| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, the other forum posters are potential GMs? I should be nicer then, I still haven't played a character in this game since I tried the playtest demo as Seoni a couple years ago at PAX unplugged. ; )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, the other forum posters are potential GMs? I should be nicer then, I still haven't played a character in this game since I tried the playtest demo as Seoni a couple years ago at PAX unplugged. ; )
LOL Anyone you meet on the internet might be a potential DM. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not clear on what a "stand" even is. It's like a "spiritual representation of your soul that you summon to fight for you by proxy" right?
Which is clearly not an Eidolon because Eidolons are outsiders and not actually you (they just need you in order to manifest).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not clear on what a "stand" even is. It's like a "spiritual representation of your soul that you summon to fight for you by proxy" right?
Which is clearly not an Eidolon because Eidolons are outsiders and not actually you (they just need you in order to manifest).
this seems unnecessarily obtuse. i don't think anyone said it was a 1:1 representation.
otherwise youd be required to shout muda or ora when making the strike action and you get roughly 30-70 strikes in a round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly why we don't necro threads. The playtest is over, let it die. The ridiculous fighting was embarassing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I certainly learned a few things (about PF2 and outsiders confirmation; the current state of playtest eidolon action economy etc; and given comparison with stands, more info about eidolons generally) with the two or three posts above yours. So I for one am glad for the raise thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So to answer my question then, no.
Actually, in my reply I felt like I made it clear I was in the thread looking for information. Posting in the thread rose from that. What are you doing here? Posting. As am I. So...yes. We both have subjectively better things to do.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh* Now I’m going to have to do something better, and look at the playtest again. Eidolons aren’t summoned creatures? What is going on?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not clear on what a "stand" even is. It's like a "spiritual representation of your soul that you summon to fight for you by proxy" right?
Which is clearly not an Eidolon because Eidolons are outsiders and not actually you (they just need you in order to manifest).
Stands in JoJo are psychic projections from the minds of their users, which they manifest to fight for them, usually against other Stand users. They serve as a mental representation of the user's soul, and if a Stand is harmed, maimed, killed, etc. So is the user. In certain cases, a Stand can be self-reliant or even self-sentient beyond the user themselves; although rare, it is certainly possible and also fairly evident when that is the case.
As for their comparison to a PF Eidolon, it's closer than you think, both mechanically and flavor-wise. Stands suffer damage and pain similar to an Eidolon, in that their pain transfers to the user/Summoner. Stands are also manifested with special appearances and abilities (though this is much more varied compared to Eidolons), while also being universally identifiable (largely because of their ridiculous appearances and capabilities compared to the real world), not unlike an Eidolon that also has a special appearance, with some special abilities of their own, and having an otherwordly appearance to them. Did I also mention that Stands, much like Eidolons, are classified by type? Sure, Eidolon classification is different and has other ramifications for the Summoner, but Stands aren't much different based on what they do with their user.
I didn't make this comparison lightly. The mechanics, build, and abilities, not to mention the flavor behind Eidolons being fairly interchangeable with Stands in JoJo, is just something I cannot unsee anymore. It might make playing a Summoner more interesting, but I'd enjoy it more from an RP perspective and less so from a mechanics perspective.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eidolons aren’t summoned creatures? What is going on?
Nope, summoners are actually far, far worse at summoning than a conjurer...
They're summoned (little s), not Summoned (big S with accompanying Trait), it avoids the P1 situation of being Summoned but immune to this, this, this, not that, that, not this, that, that, etc.
Something summoned (little s) is by definition Summoned (big S with accompanying Trait). Eidolon are specifically MANIFESTED, which is Teleportation not any form of summoning...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Summoning is summoning but not all summoning is Summoning.
That is the most nonsensical sentence I've seen in a LONG time. Any instance of summoning would result in a Summoned creature or it wouldn't be summoning by definition.
Conjuration
Source Core Rulebook pg. 297
"Conjuration spells transport creatures via teleportation, create an object, or bring a creature or object from somewhere else (typically from another plane) to follow your commands.
Conjuration spells often have the teleportation trait, and the creatures summoned by conjuration spells have the summoned trait."
A creature brought to you and not Summoned would be Teleported: this is even clear with the inclusion of the Teleportation trait and exclusion of the Summoned Trait.
Calling, Manifesting, Summoning, are summoning.
In PF2? No. In PF1? No. For instance, PF1's calling was specifically NOT summoning but a separate defined sub-school of magic [. In PF1, manifesting was in some ways summoning and some ways not. In PF2, it's very clear that it's 100% not summoning: it's Teleportation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you guys slow down!?!
@Graystone - I understand Rysky’s delineation of not all summoning is Summoning but Summoning is definitely summoning. It’s a mix of nomenclature and definition. Some nomenclature is definition, all definition uses nomenclature. I think.
Thanks Rysky and Graystone. But why is manifesting Teleport-aligned/themed/based?
Anyway, it seems there are some rough edges, which I had thought was what the massive editorial change to the way PF2 defined game mechanics was trying to avoid.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's still conjuration and summoning and avoids the drawbacks of having a Summoned creature, whereas in P1 it just went about listing a whole slew of exceptions and how things worked differently.Can you guys slow down!?!
@Graystone - I understand Rysky’s delineation of not all summoning is Summoning but Summoning is definitely summoning. It’s a mix of nomenclature and definition. Some nomenclature is definition, all definition uses nomenclature. I think.
Thanks Rysky and Graystone. But why is manifesting Teleport-aligned/themed/based?
Anyway, it seems there are some rough edges, which I had thought was what the massive editorial change to the way PF2 defined game mechanics was trying to avoid.
This is the Playtest, not the final version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoning is summoning but not all summoning is Summoning.
Got it.
Calling, Manifesting, Summoning, are summoning.
But Calling and Manifesting are not Summoning. They are summoning. Only Summoning is true Summoning. Is that it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. So it seems like they are trying to avoid categorization pitfalls to eliminate all of those caveats, but are perhsps encountering others. Well, let’s see how it shakes up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Graystone:
Conjuration spells often have the teleportation trait, and the creatures summoned by conjuration spells have the summoned trait."
A creature brought to you and not Summoned would be Teleported: this is even clear with the inclusion of the Teleportation trait and exclusion of the Summoned Trait.
That reads to me that only the creatures conjured have the summoned trait, whereas Conjuration spells “often have the teleportation trait”. I guess you’d need to see a conjured creature with a summoned trait to make it proven/clear.
It makes my head spin, so I’ll need to investigate all these traits and find the difference between the regular use of a word like summon, what that means in game terms and the definition of Summon/ed in game terms.
I’m pretty sure I want Summoners, not summoners or Teleporters. Though Teleporters would be cool too.
Heh, while I did have a minor dedication to this very thread on another unrelated part of the Paizo message boards, I figured that there's always more room for some general positivity now and then.
Have a little bit of some Lou Bega going more orchestral for you...
And in keeping with the main subject matter (that really matters), lets have a little bit of JoJo in there too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In game a creature is only summoned if they count as summoned or have the Summoned trait.
PF2 Eidolons do not count as summoned under any case and do not have the Summoned trait.
Paizo deliberately went out of their way to tell us unquestionably that PF2 Eidolons are not summoned creatures. That they are Manifested. Abilities that work only on summoned creatures do not work on eidolons as seen by the whopping 2 whole feats that even mention summoning.
[Citation Needed]
So to make the Summoner not a "stand-user" would be to eliminate the shared life pool? Since we're not going to make the Summoner not about the Eidolon, since there's supposed to be some continuity between editions (also PF2 really wants to reign in minionmancy, so we're not going to make a class about "summon monster.")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The shared action economy with those cooperative activities is my favorite thing about the class though. Like the playtest summoner was very bland, but "how to turn 3 actions into 5" was the most fun part for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to make the Summoner not a "stand-user" would be to eliminate the shared life pool? Since we're not going to make the Summoner not about the Eidolon, since there's supposed to be some continuity between editions (also PF2 really wants to reign in minionmancy, so we're not going to make a class about "summon monster.")
It's a start, but it's also the fact that the Eidolon is an extension of the Summoner's will, not unlike a Stand being an extension of the user's will. It is an entity manifested by the Summoner, and dies when the Summoner dies, the same as a Stand. I don't expect all of the similarities to go away, but for it to stand on its own, it has to be its own. Having its own actions, HP, MAP, and abilities, as a start. Being customizable and unique just like any other character, especially if the argument is that they are indeed a 2nd character and not just a class feature.
Some people think the RPing, Sorcerer-Lite spellcasting, and different subtypes with hardly any difference between them are enough. I myself don't think so.
I think this “Manifest” question is important. I don’t see a “Manifest” trait listed, and the ability name “Manifest Eidolon” is really just flavor text - it could be “Bring Forth Eidolon” “Wooshkalazoo, Eidolon Appeareth” etc. The disconnect between vernacular use of terms, and defined-mechanics-traits is causing a lot of disconnect.
I’m afraid the two opposing views may well both ve right, or both be wrong, or both, in part be at once right and wrong.
I suggest folks remove their investment on being right, proving “correct” etc and we all work toward something where at least we can agree on some things to get a bit of common ground.
I for one am still seeing no definition that Eidolons are “mechanically” manifested, because I don’t see game rules for what manifesting is or does. I think they are manifested in the term as a verb, but beyond that they still seem to be brought forth (“manifested”) by Teleport-trait mechanics, with a Summoner-trait attached for rules-impacts/effects-that-have-to-do-with-Summoners.
I don’t like that thematically, but there you go.
Currently it appears that an eidolon is both vernacularly manifested and summoned, but is not Summoned-the-trait, and I see no rules for Manifest-the-trait-that-has-game-riles-attached.
Perhaps I am wrong. All help appreciated.
Actually now I’m not even sure of the summon part. Going to go back to the playtest doc...
Hmm. So the class is called the Summoner, right at the top. Which is :
...the mortal conduit for a powerful being called an eidolon, which you can summon into your world. Whether your eidolon is a friend, a servant, or even a personal...
[Emphasis mine]
And really, that is about it. I couldn’t find many other instances of “summon” or “summoning” and all the initial “guidance for newbs on how you might play/be perceived etc” focuses on this buddy-eidolon schtick.
You have no tangible “summon spells” beyond what you might choose from your tradition’s spell list.
There is no reason for the Eidolon to be termed as Summoned, because except for what I describe, from then on, it is manifested, but not Manifested (because that doesn’t seem to be a tangible thing, game-term wise), and is rather Teleported.
As it stands, being a playtest - this is not what I would call a Summoner. It’s an Eidolon manifester or to be completely precise, mechanically, an Eidolon Teleporter, that manifests an eidolon, rarely vernacularly termed as summoning an Eidolon.
I see lots of room for confusion, and clearly the language, vernacular and definitions need tidying up, eliding and clarifying. Well before anyone complains about the lack of granted, tangible, actual summoning spells that you may not necessarily choose any more than if you were any caster with access to the various summon spells in the CRB.
[Having said all that, I somehow like the simplicity of the 2e paradigm. As much as I bemoan “Featfinder”, I can see myself just giving free feats (or using the APG free dedications/feats options) to players. The options are here (and this being Paizo, they will always sell books with more feats) so as long as you control the spigot of the feat-barrel you can increase those to the limit of your game’s balance-incredulity-threshold.]
[It still isn’t, to me, a “Summoner” without non-Eidolon-related regular monster Summoning powarz. And maybe there will, in the final version, be a suite/archetype/racket/side where you can drop or diminish the Eidolon to get that...]
@Temperans - seems that is precisely why they aren’t so that they can’t take advantage of those Feats. Almost like the designers are afraid of the implications of anything that would buff the Eidolon outside of Summoner feats directly tied to the eidolon in the class write-up.
Or, something has gone awry between the design cues/paradigms for the development of the Summoner and the design paradigms of the CRB ruleset, but I feel that isn’t the case.
Having missed the discussions, and subsequent Twitch/Know Direction/FB/Insta/Squadbilge/Egolive updates, have the devs given any indication of where any structural problems have been identified?
This basic but imperative nomenclature/definition disconnect seems...large. Perhaps a very easy fix, but still...
Hmm, a few things there stick out.
First: I only understand now, it took you to point it out here now - I thank you for that. Yes, this foes seem to be Eidolon, the malformed class that came about because Summoner was popular. Except the Summoner does have spells, so they at least exist for that. Or rather, the Eidolon’s lesser half does.
Second: I’m not sure everyone agrees with you that evolution points “ was the main most essential part of eidolons. ”
Mechanically? Perhaps. Though the teamwork and Outsider nature were also mechanically important. The Eidolons were still Eidolons in Unchained. I didn’t like that version, but lots of posters clearly did.
Conceptually/Flavorwise? Again, only perhaps.
My biggest problem with this Playtest version is that there are no tacit in built spells or feats for Summoning, (and this is coming from a player who was always about the Eidolon and mostly completely ignored the summon monster spells).
I’m not sure why this should be, for a class emblazoned “Summoner”. If it were Eidolonmancer, sure, but this? Absurd.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fact that the class is "Summoner" sort of invalidates all of these convoluted arguments about the technical jargon used by each ability-- it renders the meaning of "manifesting" as being closely related if not synonymous with "Summoning."
My citation needed Temp, was in reference to the lack of justification as to why the 'Summon' trait is so important to the identification of the class's abilities as being summoning.
Why does that stand up to scrutiny for you as the central point around which the fiction of the class pivots such that it's name and design flavor are all invalidated in the face of the trait, which is itself a mechanical abstraction?
Why are we incapable of parsing the idea that Manifesting is just a class specific mechanical variation on the core idea of Summoning?
"The Summoner is a class that summons an Eidolon that they can manifest" the word Summoning and Manifesting seem relatively interchangeable in this context, and could refer to identical, or heavily related processes, that seems to be the most reasonable reading of it in context.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@The-Magic-Sword: although it is called the Summoner, it doesn’t actually per-se mechanically summon, and the only tangible, flavorful basic summon built in is the summoning of the Eidolon, that doesn’t have the summoned trait.
Conceptually it’s missing stuff, mechanically it is in a heap. It seems like a missed opportunity.