| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. If I knew Unchained still had evo points I have clearly forgotten, just the pain of remembering the “streamlined” base types must have burnt the rest away. Thx for the heads up.
As for the rest, that does all appear fairly terrible. So, here’s an idea. I’m all for being critical, conducting critical analysis; however I’m also all for trying to find the positives once I’ve gotten over any unnecessary maladaptive histrionics. At my age too...
Anyway, I’m going to try to find something new or interesting this 2e version has, and, rather than focussing on what was “lost” try to look at the class framework through the lens of a new player/someone completely new to Pathfinder. Because they won’t be seeing any loss, and that is important to remember when trying to understand the development path.
| 3 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.
If you missed the playtest, you probably also may have missed the strong implication from Mark that the playtest didn't focus on Summoning abilities, because Summon spells are a known factor and they wanted to test the Eidolon itself.
As The-Magic-Sword points out, if it fits the literal dictionary definition of summoning (it does) and is being done by a Summoner, Manifesting is summoning for all practical purposes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A creature with the Summoned trait can't "summon other creatures, create things of value, or cast spells that require a cost", and that's a bummer, especially the "create things of value" part. It also gives the Minion trait, which flatly doesn't work with what Paizo wanted to do with Eidolons. And calling an Eidolon isn't a spell with a level, so that would have to be cleared up for Eidolons with spellcasting. And they'd have to make it work with the Wizard's dinky little focus spell buff but not Final Sacrifice. To give Eidolons as they're currently designed the Summoned trait would involve enough exceptions, clarifying, and future-proofing as to make what the tag mechanically means pretty much useless.
And tags are, in fact, only mechanical. They don't always make a ton of sense in fiction, even. Summoned as a trait specifically refers to the temporary creatures that generally come from a casting cost and usually aren't actual creatures actually pulled from another place, to my knowledge. It's pretty much all downsides/checks that would need to be curbed. Eidolons are summoned creatures that are stronger, more permanent, have a deeper link to their Summoner, and feature some implications of actually coming from other planes. At least one Summoner feat calls out Eidolons as being affected in the same way as creatures with the Summoned trait, probably to get around the lack of said trait, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more of that when Summoners get to do more summoning in the final release. A general rule that Eidolons count as having the Summoned trait for effects that are beneficial to them might be nice too.
| 3 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.
Or it could be that, much like legacy wording, it was chosen for effect and less for consistency. Studded Leather is supposed to be Brigandine armor in real life. Longswords are actually Arming Swords by real world terms and definitions. But these terms were chosen because it was more appealing to use in a fantasy setting.
Who is to say that's also not the case here, when manifesting, by real world terms, means to take a shape/form and come into existence? It still makes sense thematically, with Eidolons when we consider they are outsiders that exist in planes separate from ones they are called to. But there is a key difference between being summoned and being manifested, and that is by both existence and creation. Summoning is calling for an existing thing to appear before you. Manifesting is creating something, seemingly out of nothing, to appear in reality. In short, the "outsider" the Summoner manifests is their creation, whose being is brought into existence, even if temporarily, from their respective planes' energies. Although the book implies otherwise, the point is that, subtextually speaking, it's not an appropriate definition.
| 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.
Or it could be that, much like legacy wording, it was chosen for effect and less for consistency. Studded Leather is supposed to be Brigandine armor in real life. Longswords are actually Arming Swords by real world terms and definitions. But these terms were chosen because it was more appealing to use in a fantasy setting.
Who is to say that's also not the case here, when manifesting, by real world terms, means to take a shape/form and come into existence? It still makes sense thematically, with Eidolons when we consider they are outsiders that exist in planes separate from ones they are called to. But there is a key difference between being summoned and being manifested, and that is by both existence and creation. Summoning is calling for an existing thing to appear before you. Manifesting is creating something, seemingly out of nothing, to appear in reality. In short, the "outsider" the...
In terms of Pathfinder you have that exactly backwards. Summoned creatures do not exist before you cast your spell or after your spell ends, they are created by the spell to do your bidding and blink out of existence when it ends. Your eidolon, as stated in the playtest document, does exist when not currently on your plane of existence.
...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.
Or it could be that, much like legacy wording, it was chosen for effect and less for consistency. Studded Leather is supposed to be Brigandine armor in real life. Longswords are actually Arming Swords by real world terms and definitions. But these terms were chosen because it was more appealing to use in a fantasy setting.
Who is to say that's also not the case here, when manifesting, by real world terms, means to take a shape/form and come into existence? It still makes sense thematically, with Eidolons when we consider they are outsiders that exist in planes separate from ones they are called to. But there is a key difference between being summoned and being manifested, and that is by both existence and creation. Summoning is calling for an existing thing to appear before you. Manifesting is creating something, seemingly out of nothing, to appear
I might be misremembering, but I believe it was stated by James Jacobs that summoned creatures actually do exist outside of the spell, and that the spell is merely summoning them to do their bidding for the listed time in exchange for the energy provided (in this case, a spell slot), meaning that there are entities on another plane that you are calling your creatures from to fight for you.
But to be clear, I am aware what the playtest document states in reference to the Eidolons. What I am getting at is that, by textbook definition, manifest isn't an appropriate term to utilize as it has connotations with existence and creation that summoning does not possess, and if that is what they mean when an Eidolon is brought into the material plane by the Summoner, then it's a term that should be changed to better correlate what bringing an Eidolon to the material plane should mean.
Didn't James say they didn't like the idea of summon spells basically enslaving a creature and being torture to it via combat? Thus they made summons not real creatures.
I can see that for some folks, the words/definitions/nomenclature aren’t a problem at all. Others have a very difficult time reconciling the terms used both with the lore and the mechanics.
Given the various interpretations of manifest and summon, in heretofore published Golarion lore, in Pathfinder game mechanics, and in our own language/s, it seems prudent to rain openmimded.
While I don’t agree with other’s interpretations I nevertheless understand that those are interpretations informed by experience, thought and bias, as are mine. And that being interpretations there is little to cleave to. And I completely understsnd that while I think it is confused/unclear, others are just as sure it is clear, or is not important.
I definitely think that until a developer categorically states, or the final version clarifies “by manifesting we mean...” and “summoning entails....” and so on this will continue. Actually it will probably continue even then.
If you missed the playtest, you probably also may have missed the strong implication from Mark that the playtest didn't focus on Summoning abilities, because Summon spells are a known factor and they wanted to test the Eidolon itself.@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.
I did miss it, and so most of my thoughts and posts are made with the knowledge that I am late to the party, and I can’t help feeling a little like an annoying upstart, after all the work has been done, with uninformed opinions or worse, retreads that have already been hashed out.
I understand the design path of Paizo’s playtests - of throwing together the spiky/edgy/out there concepts to see what the community might take on (as in Resonance in the CRB Playtest), and I understand the thoughts on not focusing on the Summoning here, because they are a known factor. That makes perfect sense.
However there is problem for me in that I don’t see those summon abilities, they seem to be very important to the lore of completing the flavor on the one side, and they seem to be a major mechanic that is missing in the other. If it will be added - as a focus spell, or spell feats etc, then to my mind there is a balance issue - trying to assess the class as a whole without seeing a very flavor-necessary and mechanically-important function is very difficult.
Anyway, good to know there is some belief summoning is being added/not forgotten etc.
As The-Magic-Sword points out, if it fits the literal dictionary definition of summoning (it does) and is being done by a Summoner, Manifesting is summoning for all practical purposes.
I get that. But there is still some unnecessary confusion. Why use manifesting at all if it is just summoning. I’m not trying to be obtuse, or reductionist or combative - I’m all for florid language and flights of fancy (and not here suggesting the writers have been taken by floridity) but there is an interpretative difference between those two words. Without resorting to a dictionary definition, to my mind, to “manifest” makes a thing appear; “summon” makes a thing appear. Good. Same.
But “manifest” to me has no connotation of any source whatsoever - I could imagine the appearing thing coming from some other place, akin to a summoning or calling, OR being created whole-cloth from something/or nothing on the spot. Another point I must make is that “manifest” has no tacit connotation in a planar sense - if you tell me you manifest a planar creature that doesn’t make me think tacitly that you have conjured/summoned a creature from another plane - it brings to mind the creation of a creature who normally is at home on another plane. That’s just how I interpret the word. It feels more like “create” than “call”.
So if the theory is that, to avoid connotations of slavery/corrcive control etc, Paizo has summon monster spells not bringing and commanding free-willed entities into eldritch bondage but actually instantly creating monsters to fight for you then that does make sense. I prefer the more grim concept of tearing creatures away in a completely morally ambiguous power-and-control summon/bind for extra narrative angst, but I’m sure I could exploit the manifested/created monster angle for similar narrative angst (“Oh powerful summoner master - how did you create me from nothing? Who am I? Where do I go when I die? Why should I fight for you? What gods’ joke is this for me to be created only to instantly die for some other being?” etc etc)
“Summon” has a very powerful connotation to me of bringing a thing from some other place/plane, and that thing having resided or existed elsewhere, and “banish” is akin to sending it back. I’m not sure that “banish” and “manifest” enjoy the same relation in my mind.
These words we use have power and meaning. Their power is enhanced when codified into game terms. So when the terms don’t make sense in the flavor, or the rules there is a disconnect. Some players don’t see the problem. Others do. I really get it. But it seems there is room for ensuring that for those who do find it a problem it is clarified.
I for one would be disappointed if the Eidolon is, in Golarion, only a mere created thing, that just appears, has no ties to other planes and is merely an amalgam of energy and imagination given physical form; and not given the option of being from other planes/elsewheres/dimensions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get that. But there is still some unnecessary confusion. Why use manifesting at all if it is just summoning.
Because there's actual mechanical baggage to a 'Summoned' creature, and to be absolutely, perfectly clear to new players - not only do they not use 'summon' in conjunction with Eidolons, its called out as not being a Summoned Creature explicitly in the rules.
There is no question at all as to whether rules for Summoned Creatures apply to it.
The goal is to make sure it is clear that mechanically, it is not a Summoned (capital) Creature, because those have baggage and adding an exception to that baggage dilutes that baggage where it is supposed to apply.
Being as though it is the primary mechanic of the Summoner, however, I do not think their intent was that you should interpret Manifestation as not being a form of summoning (lower case).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main problem (Although I worry that this is the wrong thread for this conversation) is that the Summoner Class is undenyably the weakest and most limited Class when it comes to being able to flexibly summon/Summon/"Summon" creatures to fight/work for them - Currently they are capped at four a day (before consumables/magic items/Archetypes), a pitiful far cry from what you imagine when you hear the name Summoner.
@KrispyXIV: Ah, I think I’m starting to understand. Sorry to be a bit dim.
This is all to separate Eidolon’s mechanics from summoned creatures’ mechanics.
They are both summoned, in-world, but Eidolons don’t have the summoned tags. To avoid them being impacted as if they were. Is that it?
My main problem (Although I worry that this is the wrong thread for this conversation) is that the Summoner Class is undenyably the weakest and most limited Class when it comes to being able to flexibly summon/Summon/"Summon" creatures to fight/work for them - Currently they are capped at four a day (before consumables/magic items/Archetypes), a pitiful far cry from what you imagine when you hear the name Summoner.
As you say - Currently. It seems as if the devs aren’t worried about being able to tinker with their summoning, so there’s hope that it could be increased. Or decreased, in case it isn’t undeniable. I’m not sure you can prove it is “undeniable”. And even if you could, someone could still disagree, or point to where it is balanced out elsewhere in the class. For what it’s worth, if it is underpowered, I hope it gets the buff it needs.
And again, what you imagine isn’t necessarily what anyone else imagines. Sorry to be picky, but there does seem to be a huge variance in everyone’s imaginations and expectations. Weird. It’s almost as if we are a bunch of beautiful human beings with different perspectives. Heh. But I do agree with you, Vancian tropes de damned! eeds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are both summoned, in-world, but Eidolons don’t have the summoned tags. To avoid them being impacted as if they were. Is that it?
That is my understanding.
Note that Manifest Eidolon includes the Conjuration trait exactly like Summoning spells, as well as other traits that are normally included in the spell traits on the Summon spells (Concentrate, Manipulate, and others) by default. It even has Teleportation to ensure its blocked by Dimensional Lock.
Its set up to be as close to a Summon Spell as possible, while being absolutely clear that it is mechanically not a Summon spell or Summoned Creature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't James say they didn't like the idea of summon spells basically enslaving a creature and being torture to it via combat? Thus they made summons not real creatures.
Yup, this was confirmed again quite recently on fact, the current summon spells *make* the creature.
Hmm. Interesting. Summon-as-create. Works with manifest then. Fair enough.
Summon Monster never called the actual creature it was always an aspect of said creature.
Manifesting was always the creation of a body for an entity you housed in your mind:
* Spiritualist Phantom? An entity that counted as an outsider, lived in your mind, and you could create a body for.
* Figment Familiar? An entity that lived in your mind and you could create a body for.
* Elemental Familiar? An entity that lived in your mind and you could create a body for.
The whole "manifesting" thing has nothing to do with being "less cruel", because you were never being cruel. The eidolon was special because it was a summoned creature who was connected with its aspect.
If you are talking about bringing the real body of other creatures you are talking about spells like: Planar Ally, Call Outsider, Gate, etc. Spells that used to have the "calling" trait not the "summoning" trait.
To be fair, if summoning is stated to work as "creation," i.e. real-world manifestation, then the current Eidolon background might have to change since the concept behind a lot of them is that they are existing Outsiders that are tethered to the Summoner, and aren't a creation of the Summoner themselves, which is why the term "manifested" isn't an apt term to use, in the same way that knights used Arming Swords, not Longswords or Broadswords. In fact, Celestial Eidolons are stated to be actual Angels from the plane of Heaven, according to the playtest.
I mean, I might believe that Summoners have the ability to "create" outsiders, it might actually be how they come about, where a dead Summoner unbinds the Eidolon to their service, thus being a free outsider, but I don't believe that when the outsiders themselves are actually separate entities on a separate plane that are simply bound to the Summoner in some fashion, as they are currently written.
In other words, some retcons gotta be going on for any of this to work or make sense with the current wording. Or, just say it's a summoned creature that operates differently, because Specific Trumps General is an actual rule now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"It's Summoned BUT" takes up a lot of word count and creates possible conflicts down the road.
Manifest solves a bunch of that
This "Manifest doesn't make sense it has to be Summoned" stance is just a vendetta that serves no purposes nor produces any benefit.
Manifest creates a "Yes, but no but yes but no but maybe but kinda but ask your GM" situation. Can it be reasonably targeted with an effect like Banishment? Manifest makes it unclear because manifesting means the Summoner created it from his own being, an entity given form in a way it otherwise would not have had, an existence not possible in another fashion, which means it could be housed on the same plane as the Summoner, even though the lore points to otherwise.
Not to mention, the rules are meant to be universal and streamlined, with traits and effects spelled out in easy-to-find places. Plus, Specific Trumps General is a rule now. In fact, the clause we're looking for is already defined in the basic rules, meaning adding word count isn't really an issue. It's just a change in terms used, not rewriting the whole ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Banishing the Eidolon is just kind of a waste of time in the playtest, since the Summoner can just get it back on their next turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Banishing the Eidolon is just kind of a waste of time in the playtest, since the Summoner can just get it back on their next turn.
Well, you're burning an entire character's turn doing that, and then some if they're far enough away, not bad for a spellcaster lackey.
Furthermore, if it's a critical failure, it actually cannot be brought back into the same plane for a week, meaning you could have a character be majorly nullified during that time. It's a little fringe case, but certainly possible within the rules.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"It's Summoned BUT" takes up a lot of word count and creates possible conflicts down the road.
Manifest solves a bunch of that
This "Manifest doesn't make sense it has to be Summoned" stance is just a vendetta that serves no purposes nor produces any benefit.
Manifest creates a "Yes, but no but yes but no but maybe but kinda but ask your GM" situation. Can it be reasonably targeted with an effect like Banishment? Manifest makes it unclear because manifesting means the Summoner created it from his own being, an entity given form in a way it otherwise would not have had, an existence not possible in another fashion, which means it could be housed on the same plane as the Summoner, even though the lore points to otherwise.
Not to mention, the rules are meant to be universal and streamlined, with traits and effects spelled out in easy-to-find places. Plus, Specific Trumps General is a rule now. In fact, the clause we're looking for is already defined in the basic rules, meaning adding word count isn't really an issue. It's just a change in terms used, not rewriting the whole ability.
And that is all rectified when we have the Manifest definition/Trait in the final product.
And that is all rectified when we have the Manifest definition/Trait in the final product."It's Summoned BUT" takes up a lot of word count and creates possible conflicts down the road.
Manifest solves a bunch of that
This "Manifest doesn't make sense it has to be Summoned" stance is just a vendetta that serves no purposes nor produces any benefit.
Manifest creates a "Yes, but no but yes but no but maybe but kinda but ask your GM" situation. Can it be reasonably targeted with an effect like Banishment? Manifest makes it unclear because manifesting means the Summoner created it from his own being, an entity given form in a way it otherwise would not have had, an existence not possible in another fashion, which means it could be housed on the same plane as the Summoner, even though the lore points to otherwise.
Not to mention, the rules are meant to be universal and streamlined, with traits and effects spelled out in easy-to-find places. Plus, Specific Trumps General is a rule now. In fact, the clause we're looking for is already defined in the basic rules, meaning adding word count isn't really an issue. It's just a change in terms used, not rewriting the whole ability.
Perhaps. But this assumes it will be there in the final product. I'd like for it to be. But it's as much of a guarantee as, well, everything else in the classes currently.
I did say that a general rule suggesting they count as having the Summoned trait for beneficial purposes only might be fine, if effects designed for temporary creatures don't become a problem when applied to Eidolons somehow. But my main point was that the Summoned trait is a mechanical construct, not a lore marker, and pretty much all of the mechanics in it don't work with what Paizo seems to want for Eidolons, so raising a fuss about them not having it meaning that the Summoner doesn't summon strikes me as silly. The general rule would enable them to benefit from some effects that would make sense and maybe soothe the flavor concerns a bit, while actually giving them the trait would be an exercise in pointlessness unless the winds of polling blow and the mechanical design of Eidolons drastically changes.
(The fuss about the Summoned trait is separate, in my mind, from being sad that they don't do more to encourage traditional summoning spells or engage in other temporary summoning, which is pretty reasonable and hopefully to be rectified in the release version.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So giving an exception is too much text.
But making an entirely new trait, with new rules, and new exceptions, and new interactions is not?
The class is being designed for new players.
Exceptions are confusing, require understanding other rules, and weaken the core rule (Summoned Trait) merely by existing.
Removing the very idea of the Eidolon being a summoned creature, stomping it into the ground with specific text saying its not Summoned, and simply having it share all the traits of a Summoning spell ensures that new players don't ever mistake it for having the rules baggage of a Summoned creature. But Manifest Eidolon still has all the traits to make it function as expected in most ways (ie, it still has all the spell traits Summon Whatever does and is blocked by dimensional lock) as if it were a Summoning spell for other aspects.
Neither you nor I is the targeted audience when they made the Eidolon "totally not a summoned creature" as far as the rules are concerned. As a player, we are supposed to play along and say, "Its not Summoned, but it has all the traits of being Summoned so let's just treat it as summoned since its the primary class feature of the Summoner."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still have not seen anyone who wants the summon trait to be a mass of exceptions ever respond to this.
Still have not seen anyone who wants the summon trait to be a mass of exceptions ever respond to this.I had not noticed that, but let me respond to it here.
What is the standard eidolon? In PF1 the eidolon was its own creature that you got to customize. It was not based on any existing creature. Even the Unchained version only handed out defenses and abilities that made sense for a creature of that subtype, without making any allusion to a specific creature.
So the Eidolon could very well be its own creature with a bunch of customization and still follow the rules of the Summoned trait.
If you read the summoned trait, you'll notice that at no point does it say it requires concentration. Take for example the Unseen Custodians spell, that summons a number of Unseen Servants as the spell, but specifically says that you don't need to concentrate.
Eidolons could very well be summoned via a ritual that takes 10 minutes 1/day and then dont require concentration. While still offering a spell that lets you Summon it that uses concentration for up to a minute (if the eidolon does get killed). Now the eidolon is not only a summoned creature, but works nearly identically to the PF1 version with no negative effect.
As for saying "its summoned but ignore XYZ" being compared to "its fortune but mot really", again look at Unseen Custodians.
You don't need to concentrate on them, and they aren't summoned minions. You can spend an action, which has the concentrate trait, to command one to perform a basic task; it continues to perform the task until commanded again.Unseen Custodians takes the Unseen Servant spell and summoned trait and gives it these exceptions: It does not require sustain, the servants are not minions, you can command them to do something and they will do it until told to stop.
How would I make Eidolons? Eidolons are not...
Well that's the point. Unseen Custodians aren't summoned. They're also not minions. They don't have either trait. (This is compared to how Unseen Servant has the summoned trait.)
Your example literally proves my point.
I propose we errata the summoned trait to be called something different and leave the Summoner alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well that's the point. Unseen Custodians aren't summoned. They're also not minions. They don't have either trait. (This is compared to how Unseen Servant has the summoned trait.)
Your example literally proves my point.
Unseen Custodians uses the Unseen Servant spell, and then changes how the unseen servants work.
The Unseen Servants are summoned, but they are not "summoned minions".
They keep the summon trait, but lose the minion trait. Aka not a "summoned minion".
That's not how that works. Anyone reading that would be able to tell you they don't have the summoned trait. For your interpretation to be correct, it would be written as "they are summoned, but aren't minions".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And again, that's like saying "this is a fortune effect that can stack with other fortune effects and isn't negated by misfortune effects". Or "this is a flourish effect that can be used more than once per turn". If you change the core behaviour of the trait, the trait itself means nothing.
Especially since summoned has all these things that would cause problems:
- has the minion trait.
- generally attacks your enemies to the best of its abilities. If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows your commands
- immediately when you finish Casting the Spell, the summoned creature uses its 2 actions for that turn
- summoned creatures can be banished by spells and effects. They are automatically banished if reduced to 0 Hit Points or if the spell that called them ends.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So giving an exception is too much text.
But making an entirely new trait, with new rules, and new exceptions, and new interactions is not?
The class is being designed for new players.
Exceptions are confusing, require understanding other rules, and weaken the core rule (Summoned Trait) merely by existing.
Removing the very idea of the Eidolon being a summoned creature, stomping it into the ground with specific text saying its not Summoned, and simply having it share all the traits of a Summoning spell ensures that new players don't ever mistake it for having the rules baggage of a Summoned creature. But Manifest Eidolon still has all the traits to make it function as expected in most ways (ie, it still has all the spell traits Summon Whatever does and is blocked by dimensional lock) as if it were a Summoning spell for other aspects.
Neither you nor I is the targeted audience when they made the Eidolon "totally not a summoned creature" as far as the rules are concerned. As a player, we are supposed to play along and say, "Its not Summoned, but it has all the traits of being Summoned so let's just treat it as summoned since its the primary class feature of the Summoner."
I really don't see how that is meant to be a design goal; or more accurately, a realistic one. I'm not going to say that Summoner is some super uber difficult class to play, but compared to classes like Druids, Wizards, etc. Which require a very good understanding of spells, selections, and what to target, to be effective, Summoner isn't that far behind in that they need to know what creatures to summon, as well as know proper positionings and ways for them to be targeted by enemies. And they still have to know what spells to work with on top of that.
Paizo also understood that summon-type classes would be problematic come PF2 (balance-wise and pace-wise), and so they nerfed them (almost) to the ground and made minionmancy not a thing anymore. This reduces the difficulty some, but this was more of a "not turn the game into a slog" move than a "summons are overpowered" move, especially when nerfing the effectiveness of summons means mass summoning becomes a not-so-viable tactic. So suggesting that Summoners are meant for newer players is even more silly than suggesting spellcasters are meant for newer/inexperienced players. You want new players to have fun? Give them something simply strong. Fighters are simply strong with the greatest to-hit and don't even really need feats outside of maybe 1st or 2nd level to be effective.
Exceptions are confusing? Not really. An exception chain I came across in play was Obscuring Mist V.S. Stinking Cloud V.S. Cloudkill. Obscuring Mist doesn't move and provides concealment to all creatures inside. Stinking Cloud functions like the other one, but requires a saving throw or becoming Sickened if you end your turn in there or are in there upon it being cast. Cloudkill does move, unlike the other two, and does poison damage with a saving throw instead of sickening the targets, on top of making them concealed. And that's all gathered from reading all 3 effects. In short, if you know the exception, then it's not really confusing. Knowledge is power, which has been true in all editions of this gaming past-time. It's actually the biggest reason why I play this game, because it's the only place that my knowledge can actually be put to use, unlike anywhere else for anything else on the planet.
I don't think that's really the case. As I stated before, if an Eidolon really is manifested, it can't be targeted by Banishment, because its existence comes from the Summoner, whom is on their home plane (presumably). Except we have lore stating that the Eidolons' home plane isn't the one that the Summoner brings them on. Which means manifest isn't the right word to use because it has implications which shouldn't be there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that's really the case. As I stated before, if an Eidolon really is manifested, it can't be targeted by Banishment, because its existence comes from the Summoner, whom is on their home plane (presumably). Except we have lore stating that the Eidolons' home plane isn't the one that the Summoner brings them on. Which means manifest isn't the right word to use because it has implications which shouldn't be there.
Ooooor Manifest is a special type of summoning that avoids all that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooooor Manifest is a special type of summoning that avoids all that.
That's probably for the best, yeah, just to codify it with all of the rules that it needs and self-enclose all of the Manifest Rules that are needed. If done right it could even save a ton of room in the Summoner Class itself by including it in a sidebar spelling out the differences instead of requiring hair-splitting in each and every Eidolon Class feature and Summoner Class Feat that talks about benefits to their Summons or "summons."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules are abstractions, folks. Using the game rules as in-universe rules is a really foolish idea. This whole argument is downright silly.
A Wizard or a Druid NPC can also be called "The Witch of the Woods" and it doesn't matter. A summoner is, thematically, summoning a creature. The traits are just the clockwork behind the watch face.
