| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I can't imagine moving your entire game over to a new system whose design you don't like just because they made a class with the exact same mechanical abilities of the old.
You're still in a different car even if you kept the seats the same.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a phrase in game design of 'kill your babies' - that you might get so hung up on a certain design or system that you get blinders to how it might adversely be interacting with the rest of the game. I think it's applicable here in the sense of the PF1 Summoner being some folk's babies and that you have to 'kill it' and move on with what we'll get for the class in 2E.
It happens to everyone - I'm sure I'll have to do the same if/when they release the PF2E Inquisitor.
Even if they adjust the things that need tweaking - which there are - it's never going to be the same as PF1 Summoner, in terms of damage, utility, or customization. It's a new paradigm and classes have to adjust to it - and often that means making concessions in areas that previously may have been draws to people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a phrase in game design of 'kill your babies' - that you might get so hung up on a certain design or system that you get blinders to how it might adversely be interacting with the rest of the game. I think it's applicable here in the sense of the PF1 Summoner being some folk's babies and that you have to 'kill it' and move on with what we'll get for the class in 2E.
It happens to everyone - I'm sure I'll have to do the same if/when they release the PF2E Inquisitor.
Even if they adjust the things that need tweaking - which there are - it's never going to be the same as PF1 Summoner, in terms of damage, utility, or customization. It's a new paradigm and classes have to adjust to it - and often that means making concessions in areas that previously may have been draws to people.
I think what the issue some have is not that it doesn't meet all the same marks as the PF1 version but that it doesn't hit any of them. It doesn't summon anything, it's not versatile [pet or caster], it has no customization past initial choice and feats[like an animal companion]... There is a difference in making a concession in one area but it's a concession in every area. The only thing that seems to have been translated is 'it's a pet class'... It's MUCH closer to a Spiritualist in every way instead of a Summoner and it seems a valid complaint to say 'this doesn't seem/feel like a summoner' when it doesn't.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Toss this summoner out then and don't bother to build another one that even resembles the PF1 Summoner. Build an entirely new class that has an eidolon which fits in the PF2 framework of game balance. There is no need for a summoner class in PF2. I'd rather see them build entirely new classes around different concepts.
Then again, they could just rename this class and keep on with it since there is never going to be a summoner class just like PF1. That type of class will break PF2. Let's see what choice they might want. Break the game and ruin it or build a class that fits in PF2? I have a feeling they are going to go with option 2.
As it stands, this class is viable within PF2. It is not and never will be the PF1 class. That's good. Will they lose customers over this? Very doubtful. Will they continue to gain customers over this? Certainly. It is all in the marketing to consumer groups.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am already gearing up for summoner 2.0 to be thing that didn't happen like all those sequels to the matrix that never got made.
The only way for the 2E summoner to 'fail' is for it to be perceived as overpowered, and banned at most tables like the 1E version was by association.
The entire 'pet class' concept is too popular with people otherwise for it not to be played.
The vast majority of players don't care about CharOP, don't frequent online message boards, and don't log and track things like damage over time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
In my experience with skill challenges in PF2: crit fail = lost progress, fail = no progress, success = some progress, crit success = extra progress. The most common point values applied in a victory point subsystem are -1, 0, 1, 2. So as long as your chance of success is more than your chance of critical failure, attempting the check increases the expected value of your victory points. I have seen one case where a critical failure was -2, but that seemed like an outlier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am already gearing up for summoner 2.0 to be thing that didn't happen like all those sequels to the matrix that never got made.The only way for the 2E summoner to 'fail' is for it to be perceived as overpowered, and banned at most tables like the 1E version was by association.
The entire 'pet class' concept is too popular with people otherwise for it not to be played.
The vast majority of players don't care about CharOP, don't frequent online message boards, and don't log and track things like damage over time.
Nope.
Especially amongst that larger group of more casual players you are talking about,
classes get banned for being too complex, or for causing too many rules debates.
Or just because the flavour of it is too alien that the GM doesn't see how it fits in his world. But that is more a case by case scenario.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't say my experiences match yours. Recall, Gather Information, Request, Make an Impression, Decipher Writing, Disable a Device, Pick a Lock, Command an Animal, Administer First Aid, Treat Disease, Treat Poison, Treat Wounds, Coerce, Feint, Repair, Craft, Identify Alchemy, Identify Magic... All skill actions that you can crit fail with that either get you false info or actively make your situation worse.
Graystone, When I say "skill challenge" I am referring to a specific setup that often uses something like the Victory Point subsystem in the GMG.
I'm not talking about making one off skill checks; those are things you clearly assign to the party expert.These victory point subsystems are fairly frequently used in PFS, and are occasionally used in modules/APs as well. And having another actor/participant in the challenge is useful, though it's possible that the number of victory points can scale according to the number of participants.
I can't say my experiences match yours. Recall, Gather Information, Request, Make an Impression, Decipher Writing, Disable a Device, Pick a Lock, Command an Animal, Administer First Aid, Treat Disease, Treat Poison, Treat Wounds, Coerce, Feint, Repair, Craft, Identify Alchemy, Identify Magic... All skill actions that you can crit fail with that either get you false info or actively make your situation worse.Graystone, When I say "skill challenge" I am referring to a specific setup that often uses something like the Victory Point subsystem in the GMG.
I'm not talking about making one off skill checks; those are things you clearly assign to the party expert.
These victory point subsystems are fairly frequently used in PFS, and are occasionally used in modules/APs as well. And having another actor/participant in the challenge is useful, though it's possible that the number of victory points can scale according to the number of participants.
The number of required successes/checks should not scale with Animal Companions, Familiars, and Eidolons. Just players.
Graystone, When I say "skill challenge" I am referring to a specific setup that often uses something like the Victory Point subsystem in the GMG.
Oh, I understood what you where saying, but I was saying using that isn't something I've seen/used.
I'm not talking about making one off skill checks; those are things you clearly assign to the party expert.
Yep, and that's what I'm talking about as I've been at a lot of tables and not seen Victory Points used once.
These victory point subsystems are fairly frequently used in PFS, and are occasionally used in modules/APs as well.
Don't play in PFS ever so no experience there. As far as adventures, sure sometimes that add stuff like that but they add new activities for individuals more often like camping in the jungle, signature tricks for performing, ect.
And having another actor/participant in the challenge is useful, though it's possible that the number of victory points can scale according to the number of participants.
Sure, IF you use an optional system it's great but it's not the default system I'm talking about.
Sure, IF you use an optional system it's great but it's not the default system I'm talking about.
Yes, but a) it's quite prevalent in PFS, and b) Krispy brought up the topic originally with their comment of "more likely to have a success than a critical failure", which you objected to. It seems that you didn't have the context of Victory Point systems because you do not play with them, but in that context Krispy's point is entirely valid.
Sure, IF you use an optional system it's great but it's not the default system I'm talking about.Yes, but a) it's quite prevalent in PFS, and b) Krispy brought up the topic originally with their comment of "more likely to have a success than a critical failure", which you objected to. It seems that you didn't have the context of Victory Point systems because you do not play with them, but in that context Krispy's point is entirely valid.
Having run and played in multiple APs in 2E now, I can confirm such events occur with significant regularity.
They aren't exactly rare in published material.