| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer the two-semi independent creatures.
For one thing, I think it preserves the identity of the original Summoner and Eidolon, with the Eidolon as "More than just another Summon" because of its link to the Summoner, represented through the continuity from the previous version of Life Link which had essentially the same theme... though the new version definitely makes it more of an equitable thing than the previous version, which was a one way, only benefits the Summoner link.
For another, I think it gives us the most 'bang for our buck' power balance wise. A fully independent minion in the role of Eidolon likely loses significant raw power, and likely uses the minion rules with minor adjustments. It probably costs us flexibility, and maybe even the thematic full blown mental communication and sense sharing we currently enjoy (which is a huge asset).
I don't know that I like the idea of an even more two bodies one creature setup enough to even explore it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who doesn't find the "share HP and actions" rule confusing, I greatly enjoy the current mechanics presented in the playtest. It's got theme, style, and is interesting enough to hook the class on. It's also got much more design space, in my mind.
As has been reiterated over several threads (what is this, thread four or five?), there just needs to be clarity around what the HP and action pooling is. I'm still not seeing where people are getting conditions being applies to both eidolon and summoner.
And because I don't want my message to be misconstrued, I don't believe that the summoner is in a perfect place right now. As from a mechanical perspective, I enjoy the shared HP + Action mechanic as presented.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As has been reiterated over several threads (what is this, thread four or five?), there just needs to be clarity around what the HP and action pooling is.
Why does this have to get repeated? Yes, I recognize this needs clarity. I've said it. Others have said it. That doesn't make the mechanic bad.
There are a few effects that aren't slow, haste, stun which effects actions (paralyze, confusion etc) but the rules at the moment are sufficiently ambiguous that people can reasonably argue they both do and don't effect both parts of the partnership.
That you feel confident that you confident interpreting the current rules is great but I still don't like that sort of ambiguity and feel its a problem.
The line,
"In any case, if you are both subject to the same effect, you take the effects only once (applying the worse effect, if applicable)."
Does not limit itself to any of the preceding discussion about hitpoints OR 'anything that would change a creature's actions' and literally reads that it applies to any effect that applies to both the Summoner and the Eidolon.
The words "In any case" actually typically serve to expand the scope of the following statement, by going from "instead of what whatever we were just talking about" to "Literally all cases".
I'm willing to speculate (strongly and emphatically) that's not what was meant, and this was likely just intended to be limited to things that affect hitpoints and change how many actions you have, but that's not what it actually says.
I'm guessing this is the 'heart' so to speak of the confusion. Fix it, and the system works great (based on the fact that I hadn't run into any of the potential complications yet, and things work great).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who doesn't find the "share HP and actions" rule confusing, I greatly enjoy the current mechanics presented in the playtest. It's got theme, style, and is interesting enough to hook the class on. It's also got much more design space, in my mind.
As has been reiterated over several threads (what is this, thread four or five?), there just needs to be clarity around what the HP and action pooling is. I'm still not seeing where people are getting conditions being applies to both eidolon and summoner.
And because I don't want my message to be misconstrued, I don't believe that the summoner is in a perfect place right now. As from a mechanical perspective, I enjoy the shared HP + Action mechanic as presented.
To be fair, I didn't find Spell Combat and Spellstrike from PF1 to be all that confusing, but a lot of people certainly did (and still do), and screw it up all the time. To suggest that "I understand it perfectly, therefore it can't ever be screwed up and anyone who apparently does is just angry about the mechanics" is just as obtuse as the people who don't like the mechanic just to not like the mechanic.
Drained condition says Hi, because you can definitely lose twice from health pools this way, which may or may not be intended. Paralyzed/Petrified condition says Hi, because you might or might not be able to take actions because your Eidolon or your Summoner is Paralyzed, but the other one isn't, which wonders if the Eidolon/Summoner just merely cannot act, but the other one still can as normal, AKA "Paralyed/Petrified one cannot take actions, but the other one can." Grabbed says Hi, as it can be argued that if an Eidolon has to make a Flat 5 to perform Interact actions, so could the Summoner, as it affects actions that way, too.
Plenty of basic in-game things that can make people go into arguments and debates and rulebooks when the focus should be on the combat, not the crazy corner-case rules interactions, should be more than enough reason for players to be turned off by the class. It was a reason people didn't like PF1 Magus, I don't see why the same can't be said here and be valid.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is everyone reading the exact opposite of the things that I write? That's why every time I respond to anyone, I have to say "Hey, this needs clarity. Just because I don't see any problems with it doesn't mean that it's perfect."
Just read the words I write, what is actually happening?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is everyone reading the exact opposite of the things that I write? That's why every time I respond to anyone, I have to say "Hey, this needs clarity. Just because I don't see any problems with it doesn't mean that it's perfect."
Just read the words I write, what is actually happening?
Hysteria does a lot to the mental faculties of people.
More seriously though, we're trying more to express why we think this is a problem and feel that "it's not a problem to me" translates to us not able to express ourselves properly. So we reiterate again and again in the hopes of a response of agreement more than a response of indifference or even disagreement, because we feel our expressions and perceptions are either being missed or outright ignored and downtrodden upon. (Yes, the definition of insanity is applying here. No, I don't care if it is.)
My gripe is that it's more than "it." It, is actually a lot of different things that can happen at any given point in time, not unlike playing a game of chess where each player can move however they wish with their pieces, as long as they follow the rules of movement. Numerous condition interactions, numerous attacks with different effects and resolutions, etc. It's not just a single weird interaction or a handful of strange corner cases, these are things that can happen in all levels of play, and even the examples they give (slowed and AoE fireballs) aren't enough clarification, especially when other conditions and effects (like stunned, paralyzed, petrified, confused, drained; electric arc, flurry of blows, whirlwind attack, etc.) perform similar yet unidentical effects, each with distinct differences in their application that a Summoner needs to factor in to both their playstyle, as well as the party, as well as any potentially intelligent enemies/BBEGs the GM runs.
The more these apparent issues keep appearing, the more my assumption of Summoners being Chess Masters like Bobby Fisher becomes a reality. In fact, it also explains why my former GM (who plays a PC at the moment, will pick back up again after this campaign is done) is so in love with the Summoner class as it's written. Or more accurately, he finds it "interesting" to play. As he is a low-key chess buff. Can it be interesting? Sure. But I see the problems for what they are, and I remember when one of our players played a Magus, he got confused on how it worked every time, and me and the GM had a big argument that required me referring to the Magus/Touch Spell Guide from PF1 way back to make him concede how he was running it (which was different from the book). It wasn't exactly fun (except for when I triumphed, but it wasn't worth the hassle), and I'd rather not repeat this process again in a system that was meant to make this simpler and not ridiculously complex compared to running any other class.
I love how it works now, like Ruzza said and everyone has gone over it needs clarity but if you just take the intent of the rule to mean you can't be effected twice by anything because you have 2 bodies that would effect any other character, then it gets fairly simple. Bottom line is as it always is, ask your GM, then be done. Different people will play things differently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you just take the intent of the rule to mean you can't be effected twice by anything because you have 2 bodies that would effect any other character, then it gets fairly simple.
Yeah, but that fails at start: my rogue can't be target by a Double shot as it has to attack 2 creatures. but a summoner and an eidolon ARE 2 different creatures so qualify. it just doesn't boil down that simply. I think no matter how you parse the rule, you'll end up with attacks that should affect then by intent actually working and the reverse.
if you just take the intent of the rule to mean you can't be effected twice by anything because you have 2 bodies that would effect any other character, then it gets fairly simple.Yeah, but that fails at start: my rogue can't be target by a Double shot as it has to attack 2 creatures. but a summoner and an eidolon ARE 2 different creatures so qualify. it just doesn't boil down that simply. I think no matter how you parse the rule, you'll end up with attacks that should affect then by intent actually working and the reverse.
While they're two different creatures technically, I do think the intent seems to be that a unit, they're equivalent to another Player. Same actions, same HP, and similar vulnerability.
Its a meta design choice, not a logic one.
Meta design choices can make for good games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While they're two different creatures technically, I do think the intent seems to be that a unit, they're equivalent to another Player. Same actions, same HP, and similar vulnerability.
Its a meta design choice, not a logic one.
Meta design choices can make for good games.
I don't really agree when you have to rule on intent vs how the ability is written. the nuts and bolts must match the 'meta'. Having an awesome 'meta' that doesn't translate into an easy to adjudicate rule isn't good IMO. With JUST the variety of actions we correctly have in the game, it's seems nigh impossible to thread the needle to massage the wording of this ability to have it do what is intended: This will only get harder as new and interesting actions come out in new material that isn't designed to play nice with this.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The pathfinder 1 eidiolon was intelligent and capable of independent action without the summoner giving it one his.The eidolon is not acting on its own, just doing what I tell it.That's how it "worked" in P1 as well.
Actions/rounds are a metagame construct.
In both P1 and P2 the Eidolon is sapient and acting on it's own.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No their not, as all of the players physical interactions with the world are done through actions (casting, moving, remembering, perceiving, touching are all actions), actions are real in world as they have real impact on the fictional world.The pathfinder 1 eidiolon was intelligent and capable of independent action without the summoner giving it one his.The eidolon is not acting on its own, just doing what I tell it.That's how it "worked" in P1 as well.Actions/rounds are a metagame construct.
In both P1 and P2 the Eidolon is sapient and acting on it's own.
Your interaction with things happens in the world.
Actions in how the game defines them and lets you act without GM adjudication are metagame constructs, same as HP.
People can be healthy/wounded/dying/etc in world, but the notion of "hit points" is a metagame construct.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eidolons are independent sapient creatures who act as the Player directs (IE, writes) them.
Exactly the same as your player character.
The only time they act only as the Summoner (character) tells them, like a puppet or marionette, is if you write them like that.
Shared actions is a limit on the player, not the characters, that is justified by the mental link.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because both actions and HPs inform the reality of the setting so they are not completely meta-game mechanic.
They are indeed metagame mechanics.
The ability to act and move is an in-world capability. Actions are a metagame construct.
Health is an in-world acknowledgement. HP are a metagame construct.
Time is an in-world acknowledgment. Rounds are a metagame construct.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fundamentally your forgetting the exchange one can't act whilst the other acts in certain ways, there is a trade-off that needs to be adjudicated. Unless the concept that the two are a single individual there should be times that one wants to do one thing and the other another thing. If disagreement is impossible you do not have an individual.
Yeah, absolutely they can disagree. If you roleplay it!
Thats the key though - an Eidolon isn't a GM controlled NPC. Its a second player character for roleplaying purposes, and will do as the player wills.
What implies in the playtest that its not possible for an Eidolon to disagree with its Summoner, and do something else?
Its not possible for it to disagree with the Player, whom it is a mental construct of - just like the Summoner.
|
|
Because both actions and HPs inform the reality of the setting so they are not completely meta-game mechanic.They are indeed metagame mechanics.
The ability to act and move is an in-world capability. Actions are a metagame construct.
Health is an in-world acknowledgement. HP are a metagame construct.
Time is an in-world acknowledgment. Rounds are a metagame construct.
But a round is 6 seconds, if you lose hp you end up hurting and or dying and if you have no means of acting (actions) you cannot act. They maybe game terms but they exist to represent/simplify a reality.
That's not disagreeing with what I said.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two separate creatures, fully customizable and acting independently = two PCs, and most likely two players.
If Paizo decides to release a Summoner + Eidolon pair of classes meant to be played by two people together, I'm ok with it.
But putting both in the hands of a single player, while the other ones are only playing a single PC, just isn't right.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people in the world talk about time, how hurt they are, how good their armor is and we talk Hit Points, Actions, Armor Class, rounds were talking about the same thing. I was never arguing the game terminology was the same as world terminology.It representing something in-game does not make those concepts 100% interchangeable.
In setting do people talk about Hit Points, Actions, Armor Class, rounds, yes or no?
No we're not, you're conflating the two.
"I was never" then why are you responding to me?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did I say you were bad guys? I said you have a totally and fundamentally different idea of what makes a good summoner. And that it cannot be reconciled.
You treat every disagreement as an attack on you and the Summoner, when in reality it's as you state right there. We're disagreeing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The pathfinder 1 eidiolon was intelligent and capable of independent action without the summoner giving it one his.The eidolon is not acting on its own, just doing what I tell it.That's how it "worked" in P1 as well.Actions/rounds are a metagame construct.
In both P1 and P2 the Eidolon is sapient and acting on it's own.
In your opinion. It doesn't feel like it to many of us.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In your opinion. It doesn't feel like it to many of us.The pathfinder 1 eidiolon was intelligent and capable of independent action without the summoner giving it one his.The eidolon is not acting on its own, just doing what I tell it.That's how it "worked" in P1 as well.Actions/rounds are a metagame construct.
In both P1 and P2 the Eidolon is sapient and acting on it's own.
The Eidolon is sapient and has free will. That is not an opinion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, did the Playtest finally get into the "reality is a lie" conspiracy department? Are we busting out the tinfoil?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However there's a pretty big difference not just conceptually between sapience and mindless, there's a mechanical one.
I think you can roleplay your eidolon however you like, but when you deny it the ability to reason without the summoner it changes how it plays mechanically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Eidolon is sapient and has free will. That is not an opinion.In your opinion. It doesn't feel like it to many of us.The pathfinder 1 eidiolon was intelligent and capable of independent action without the summoner giving it one his.The eidolon is not acting on its own, just doing what I tell it.That's how it "worked" in P1 as well.Actions/rounds are a metagame construct.
In both P1 and P2 the Eidolon is sapient and acting on it's own.
The feel of mechanics and how they model what you call a "sapient" creature is an opinion. They can write what they want to write and if the mechanics don't feel like the idea they are trying to capture, then that is an opinion, not a fact. So I would stop trying to state something is a fact if a group of us are of the opinion that the mechanic does not properly mirror the idea behind the class.
That is what they are attempting to do here. Create mechanics that mirror the class concept and conceit. You are of the opinion that a shared hit point pool and actions sufficiently models that mechanic. Myself and a few others are of the opinion that a shared hit point pool and shared actions does not model a sapient creature.
So no matter how you try to force that idea down our throats does not make it so.
Our arguments are quite valid:
1. The creature has no actions unless the summoner gives it actions.
2. Both the summoner and the eidolon go down at 0 hit points and share all damage no matter where that damage occurs. The eidolon could be unfettered and be a mile away and the summoner will still fall unconscious with dying 2 if a crit kills the eidolon, even while the eidolon is suddenly banished until the summoner is returned to life.
3. The eidolon cannot take even mental actions without the summoner having it do so such as recall knowledge.
4. I am not even sure the eidolon can take free actions like speaking if the summoner does not have it do so. Let us see if you can answer this. By RAW, rules as written, can the eidolon speak if the summoner does not give it an action to do so?
To you this models a sapient creature, to me it does not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making the eidolon act like a minion would make it feel less like a sapient, independent entity.
Giving 3 actions each to Summoner and eidolon means having two different players playing them. Is this the solution you are hoping for?