I like the shared HP pool


Summoner Class

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

24 people marked this as a favorite.

To preface: I know some people don't, and they're entitled to their opinion. This thread is not to say they're wrong for feeling the way they do or anything of the sort. I just also want to share my own personal feelings on the subject and provide positive feedback for a feature I like.

I actually really like this feature a lot. It changes combat in a way that hasn't been done in 2e yet. It allows me to essentially occupy 2 spaces at once, each occupation bringing different values. I've got a meaty bruiser up front and a squishy caster in the back, and my positioning on both makes for a strong departure in traditional tactics. If an enemy crits my eidolon, the healer doesn't have mess up their own positioning to heal them. They can take a safer position in the back with me and heal me from there. That's *so* cool. Likewise, I can send my Eidolon up to beat some face while I shift to another part of the battlefield and provide buff support. Regardless of fluff, regardless of canon, regardless of previous lore, this is a mechanic that I really want to explore and work with. I'm a tactical person by nature and this is a whole paradigm that I've never gotten to work with before, and the possibilities are deeply interesting to me.

I do think the Summoner needs work. Act together needs a change. A couple days ago Mark suggested making it between 1-3 actions to allow you to still use spells with it, and I think that's a great, elegant way to free up actions and allow some more turn by turn versatility without actually giving it any more raw power or abilities.

I also think the Eidolons themselves could use just a hair of customization, but that can be as simple as "pick from this list of keywords. Apply 1 keyword to each of your Eidolons weapons" So now my 1d4 Bludgeon Trip tail feels different from your 1d4 Slash Disarm crab claw. It's a very small, very easy change that makes the weapons feel much more tangible instead of feeling like carbon copies of each other.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I like it too. I really think it helps build the themes of the class

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Couldn't agree more. Mechanically this really brings a whole style of play with it that is interesting. It has both advantages and disadvantages and gives positioning another layer I like.

Thematically I love it too. You are summoning a powerful being is so foreign to our plane of existence is that it needs to barrow your life-force to remain here. In return, you gain a power ally and, most of all, partner. Not a disposable summon animal, or a wild animal you've tamed, but a true partner and otherwordly being.

While I agree that the Summoner class has things that need tweaked and/or changed/added, this concept is not one of those things. It is a beautiful addition to the Summoner lore and I love it. The things that need changed I and others have commented on elsewhere so I won't rehash here.

Overall, I agree, I love it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know why, but I think this HP share fits way, way, way better with a Spiritualist and their Phantom than a Summoner and their Eidolon.

If feels like a actual summoner class should be having unique ways of engaging with the Summon Spell list, such as having all of them (Or at least some basic ones expanded through feats) in a separate pool like Clerics have Heal/Harm, or maybe casting them as Rituals outside of combat but making so that the summons still needed sustaining during combat and lasting 1 minute as any other summon (maybe the countdown started once you Sustained to issue a combat/direct command other than just "follow me"), it could also have the ability to Sustain a Summon spell for longer periods of time (in case they didn't get a separate pool).

The class could also engage with magical circles, planar binding and other Plane-related effects, just Eidolon Avatar a Capstone is nowhere near enough.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Shared HP just feels like a more elegant way to do life link. My only issue right now (I've yet to actually engage in playtesting, since real life has gotten in the way) is that it feels weird for the Summoner to care about Con while the Eidolon can nearly ignore it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brew Bird wrote:

Shared HP just feels like a more elegant way to do life link. My only issue right now (I've yet to actually engage in playtesting, since real life has gotten in the way) is that it feels weird for the Summoner to care about Con while the Eidolon can nearly ignore it.

That's a valid criticism I feel. I'm not sure how you'd fix that though. I feel like taking the higher of the two is too powerful but I'm not sure how else to tackle that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Capn Cupcake wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:

Shared HP just feels like a more elegant way to do life link. My only issue right now (I've yet to actually engage in playtesting, since real life has gotten in the way) is that it feels weird for the Summoner to care about Con while the Eidolon can nearly ignore it.

That's a valid criticism I feel. I'm not sure how you'd fix that though. I feel like taking the higher of the two is too powerful but I'm not sure how else to tackle that.

summoner gets 6 hit points + your con + eidolon con per level.

Or maybe 8 hit points per level, and you gain eidolon's Con * level temporary hit points when it manifest.

Or something like that.


At the moment:

You get 10baseHP/level, plus the Summoner's CON.

Realistically, you're starting at about 12HP/level, and scaling to 15HP/level. There's arguments that this could be a little higher.

6baseHP/level + Summoner's CON + Eidolon's CON starts you off at anywhere between 9 and 12HP/level, and scales to 16HP/level. This is mostly a step backwards in total strength unless both sides invest heavily into CON.

If we keep the shared HP, but have the Temporary Hit Points only apply to the Eidolon...

8baseHP/level + Summoner's CON + Eidolon's CON THP starts you at about 10HP/level cap for damage on the Summoner's end, with an effective 12HP/level for damage on the Eidolon's end. This scales to 13HP/level on the Summoner's end, with the Eidolon effectively representing 18HP/level.

That's above Barbarian levels of durability for the Eidolon, so some safety valves seem necessary. Limiting the THP to once per hour would be a good start.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Just wanted to jump on the band wagon and say that I also really like the shared pool (though I wouldn't be opposed to a slight HP bump).

For me it's the simplicity of it that I find most attractive. I dont' have to track two pools, or deal with transferring damage with some funky ability that would eat up my reactions or some such thing.

Shared pool is just so much more elegant!

That being said, it does open up some odd rule corner cases that should probably be addressed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm also in the side of "This is a good thing, keep it Paizo".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The simplicity of tracking and the thematics of the shared HP pool mean that I'm a fan of it.


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

Me as well. If it feels too low, then having extra hit points from somewhere might not be a bad idea, but the shared pool is unique and innovative and seems like it'd be fun to play with, personally.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My biggest argument in favor of it is that the Eidolon must not be completely expandable in combat. The Summoner should avoid as much as possible his Eidolon to go down.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think PF1 encouraged people to try to keep eidolons alive by having the eidolon be unsummonsble for that day when they went down. But that encourages us much shorter adventuring day. Keeping hit points in the same pool allows the eidolon to be used all day while still encouraging people to avoid getting them hurt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We are going to have a severely split community on this shared hit point pool. I'm building my own summoner and magus type for my games in case this goes wrong. Then everyone can be happy.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
We are going to have a severely split community on this shared hit point pool. Split communities are where opportunities to poach a customer base become available.

Define severely here, because I see the same three to four people posting constantly in the "I don't like shared HP" thread and then a rotating cast of others explaining why they do like shared HP.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
We are going to have a severely split community on this shared hit point pool. Split communities are where opportunities to poach a customer base become available.

Eh, not everyone's utterly adamant in their position.

I believe that the shared HP pool is the best implementation, and like it a lot.

Would I be disappointed if we lost it in the final version? Yes.

Would it cause me to stop playing PF2E forever over this one piddling issue? Psssh, no. We're adults; I can accept compromise if it was necessary for the rest of the class to be better.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
We are going to have a severely split community on this shared hit point pool. Split communities are where opportunities to poach a customer base become available.
Define severely here, because I see the same three to four people posting constantly in the "I don't like shared HP" thread and then a rotating cast of others explaining why they do like shared HP.

Just wanted to second this one...

... and jump on the "I like shared HP Pool" bandwagon too o/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
We are going to have a severely split community on this shared hit point pool. Split communities are where opportunities to poach a customer base become available.
Define severely here, because I see the same three to four people posting constantly in the "I don't like shared HP" thread and then a rotating cast of others explaining why they do like shared HP.

I believe that adoption of PF2 is reliant on PF1 players moving to PF2. Even it occurs slowly. Any time PF2 designers makes a decision that turns off that PF1 customer looking to move to PF2, they risk dividing that remaining customer base.

This is a pretty severe disagreement. We have people on here claiming they love the shared hit point pool. People I don't even know if they played a PF1 summmoner much at all. Then you have other people who clearly played the PF1 summoner and liked the class saying no bueno on the PF2 summoner two creatures in one body.

It will come down to this: Who better represents the PF1 summoner fan?

For every person on the forum, there are hundreds if not thousands who won't say a thing if the PF2 summoner is not what they like. They'll just read it, see that is not anything like the PF1 summoner, and not even bother to move to PF2.

That's the risk here. Will this version of the summoner bring in those PF1 summoner fans who were waiting for a cool summoner in PF2 to give it a shot? Or make the PF1 summoner fans want to buy the PF2 version of it?

I know right now my buddy who likes magus flat out said this version of the magus sucks. He's not making one as they are now. He doesn't plan to come to the forums or mention it to Paizo. He doesn't have any plans to buy Secrets of Magic right now because the Magus was the only reason he was looking forward to it.

There are thousands of people exactly like that out there. They were PF1 fans. Some have moved to PF2. Their continued adoption of PF2 is dependent on Paizo building versions of their favorite classes that play enough like PF1 versions of the class they have a reason to move to PF2.

Right now, my opinion is this summoner doesn't play anything like the PF1 summoner. Doesn't feel familiar. I think the druid with an animal companion feels way more like the PF1 summoner. It's why I made a druid with an animal companion in my 3rd campaign. Poor man's pet class that turned out to be really good.

But hey, we'll see how it goes. Maybe more people will enjoy this weird hybrid martial summoner rather than a separate conjured creature summoner. Synthesist was a very popular summoner archetype and that's what this hybrid summoner plays more like: a synthesist in two bodies. Everything shared, no real independence. It's basically like a ranged synthesist as it exists right now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the shared hp pool, and general shared feeling of the class.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, let's take a look at this.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
I believe that adoption of PF2 is reliant on PF1 players moving to PF2. Even it occurs slowly. Any time PF2 designers makes a decision that turns off that PF1 customer looking to move to PF2, they risk dividing that remaining customer base.

Pretty big assumption here. PF2 has been out for a full year now. We've had at least four threads over the year asking Paizo if they were happy with the sales for PF2. Turns out, they were (and presumably still are). You don't have to take my word for it, you can take it from Lisa herself. She even mentions that it's okay for not everyone to come over from 1st edition!

Deriven Firelion wrote:
This is a pretty severe disagreement. We have people on here claiming they love the shared hit point pool. People I don't even know if they played a PF1 summmoner much at all. Then you have other people who clearly played the PF1 summoner and liked the class saying no bueno on the PF2 summoner two creatures in one body.

I have no idea what any of that has to do with their feelings on the playtest summoner. If you think that a summoner needs X, Y, and Z and another playtester believes it needs A, B, and C, you're arguing from the same position. It doesn't matter if someone has "logged 100 hours of summoner both Chained and Unchained" because that's not what's being playtested.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
It will come down to this: Who better represents the PF1 summoner fan?

It comes down to: What does this discussion prove to the developers about the direction of the summoner. I'm not a dev, you don't have to sway my opinion. I will say that many people have noted many thematic and mechanical reasons why the HP pooling feels right for them. Many arguments for separating the HP pools relate back to "doing it as it was done in PF1" might be a harder sell for devs who already have shown that they're okay with changing some core assumptions.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
For every person on the forum, there are hundreds if not thousands who won't say a thing if the PF2 summoner is not what they like. They'll just read it, see that is not anything like the PF1 summoner, and not even bother to move to PF2.

Yes, this is the same silent majority that gets mentioned with wizards. Or spellcasting. Or when paladins had their name changed to champions. Or when goblins were made core. Or when-

Deriven Firelion wrote:
That's the risk here. Will this version of the summoner bring in those PF1 summoner fans who were waiting for a cool summoner in PF2 to give it a shot? Or make the PF1 summoner fans want to buy the PF2 version of it?

This is such a bizarre scenario that you're painting that you should actually stop to picture the person who won't play a game with their friends (that requires a lot of group commitment) because their very specific version of a summoner with two separate HP pools is not in PF2. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I'm saying that is an incredibly niche audience.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
I know right now my buddy who likes magus flat out said this version of the magus sucks. He's not making one as they are now. He doesn't plan to come to the forums or mention it to Paizo. He doesn't have any plans to buy Secrets of Magic right now because the Magus was the only reason he was looking forward to it.

Great, I hope he fills out a survey so he can have a voice. If not, he can play something else?

Deriven Firelion wrote:
There are thousands of people exactly like that out there. They were PF1 fans. Some have moved to PF2. Their continued adoption of PF2 is dependent on Paizo building versions of their favorite classes that play enough like PF1 versions of the class they have a reason to move to PF2.

First off, even Lisa Stevens has said that some people won't change editions. And that's okay. Secondly, thousands of people who won't change to a new edition because it got a feature of one class they enjoyed from the previous edition wrong in their eyes? You might need a larger data set to poll from. Like these forums!

Deriven Firelion wrote:
Right now, my opinion is this summoner doesn't play anything like the PF1 summoner. Doesn't feel familiar. I think the druid with an animal companion feels way more like the PF1 summoner. It's why I made a druid with an animal companion in my 3rd campaign. Poor man's pet class that turned out to be really good.

Cool, put it on the survey.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
But hey, we'll see how it goes. Maybe more people will enjoy this weird hybrid martial summoner rather than a separate conjured creature summoner. Synthesist was a very popular summoner archetype and that's what this hybrid summoner plays more like: a synthesist in two bodies. Everything shared, no real independence. It's basically like a ranged synthesist as it exists right now.

I mean, in your entirely subjective opinion, yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Talking about surveys, are they available yet?
If not, when ( and where ) might they be available?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
It will come down to this: Who better represents the PF1 summoner fan?

In my opinion, PF1 Summoner fans will be disappointed whatever Paizo does. PF1 Summoner broken power level was a big part of its appeal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like it too. I don't have much of a dog in this race since I care about Magus far more than Summoner, but I think it is a really interesting idea and a great way to emphasize the fact that the Summoner-Eidolon relationship is a lot more intricate than the relationship between an Animal companion or Familiar and their master.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A random, potentially contentious thought for the application of the shared HP:

What if the shared maximum HP used the higher CON between the Summoner and the Eidolon?

It means the onus isn't necessarily on the Summoner for high CON, reduces the impact of applying a high CON from two bodies (especially at higher levels), and still retains the vulnerability to Fort saves on whichever half keeps a low CON.


TheGentlemanDM wrote:

A random, potentially contentious thought for the application of the shared HP:

What if the shared maximum HP used the higher CON between the Summoner and the Eidolon?

It means the onus isn't necessarily on the Summoner for high CON, reduces the impact of applying a high CON from two bodies (especially at higher levels), and still retains the vulnerability to Fort saves on whichever half keeps a low CON.

Then a summoner would be able to entirely drop the stat.

Every class ( hybrid and combatant mostly) has different stats to deal with.

For Example:

- a champion would use Str + Const + Char
- a warpriest would use Str + Const + Wis + Char
- a monk would use Dex + Str + Wis + Const

And so on.

Currently, a summoner what stats is using?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheGentlemanDM wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
We are going to have a severely split community on this shared hit point pool. Split communities are where opportunities to poach a customer base become available.

Eh, not everyone's utterly adamant in their position.

I believe that the shared HP pool is the best implementation, and like it a lot.

Would I be disappointed if we lost it in the final version? Yes.

Would it cause me to stop playing PF2E forever over this one piddling issue? Psssh, no. We're adults; I can accept compromise if it was necessary for the rest of the class to be better.

Honestly the first edition Summoner was what sold me on Pathfinder. It got me on board on the game. This was a flexible unique class that covered the classic summoner style wizard I knew from fantasy stories. I wanted to play it.

The new playtest summoner heads off in direction I don't like:
a) the fluff /the story is just wrong, it is not a summoner any more
a) the mechancis of the class are pure mechanics. They are moving further away from any form of common sense or reasonable justification given the current abstractions in the game. Its all about game play. It just keeps piling on and the abstractions become more abstract.

From a game design point of view it may be a good idea. But you need to get people on board with the concept. Because its a different game.

We all know PF1 became popular because D&D4 went too far down this path. Likewise D&D5 was massively successful because it returned to something much closer to where it started. It wont be just a couple of voices on the forum.

If the current summoner goes ahead. I'll be playing just the synthesis summoner - its still fixable. I'll be discouraging the base summoner as a wierd class that just doesn't fit into the campaign. It makes about as much sense as a nilbog. Some people may want that - OK, but it is defintely not me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
It will come down to this: Who better represents the PF1 summoner fan?
In my opinion, PF1 Summoner fans will be disappointed whatever Paizo does. PF1 Summoner broken power level was a big part of its appeal.

If anything liking the PF1 Summoner makes you less capable of properly saying what the PF2 Summoner should be. The rest of us loved the concept but hated the execution. God knows I would have loved to play a Synthesist if there was any way to do it that wasn't broken.


I'd like to have a baseline reaction or free action, with frequency once per day and the requirement that your eidolon is manifested, which gives you temporary HP equal your level * eidolon's CON. These temporary HP go away if the eidolon is no longer manifested.
Maybe with a trigger like "if you would reach 0 HP", but that's not necessary.

With that, you have an emergency reserve, your eidolon's CON score matters more, but it's still the same as having a lot more HP because you can't heal them.


Megistone wrote:

I'd like to have a baseline reaction or free action, with frequency once per day and the requirement that your eidolon is manifested, which gives you temporary HP equal your level * eidolon's CON. These temporary HP go away if the eidolon is no longer manifested.

Maybe with a trigger like "if you would reach 0 HP", but that's not necessary.

With that, you have an emergency reserve, your eidolon's CON score matters more, but it's still the same as having a lot more HP because you can't heal them.

That's not bad.

The Eidolon's CON once per day is fair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remember that when discussing ideas that bump effective hp even slightly, there are already options in play that do this.

Any suggestion made has to be valid stacking with the Resistance from Reinforce Eidolon (which becomes bonkers late game as it is Resistance to All Damage, and will commonly be applying 2-3 times per hit) and with the free effective HP granted by the Shield Cantrip via Magical Evolution.

Those options aren't huge, but they're not to be discounted either.

I worry it doesn't take a lot for additional hp to get out of hand.

Note - I like once per day Temp Hp equal to Eidolons con/level myself, but stacked with the above its A LOT.

Grand Lodge Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brew Bird wrote:
Shared HP just feels like a more elegant way to do life link. My only issue right now (I've yet to actually engage in playtesting, since real life has gotten in the way) is that it feels weird for the Summoner to care about Con while the Eidolon can nearly ignore it.

This sums up my feelings on the issue perfectly. I love how much simple a bunch of situations are now; if you faint, if the eidolon dies, if the eidolon goes past its 'leash' distance. The Con thing is the only really weird part to me.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
It will come down to this: Who better represents the PF1 summoner fan?
In my opinion, PF1 Summoner fans will be disappointed whatever Paizo does. PF1 Summoner broken power level was a big part of its appeal.
If anything liking the PF1 Summoner makes you less capable of properly saying what the PF2 Summoner should be. The rest of us loved the concept but hated the execution. God knows I would have loved to play a Synthesist if there was any way to do it that wasn't broken.

Doesnt mean they need to reinvent the wheel just because the first iteration was prone to flats. Its entirely possible to create a balanced system with evolution points and the dedication can be the Eidolon without the extra points.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I also like the shares HP. I think it would be cool to have a temp HP conduit spell though, to help let the Eidolon act as a shield.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
It will come down to this: Who better represents the PF1 summoner fan?
In my opinion, PF1 Summoner fans will be disappointed whatever Paizo does. PF1 Summoner broken power level was a big part of its appeal.
If anything liking the PF1 Summoner makes you less capable of properly saying what the PF2 Summoner should be. The rest of us loved the concept but hated the execution. God knows I would have loved to play a Synthesist if there was any way to do it that wasn't broken.
Doesnt mean they need to reinvent the wheel just because the first iteration was prone to flats. Its entirely possible to create a balanced system with evolution points and the dedication can be the Eidolon without the extra points.

I don't think so. They have to reinvent the wheel as they need people to feel like it's the good ol' Summoner with a power level so crippled that it can't feel at all like the good ol' Summoner. In my opinion (and I insist that it's just an opinion) they face a pretty hard challenge in balancing such a class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There have been numerous arguments against an evolution point system, but the simplest answer is just that I don't expect them to look at the results of the playtest and entirely scrap what they designed and publish a new, untested system.

The playtest is looking for what works, what doesn't, what feels good, and see where the "pain points" are in the design. It's not a time to create a completely new ground up system.


Just to repeat what I said in the other thread.

We can easily have both shared and not shared HP. Just 1 feat is all the is needed.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Not really interested in a feat tax to enable/disable a basic feature we have right now.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:

Talking about surveys, are they available yet?

If not, when ( and where ) might they be available?

Yeah, they're linked on the Playtest blog post.

----

All in favor of shared HP. It's cool mechanically and flavorfully.

Also, 2e is certainly not reliant on 1e players to survive. There are people who don't already play TTRPGs, DnD players, PBTA players - more people don't play that game than do, in fact. And unlike the insane density of 1e, this game actually appeals to my PBTA-playing friends, which is a big bonus.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

im to the point where i view shared hp as the smaller issue

i find boost/reinforce eidolon to be a much bigger issue. as you feel like you are playing a bard (only one right answer for your third action) without the power of the bard.

feels bad to play


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:

im to the point where i view shared hp as the smaller issue

i find boost/reinforce eidolon to be a much bigger issue. as you feel like you are playing a bard (only one right answer for your third action) without the power of the bard.

feels bad to play

This I sort of agree with. I think Mark's proposed variable action version of Act Together helps and I think one more small tweak would make it perfect. Not sure what that tweak is currently but I really do feel like the class is close to being amazing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It would be appropriate if we don't expect psychic classes to make an appearance in a future book. If we do, then it's stepping on Spiritualist toes, which is no fair.

It's also not fun to get nuked twice compared to other characters due to unfortunate positioning, have reduced spell slots, and not very interesting eidolon choices or feats other than ones to make this existing arrangement suck less as you gain levels. I didn't have this problem as a Summoner in PF1, why make it a problem now? I might as well be playing chess with a handicap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Capn Cupcake wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

im to the point where i view shared hp as the smaller issue

i find boost/reinforce eidolon to be a much bigger issue. as you feel like you are playing a bard (only one right answer for your third action) without the power of the bard.

feels bad to play

This I sort of agree with. I think Mark's proposed variable action version of Act Together helps and I think one more small tweak would make it perfect. Not sure what that tweak is currently but I really do feel like the class is close to being amazing.

the eidolon and summoner could have uses for its last action if boost was just rolled into the base eidolon (it would not imbalance anything) in some way and reinforce was made a reaction, but if you made it a reaction youd need other reactions to compete with it or you are just auto filling your reaction every round.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:


the eidolon and summoner could have uses for its last action if boost was just rolled into the base eidolon (it would not imbalance anything) in some way and reinforce was made a reaction, but if you made it a reaction youd need other reactions to compete with it or you are just auto filling your reaction every round.

Martial, you do recognize that most classes damage boost abilities have action costs associated with them right?

For some, like Rage or Studied Strike the costs are explicit, and last for varied amounts of time. Rage costs one action per encounter, but comes with significant drawbacks. Studied Strike, by default, costs one action per attack. By comparison, Boost Eidolon costs one action but comes with zero drawbacks or limitations and can be applied to all attacks in a round - including three actions worth of strikes.

Hunt Prey also fits into this category.

For other classes, like Rogue Sneak Attack, the action costs are not explicit but they still exist. Turning on Sneak Attack requires any number of possible actions to set up flat footed, but it does require actions (though not always from the rogue).

Boost Eidolon being rolled into the base numbers would in fact be unbalanced relative to most Martial classes, as most Martial Classes have to pay some sort of "Action tax" or "Drawback Tax" to enable their damage boost... Fighters excepted. Summoners don't have anything that warrants them just getting a "free pass" here.

Summoners actually get a relatively good deal with Boost Eidolon, as one action lasts all round and has no drawbacks or conditions like Rage. Its just free damage.

The big issue is that its kindof boring... but that can be fixed.

It doesn't mean it should just be rolled into the numbers tho.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
Then a summoner would be able to entirely drop the stat.

They still have to make saves.Tank Con and you're just begging to get poisoned, diseased and all sorts of crit fail spells. Sure, go for it.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Capn Cupcake wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

im to the point where i view shared hp as the smaller issue

i find boost/reinforce eidolon to be a much bigger issue. as you feel like you are playing a bard (only one right answer for your third action) without the power of the bard.

feels bad to play

This I sort of agree with. I think Mark's proposed variable action version of Act Together helps and I think one more small tweak would make it perfect. Not sure what that tweak is currently but I really do feel like the class is close to being amazing.

I agree as well (though I REALLY like the HP sharing concept already). From my playtest, having to boost every round felt very bad. The proposed changes to "Act Together" really help with that, but still it is something that should be looked at. When we played we had other martials and just watching them each round compared to the Eidolon didn't feel exciting.

Swashbuckler - You could say that gaining his Panache is similar, but he was doing it in an active way that was useful "Tumble Through" or "Intimidate" and the payoff was MUCH bigger with the Finisher Move

Barbarian - Went into rage at the beginning of the fight, and never had to worry about it again.

Rogue - She only had to get into position and her boost (sneak attack) was packed right in

Then there was the Eidolon. Every round the Summoner basically had to pause to push its boost button. A simple duration on the boosts, I think, would remedy this. Maybe something like a duration of half you level rounded up. Really anything would be fine by me.


On the thread topic, while I don't hate it I don't like it either. I'd be fine if it was something you could turn on and off but as a constant affect it's either really good or really bad depending on the situation.

I'll let everyone get back to their shared hp lovefest now. ;)


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
your criticism is mere fanboyism

I'm just going to say this once, because my preference is not to engage on personal attacks like this.

Meeting positions that disagree with yours, especially those that are presented with evidence, comparison, and detailed explanations with personal attacks does not look good for your position.

Disagreeing with you does not make me a "fan boy". My disagreement with you is based on demonstrated comparisons to other classes, and I brought the information to back it up.

You are undermining your own position when you fail to address why Summoners need a damage boost mechanic that costs zero actions when their peers similar mechanics either have significant drawbacks (rage) or significant action costs (studied strike).

Perhaps, and maybe you checked this, the significant gap in damage is because of lower accuracy?

Or perhaps, the gap in damage is entirely intentional because eidolons are meant to deal less damage than barbarians?

This is an off topic discussion, but I want to make this point here because this isnt the first personal attack you've made today and it probably won't be the last - but you're doing yourself no favors.

If you want to continue this side discussion, please do it elsewhere. Theres good on topic discussion occurring here.

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Secrets of Magic Playtest / Summoner Class / I like the shared HP pool All Messageboards