|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends. Let's say the summoner has 3 actions, but those actions aren't worth all that much. Since the Eidolon uses the same MAP, attacking with the Summoner won't be worthwhile. So what should they do? Move and occasionally use boost Eidolon or Reinforce Eidolon? Or any other cantrip like that? If you make their focus powers cost 2 instead of 1 and give them like 5 different focus powers they can choose from, then the only thing you're really doing is giving them an extra action to move and not much else... unless you wanted to try to intimidate or some such. But I don't feel like that's too powerful at all.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.
Are we going to end up with a separate rulebook just for the summoner class? How will this work with multiclass dedications?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see any actions much less concessions and compromises by the part of the design team (anyone with power) or awareness of any problems or concerns
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.
That is because they've explicitly stated in the past that they're interacting with the forums less because any interaction is a lose-lose, and this playtest in particular noted that no updates were anticipated along the way. They wouldn't be collecting feedback and (more importantly) playtest experiences if it wasn't a useful thing to do, or at least I'm hoping no one's cynical enough to suggest these month-long affairs full of vitriol and conflict are being conducted for show, but they also reserve the right to go their own direction on products and concepts for their world and game. If results show enough people enjoying the base concept, it's a (potentially niche) product, not a problem.
I have a lot of gaming experience. To just "throw that away" as if I was on par with someone who was new to TTRPG is ridiculous.Aren't you the guy that wrote the Evolution homebrew that was incredibly easy to snap in half like a twig? You threw away your own credentials.
With the acknowledgment that Verzen's perception on feedback and the value thereof is quite skewed, it seems rude to encourage someone to make homebrew to display their idea, give criticism to the homebrew, and then turn around and say this to them just a few days later, leaving out that the homebrew was explicitly marked as the skeleton of the idea in rough format. Yes, said homebrew had noticeable issues that I would have pointed out myself if I had time, but it's still a pretty valuable skeleton for those with irreconcilable opinions to build on, and it was still a laudable effort on Verzen's part. You don't need to resort to this kind of rhetoric to bolster your points.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they NEED what the old system gave you to enjoy the class, it's a serious flaw for them.
This seems to discount the possibility that people who "need" something resembling 1E may be the ones who need to let go, and change.
It is not useful feedback for people to show up and say, "Its too different! No way I'm giving this a chance!" when part of the entire point is for things to be substantially different.
Especially when those differences may be overblown.
The new class has everything I liked about the 1E Summoner in designing and customizing my companion - being limited by mechanics is a problem on the player side, not the game one - and plays excellently to boot.
I get to have presence in two locations at once due to having multiple highly capable characters, cast spells and fight, and have interesting and unique roleplay opportunities.
Hell, just the fact that during the cooldown after a fight that my Summoner could be using Medicine to heal everyone and I could still participate in other things through my Eidolon was hugely fun - the fact that the pace of exploration activities (1 action per "virtual" turn) means that both the Summoner and Eidolon get to do their own thing is awesome.
And that's not some "houserule", thats more or less exactly as clarified by Mark.
That's how you make a Summoner and Eidlon feel like two independent characters - you just play them that way, completely within the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they NEED what the old system gave you to enjoy the class, it's a serious flaw for them.This seems to discount the possibility that people who "need" something resembling 1E may be the ones who need to let go, and change.
It is not useful feedback for people to show up and say, "Its too different! No way I'm giving this a chance!" when part of the entire point is for things to be substantially different.
Especially when those differences may be overblown.
The new class has everything I liked about the 1E Summoner in designing and customizing my companion - being limited by mechanics is a problem on the player side, not the game one - and plays excellently to boot.
I get to have presence in two locations at once due to having multiple highly capable characters, cast spells and fight, and have interesting and unique roleplay opportunities.
Hell, just the fact that during the cooldown after a fight that my Summoner could be using Medicine to heal everyone and I could still participate in other things through my Eidolon was hugely fun - the fact that the pace of exploration activities (1 action per "virtual" turn) means that both the Summoner and Eidolon get to do their own thing is awesome.
And that's not some "houserule", thats more or less exactly as clarified by Mark.
That's how you make a Summoner and Eidlon feel like two independent characters - you just play them that way, completely within the rules.
This reminds me of the edition wars between 4e and 3.5.
But the answers remains the same if you don't want to play something more balanced and straterfied don't, play something else they are still supporting pathinder 1e and 5e d&d is pretty solid.
There is no such thing as a perfect edition so play what you want.
Well there are a couple of people here who want an overpowered build that is not most of us. The arguments I have seen have been more around complexity, playability and just flavour.
If the designers want to create a new game then good, go for it. PF2 is very much in that mold. Just expect that you will lose a large number of fans if you go too far. And how far is that?
This is a playtest so they want that feedback. Its much more useful now rather than after its all published.
Personally I would really like to see a Summoner, not this wierd new abstraction.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gortle,
Meaning what? What would make it a Summoner for you? This sort of general “It’s not a Summoner” without any detail isn’t that helpful as playtest feedback. It identifies a problem,but not the root cause which is more useful
What are the specific things that need to be addressed to get your support? Not exactly how to address them, although there’s certainly room for that, but what is it that makes this not a Summoner for you?
So obviously the ediolon is never going to be as individualised and as idependant as in 1e. In terms of independance nothing beats two separate actions, hps, conditions tracking. Your never go to beat the customization of evolution points either.
Because of what Pathfinder 2e is about its incapable of giving you the full fat summoner experience and your just going to have to accept diet summoner if you want to play the class in 2e.
This guy gets it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So obviously the ediolon is never going to be as individualised and as idependant as in 1e. In terms of independance nothing beats two separate actions, hps, conditions tracking. Your never go to beat the customization of evolution points either.
Because of what Pathfinder 2e is about its incapable of giving you the full fat summoner experience and your just going to have to accept diet summoner if you want to play the class in 2e.
It does not feel like a diet summoner when you embrace it.
At level 6, it feels to me like playing a "diet" Cleric with full spellcasting potency, but limited endurance - with a "diet" Martial component that precisely keeps pace with the fighting elements of my party.
And the ability to go all in on either on a moments notice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This seems to discount the possibility that people who "need" something resembling 1E may be the ones who need to let go, and change.
Or not: you aren't the arbiter of what's good and what people should like or play.
It is not useful feedback for people to show up and say, "Its too different! No way I'm giving this a chance!" when part of the entire point is for things to be substantially different.
It sure IS useful: you need to know where the line is. If it's too different for some, that again is valuable to know.
Especially when those differences may be overblown.
Or they may not: it's not really up to you to make that determination.
The new class has everything I liked about the 1E Summoner in designing and customizing my companion - being limited by mechanics is a problem on the player side, not the game one - and plays excellently to boot.
LOL So you like it so everyone should? And how is a player problem not an issue as the GAME needs players. Some players don't like to use freeform and instead want actual mechanics to back up differences: being different on paper IS important to some and isn't something to be ignored by just saying 'you just aren't imagining enough' as that was never the point for them.
I get to have presence in two locations at once due to having multiple highly capable characters, cast spells and fight, and have interesting and unique roleplay opportunities.
And? I get you like it but others are saying points that they don't like. 'I have to spread my actions between 2 locations meaning I have 2 LESS capable characters than an animal companion, cast less spells than other casters and have bland and identical to others pets ediolon with no unique and interesting role play opportunities.' Equally as valid observations from someone that DOESN'T like how it's out together.
Hell, just the fact that during the cooldown after a fight that my Summoner could be using Medicine to heal everyone and I could still participate in other things through my Eidolon was hugely fun - the fact that the pace of exploration activities (1 action per "virtual" turn) means that both the Summoner and Eidolon get to do their own thing is awesome.
Medicine after a fight isn't exactly something unique to the summoner so it's REALLY not relevant in a summoner debate. exploration activities is nice, but with them lagging behind in mental stats it limits the number of ones they are actually good at.
And that's not some "houserule", thats more or less exactly as clarified by Mark.
Mark clarified summoners are good at medicine? I didn't see that... :P
That's how you make a Summoner and Eidlon feel like two independent characters - you just play them that way, completely within the rules.
Imagination. It's not a cure-all panacea for what ails you. I mean I COULD pretend the PF1 oozemorph worked just fine, but it didn't. I mean what if I asked you to imagine the PF1 summoner class working perfectly fine and without any balance issues if you just imagined that they did: it's all completely within the rules to play them that way... :P
It does not feel like a diet summoner when you embrace it.
You make a HUGE leap here that everyone CAN embrace it: it's a perfect fit for you but why assume it can be a fit at all for others?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people are going to like the 2e summoner and some are not. The bottom line is that it cannot be allowed to break the balanced game that is Pathfinder Second Edition. The shared actions are powerful enough as it is. If that upsets some people who want three actions apiece for the summoner and eidolon, then they are going to be disappointed because three actions apiece unbalances the game. If the fix for that is to give the summoner meaningless actions, then what the player wants is the ability to play a creature and not a character.
I was very apprehensive about this particular class for 2e. I have an extreme dislike for the summoner in 1e and absolutely refuse to GM or sit at a table with the original summoner class in play.
This class has to fit within the existing 2e rules and balanced game structure. If that alienates some people, then that's probably going to alienate some people. I really do not foresee Paizo collapsing because a few people got so mad about the 2e summoner that they quit playing the game. I seem to recall some doing just that because of the 2e changes to the Paladin class and making it the Champion class. I notice 2e shattered 1e's sales records despite some refusing to play 2e.
Some of the 1e classes are not going to translate well to 2e. Some will appear as archetypes like the Cavalier while some will be variants of the main class like Warpriest. Summoner is one of those classes that has to have some significant changes to it in order to make the transition to 2e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be most interested to see how Summoners can function in Exploration mode with their Eidolon without being Fatigued, since you can do only one activity for 10 minutes without fatigue setting in, per RAW, as you must both be at least traveling, which counts as two activities. Or, you dismiss the Eidolon and take a round to spawn it when combat starts. Either way, I'm calling cheese on that "eidolon and summoner both get their own activities with no drawbacks" ruling, since that goes against the spirit of "they share actions" rule we like so much.
I'd also like to see how Summoners and Eidolons handle the Drained, Petrified, Grabbed, etc. Conditions. Do they lose HP twice because they are in some weird limbo for HP loss from that condition? Does being petrified or paralyzed also affect the other? What about being grabbed, does the other have to make a Flat 5 check for Manipulate activities?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be most interested to see how Summoners can function in Exploration mode with their Eidolon without being Fatigued, since you can do only one activity for 10 minutes without fatigue setting in, per RAW, as you must both be at least traveling, which counts as two activities. Or, you dismiss the Eidolon and take a round to spawn it when combat starts. Either way, I'm calling cheese on that "eidolon and summoner both get their own activities with no drawbacks" ruling, since that goes against the spirit of "they share actions" rule we like so much.
It was literally confirmed by Mark that Act Together lets both perform non-fatiguing exploration activities, or one perform a fatiguing one while the other performs one that doesnt cause fatigue.
His "personal" ruling was that Tandem Move would let both perform fatiguing activities.
So... call shenanigans, its rules as intended that they can at least each do something normally.
For certain, and as stated.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of how about they each get 2 actions at the start of the turn, and an ability gives them an extra action that stacks with Quickened. Oh look 5 actions again. Is 5 actions for 2 characters really broken? I mean the Summoner is literally the weakest PC with the least magic, while the Eidolon is weaker than martials.
Yes, they are. That is because they are meant to be a strong pair that works together. If they are both stronger, then the class is one that easily dominates the game. The game balance cannot be disrupted by any one class over another. We had that in PF1. Let's not repeat it in PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be most interested to see how Summoners can function in Exploration mode with their Eidolon without being Fatigued, since you can do only one activity for 10 minutes without fatigue setting in, per RAW, as you must both be at least traveling, which counts as two activities. Or, you dismiss the Eidolon and take a round to spawn it when combat starts. Either way, I'm calling cheese on that "eidolon and summoner both get their own activities with no drawbacks" ruling, since that goes against the spirit of "they share actions" rule we like so much.
It was literally confirmed by Mark that Act Together lets both perform non-fatiguing exploration activities, or one perform a fatiguing one while the other performs one that doesnt cause fatigue.
His "personal" ruling was that Tandem Move would let both perform fatiguing activities.
So... call shenanigans, its rules as intended that they can at least each do something normally.
For certain, and as stated.
Mark can rule that way all he wants, but it's not RAW, and he knows this. Act Together is limited to one action for both entities, full stop, nor is it something that can be done as an exploration tactic. Want to search the room and treat wounds? Too bad, those take 10 minutes a piece, which Act Together cannot achieve, per RAW, as it's limited to 1 action and is not a valid exploration tactic. Even with his suggestion of bumping it to 2-3 actions, it's not enough to be able to do as you have claimed.
I mean, when we can embrace all of the good and disregard everything that makes it not possible or even problematic, of course everyone who has expressed their dissentment on the matter will be people who argue in bad faith and don't follow the "rules" to "properly" play the class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So because that is written by the developer you are ok with the summoner + eidolon having more actions (in some cases giving 2 rolls) in this case exploration activities than all the other PCs who only get one.
Its a potent advantage, and one tempered by a lack of further skill support.
It lets a Summoner compete in the skill sphere, but not dominate it.
So yes - its one of the advantages granted by the Eidolon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gortle,
Meaning what? What would make it a Summoner for you? This sort of general “It’s not a Summoner” without any detail isn’t that helpful as playtest feedback. It identifies a problem,but not the root cause which is more usefulWhat are the specific things that need to be addressed to get your support? Not exactly how to address them, although there’s certainly room for that, but what is it that makes this not a Summoner for you?
It has to be a separate creature that you summon.
I can accept the action complications and limits as I understand the need for balance. Very happy to have the summoner lose actions for the summoned creature to do things. Even shared MAP is OK.
The hitpoints have to be separate. Or at the very least the Summoner has to be left up on 1 HP when the summoned creature dies. The whole idea of a Summoner is to use a separate creature to do something difficult or dangerous. If the summoner is still completely on the line for everything the summoned creature does then the whole concept is pointless. It just plays like a wierd split body Synthesis Summoner. You may as well be a self transmuter.
Likewise the conditions afflicted on the Summoner and the summoned creature have to be separate. Again action affecting things may have some cross over, but if the summoned creature is turned to stone the Summoner is not. Worst case he may be forced to unmanifest to recover normal actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So because that is written by the developer you are ok with the summoner + eidolon having more actions (in some cases giving 2 rolls) in this case exploration activities than all the other PCs who only get one.Its a potent advantage, and one tempered by a lack of further skill support.
It lets a Summoner compete in the skill sphere, but not dominate it.
So yes - its one of the advantages granted by the Eidolon.
It is a very minor thing - not a potent advantage. Why such a big deal in the exploration phase? Why are you insisting it is such a competitive edge? Any other two PCs can cooperate for the same bonus. Even Animal Companions for some things.
The lack of skill feats is significant loss. Not even just 1 allowed? Why?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So because that is written by the developer you are ok with the summoner + eidolon having more actions (in some cases giving 2 rolls) in this case exploration activities than all the other PCs who only get one.Its a potent advantage, and one tempered by a lack of further skill support.
It lets a Summoner compete in the skill sphere, but not dominate it.
So yes - its one of the advantages granted by the Eidolon.
It is a very minor thing - not a potent advantage. Why such a big deal in the exploration phase? Why are you insisting it is such a competitive edge? Any other two PCs can cooperate for the same bonus. Even Animal Companions for some things.
The lack of skill feats is significant loss. Not even just 1 allowed? Why?
If you don't value the ability to interact and do things more interestingly during the Exploration phase, and the ability to have two chances to succeed at skill checks, I suppose there's not much I can do to convince you.
...everyone I know considers rerolls in dice games to be more or less "The Best" mechanic available, but you do you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...everyone I know considers rerolls in dice games to be more or less "The Best" mechanic available
It's NOT a reroll though. One set likely is several points below the other and has no benefit from skill feats. Add to that that some skill rolls have bad failure and crit failure effects and 'more rolls' isn't always a good thing, let alone "The Best".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...everyone I know considers rerolls in dice games to be more or less "The Best" mechanic availableIt's NOT a reroll though. One set likely is several points below the other and has no benefit from skill feats. Add to that that some skill rolls have bad failure and crit failure effects and 'more rolls' isn't always a good thing, let alone "The Best".
Trained is generally good enough with minor effort to avoid a Critical Failure on anything but a natural 1.
Its an extra chance to roll a die and succeed.
Its a minor, but significant bonus that helps the Summoner with skills.
Its nice, but definitely not OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trained is generally good enough with minor effort to avoid a Critical Failure on anything but a natural 1.
Depends of the level of the character and the difficulty of the check modified by circumstance/rarity: you're also starting with an 8-12 stat in mental checks.
Its an extra chance to roll a die and succeed.
And an extra chance to roll and fail.
Its a minor, but significant bonus that helps the Summoner with skills.
It can be a bonus is only used when you where going to make the check already and/or there isn't anything bad with failure. If not, it can be more bane than boon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It can be a bonus is only used when you where going to make the check already and/or there isn't anything bad with failure. If not, it can be more bane than boon.
The cases where a chance of Critical Failure is more likely than Success will be incredibly rare.
It will almost never be more bane than a boon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can be a bonus is only used when you where going to make the check already and/or there isn't anything bad with failure. If not, it can be more bane than boon.The cases where a chance of Critical Failure is more likely than Success will be incredibly rare.
It will almost never be more bane than a boon.
Why does it have to be a better crit fail chance than success? If it increases your chance to crit fail more than just one roll, it's a bane and that isn't something rare, let alone "incredibly rare" unless you are rolling vs incredibly low fail on a 1 DC's.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the goal is to get PF1 players to uptake PF2, then they gotta take the limits on the throttle off a little and let some classes punch on the upper end of the damage scale. Otherwise why even bother to play these new classes if they're complicated, weak versions of their former glory in PF1?
You're basing a lot of your judgement calls on PF2 design being geared toward drawing in PF1 players when it's not. Lisa Stevens even came out and said that. The goal is to stand on its own design, not keep going back to the structure of PF1 that was built on the back of 3.5
So power level shouldn't be compared between the editions because that's not the same design, nor is it the target audience. This was something you've brought up before, but I can only see evidence that Paizo is happy for PF1 players to come over (as many of us here on the forum are), but aren't catering design choices to court them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want a diet cleric. If I wanted to play a cleric, I'd play a cleric.
I don't want to play a diet martial. If I wanted to play a martial, I'd play a martial. Not a diet version.
I don't want to play a jack of all trades. If I wanted to play one, I'd play a rogue.
I want to play a summoner.
Build a niche for it. Don't let every other class overshadow any potential niche it could have.
They are all the PF2 versions of the classes. You could definitely call them all "diet" versions of classes.
I do get what you're saying with the summoner. The summoner was stacked with abilities. Now it's a shadow of its previous customization. And many of the customizations don't do anything like they used to do. That's disappointing.
It used to be a lot of fun designing an eidolon and summoner combination. Now it's a locked in choice very early on with very little customization.
If the goal is to get PF1 players to uptake PF2, then they gotta take the limits on the throttle off a little and let some classes punch on the upper end of the damage scale. Otherwise why even bother to play these new classes if they're complicated, weak versions of their former glory in PF1?You're basing a lot of your judgement calls on PF2 design being geared toward drawing in PF1 players when it's not. Lisa Stevens even came out and said that. The goal is to stand on its own design, not keep going back to the structure of PF1 that was built on the back of 3.5
So power level shouldn't be compared between the editions because that's not the same design, nor is it the target audience. This was something you've brought up before, but I can only see evidence that Paizo is happy for PF1 players to come over (as many of us here on the forum are), but aren't catering design choices to court them.
That is not in line with their actions given they took the concerns players had with PF1 and playtested PF2 with the PF1 player base. That doesn't at all sound like what they did.
As much as the CEO is claiming retaining the PF1 fanbase is not a concern, I would bet you a lot of money that retaining the PF1 fanbase is a huge concern as in business survival concern given that 5E completely revived D&D and drew a lot of players back. I would even go so far as to say if they don't retain the PF1 fanbase they built or a good percentage of it, their market is going to be heavily damaged.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game has been out for over a year. Most PF1 players either stuck to the huge volumes of content and familiar rules or picked up PF2 on the merits of the Core Rulebook (and, sometimes, Advanced Player's Guide) already. Sure, a few more people from before will consider the game with each new major release helping to bridge the content gap, but most of those people will either like the general design of the content (which Magus and Summoner will be in line with) or give it a pass because they don't like the general design of the content (which Magus and Summoner will be in line with).
Very few people who are ride or die for a small selection of classes are also likely to purchase books full of all of these other classes they don't care about. Very few people are ride or die for a small selection of classes in the first place. Those people are likely to be super vocal when the design of their favorites is in question, but I don't believe it makes sense fiscally or design-wise to aim for PF1 paradigms in an attempt to appease a subset of a subset.