| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The minion rules, as bad as they are, dont make the creature feel like a puppet.
The only thing that makes it "feel like a puppet" is how you have chosen to interpret things.
That perspective is a choice, and not universal - see also, the fact that people disagree with you on the subject.
The rules and support material say the Eidolon is an independent creature, and it can use actions without the Summoner having to spend an action to let it do things (like a Minion does - a Minion literally requires the owner to act, an Eidolon does not).
If you choose to get 'puppet' from that, its your own doing - not the rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you share actions and one side is hugging all the actions. You are the puppet of the other side.
The minion rule was excused as, "you are commanding them to do something." People decided that was enough despite the debates. That ship has sailed and is too late to change it.
So we have 3 sets of rules at the moment:
1) A creatures gets actions and spends them how they like.
2) A creature gets actions when commanded unless they have a feat. Otherwise it tries to defend itself or escape according to the GM.
3) A creature gets actions when they are given to it and only then.
The Eidolon currently sits in the last one. The only actions it gets are those actions the Summoner gives them, otherwise they just stand still. That is why I think its a puppet, because it can only act if the Summoner deems it fit for it to gain action.
Uh, you're literally wrong again.
A Summoner and Eidolon share actions. That is literally what is written.
The Summoner does not give actions to the Eidolon, the Player decides who uses them.
Meaning that the correct option of the three you listed for Summoner is option 1.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All characters get 3 actions. The only one that does not get 3 actions is the Eidolon. The eidolon must be given its actions by the Summoner otherwise it has no ability to move. The fact that they must share when the PC has complete control is what makes the Eidolon a puppet.
Not matter how you try to justify it. The eidolon's actions are at the whim of the Summoner, who is the actual creature.
To you the Eidolon not getting it own actions might work. But for me the current version of the Eidolon will always be a puppet of the Summoner.
Except that its equally valid with the current rules for the Summoner to be "the puppet" in your example.
The Summoner (class) is in an absolute sense "less" of a puppet situation than any other minion since the Summoner (character) and Eidolon can freely share actions in any manner they want, with either party receiving priority, at any time.
Only The Player controls either party - the same as any other sapient, independent character in a tabletop rpg.
ALL OF WHICH reflects a game construct meant to enforce balance between Players, which is a virtue you dont seem to consider at all, despite the fact that such balance is a primary feature of PF2E.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So actions are short hand for player agency, they are how people alter and change the world around them. that's why when your dead or turned to stone you don't get any actions.
Eidolons don't get to act without the summoner choosing to let them by summoning the eidolon in the first place. So eidolons get zero agency without the summoner.
They also have zero agency apart from the summoner, if they leave a certain distance away from the summoner they dissappear, if there summoner is unconscious they dissappear, where as the summoner has no problem function without the eidolon being near.
Which means any agency the eidiolon has is given to them when they are summoned and dependant upon kindly master being present and conscious.
So the eidolon brings no agency of its own and all the the agency it has is dependant on their master.
Thats a perspective thats very carefully positioned to produce this conclusion.
While an Eidolon is summoned, it shares the agency of the Summoner precisely.
And because Summoning an Eidolon is the primary benefit of being a Summoner, both parties (and the unifying factor, the Player) are encouraged to maintain that parity as much as possible.
Theres an an imbalance in agency if you specifically go looking for it, but its pretty unlikely that it will come up in play because playing like that is fairly antithetical to playing a Summoner.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So actions are short hand for player agency, they are how people alter and change the world around them. that's why when your dead or turned to stone you don't get any actions.
Eidolons don't get to act without the summoner choosing to let them by summoning the eidolon in the first place. So eidolons get zero agency without the summoner.
They also have zero agency apart from the summoner, if they leave a certain distance away from the summoner they dissappear, if there summoner is unconscious they dissappear, where as the summoner has no problem function without the eidolon being near.
Which means any agency the eidiolon has is given to them when they are summoned and dependant upon kindly master being present and conscious.
So the eidolon brings no agency of its own and all the the agency it has is dependant on their master.
Thats a perspective thats very carefully positioned to produce this conclusion.
While an Eidolon is summoned, it shares the agency of the Summoner precisely.
And because Summoning an Eidolon is the primary benefit of being a Summoner, both parties (and the unifying factor, the Player) are encouraged to maintain that parity as much as possible.
Theres an an imbalance in agency if you specifically go looking for it, but its pretty unlikely that it will come up in play because playing like that is fairly antithetical to playing a Summoner.
and this was true in P1 as well, it’s not like these are some horrible stipulations they just added for the P2 Playtest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as agency and free will goes, I think it's up to the player. A construct eidolon might act little more than a particularly smart computer, while a fiend eidolon might get up to all sorts of shenanigans.
As for the "the eidolon can't do any shenanigans unless you give it actions!" argument, well a Tiefling Rogue can't do anything unless you (the player) give him actions to do so anyway.
You're playing two characters. They're as sentient as any other character you make.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, another of these threads. For my part, I like the way it is in the playtest. Needs some tweaks and clarifications, but I love the feel and flavor as well as some unique things that can happen as is.
I won't reiterate reasons for the above as I have stated them numerous times in other threads.
What we will see in this thread is the same points being made by the same people who made them in other threads. Some of this will devolve into arguments back and forth often between the same people arguing in other threads.
Bottom line is that some people love the chassis as it is now, though pretty much all of them are lobbying for particular tweaks (myself included). Some loath the chassis as is, feeling it is not the summoner they know or want. In the end, Mark and others will take the feedback and make adjustments accordingly.
...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
This is not mechanics.
| 2 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?
I would be mostly satisfied with the eidolon having an independent action all the time and able to take free actions and reactions on its own. And no shared MAP which really ruins the feel of being separate.
The whole completely linked telepathically is more of the not a real creature feel, but a manifestation of your mind.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey! I have an idea.
You can play the class as intended, where both the Summoner and Eidolon are independent creatures, and it runs absolutely great!
Or I suppose you can continue to throw rocks at it from the sidelines as opposed to even trying to make it work... you do you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
here is the thing the eidolon is very much dependent on the summoner. like for everything such as existing
Only for existing in the same place as the Summoner. Its very clear that its an actual creature - Angel or whathaveyou - wherever it normally resides.
Once its where the Summoner is, it is once again independent and capable of doing its own thing, or a least as much as the Summoner is, at the direction of the Player.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
so then if it wants to it can just plane shift itself in no summoner needed. and it does want to because you the Player want it so. then like any entity from another plane it get its own three actions independent of the summoner or heath. I'm sorry every though around it invalidates it as an independent creature.
Nothing you've written here is supported by the rules, or description of the Summoner and Eidolon, or is demanded by the class.
Seriously, the class itself tells you its an independent creature. Just play it like that within the bounds of the rules, and it works just fine.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember Jason recently saying something about how disheartening it was to hear people slamming the design team on the playtest forums. Probably because of weird hyperbolic statements like "we should be prasad for exposing bugs and design flaws before bringing this mess to market."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember Jason recently saying something about how disheartening it was to hear people slamming the design team on the playtest forums. Probably because of weird hyperbolic statements like "we should be prasad for exposing bugs and design flaws before bringing this mess to market."
Its a pretty universal truth that if you don't try and make something work, it almost certainly will not.
Its part of the whole class of things that count as a self fulfilling prophecy.
Its also a form of self-sabotage.
A good faith attempt to make the class work is needed for any version of it to work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember Jason recently saying something about how disheartening it was to hear people slamming the design team on the playtest forums. Probably because of weird hyperbolic statements like "we should be prasad for exposing bugs and design flaws before bringing this mess to market."
If criticisms were unwanted, I'm not sure I understand the point of a playtest. You're meant to point out what doesn't seem to work for you: if you don't point out what looks like a flaw, you aren't taking the playtest seriously.
And for myself, I haven't seen "people slamming the design team": I HAVE seen people slamming the design itself but again is that unexpected in a playtest especially when they are trying an experimental casting method and seem to be seeing how far they can stretch the system? Add to that removing the customization system that attracted people to the class in PF1 and I'm not sure how discord wasn't expected.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember Jason recently saying something about how disheartening it was to hear people slamming the design team on the playtest forums. Probably because of weird hyperbolic statements like "we should be prasad for exposing bugs and design flaws before bringing this mess to market."If criticisms were unwanted, I'm not sure I understand the point of a playtest. You're meant to point out what doesn't seem to work for you: if you don't point out what looks like a flaw, you aren't taking the playtest seriously.
And for myself, I haven't seen "people slamming the design team": I HAVE seen people slamming the design itself but again is that unexpected in a playtest especially when they are trying an experimental casting method and seem to be seeing how far they can stretch the system? Add to that removing the customization system that attracted people to the class in PF1 and I'm not sure how discord wasn't expected.
There are constructive ways to present criticism, and then there's trashing ideas as 'dumb' or 'garbage' or 'wrong'.
There's also the fact that most of the critics here have refused to even try and make the new system work, instead making irrelevant comparisons to an old ruleset that had demonstrated, numerous flaws that had resulted in said old system getting the previous design consistently banned.
Beyond that, many of these critics have rejected the sorts of concessions and compromises the new system is based on for it to work - including things like accepting that a lot of the customization in the new class is intended to be narrative focused, as opposed to mechanical.
Of course it doesn't work if you refuse to work with it. Almost nothing works when you refuse to operate it as intended, and insist on using it like the 1.0 version that had a reputation for scarring everyone nearby, despite the fact that the design has been reworked at the ground up to avoid scarring.
The intent of the Playtest is to test the class In Play and in Good Faith.
There is no Good Faith if people refuse to attempt to play the class as its intended.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If both the summoner and the eidolon have three actions apiece, it will be too powerful of a class. If the designers try to compensate for that by weakening both, then they won't survive on the battlefield.
What is the right balance to strike for a summoner type class for PF2? Is this current design that balance? If close to it, what adjustments need to be made.
Remember, any new class has to fit into the system and not cause the game to become unbalanced.