|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well they also chose to have half of the potential options for eidolons to have wings as part of their default recommended appearance. I have never seen a class with as big a thing for wings as the summoner.
Through the choices the devs made they made all this flight talk become pretty much inevitable.
If they hadn't picked angels and dragons described them both as being winged and shown the inconic dragon to have wings maybe so many people wouldn't be fixated on the connection between eidolons and flight.
There is an inherent strong conceptual conception between wings and flight and people generally assume one goes with the other.
You're the first person that's posited "oh we HAVE to have flight early because the Iconic Eidolon is a Dragon with wings!"
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Build a bear is great you and a few others don't like it.We don't like it cause the only examples we have to go off of were broken.
I don't think it is prefect and needs tweaking build a bear would work better in 2e than 1e. I
The hypothetical non-existent build-a-bear would work better you're claiming.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly, if someone pitches a build a bear idea that works, go for it. But also, recognize how insane an idea it is to have a playtest and completely disregard those tested mechanics for a completely untested system that has been historically broken.
Someone pitched an idea, but... it was the same thing as PF1 with all of the traps and CharOP. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the way it's been pitched on the playtest forums has always been to huge regression and veering wildly away from PF2 design.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The current Eidolon does not work. Its lame and boring.
Have you played one in a campaign? I've yet to run into this.
Summoner is the most dynamic character in the party.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
yea but it also isn't our job or role to write a character class.Exactly, if someone pitches a build a bear idea that works, go for it. But also, recognize how insane an idea it is to have a playtest and completely disregard those tested mechanics for a completely untested system that has been historically broken.
Someone pitched an idea, but... it was the same thing as PF1 with all of the traps and CharOP. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the way it's been pitched on the playtest forums has always been to huge regression and veering wildly away from PF2 design.
And yet here so many people are saying that they know better than those with those jobs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
one does not need to be a writer to recognize bad writing. There is also no guaranty that those with the jobs are the best people for those jobs.here is the thing the point of playtesting [u]is[/u] to find problems and put it in the forum (and to try and break the system) before it goes live
"one does not need to be a writer to recognize bad writing"
Oh, the delicious irony.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
one does not need to be a writer to recognize bad writing.
I was going to disagree, but you did just prove your point, yes.
EDIT: I wasn never big into the CharOP of PF1, but weren't strix a huge problem because of their innate flight?That is my understanding.
I heard that, too. However, in my campaign Iron Gods among Scientists one player wanted to play a very exotic character. She chose strix skald. I put no restrictions on the flying ability. And in the campaign, flying proved merely one ability among many.
This I why I am have a generous opinion about flight despite KrispyXIV's well-reasoned arguments. I start from different data and different assumptions.
My only question for Paizo is how impactful they view individual flight. I can completely see them making it imposable for the whole party to fly, that would be problematic. But with the eidolon, not just the whole party but the whole player can't fly, just part of it.I mean, Mark more or less addresses this in the main thread for the Summoner subforum, where he notes that Flight is restricted to ensure that certain strategies are in limited use.
The reason theyre restricted is to ensure GMs have a predictable and manageable range of player capabilities when running their games, especially since a significant number of PF2E GMs are running published adventures which make assumptions about when certain abilities - like Flight - are available, and when they become omnipresent.
Is this the quote in Welcome to the Summoner Class Playtest!, comment #373? That one is about ground-bound monsters being weak to flying opponents before some unknown level. I think that in Pathfinder 1st Edition that level was around 9. Pathfinder 2nd Edition mostly kept the same monsters, so I checked the 9th-level monsters in the first PF2 Bestiary. The land monsters had defenses, some aquatic monsters' only defense was diving deeper underwater, and some outsiders' only defense was planeshifting away.
However, I want to talk about concept of "the predictable and manageable range of player capabilities when running their games." I read that aloud. The strix's player to my left said, "No such thing." My delightful wife to my right said, "Pshaw." They are not predictable.
Okay, my housemate is a master player and my wife is a grandmaster player. They don't powergame because they don't need to. They win combats through teamwork and tactics. I regularly have to boost their encounters by +2 CR to make combat interesting. They took down a 260-xp encounter in PF2 and that was the first time in the campaign a PC dropped unconscious. They seize narrative control of the plot and tell stories with their characters. Thus, flight and wings on the strix skald Kirii was a storytelling element.
Kirii's player could not envision how a strix could shoot a bow while flying, so she voluntarily gave that up. She restricted Kirii to thrown weapons for ranged attacks. She soon gave up on those weak attacks and shifted to a lucerne hammer (a reach weapon) and the Death from Above feat that gave her a +5 bonus to hit while diving in from the air.
In Fires of Creation the first time Kirii's ability to fly became relevant to the plot was when she flew up to look in the windows of the warehouse the party was investigating. She saw nothing unusual and the warehouse was soon unlocked.
Once the party needed to search an area several hundred feet in radius and she could do it quickly and safely from the air in the dark (strix have darkvision, too). The rest of the party was attacked anyway, but she was able to stay above the attacks of skeletons.
Most of the rest of the adventure was in corridors where flight was stuck under a low ceiling. The speed from flying did help. The nearly dead final boss was running away and Kirii caught up to her.
The flight was occasionally useful, but Kirii's healing spells were more useful.
In the next module, the players nerfed the plot hooks with a pacifist strategy. They did not attract enough notoriety to get key NPCs to talk to them. Then Kirii held a concert for their neighbors and I had an excuse for people to introduce themselves. Kirii's love of music was more important than her wings.
Later at 7th level I let the PCs repair a small spaceship. They got to fly over the travel encounters that were not in the adventure path anyways, and bed down in safety every night. At 8th level, the human bloodrager Val Baine gained flight while raging from her Air Elemental bloodline. That is not permanent flight, but it was available every battle. (8th level is relatively early for a bloodrager. Celestial, Draconic, Infernal, and Phoenix bloodlines gain raging flight at 12th level.) Val preferred melee with a saber, but she once took to the air defensively while heavily injured.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet here so many people are saying that they know better than those with those jobs.yea but it also isn't our job or role to write a character class.Exactly, if someone pitches a build a bear idea that works, go for it. But also, recognize how insane an idea it is to have a playtest and completely disregard those tested mechanics for a completely untested system that has been historically broken.
Someone pitched an idea, but... it was the same thing as PF1 with all of the traps and CharOP. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the way it's been pitched on the playtest forums has always been to huge regression and veering wildly away from PF2 design.
The Paizo developers stated during the PF2 playtest that they playtest ideas that are experimental and that they might abandon if they don't work in the playtest. They are bold developers and will push the envelope. That also means that we might be playtesting a few bad ideas.
State your opinions loud and clear so that Paizo can develop with good data. Also remember to tell them what we like about the mechanics, so they know to keep the good stuff that still needs a little polishing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If bats can have flying at lvl 1, then Eidolons should be able to.
The developers disagree with you.
Their reasons have been well documented.
Its extremely unlikely this is going to happen, and it would be fundamentally unfair to other players if it did.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If bats can have flying at lvl 1, then Eidolons should be able to.
If Eidolons can have flying at level one, then Rangers/Barbarians should be able to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If bats can have flying at lvl 1, then Eidolons should be able to.If Eidolons can have flying at level one, then Rangers/Barbarians should be able to.
He already can if you imagine that as his method of locomotion. All you have to do is rationalize away all the inconsistencies that crop up when his "flight" is still just in-game walking or climbing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice logical fallacies, guys.
1) The Eidolon is the 'pet' of the summoner. Not the character.
2) The precedence has already been set. There are flying AC.
3) All we need to do is restrict it and prevent it from being able to be mounted until a certain level if you chose flying option. Make it mutually exclusive until a certain level.
Why do bats have flying? What if the bat AC and bird AC didn't have flying at all? Would be a bit lame, right?
The pet status of the Eidolon is utterly irrelevant . What is relevant is its player level capabilities.
A flying Animal is nowhere near the same thing.
We already had this explained in the main thread by Mark.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice logical fallacies, guys.
1) The Eidolon is the 'pet' of the summoner. Not the character.
2) The precedence has already been set. There are flying AC.
3) All we need to do is restrict it and prevent it from being able to be mounted until a certain level if you chose flying option. Make it mutually exclusive until a certain level.
Why do bats have flying? What if the bat AC and bird AC didn't have flying at all? Would be a bit lame, right?
I'll be honest, the eidolon is usually at least as much of a character for me as the Summoner, if not more. They get freely chosen skill proficiencies, follow martial progression, can speak, and interact most things outside of magic items like a monk would.
That's obviously a big part of where we disagree.
If they do nerf eidolons down to either have no fine manipulation and speech, or remove all their combat ability instead, then sure- I'd see getting first-level flight as reasonable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They aren't anywhere near a martial. They don't get the apex. They start with 2 less strength. They don't even get the critical bonus of the weapon types.
That's near a martial, though? Enough that I'd count them. They didn't max their main stat (which matters less than proficiency, and only matters at all half the time), and they don't buy one particular high-level item. That's all stuff a Ranger or Barbarian can be reasonably expected to do sometimes, and it still puts them ahead of the non-martials all the time and on-par with the optimized martials about half the time.
I did forget about crit specializations, it's true. I don't consider them to be a big part of martial characters, but my opinion there doesn't make the point less valid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice logical fallacies, guys.
1) The Eidolon is the 'pet' of the summoner. Not the character.
2) The precedence has already been set. There are flying AC.
3) All we need to do is restrict it and prevent it from being able to be mounted until a certain level if you chose flying option. Make it mutually exclusive until a certain level.
Why do bats have flying? What if the bat AC and bird AC didn't have flying at all? Would be a bit lame, right?
You're right, they should use the same precedent set by the Champion's AC...
and make Winged Evolution a 20th level feat. /s
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stats and proficiency definitely need a look at for higher level play. They are sub par choices for in combat to fill the role of tank, off tank or dps. But for all out of combat things except skill feats they are the same as a player, so if they get flight all players should be able to get flight at level one.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the eidolons acting during exploration largely means the Summoner and Eidolon are now fatigued.
Please don't propagate untrue 'propoganda' like this designed to make the class look worse.
We know this is the opposite of factual.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are not even close for out of combat.
Eidolons dont get any skill feats. And the eidolons acting during exploration largely means the Summoner and Eidolon are now fatigued.
Also Rangers already get flying animal companions at level 1.
So you repeated what I said about feats, and then lie or continue to misunderstand how Eidolons work. Mark has already clarified that both summoner and Eidolon can take exploration actions.
Please look up what animals are and the limitations on actions they can take(page 249), then look up minions(page 634) and the limitations that brings.Then we can begin to get to common ground. An Eidolon can move 100 feet and do any base action a player can. It can talk, manipulate, share senses and use all the same skill training you have. So at level 1 it's just like another party member minus one skill feat and ancestry. The issue is that some games flight won't be worth much, but in others it could break encounters or map design, it's just too much flexibility at low levels without GM buy in.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also Rangers already get flying animal companions at level 1.
Seriously, this point has been made enough times. The horse is dead. Thank-you.