be absolutely anything their Summoner wanted and came completely out of left field.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
thats just it im not worried of drawing attention so much as im worried about being useful.
from my playtesting, i havent been useful, ive been a token experience.
Seeing as how my Summoner is both the party healer, and technically the toughest character in the party, I have no worries about finding a niche in my party as the healer/damage sponge. My damage will be respectable, if not party dominating, as well.
Have you looked at your party, and determined what niche needs filled?
Because Summoner has a lot of tools for doing so, but its going to help you a LOT if you actually are needed to cover something and build to accommodate that.
If you just set out to do whatever without regard for whether that fits well... you're going to have a bad time, regardless of class.
how do you sponge damage with no way to draw attention outside of swinging the eidolon's puny arms? but as i said, you found a fun little niche with the 2 body gimmick, thats all.
and teamwork is not the same as solo performance, the animal barbarian performed well, the mastermind rogue performed better than expected, the wizard had his moments, the summoner was filler and would have been better suited to any other character, this was my parties impression as well.
|
|
Saying shared HP, the spiritual successor to Lifelink doesn't make sense because of the connection between Eidolon and Summoner "isn't that strong" but you were fine with Lifelink? Yeah that doesn't make much sense to me.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.
I'd say it's still valid because it's not the same thing, both mechanically and historically, which is precisely why they are arguing against the new mechanic and using the old mechanic as a reference to what they would prefer.
In PF1, Eidolons that were struck from being summoned (AKA "killed") doesn't mean the Summoner likewise died, which is what the PF2 mechanic does currently (Eidolon goes splat means Summoner goes splat). While you can argue "Well, a dead Summoner means an Eidolon fades out of existence," that's still true in PF2 if the Summoner, a separate entity from the Eidolon, dies, and can no longer...
No, their argument was that the "shared HP" doesn't make sense and should be used on a different class, despite Lifelink literally being thematically the same in P1 for Summoner and Eidolon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I see that might contradict is fleshwarping reasearch and this might be a signal that there retconing and it wouldn't be there first lore to get changes either. So the general lore I got from the wiki this seem to be in line with. If you think differently please point out specifically.Right here.
https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Summoner
You can't just ignore the history in the game out of convenience.
Retconning 'one' aspect of summoner lore does not retcon 'all' aspects of summoner lore.
Any word on why they retconned fleshwarping research?
I said might as I don't know.
"While many who dabble in the arcane become adept at beckoning monsters from the farthest reaches of the planes, none are more skilled at it than the summoner. This practitioner of the arcane arts forms a close bond with one particular outsider, known as an eidolon, who gains power as the summoner becomes more proficient at his summoning. Over time, the two become linked, eventually even sharing a shard of the same soul. But this power does not come without a price: the summoner's spells and powers are limited due to his time spent enhancing the power and exploring the nature of his eidolon."
This is the main description from the wiki page you shared. What lore can we get form this and how does it relate to the 2e Summoner.
Summoner is the best at summoning- With in the playtest summon animal is part of the divine and with some summon specific feat I think it reasonable to expect using summon spell will be a feature in how it design. Plus the fact the eildolon is more powerful then any other summon creature this is true for the 2e summoner.
A close bond with one particular outsider, known as an eidolon- only the beast does not seem the fit that deception since it comes form the material plane but is still very mystical, and with what they other most of them will be outsiders and so I think 2e summon fits this very well.
Gains power as the summoner becomes more proficient at his summoning-easy this come naturally as we lvl up.
The two become linked, eventually even sharing a shard of the same soul- sharing of hp, action, skill, telepathic communication, etc.
Yea nothing seem to really contradict.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not the only one who wants a build-a-bear. A ton of people want that option.
What constitutes a 'ton' in your anecdote? Because I doubt this forum is actually at all a good idea of the total number of people who actually play the game.
We're a minority.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that's where the agree to disagree begins. Life Link was a choice to sacrifice personal life force to have the Eidolon maintain its connection to the Material Plane. The Summoner was not bound to do so whatsoever other than because they wanted to (or were dominated to for some reason, who knows, but beside the point).
Compare that to "You share the same HP, and anything that affects one affects the other, which stacks," and you are talking about a completely different mechanic that does not even closely match the intent or capability of Life Link in PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not the only one who wants a build-a-bear. A ton of people want that option.
Yes the build-a-bear option was lots of fun, but it also completely overshadowed every martial in the game. The P1 summoner was massively overpowered and the most banned class in the game after the Gunslinger (which was more for fantasy reasons than necessarily balance ones).
It was so bad that they published a reworked second version just to reduce it's powergaming potential. In any version P2 summoner was going to be MUCH weaker than P1.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not the only one who wants a build-a-bear. A ton of people want that option.Yes the build-a-bear option was lots of fun, but it also completely overshadowed every martial in the game. The P1 summoner was massively overpowered and the most banned class in the game after the Gunslinger (which was more for fantasy reasons than necessarily balance ones).
It was so bad that they published a reworked second version just to reduce it's powergaming potential. In any version P2 summoner was going to be MUCH weaker than P1.
Because wanting a "build-your-own" option automatically makes it broken and unfun, even if it can be balanced, as the Unchained Summoner has gone on to prove?
What if we kept the shared health pool, but we gave the Summoner a defensive reaction to "the Eidolon would take damage" that completely negates that damage at the cost of unsummoning the Eidolon and being unable to resummon it without taking a 10 minute rest.
Yea, i suggested similar as a focus spell.
Quick Unsummon. Free action. Focus 1
Trigger: Your Eidilon is about to take damage.
You unsummon your Eidilon. You take not damage.
Because wanting a "build-your-own" option automatically makes it broken and unfun, even if it can be balanced, as the Unchained Summoner has gone on to prove?I am not the only one who wants a build-a-bear. A ton of people want that option.Yes the build-a-bear option was lots of fun, but it also completely overshadowed every martial in the game. The P1 summoner was massively overpowered and the most banned class in the game after the Gunslinger (which was more for fantasy reasons than necessarily balance ones).
It was so bad that they published a reworked second version just to reduce it's powergaming potential. In any version P2 summoner was going to be MUCH weaker than P1.
i dont expect everyone to be happy either way
but new system, if it wasnt a new system id agree with you.
|
|
And that's where the agree to disagree begins. Life Link was a choice to sacrifice personal life force to have the Eidolon maintain its connection to the Material Plane. The Summoner was not bound to do so whatsoever other than because they wanted to (or were dominated to for some reason, who knows, but beside the point).
Compare that to "You share the same HP, and anything that affects one affects the other, which stacks," and you are talking about a completely different mechanic that does not even closely match the intent or capability of Life Link in PF1.
Again, saying you liked Lifelink more is valid.
Saying being able to share HP doesn't make sense but you were fine with Lifelink is not, it's hypocritical.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont mind being slightly underpowered if I have customization. Again. Tuning different from the system. It is very possible to play build-a-bear without overshadowing anyone.I am not the only one who wants a build-a-bear. A ton of people want that option.Yes the build-a-bear option was lots of fun, but it also completely overshadowed every martial in the game. The P1 summoner was massively overpowered and the most banned class in the game after the Gunslinger (which was more for fantasy reasons than necessarily balance ones).
It was so bad that they published a reworked second version just to reduce it's powergaming potential. In any version P2 summoner was going to be MUCH weaker than P1.
You do not tune in a vacuum. You tune in the system, you don't do it absentia and then toss it in after (that's probably how we ended up with APG Summoner in the first place).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that's where the agree to disagree begins. Life Link was a choice to sacrifice personal life force to have the Eidolon maintain its connection to the Material Plane. The Summoner was not bound to do so whatsoever other than because they wanted to (or were dominated to for some reason, who knows, but beside the point).
Compare that to "You share the same HP, and anything that affects one affects the other, which stacks," and you are talking about a completely different mechanic that does not even closely match the intent or capability of Life Link in PF1.
Again, saying you liked Lifelink more is valid.
Saying being able to share HP doesn't make sense but you were fine with Lifelink is not, it's hypocritical.
It's hardly hypocritical, any more than saying you like the Shield Cantrip, but not like wielding a Sturdy Shield.
You can have all kinds of different reasons to dislike things that have differences, such as not requiring a free hand (or speaking), liking the automatic scaling hardness that doesn't eat into your WBL, being straight-jacketed into one shield type and nothing else because they break too damn easy, and so on.
We're taking something too much at face value and not taking into account the significant differences they possess, and the ramifications and consequences behind those differences. You want shared HP? Fine. Now you're being nuked twice by the same higher-level Fireball. I really doubt players find that to be a fun or enjoyable mechanic unless they are on the dealing end of that exchange.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the build-a-bear option was lots of fun, but it also completely overshadowed every martial in the game. The P1 summoner was massively overpowered and the most banned class in the game after the Gunslinger (which was more for fantasy reasons than necessarily balance ones).
It was so bad that they published a reworked second version just to reduce it's powergaming potential. In any version P2 summoner was going to be MUCH weaker than P1.
Spellcasters over-shadowed every martial, that was a problem of the system; not Summoner.
Summoner was not banned because it was over-powered, it wasn't Wizard levels of powerful, it was banned because it was annoying to have to keep track of all the minionmancy, the spell list was insane, and Eidolons that were just "ball of death with 11 arms" were unimaginative.
The Unchained Summoner did almost nothing to reduce how powerful Eidolons were, if anything it actually gave you more to work with because the subtypes were so front-loaded that it effectively increased the number of evolutions you were able to receive, even with the smaller pool of evolution points.
Most of the Unchained Summoner changes came in the form of nerfing the spell list which was the real culprit. Haste at 2nd level was uber good. Just slap that s$#* on a wand, and you're good to go lmao
But no, what made Summoner "broken" or "OP" was not the evolution system and not the Build-A-Bear feature that was core to the what made the overwhelming majority of people who played Summoner love the Summoner class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that's where the agree to disagree begins. Life Link was a choice to sacrifice personal life force to have the Eidolon maintain its connection to the Material Plane. The Summoner was not bound to do so whatsoever other than because they wanted to (or were dominated to for some reason, who knows, but beside the point).
Compare that to "You share the same HP, and anything that affects one affects the other, which stacks," and you are talking about a completely different mechanic that does not even closely match the intent or capability of Life Link in PF1.
Again, saying you liked Lifelink more is valid.
Saying being able to share HP doesn't make sense but you were fine with Lifelink is not, it's hypocritical.
It's hardly hypocritical, any more than saying you like the Shield Cantrip, but not like wielding a Sturdy Shield.
You can have all kinds of different reasons to dislike things that have differences, such as not requiring a free hand (or speaking), liking the automatic scaling hardness that doesn't eat into your WBL, being straight-jacketed into one shield type and nothing else because they break too damn easy, and so on.
We're taking something too much at face value and not taking into account the significant differences they possess, and the ramifications and consequences behind those differences. You want shared HP? Fine. Now you're being nuked twice by the same higher-level Fireball. I really doubt players find that to be a fun or enjoyable mechanic unless they are on the dealing end of that exchange.
You don't get nuked twice you get once just like everyone else because you take the worse result and there is 10th lvl feat that makes you take the better.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few of the problems brought up with "build-a-bear" style of eidolons.
1. Objectively Correct Choice: This is the first major hurdle that even feats have to jump in order to fit into the game. If you're presented with two options and one is simply better, it really isn't a choice. "Fly speed or burrow speed?" Well, flying is going to get you a lot farther. "Fire resistance or cold resistance?" Mathematically, you're much more likely to need the fire resistance.
When a player shows up to a game and is told, "Oh, you shouldn't have taken X feat because it's not as good as X feat," it feels bad. When a community decides that the "meta" way to create your eidolon, it takes away the point of customization that you went for.
2. Just A Reskin: If I want to summon and angel, I'd like it to be an angel with the powers that come with it. I don't want to grab wings now, a handful of divine spells later, and an aura of good when I can afford it. I'm looking over at Timmy and his eidolon is wrecking shop with 8 arms. Oh, he's called it an angel, so I guess that's okay.
The playtest version is currently very tied into the eidolon chassis. If you want to summon a dragon, you summon a dragon. You get what you want right out of the box. Now, I'll admit that the problem you run into is if you don't want to summon a X type of creature. What if you just want a mass of eyes and arms that hurls itself at enemies? I think that's a fair point.
3. Spell Lists And What Your Summoner Does: Currently the spell tradition is tied to your eidolon, which feels elegant to me. Removing that does mean that you have "Blank Template Eidolon" and the summoner who... is there. I suppose they've got Focus Spells and they will be using most of their turn running and repositioning the eidolon. Given the design of 2e, what does the summoner do anymore?
Giving the eidolon more focus, I think, is a fun idea, but maybe not one that allows for the summoner to be "the character" more than it currently does now. Allow both the eidolon and the summoner to define each other establishes more identity in play as well as theme.
4. Second Edition's Clean, Friendly Design: So we've got feats for the summoner and, what is essentially, feats for the eidolon. It's a lot of word count and while it's not as massive as spell lists (as I've seen someone mention), it's also wholly a product for the summoner to make use of. While summoner currently offers more complexity to a new player, I would argue that having another creature to design alongside your summoner does add a level of complexity that the design team seems to be avoiding for the sake of accessibility.
I want to quickly add that "complexity" is a touchy subject for so many people, who have tied complexity to depth. Or complexity to interesting. Increasing the number of interlocking systems doesn't necessarily make for a more interesting game.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that's where the agree to disagree begins. Life Link was a choice to sacrifice personal life force to have the Eidolon maintain its connection to the Material Plane. The Summoner was not bound to do so whatsoever other than because they wanted to (or were dominated to for some reason, who knows, but beside the point).
Compare that to "You share the same HP, and anything that affects one affects the other, which stacks," and you are talking about a completely different mechanic that does not even closely match the intent or capability of Life Link in PF1.
Again, saying you liked Lifelink more is valid.
Saying being able to share HP doesn't make sense but you were fine with Lifelink is not, it's hypocritical.
It's hardly hypocritical, any more than saying you like the Shield Cantrip, but not like wielding a Sturdy Shield.
You can have all kinds of different reasons to dislike things that have differences, such as not requiring a free hand (or speaking), liking the automatic scaling hardness that doesn't eat into your WBL, being straight-jacketed into one shield type and nothing else because they break too damn easy, and so on.
We're taking something too much at face value and not taking into account the significant differences they possess, and the ramifications and consequences behind those differences. You want shared HP? Fine. Now you're being nuked twice by the same higher-level Fireball. I really doubt players find that to be a fun or enjoyable mechanic unless they are on the dealing end of that exchange.
There's a difference between saying "I don't like shareable HP" and saying "shareable HP doesn't make sense for Eidolon and Summoner to have".
|
|
I'm not sure how many times I must repeat myself, but having customization does not automatically equal broken. Having a bunch of side grade choices to choose from does not equate to vertical power upgrades.You do not tune in a vacuum. You tune in the system, you don't do it absentia and then toss it in after (that's probably how we ended up with APG Summoner in the first place).I dont mind being slightly underpowered if I have customization. Again. Tuning different from the system. It is very possible to play build-a-bear without overshadowing anyone.I am not the only one who wants a build-a-bear. A ton of people want that option.Yes the build-a-bear option was lots of fun, but it also completely overshadowed every martial in the game. The P1 summoner was massively overpowered and the most banned class in the game after the Gunslinger (which was more for fantasy reasons than necessarily balance ones).
It was so bad that they published a reworked second version just to reduce it's powergaming potential. In any version P2 summoner was going to be MUCH weaker than P1.
As many times as you want, it don't make it true.
Just because out of the options presented YOU didn't pick a broken path this time does not mean they don't exist, which was the issue with both of the Eidolons in P1.
(also I was responding to the false "Tuning different from the system." phrase you're caught up on)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But no, what made Summoner "broken" or "OP" was not the evolution system and not the Build-A-Bear feature that was core to the what made the overwhelming majority of people who played Summoner love the Summoner class.
Yep. The PF1 Summoners were a problem because of
a) complexity - seriously wierd healing rules. Not just keeping track of the HP of a separate character. You had to have special healing spells and the synthesis was different again.b) action economy
c) spamming minions.
d) fresh set of feats for the Eidolon
e) some specifc power options. These being uber spells like early haste, dynamically getting any feat in the game, pounce, supercharged size rules.
That is not because of flexibility or the evolution system in general.
The playtest Summoner has responded with
a) a different but still IMHO complex hitpoint system for the Summoner.
b) fixed, or at least balanced the action economy.
c) the minions problem is solved by the limitation of having to sustain spells.
d) denied the Eidolon the option of using Ancestry/General/Skill feats
e) removed the power options which is good. Everything is a bit generic.
Its a playtest so I expect to see only limited options. That will change. I do want to see a way to get one or two feats onto the Eidolon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if we kept the shared health pool, but we gave the Summoner a defensive reaction to "the Eidolon would take damage" that completely negates that damage at the cost of unsummoning the Eidolon and being unable to resummon it without taking a 10 minute rest.Yea, i suggested similar as a focus spell.
Quick Unsummon. Free action. Focus 1
Trigger: Your Eidilon is about to take damage.
You unsummon your Eidilon. You take not damage.
I think something like this basically solves the problem since HP damage is kind of irrelevant until you hit 0 or you're about to hit 0 and want to avoid that very much, since healing out of combat is so easy.
So if your Eidolon starts the turn in the danger zone you know to do something about that. But if you get hit by an unlucky crit, you can avoid it.
|
|
What if we kept the shared health pool, but we gave the Summoner a defensive reaction to "the Eidolon would take damage" that completely negates that damage at the cost of unsummoning the Eidolon and being unable to resummon it without taking a 10 minute rest.Yea, i suggested similar as a focus spell.
Quick Unsummon. Free action. Focus 1
Trigger: Your Eidilon is about to take damage.
You unsummon your Eidilon. You take not damage.I think something like this basically solves the problem since HP damage is kind of irrelevant until you hit 0 or you're about to hit 0 and want to avoid that very much, since healing out of combat is so easy.
So if your Eidolon starts the turn in the danger zone you know to do something about that. But if you get hit by an unlucky crit, you can avoid it.
Or a Rider effect or Reaction? Summoner/Eidolon take a "fatal" hit? EXPLOSION!
Or maybe a "Diehard" for Eidolons so they can stay around for a round or two after the Summoner has exhausted themselves?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between saying "I don't like shareable HP" and saying "shareable HP doesn't make sense for Eidolon and Summoner to have".And that's where the agree to disagree begins. Life Link was a choice to sacrifice personal life force to have the Eidolon maintain its connection to the Material Plane. The Summoner was not bound to do so whatsoever other than because they wanted to (or were dominated to for some reason, who knows, but beside the point).
Compare that to "You share the same HP, and anything that affects one affects the other, which stacks," and you are talking about a completely different mechanic that does not even closely match the intent or capability of Life Link in PF1.
Again, saying you liked Lifelink more is valid.
Saying being able to share HP doesn't make sense but you were fine with Lifelink is not, it's hypocritical.
It's hardly hypocritical, any more than saying you like the Shield Cantrip, but not like wielding a Sturdy Shield.
You can have all kinds of different reasons to dislike things that have differences, such as not requiring a free hand (or speaking), liking the automatic scaling hardness that doesn't eat into your WBL, being straight-jacketed into one shield type and nothing else because they break too damn easy, and so on.
We're taking something too much at face value and not taking into account the significant differences they possess, and the ramifications and consequences behind those differences. You want shared HP? Fine. Now you're being nuked twice by the same higher-level Fireball. I really doubt players find that to be a fun or enjoyable mechanic unless they are on the dealing end of that exchange.
Clearly, there is a difference. But the two also aren't mutually exclusive. You can not like shareable HP and also believe that it doesn't make sense for those two to have it.
In fact, "I don't like shareable HP" can be (and I suspect it is) directly behind the thought process of "shareable HP doesn't make sense for Eidolon and Summoner to have." Especially if it's at this level where you can't turn it off and you are involuntarily weaker as a result of not being able to choose to divert HP from yourself to the Eidolon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't get nuked twice you get once just like everyone else because you take the worse result and there is 10th lvl feat that makes you take the better.And that's where the agree to disagree begins. Life Link was a choice to sacrifice personal life force to have the Eidolon maintain its connection to the Material Plane. The Summoner was not bound to do so whatsoever other than because they wanted to (or were dominated to for some reason, who knows, but beside the point).
Compare that to "You share the same HP, and anything that affects one affects the other, which stacks," and you are talking about a completely different mechanic that does not even closely match the intent or capability of Life Link in PF1.
Again, saying you liked Lifelink more is valid.
Saying being able to share HP doesn't make sense but you were fine with Lifelink is not, it's hypocritical.
It's hardly hypocritical, any more than saying you like the Shield Cantrip, but not like wielding a Sturdy Shield.
You can have all kinds of different reasons to dislike things that have differences, such as not requiring a free hand (or speaking), liking the automatic scaling hardness that doesn't eat into your WBL, being straight-jacketed into one shield type and nothing else because they break too damn easy, and so on.
We're taking something too much at face value and not taking into account the significant differences they possess, and the ramifications and consequences behind those differences. You want shared HP? Fine. Now you're being nuked twice by the same higher-level Fireball. I really doubt players find that to be a fun or enjoyable mechanic unless they are on the dealing end of that exchange.
Okay, so it's not unlike playing a game of Chess, except instead of having a King and a Queen, you now have 2 Kings. It's objectively twice as easy to Checkmate you, and your offense is quite limited compared to the opposition as you lack your most powerful asset.
Outside of the "challenging achievement" factor behind this, I don't see the fun in it. Maybe that's all the draw there is, and much like the PF1 Summoner, the PF2 Summoner may not be for me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between saying "I don't like shareable HP" and saying "shareable HP doesn't make sense for Eidolon and Summoner to have".And that's where the agree to disagree begins. Life Link was a choice to sacrifice personal life force to have the Eidolon maintain its connection to the Material Plane. The Summoner was not bound to do so whatsoever other than because they wanted to (or were dominated to for some reason, who knows, but beside the point).
Compare that to "You share the same HP, and anything that affects one affects the other, which stacks," and you are talking about a completely different mechanic that does not even closely match the intent or capability of Life Link in PF1.
Again, saying you liked Lifelink more is valid.
Saying being able to share HP doesn't make sense but you were fine with Lifelink is not, it's hypocritical.
It's hardly hypocritical, any more than saying you like the Shield Cantrip, but not like wielding a Sturdy Shield.
You can have all kinds of different reasons to dislike things that have differences, such as not requiring a free hand (or speaking), liking the automatic scaling hardness that doesn't eat into your WBL, being straight-jacketed into one shield type and nothing else because they break too damn easy, and so on.
We're taking something too much at face value and not taking into account the significant differences they possess, and the ramifications and consequences behind those differences. You want shared HP? Fine. Now you're being nuked twice by the same higher-level Fireball. I really doubt players find that to be a fun or enjoyable mechanic unless they are on the dealing end of that exchange.
Clearly, there is a difference. But the two also aren't mutually exclusive. You can not like shareable HP and also believe that it doesn't make sense for those two to have it.
In fact, "I don't...
And that's fine, the issue is where they have no issue with Lifelink in addition to that.
"I don't think sharing HP with your Eidolon makes sense, why can't they use the old version where you shared HP with your Eidolon?"
For bonus points I went an reread and the new version is called Life Link as well.