Why the separate hit point pool is important


Summoner Class

1 to 50 of 746 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

15 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been thinking about why this is important as a player of many summoners. Why am I so attached to a separate hit point pool as a summoner? I'm going to explain my conclusions:

1. Doesn't feel like a separate creature with shared hit point pool: A shared hit point pool makes the eidolon and summoner feel like a single creature. You don't feel like you're summoning a unique and powerful creature from another plane.

This makes it so the class called summoner doesn't actually summon a creature. An animal companion has a separate hit point pool and feels like a unique creature. A summoned monster from a spell feels like a summoned creature as it is truly a separate creature with its own stats and abilities it uses at your command.

The eidolon in its current state feels like a fancy weapon you control from afar that is a manifestation of your will and not a summoned creature.

Suffice it to say you aren't really summoning given how it works right now. You're manifesting a creature of your will. That is not the summoner class. Not sure why Paizo would call it a summoner if you're not actually summoning a creature from another plane.

2. Can't sacrifice itself for the summoner or shield it from damage: A big reason you summon creatures is to have them take the hits for you. The PF1 eidolon was a creature the summoner bound and sent into battle that was expendable and could take the hits in battle against his enemies.

One of the key conceptual abilities of a summoner is summoning a powerful creature that acts at your command in battle. Though an eidolon isn't as expendable as a summon spell creature, you should be able to order it to stand and die if necessary without killing yourself doing so.

The shared hit point pool works great for the synthesist as he is summoning a creature around him. The synthestis truly is bound to the creature he summons.

But it does not work well for a true summoner who wants to feel like he is summoning a distinctly separate creature he can do what he wants with up to and including ordering it to sacrifice itself to help his party or while he runs from battle.

It's hard to call a class a summoner when the thing he "summons" is not a distinctly separate summoned creature. I feel a combined hit point pull is not conceptually fitting for a class called the summoner.

I feel the Paizo developers should think hard about what summoning means and what a summoned creature is supposed to be like. They have captured what a summoned creature is with summon monster spells. I would hope they would conceptually bring that element to the summoner's eidolon as it is supposed to be a truly formidable SUMMONED combatant that is a separate and distinct creature from the summoner. It is the powerful, combat capable form of a summoned creature that can fight on par with level appropriate enemies versus the weaker summon monster creatures who are supposed to do a little damage and not much else.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

Having actually played a session now -

1 - I can't disagree more. This didn't affect anyone at the tables perception of them as two different characters, and it allowed for interesting interactions with healing. At no point was this a liability, and my eidolon was on the front line all night. It was actually super helpful as the healer that I could efficiently heal myself without maneuvering.

2 - Preventing the Eidolon from being expendible in combat is actually an important benefit of this. Other summons being expendable body shields is great in this context, but I don't know this is appropriate for most eidolons. This is a matter of taste though, so we'll each have an opinion on this that is more or less equally valid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I actually partially agree with you on point 1. It doesn't feel so much like a summoned creature as it does an extension of your character. I think the key difference is that that's an interesting angle for me to explore because I have no attachment to the PF1 summoner and it's a frustrating departure from the types of characters you want to be able to build. I don't necessarily think either of us are wrong for feeling the way we feel.

As a thought experiment, how would you remedy this? Something like, 6/8HP per level for the summoner, Summons get their own HP pool, Synthesis summoners get 10HP per level but their summons function the way they do now?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:

Having actually played a session now -

1 - I can't disagree more. This didn't affect anyone at the tables perception of them as two different characters, and it allowed for interesting interactions with healing. At no point was this a liability, and my eidolon was on the front line all night. It was actually super helpful as the healer that I could efficiently heal myself without maneuvering.

2 - Preventing the Eidolon from being expendible in combat is actually an important benefit of this. Other summons being expendable body shields is great in this context, but I don't know this is appropriate for most eidolons. This is a matter of taste though, so we'll each have an opinion on this that is more or less equally valid.

I don't care about the mechanics of it. I care about the concept of it. Sure, one hit point pool makes it easier to heal. But it doesn't feel like a separate creature and isn't a separate creature with a shared hit point pool.

That's not a summoner. It is not a summoned unique creature without a separate hit point pool even if it is easier to heal. I don't care how other people around the table perceive it. I care about how I perceive it and whether it actually fits the concept of a summoner summoning a separate unique creature which a separate hit point pool doesn't emulate.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

Having actually played a session now -

1 - I can't disagree more. This didn't affect anyone at the tables perception of them as two different characters, and it allowed for interesting interactions with healing. At no point was this a liability, and my eidolon was on the front line all night. It was actually super helpful as the healer that I could efficiently heal myself without maneuvering.

2 - Preventing the Eidolon from being expendible in combat is actually an important benefit of this. Other summons being expendable body shields is great in this context, but I don't know this is appropriate for most eidolons. This is a matter of taste though, so we'll each have an opinion on this that is more or less equally valid.

I don't care about the mechanics of it. I care about the concept of it. Sure, one hit point pool makes it easier to heal. But it doesn't feel like a separate creature and isn't a separate creature with a shared hit point pool.

That's not a summoner. It is not a summoned unique creature without a separate hit point pool even if it is easier to heal. I don't care how other people around the table perceive it. I care about how I perceive it and whether it actually fits the concept of a summoner summoning a separate unique creature which a separate hit point pool doesn't emulate.

Yeah, couldn't disagree more. It still felt like a separate creature to play. It felt exactly like two creatures with a shared hitpoint pool, and this is why -

Both the Summoner and Eidolon have hugely different capabilities in combat. They don't do even remotely the same things. They both had useful options, and I found myself monopolizing actions with both characters a couple times, but at no point did I feel like one 'joint' creature - especially not because of the hitpoints.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Capn Cupcake wrote:

I think I actually partially agree with you on point 1. It doesn't feel so much like a summoned creature as it does an extension of your character. I think the key difference is that that's an interesting angle for me to explore because I have no attachment to the PF1 summoner and it's a frustrating departure from the types of characters you want to be able to build. I don't necessarily think either of us are wrong for feeling the way we feel.

As a thought experiment, how would you remedy this? Something like, 6/8HP per level for the summoner, Summons get their own HP pool, Synthesis summoners get 10HP per level but their summons function the way they do now?

If they called it something other than summoner, it would fit. Someone mentioned a spiritualist was built like this, but I never played one. But it sure doesn't fit the concept of a summoner in any game I've ever played. Not in any MMORPG like WoW or Everquest or any game I know of.

This is something else they created that has the summoner part names, but not the summoner core concept. Very disappointing so far.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:

Yeah, couldn't disagree more. It still felt like a separate creature to play. It felt exactly like two creatures with a shared hitpoint pool, and this is why

Both the Summoner and Eidolon have hugely different capabilities in combat. They don't do even remotely the same things. They both had useful options, and I found myself monopolizing actions with both characters a couple times, but at no point did I feel like one 'joint' creature - especially not because of the hitpoints.

Well, I couldn't disagree more as well. I also played a summoner and it felt like two creatures in one body. It felt like all I did round after round was boost eidolon and didn't have any effective combat options as a summoner.

Now you're making this ludicrous claim that a summoner has hugely different capabilities in combat when it does not.

So, explain to me how they are hugely different? Break it down for me mathematically. Let's here this amazing combat rounds of hugely different combat capabilities.

I played a summoner and my round consisted of the following:

1. Act Together: Eidolon Move to attack.

Summoner: Boost Eidolon.

2. Eidolon attacks with two actions.

After that 4th action was either 'reinforce eidolon or or attack again.

So break it down how your rounds were spent so much different than mine. I want to hear it with the shared MAP?

You did remember the shared MAP right? So if you launch anything other than a saving throw attack, you are reduced by the shared MAP.

I mean combat capability. Not your usual fallback of Recall Knowledge. "I recalled knowledge while my eidolon attacked and made this amazing difference."

I would also like to know how many summoners you played in 1E. As the summoner was literally my favorite class, I would like to know where you rate on the number of summoners from PF1 you created and ran. I want to hear your in-depth familiarity with the class, both before and after Unchained.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah the shared HP just don't make sense for the summoner.

Summoned Monsters have their own HP pool and that works fine.
Animal Companions have their own HP pool and that works fine.
Familiar have their own HP pool and that works fine.
Heck Shields have their own HP pool and that works relatively fine.

Why is the Eidolon who should be its own creature, not getting its own pool?

Is it because its a summoned creature? Well clearly not.
Is it because its a combat companion? Well Animal companions have their own HP.
Is it because of a magical connection? Well Familiars have a magical bond as well.

There is no reason why the Eidolon and Summoner does not have separate HP pools!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:


So break it down how your rounds were spent so much different than mine. I want to hear it with the shared MAP?

You did remember the shared MAP right? So if you launch anything other than a saving throw attack, you are reduced by the shared MAP.

I'm confused why you think I'd have forgotten the Shared MAP. My Summoner made one outright attack via cantrip, and it was on a turn when I used Act Together to maneuver both myself and the Eidolon - but the Eidolon was well out of range of the enemy, but I was not on Stride + TK projectile.

Generally though, I was positioning the Eidolon for combat and putting myself in position to drop heals where needed, if needed.

With my Summoner serving as a healer, I needed to be within range to drop either a 2 action heal in a pinch, or move and Battle Medicine. That meant that that my Summoner's 'zone of influence' was focused on ensuring I was in position to heal, while my Eidolon's influence was focused on flanking and combat.

I was 'two characters' because I had two entirely different spheres of concern.

There's way more to the game than just attacking, and I had a character each to cover two divergent aspects.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

There is no reason why the Eidolon and Summoner does not have separate HP pools!

Other than balance. The reason is balance.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Yeah the shared HP just don't make sense for the summoner.

Summoned Monsters have their own HP pool and that works fine.
Animal Companions have their own HP pool and that works fine.
Familiar have their own HP pool and that works fine.
Heck Shields have their own HP pool and that works relatively fine.

Why is the Eidolon who should be its own creature, not getting its own pool?

Is it because its a summoned creature? Well clearly not.
Is it because its a combat companion? Well Animal companions have their own HP.
Is it because of a magical connection? Well Familiars have a magical bond as well.

There is no reason why the Eidolon and Summoner does not have separate HP pools!

Again, shared Hit Points allows the class to have a stronger eidolon. There has been significant talk about making the eidolon deal as much damage as say a rogue or monk, but then giving the PC a second hit pool for that with the tacked on benefit of a caster on top would definitely overpower the class. It'd have to be weaker than a monk or a rogue.

To counter this:
- Summoned monsters are much weaker, and require one full turn of actions to summon and they don't stick around.
- Animal companions only come to one class natively and requires resources for other classes, are weaker than an eidolon, and can at most (though I could be wrong here) only get two actions a turn.
- Familiars are not combatants, don't attack and can at best deliver spells. Not really a good comparison.
- Shields - not a combatant.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

What balance reason is there? Animal companions have 10 HP while the casters using them have 6 HP.

A Barbarian with an animal companion is getting 10 + 12 HP.

There is no balance problem with the Summoner having 6 HP, while the Eidolon gets 10 HP. Heck the Eidolon could get 8 HP and it would still be fine.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Yeah the shared HP just don't make sense for the summoner.

Summoned Monsters have their own HP pool and that works fine.
Animal Companions have their own HP pool and that works fine.
Familiar have their own HP pool and that works fine.
Heck Shields have their own HP pool and that works relatively fine.

Why is the Eidolon who should be its own creature, not getting its own pool?

Is it because its a summoned creature? Well clearly not.
Is it because its a combat companion? Well Animal companions have their own HP.
Is it because of a magical connection? Well Familiars have a magical bond as well.

There is no reason why the Eidolon and Summoner does not have separate HP pools!

For sure. It's summoner, not manifester.

Normally, I wouldn't even care. I stopped paying much attention to the Magus. I played one Magus in all my time in PF1. Fun class and powerful, but I'll leave the magus criticisms to the Magus fans.

But damn, I really want a good summoner option conceptually and mechanically. This current version isn't it.

I can't think of another class I had more fun playing in PF1 than the summoner original and unchained. It would be a real shame to see it made into this odd hybrid thing for the entirety of PF2.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:


So break it down how your rounds were spent so much different than mine. I want to hear it with the shared MAP?

You did remember the shared MAP right? So if you launch anything other than a saving throw attack, you are reduced by the shared MAP.

I'm confused why you think I'd have forgotten the Shared MAP. My Summoner made one outright attack via cantrip, and it was on a turn when I used Act Together to maneuver both myself and the Eidolon - but the Eidolon was well out of range of the enemy, but I was not on Stride + TK projectile.

Generally though, I was positioning the Eidolon for combat and putting myself in position to drop heals where needed, if needed.

With my Summoner serving as a healer, I needed to be within range to drop either a 2 action heal in a pinch, or move and Battle Medicine. That meant that that my Summoner's 'zone of influence' was focused on ensuring I was in position to heal, while my Eidolon's influence was focused on flanking and combat.

I was 'two characters' because I had two entirely different spheres of concern.

There's way more to the game than just attacking, and I had a character each to cover two divergent aspects.

Let's just say that is now how the summoner was played prior and leave it that. If you want to use your 4 slots on heals, have at it. But that's how now the summoner was ever played in PF1. If that is the new play style, man, what a huge drop in concept and play that is.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

What balance reason is there? Animal companions have 10 HP while the casters using them have 6 HP.

A Barbarian with an animal companion is getting 10 + 12 HP.

There is no balance problem with the Summoner having 6 HP, while the Eidolon gets 10 HP. Heck the Eidolon could get 8 HP and it would still be fine.

Animal Companions are terribly underpowered offensively compared to an Eidolon. The difference is extremely significant.

Moreover, Animal Companions are locked out of all sorts of actions and abilities Eidolons have access to as near players.

They are not remotely comparable.

My Summoner with 14 con and a d10 hit die is tied for the toughest character in my party, except that my Summoner has infinitely renewable defensive actions and strong healing. I am by far the hardest member of the party to down, and a large part of that is due to the linked HP.

I get that you have a conceptual issue here, but it serves a valid gameplay purpose - and I have cause to doubt that it will lead to problems down the road.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

What balance reason is there? Animal companions have 10 HP while the casters using them have 6 HP.

A Barbarian with an animal companion is getting 10 + 12 HP.

There is no balance problem with the Summoner having 6 HP, while the Eidolon gets 10 HP. Heck the Eidolon could get 8 HP and it would still be fine.

So, give the eidolon animal companion stats, power, attacks and action economy?

The only caster that gets an animal companion without expending resources to get it is a druid and even then they have to expend class feats to make them stay viable. The barbarian has taken resources to get that animal companion, not really a good comparison.

Second, you were asking why. Balance is why.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Let's just say that is now how the summoner was played prior and leave it that. If you want to use your 4 slots on heals, have at it. But that's how now the summoner was ever played in PF1. If that is the new play style, man, what a huge drop in concept and play that is.

Different is not bad.

Change is not bad.

Embrace change, enjoy the things you can do now that you could not before.

I'm not limited to or chained by the past, and I had a great start with things.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Again, shared Hit Points allows the class to have a stronger eidolon. There has been significant talk about making the eidolon deal as much damage as say a rogue or monk, but then giving the PC a second hit pool for that with the tacked on benefit of a caster on top would definitely overpower the class. It'd have to be weaker than a monk or a rogue.

Do you have any math to back you up that this is the case?

Quote:

To counter this:

- Summoned monsters are much weaker, and require one full turn of actions to summon and they don't stick around.

Summoned monsters using your highest level slots are nearly worthless and do inferior damage to using your highest level slots to launch damaging spells even if one accounts for aggregate damage over the duration of the spell. I've tested it out and was terribly disappointed. Even a 3 action magic missile in your highest level slot should do more damage than a summoned creature unless you get lucky.

Quote:
- Animal companions only come to one class natively and requires resources for other classes, are weaker than an eidolon, and can at most (though I could be wrong here) only get two actions a turn.

I specifically ran a druid and animal companion bird with an summoner and eidolon to put them head to head. A full feated animal companion with a full caster druid against an eidolon with a summoner. Guess who won by a country mile?

Not just won in damage, but also in versatility due to the number of spell slots, focus spells, and the like.

Now the difference between a full druid and an animal companion is exactly like Krispy said "hugely different combat capabilities."

Druid doesn't share MAP. Druid can use one action to fire a weapon, command the animal, and move in the same round or sustain a spell. Or send in animal companion and heal with 17 spell slots versus the 4 posessed by the summoner. Doesn't have to boost eidolon every round to have competitive damage. And doesn't need an animal companion to do well.

Druid has a lot of options and versatility. Eidolon and summoner, not so much. I did not find the eidolon to hit so hard that it made up for the lack of other abilities.

And monk's do weak damage. An eidolon will outdamage a monk at its highest level with boost eidolon. Sad, but true.

Quote:
- Familiars are not combatants, don't attack and can at best deliver spells. Not really a good comparison.

Familiars are an extremely weak combat option other than extra focus point or spell battery. Not so bad out of combat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Let's just say that is now how the summoner was played prior and leave it that. If you want to use your 4 slots on heals, have at it. But that's how now the summoner was ever played in PF1. If that is the new play style, man, what a huge drop in concept and play that is.

Different is not bad.

Change is not bad.

Embrace change, enjoy the things you can do now that you could not before.

I'm not limited to or chained by the past, and I had a great start with things.

Change in PF2 is inevitable. I have accepted the changes across the spectrum, even eventually accepted caster changes as I experience higher level play and learned they weren't so bad.

But this is a conceptual problem, not a power problem. An summoner that doesn't summon a separate creature isn't a power problem, it's a breakdown of concept.

I don't know if you play MMORPGs. Or played many summoners in PF1. But the real key to a summoning class is summoning up that second separate creature that is bound to you and acts as your meat shield, damage dealer, and the like.

If I sent my succubus in or my ghoul and took damage every time he got hit, that wouldn't feel like a summoned creature. It's one thing if I life funnel my life into my demon or as it was back in PF1 Life Link to take the hit point damage to prevent my guy from dying, but it feels terrible to have so my summoned creature is basically life linking me. So every hit he takes, I feel.

It's like I'm standing in battle taking a beating, but swinging my martial weapon at range. That's not a summoned creature. That's some kind of weird bio-kinetic link thing that doesn't have much to do with summoning.


1 person 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.

This is the ability that in PF1 that let you share hit points with your summoned creature. Now the summoned creature is always life link equivalent to the summoner, so he's taking the same beating as the creature in every battle. Eidolon goes down, summoner goes down. No option to have it otherwise. That doesn't at all feel like a summoned creature. Feels more like a manifestation of the character's will. I think they should go with a different name myself if they keep this concept on anything other than the synthesist.

I miss that summoner. That PF1 summoner sure was fun. Whoever designed that PF1 summoner did a great job. They really made you feel like you had a powerful summoned creature at your command. It's making me want to play some PF1, but man, the balance problems of the high end game.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

It's because the eidolon isn't just a summoned creature.

You can summon expandable minions if you want. They're weak.

But for the eidolon to be truly, legitimately powerful, a little something extra needs to be given back.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Quote:
Again, shared Hit Points allows the class to have a stronger eidolon. There has been significant talk about making the eidolon deal as much damage as say a rogue or monk, but then giving the PC a second hit pool for that with the tacked on benefit of a caster on top would definitely overpower the class. It'd have to be weaker than a monk or a rogue.

Do you have any math to back you up that this is the case?

No, but if it is intended to balance the class then removing shared hit points would take off one of the checks the class has currently.

It'd be good to run a combat comparison of say a rogue and an eidolon with and without seperate hit point pools.

Personally, though, I could see the class either way with the hit points, but I doubt the developers would make something that can fight as well as a monk and rogue, and give it a secondary hit point pool that can cast spells. Makes playing a monk significantly less appealing. (Rouge has skills, so there is that.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Sedoriku wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Quote:
Again, shared Hit Points allows the class to have a stronger eidolon. There has been significant talk about making the eidolon deal as much damage as say a rogue or monk, but then giving the PC a second hit pool for that with the tacked on benefit of a caster on top would definitely overpower the class. It'd have to be weaker than a monk or a rogue.

Do you have any math to back you up that this is the case?

No, but if it is intended to balance the class then removing shared hit points would take off one of the checks the class has currently.

It'd be good to run a combat comparison of say a rogue and an eidolon with and without seperate hit point pools.

Personally, though, I could see the class either way with the hit points, but I doubt the developers would make something that can fight as well as a monk and rogue, and give it a secondary hit point pool that can cast spells. Makes playing a monk significantly less appealing. (Rouge has skills, so there is that.)

People keep comparing eidolon damage to monk or rogue

It's strictly worse.

Maybe on par with a non multi class champion.

1d8/1d4 is not impressive. The eidolon boost isn't fun to play with just like inspire courage isn't. The only time you don't use it is because you can't use it. It's a move you use without thought, sure krispy made a healer, she found a niche. But it's narrow, I don't see the combat potential of the class, nor the support potential in combat. It's just a barbarian with less hp, no rage, no reaction, unoptimized attribute spread and 4 spell Slots that can also be crit more often because it has another body with worse ac.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:


People keep comparing eidolon damage to monk or rogue

It's strictly worse.

Maybe on par with a non multi class champion.

1d8/1d4 is not impressive. The eidolon boost isn't fun to play with just like inspire courage isn't. The only time you don't use it is because you can't use it. It's a move you use without thought, sure krispy made a healer, she found a niche. But it's narrow, I don't see the combat potential of the class, nor the support potential in combat. It's just a barbarian with less hp, no rage, no reaction, unoptimized attribute spread and 4 spell Slots that can also be crit more often because it has another body with worse ac.

The classes Niche is having two characters at once.

I had on the field a healer AND a combatant. I wasn't as good a healer as a Cleric, or as good a combatant as a martial character - but I was a better combatant than any Cleric AND a better healer than any martial character.

That's the point. Its not about being better than other classes where they're strong, its about being strong(ish) in more than one way, and in more than one place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

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.

This is the ability that in PF1 that let you share hit points with your summoned creature. Now the summoned creature is always life link equivalent to the summoner, so he's taking the same beating as the creature in every battle. Eidolon goes down, summoner goes down. No option to have it otherwise. That doesn't at all feel like a summoned creature. Feels more like a manifestation of the character's will. I think they should go with a different name myself if they keep this concept on anything other than the synthesist.

I miss that summoner. That PF1 summoner sure was fun. Whoever designed that PF1 summoner did a great job. They really made you feel like you had a powerful summoned creature at your command. It's making me want to play some PF1, but man, the balance problems of the high end game.

The first point about feel is subjective, if minor, so cannot really be agued against. To the second about being a meat shield I think is a good thing. It’s more balanced for one but more importantly the shared health shows that your eidolon is not some arbitrary monster you slipped 20 bucks to command but Is something that has a deep connection to you.

God forbid that they try to instill a sense of emotional connection between eidolon and summoner, go for the whole Pokémon vibe.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Eidolon is supposed to be a Summoned creature not something you manifest. A summoned creature. That is why the class is called "Summoner" not "Manifester".

The two dont need to share HP 1 to 1 to be emotionally connected or do you lose HP every time a fellow party member loses HP? NO you don't. So not its not about "emotional connection", that is just some BS you are spouting now to try and justify it.

And balance wise. The eidolon is worse than both the Rogue and Monk when you look at the actual abilities they have. While the Summoner is worse at casting than any other caster, even MC archetypes have more spell casting.

So hooray the Summoner is the best at being mediocre. All because "having the Eidolon and Summoner with different pool is too much". Even thou A beastmaster Barbarian has 12 HP before rage, and then get a 10 HP animal companion.

Oh but they have more actions? No they have exactly the same amount as any other animal companion user. The only actual bonus action is being able to get an extra move with Tandem Move. That is the only action advantage. And using both prevents you from using any other ability because Act Together and Tandem Move cannot be part of another action.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TheGentlemanDM wrote:

It's because the eidolon isn't just a summoned creature.

You can summon expandable minions if you want. They're weak.

But for the eidolon to be truly, legitimately powerful, a little something extra needs to be given back.

And yet it's both weak and now we have this downside.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
that is just some BS you are spouting now to try and justify it.

That's this whole thread in a nutshell, though.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sedoriku wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

The Eidolon is supposed to be a Summoned creature not something you manifest. A summoned creature. That is why the class is called "Summoner" not "Manifester".

The two dont need to share HP 1 to 1 to be emotionally connected or do you lose HP every time a fellow party member loses HP? NO you don't. So not its not about "emotional connection", that is just some BS you are spouting now to try and justify it.

And balance wise. The eidolon is worse than both the Rogue and Monk when you look at the actual abilities they have. While the Summoner is worse at casting than any other caster, even MC archetypes have more spell casting.

So hooray the Summoner is the best at being mediocre. All because "having the Eidolon and Summoner with different pool is too much". Even thou A beastmaster Barbarian has 12 HP before rage, and then get a 10 HP animal companion.

Oh but they have more actions? No they have exactly the same amount as any other animal companion user. The only actual bonus action is being able to get an extra move with Tandem Move. That is the only action advantage. And using both prevents you from using any other ability because Act Together and Tandem Move cannot be part of another action.

To the point about balance, cards on the table, outside of something being egregiously overpowered or egregiously unplayable I don’t think it matters as much as many people seem to think. Not at actual play.

But to elaborate on the emotional connection point. I was saying that the designers did that in order to enhance a certain aesthetic goal.

I’ll put it this way, why does the monk have a stunning punch. It’s not because that’s what monks( even xaolin) monks do. It’s because that’s something that people did in old Kung fu movies. They took an aesthetic idea and gave it mechanical meaning. All of the classes are at there core embodying certain narrative ideas. And the idea that your bond creature is so entwined with you that you share life force is, to me at least, far more narratively interesting. It could either represent something like the stands from JoJo or if you had a fiend that you pay your life force to command it or just that your just such good friends you can’t live without each other .

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

The Eidolon is supposed to be a Summoned creature not something you manifest. A summoned creature. That is why the class is called "Summoner" not "Manifester".

The two dont need to share HP 1 to 1 to be emotionally connected or do you lose HP every time a fellow party member loses HP? NO you don't. So not its not about "emotional connection", that is just some BS you are spouting now to try and justify it.

And balance wise. The eidolon is worse than both the Rogue and Monk when you look at the actual abilities they have. While the Summoner is worse at casting than any other caster, even MC archetypes have more spell casting.

So hooray the Summoner is the best at being mediocre. All because "having the Eidolon and Summoner with different pool is too much". Even thou A beastmaster Barbarian has 12 HP before rage, and then get a 10 HP animal companion.

Oh but they have more actions? No they have exactly the same amount as any other animal companion user. The only actual bonus action is being able to get an extra move with Tandem Move. That is the only action advantage. And using both prevents you from using any other ability because Act Together and Tandem Move cannot be part of another action.

My view - If you want to cast spells, you can always MC to sorc or wizard or druid or cleric. Just make Summoners have a strong Eidolon. Remove spellcasting. That way if you WANT spellcasting, you can get it through multiclassing.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

The flavor reason that they share an HP pool is that the Summoner has such a significant bond to the Eidolon (anchoring them into the world) that they can summon and unsummon them at will, coordinate with them beyond the capabilities of any other companions, and grow with them as equals. And an Eidolon can totally still protect the Summoner with their higher defense and general tendency to be big and imposing.

I don't think you're arguing against a feeling of not actually summoning as much as you are arguing against the inability to flavor the Eidolon as something expendable and "lower" compared to the Summoner. And, in fairness, a lot of summoners in media make expendable mooks and big elite slaves. But I really like the equal soul-bonded partners flavor of PF2E Summoner, I think it's really cute, and I think it's led to some good mechanical ideas I'd simply like tuned and polished rather than done away with.

Being equal in status doesn't mean you do the same things or have the same strengths, after all, and it's still in theme for an Eidolon to be comfortable doing difficult work suited to its nature.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alfa/Polaris wrote:

The flavor reason that they share an HP pool is that the Summoner has such a significant bond to the Eidolon (anchoring them into the world) that they can summon and unsummon them at will, coordinate with them beyond the capabilities of any other companions, and grow with them as equals. And an Eidolon can totally still protect the Summoner with their higher defense and general tendency to be big and imposing.

I don't think you're arguing against a feeling of not actually summoning as much as you are arguing against the inability to flavor the Eidolon as something expendable and "lower" compared to the Summoner. And, in fairness, a lot of summoners in media make expendable mooks and big elite slaves. But I really like the equal soul-bonded partners flavor of PF2E Summoner, I think it's really cute, and I think it's led to some good mechanical ideas I'd simply like tuned and polished rather than done away with.

Being equal in status doesn't mean you do the same things or have the same strengths, after all, and it's still in theme for an Eidolon to be comfortable doing difficult work suited to its nature.

Succinctly put. I agree. The the coequal partnership does seem more pleasant, healthy even.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
The flavor reason that they share an HP pool is that the Summoner has such a significant bond to the Eidolon (anchoring them into the world) that they can summon and unsummon them at will, coordinate with them beyond the capabilities of any other companions, and grow with them as equals. And an Eidolon can totally still protect the Summoner with their higher defense and general tendency to be big and imposing.

I totally agree with this, the shared HP mechanic is a great way to mechanically incorporate the Summoner's fluff. The Eidolon literally can't exist in the material world without its link to you. It makes sense that link goes both ways given how tightly entwined Summoner and Eidolon are. If you go down that link is severed and the Eidolon is forced back its home plane. If it goes down you have to deal with the fact someone was beating up something so tightly tied to your lifeforce.

I never had trouble establishing the Summoner and Eidolon as two different entities even with the shared HP, with the sole exception of when I tried a Synthesis build (which is fine since you're combined anyways). Right now it feels like the main hold up is the shared actions and spellcasting making things awkward to do together rather than anything related to the hit point pool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If they renamed this class, almost all of the problems would vanish.


Martialmasters wrote:
GM Sedoriku wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Quote:
Again, shared Hit Points allows the class to have a stronger eidolon. There has been significant talk about making the eidolon deal as much damage as say a rogue or monk, but then giving the PC a second hit pool for that with the tacked on benefit of a caster on top would definitely overpower the class. It'd have to be weaker than a monk or a rogue.

Do you have any math to back you up that this is the case?

No, but if it is intended to balance the class then removing shared hit points would take off one of the checks the class has currently.

It'd be good to run a combat comparison of say a rogue and an eidolon with and without seperate hit point pools.

Personally, though, I could see the class either way with the hit points, but I doubt the developers would make something that can fight as well as a monk and rogue, and give it a secondary hit point pool that can cast spells. Makes playing a monk significantly less appealing. (Rouge has skills, so there is that.)

People keep comparing eidolon damage to monk or rogue

It's strictly worse.

Maybe on par with a non multi class champion.

1d8/1d4 is not impressive. The eidolon boost isn't fun to play with just like inspire courage isn't. The only time you don't use it is because you can't use it. It's a move you use without thought, sure krispy made a healer, she found a niche. But it's narrow, I don't see the combat potential of the class, nor the support potential in combat. It's just a barbarian with less hp, no rage, no reaction, unoptimized attribute spread and 4 spell Slots that can also be crit more often because it has another body with worse ac.

The math shows that a summoner-eidolon hybrid is a monk-like class in so many ways.

A monk at lvl 20 does the following if maybe using dragon style with no agile:

4d10+7+6, an average of 35 per hit for their best attack sequence.

An eidolon at lvl 20 with boost would do 4d8+5+6+8 for an average hit of 37 per hit with no agile.

I said it's about monk damage. I worked out the math. It's slightly better than a monk with boost, lower without.

This locks you into boost just to do monk level damage, the lowest damage in the game besides sword and board.

You obviously have some customization with the monk and can boost your damage for a few hits a round with ki strike. But overall the monk and eidolon/summoner do the same damage as the monk.

I would not be surprised if behind the scenes monk damage was intended goal for balanced damage as both classes are the versatile, mobile martial.

A summoner as it is currently built is basically a monk in a hybrid double body.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Sedoriku wrote:
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.

I can tell you played a summoner. That is the class. Summoner was weak with only up to lvl 6 spells. He didn't do much. But damn his eidolon was tough. Not this weak monk damage, but hitting like a dual wielding ranger or a great weapon fighter. He could take hits.

You were there to buff him, heal him, and manage him as he fought. Not share a hit point pool and hit the ground when the eidolon hit the ground.

The entire fact that they listed in the description of the eidolon that you are clearly connected, there is no reason that it wouldn't be a well known tactic to hit the eidolon and the summoner at the same time to take him down faster. And the gods help you if you're in a small room with a creature that can hit a lot of creatures at the same time. You'll be taking double damage and double crit chances to take you out quick.

For all the claimed advantages of a shared hit point pool, there are a lot of disadvantages as well. Double damage from auras. Two chances to fail a save for sickened or frightened. Two chances to fail AoE saves. Two chances to die instantly from a weird. Two chance to be slowed. And all types of ways to give you a double chance at failure.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Physicskid42 wrote:
Temperans wrote:

The Eidolon is supposed to be a Summoned creature not something you manifest. A summoned creature. That is why the class is called "Summoner" not "Manifester".

The two dont need to share HP 1 to 1 to be emotionally connected or do you lose HP every time a fellow party member loses HP? NO you don't. So not its not about "emotional connection", that is just some BS you are spouting now to try and justify it.

And balance wise. The eidolon is worse than both the Rogue and Monk when you look at the actual abilities they have. While the Summoner is worse at casting than any other caster, even MC archetypes have more spell casting.

So hooray the Summoner is the best at being mediocre. All because "having the Eidolon and Summoner with different pool is too much". Even thou A beastmaster Barbarian has 12 HP before rage, and then get a 10 HP animal companion.

Oh but they have more actions? No they have exactly the same amount as any other animal companion user. The only actual bonus action is being able to get an extra move with Tandem Move. That is the only action advantage. And using both prevents you from using any other ability because Act Together and Tandem Move cannot be part of another action.

To the point about balance, cards on the table, outside of something being egregiously overpowered or egregiously unplayable I don’t think it matters as much as many people seem to think. Not at actual play.

But to elaborate on the emotional connection point. I was saying that the designers did that in order to enhance a certain aesthetic goal.

I’ll put it this way, why does the monk have a stunning punch. It’s not because that’s what monks( even xaolin) monks do. It’s because that’s something that people did in old Kung fu movies. They took an aesthetic idea and gave it mechanical meaning. All of the classes are at there core embodying certain narrative ideas. And the idea that your bond creature is so entwined with you that you share life force is, to me at least, far...

This is not the aesthetic of a summoner.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I"m wondering if this comes from Pokemon rather than the traditional summoner type the PF1 summoner was built on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alfa/Polaris wrote:

The flavor reason that they share an HP pool is that the Summoner has such a significant bond to the Eidolon (anchoring them into the world) that they can summon and unsummon them at will, coordinate with them beyond the capabilities of any other companions, and grow with them as equals. And an Eidolon can totally still protect the Summoner with their higher defense and general tendency to be big and imposing.

I don't think you're arguing against a feeling of not actually summoning as much as you are arguing against the inability to flavor the Eidolon as something expendable and "lower" compared to the Summoner. And, in fairness, a lot of summoners in media make expendable mooks and big elite slaves. But I really like the equal soul-bonded partners flavor of PF2E Summoner, I think it's really cute, and I think it's led to some good mechanical ideas I'd simply like tuned and polished rather than done away with.

Being equal in status doesn't mean you do the same things or have the same strengths, after all, and it's still in theme for an Eidolon to be comfortable doing difficult work suited to its nature.

That is not a summoner.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It sounds to me like you're describing a conjurer, Deriven.

I'm not saying that hit points should be pooled or not as I haven't gotten to playtest the summoner, but I think it's important to note what separates a summoner from a conjurer. If the summoner is just "a pet class," at what point is it just a reskinned druid? If the summoner is better at summoning, then what use is there to the conjurer?

If you want to play the MMO style of summoner, then there are definite options for that, but the playtest does seem to be leaning towards establishing a more firm identity for the summoner.

EDIT: And I personally think that Paizo is trying to establish their own lore within mechanics more strongly with 2e. Having the Eidoleon play obviously different from everything, to me, feels more grounded in Golarion and not just "generic monster caller."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like Deriven said that is not a Summoner.

Even if the Eidolon and Summoner were "equal in status".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is what I know for absolute sure:

1. I do not like this version of the summoner. I played six or seven summoners in PF1 to 10th or higher level. This new summoner feels nothing like the PF1 summoner. It doesn't even feel like a summoner. Feels like the dudes who fought in Big Trouble in Little China when the two wizards were going at each other like their hands were video game controllers.

2. If the shared hit point pool makes it in the game as it currently is, I will not be buying Secrets of Magic. It's a bad idea. It doesn't fit conceptually.

3. I hope the PF2 summoner doesn't become a weak, no fun class stuck boosting eidolon round after round after round that likely won't be changed for entire run of PF2 or until an Unchained book comes out.

I'm going to leave this right now. It's getting too frustrating.

All I know for sure is the summoner is my favorite class they added to the game after the wizard. I am going to hope they don't screw it up.

I can't offer much more help other than I know what I don't like. I've listed it clearly.

1. Shared hit point pool.

2. Shared MAP.

3. Boosting every round to do competitive damage.

4. 4 spell slots a day with no 1 hour recharge like a 5E warlock.

Way too locked in a play-style with too many easily exploited problems with a shared health pool with defensively and offensively weak summoner capable of being critted and killed even easier than the eidolon to get rid of them both.

Right now the summoner gameplay needs more dynamic play and interesting interactions between the summoner and eidolon. The eidolon themselves should be more powerful creatures.

I'd almost rather get rid of the shared magic items and boost their stats to an extraordinary level, so the eidolon feels like an actual version of the monster it represents.

I'm out for now. I'll come back in a few weeks to see if they have a new iteration or some changes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:

It sounds to me like you're describing a conjurer, Deriven.

I'm not saying that hit points should be pooled our not as I haven't gotten to playtest the summoner, but I think it's important to note what separates a summoner from a conjurer. If the summoner is just "a pet class," at what point is it just a reskinned druid? If the summoner is better at summoning, then what use is there to the conjurer?

If you want to play the MMO style of summoner, then there are definite options for that, but the playtest does seem to be leaning towards establishing a more firm identity for the summoner.

EDIT: And I personally think that Paizo is trying to establish their own lore within mechanics more strongly with 2e. Having the Eidoleon play obviously different from everything, to me, feels more grounded in Golarion and not just "generic monster caller."

Did you not play PF1 when the released the summoner? What do you mean establish their own lore? This is their class they are remaking from PF1. Their lore contradicts this summoner. The entire schtick of the original summoner was you either had big eidolon summoned pet or could summon a ton of creatures.

You just described it. It's a conjurer. It's the one true "pet class" in the game. That's exactly what it is. The only class in the game that entirely relies on a pet. To a druid an animal companion is not the core of the class. A druid has a ton of other abilities and full casting. They wear light and medium armor, get a shield, get good focus spells, decent weapons, and overall have a ton of abilities.

A summoner is the "pet class" of Pathfinder.

I play pet classes first in MMORPGs and video games. Everquest I played a mage. WoW I played a demonology warlock first. I also had a hunter.

When PF made a summoner I was so excited. Then when I played it, I loved it. PF finally had a true pet class. It was fun to play.

You get what I'm looking for and what the PF1 summoner was.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:

It sounds to me like you're describing a conjurer, Deriven.

I'm not saying that hit points should be pooled our not as I haven't gotten to playtest the summoner, but I think it's important to note what separates a summoner from a conjurer. If the summoner is just "a pet class," at what point is it just a reskinned druid? If the summoner is better at summoning, then what use is there to the conjurer?

If you want to play the MMO style of summoner, then there are definite options for that, but the playtest does seem to be leaning towards establishing a more firm identity for the summoner.

EDIT: And I personally think that Paizo is trying to establish their own lore within mechanics more strongly with 2e. Having the Eidoleon play obviously different from everything, to me, feels more grounded in Golarion and not just "generic monster caller."

This is what Unchained Summoners used to get at level 1:

* Eidolon that was highly customizable and you SUMMONED.
* Life link so that you can spend HP to save the Eidolon from getting dismissed.
* Summoned Monster I SLA. Standard action, 3+Cha times/day, 1 minute duration. That is a faster cast, more uses per day at level 1, and longer duration than any other caster.

At level 20 the Unchained Summoner could get:

* Gate or Summon Monster IX SLA, Standard action, 3+Cha times/day, Duration of Summon Monster IX is 20 minutes (debatable how long Gate last).

The Summoner was the best Summoner there was not class that could compare. Not even Conjuration Wizards could do as well at summoning. What Conjuration Wizard was good at was casting Conjuration spells. That is summoning, damage, creation, etc.

The Summoner was a specialist at that 1 specific type of spells.

There were archetypes that gave up the Summoned Monsters SLA to make the Eidolon even stronger by giving them more evolutions.

**********************

The PF1 Summoner class was made by Paizo. The PF1 Summoner lore was made by Paizo. The PF1 Summoner Iconic and NPCs were made by Paizo.

Paizo is not establishing their own lore, they already had the lore. And its not a matter of the old rules not working, given that familiar options are effectively another version of eidolon evolutions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those who have not read the original summoner class from PF1, please go give it a read first. Some people seem to think Paizo hasn't already established this class's lore and abilities. It is a well-established and popular class.

PF1 Summoner

PF1 Unchained Summoner

This what we summoner fans played in PF1. I played both a 1st release summoner and an unchained Summoner Inevitable and Elemental eidolons.

Super fun classes, both of them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We can kill some sacred cows here, especially in the playtest. Summoner stepping on the toes of conjurers feels like a fine thing to be rid of.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
What do you mean establish their own lore? This is their class they are remaking from PF1. Their lore contradicts this summoner.

I should clarify.

Ruzza wrote:
EDIT: And I personally think that Paizo is trying to establish their own lore within mechanics more strongly with 2e. Having the Eidoleon play obviously different from everything, to me, feels more grounded in Golarion and not just "generic monster caller."

Lore and mechanics are obviously different things. What I mean by this is that using the mechanics to create an identity that is reinforced by the world of Golarion. Summoners are vastly different beings from conjurers and should play as such. Does that mean they should have a pooled hit point total? No, but it feels like a good place to explore if your goal is to tie the summoner and their eidoleon more closely together. Especially with Sarkoris (hopefully) becoming more of a major player in the story and the god-callers getting more limelight.

I've played with plenty of summoners over the years and in my small sample size of people, I mostly saw... well, people tossing bunches of arms and weapons onto their eidoleon with reach and going to town. Well that and the one guy who went synthesist and roleplayed Golarion Wolverine (not my favorite). But generally, it felt like one player controlling a massive martial and aiding it with their puny caster.

I think that's a fine mechanical identity, though. Weak caster and their giant fighting pet. But it's definitely something that other classes can gear themselves towards (moreso now that we have archetypes that allow other classes to do this). So the problem as a developer (I assume) would be to see how to push the summoner into a new space that justifies its existence as a "new class" and one that makes use of established Golarion lore.

Seeing the god-callers and the firmly established strong links between a summoner and their eidoleon, I feel like that exploring pooled HP makes a lot of sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Moppy wrote:
If they renamed this class, almost all of the problems would vanish.

Yes it would be a different class if you renamed it. The name means something.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:

It sounds to me like you're describing a conjurer, Deriven.

No the design has moved further away from a classical summoner. Its concept has changed to justufy the mechanics that they want us to test.

Ruzza wrote:


I'm not saying that hit points should be pooled or not as I haven't gotten to playtest the summoner, but I think it's important to note what separates a summoner from a conjurer. If the summoner is just "a pet class," at what point is it just a reskinned druid? If the summoner is better at summoning, then what use is there to the conjurer?

Summoner in PF1 had a customizable pet that was buffed. It covered two main character concepts - the classic caster summoning a big monster to do their dangerous work which is common in broader fantasy, and the mechanically interesting customization of the monster which is a more unique concept.

Druid had a beast and full casting - but with less in the way of buffing or tweaking options

Then there was the synthesis summoner which conceptually is closer to a shifter?

Ruzza wrote:


EDIT: And I personally think that Paizo is trying to establish their own lore within mechanics more strongly with 2e. Having the Eidoleon play obviously different from everything, to me, feels more grounded in Golarion and not just "generic monster caller."

Maybe.

I want to be able to do something similar to what the PF1 Summoner could do.

Bringing the eidolon and the summoner closer together is not a good call.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am very much in agreement with Deriven Firelion on this topic.

I understand the need to change the way the hit points worked from the PF1 versions of the Summoner. It sort of worked but it was very complex and had all sorts of nasty rules edge cases.

What they have done with hit points for the Synthesis Summoner is perfect. Beautiful, simple and works.

What they have done by having the one set of hitpoints for two creatures for the new Summoner and Eidolon is really odd.

It may well be relatively balanced, I guess that is what this playtest is about

But
1) It is very complex, the interaction of saving throws and hitpoints. With Area of effect spells, multiple targetting, auras. I think that many players are not going to be able to handle it well. This was a real problem with the old Summoner, and was a big reason many groups wouldn't play with it. There were just too many rules details, and when some people said it was too powerful many GMs just ruled it out.
That won't be a reason for me when I GM, but it will stop me from being able to play one.

2) Flavourwise I need separate hitpoints. It is a summoner. Its a separate entity that is bound, or you have made a deal with, or is some how connected. This shared hit points does not fit most of the classical summoners in literature and doesn't enable any more concepts. I can do "equal soul-bonded partners" without common hitpoints.

Its simply just not how most fantasy summoners work. It is a fine concept, but I want a summoner.

In PF1 it was always a choice, to share life. Making it compulsory breaks the story.

1 to 50 of 746 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Secrets of Magic Playtest / Summoner Class / Why the separate hit point pool is important All Messageboards