|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They CHOOSE "manifest" intentionally because it describes "something that is put into your physical reality through thought, feelings, and beliefs" which explicitly tells us that the Eidolon didn't exist at ALL before it was made real.
This is what I was asking for a source on, this claim right here.
They have none, only their assumptions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in other words you have nothing and that's just your assumptions.If by "my" you mean "universally accepted" and by "assumptions" you mean "literal textbook definition" then I suppose so.
Seeing as how one of your points earlier was that Eidolons didn't exist before being manifested - which is literally and explicitly contrary to RAW for Angels and Phantoms - your "im using an Earth dictionary to argue about Golarion" position comes across as flawed.
Manifesting an Eidolon is Materially (if not literally) synonymous with summoning it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using the dictionary definition of manifest would be compelling if pathfinder were itself more consistent with its use of words.
Summon is used both to refer to calling creatures and to creating something from nothing (eg celestial bridge, crashing wave).
The description of the summoned trait refers to creatures as having been "called", which I don't see used much elsewhere.
The conjuration trait contains effects that teleport things, move creatures to you, even from other planes, and to creating things.
Summon animal specifically says that you conjure a creature, then says that you summon one. As has been established, both conjuring and summoning can include moving things to you, and creating things. Ergo, it's reasonable to suggest that when you cast summon animal, you create the dog from nothing. That doesn't sound too different from your description of manifesting an eidolon.
Also, for what it's worth, dragon eidolons are specifically made from the echoes left by ancient dragons on the astral plane. Now, I have no idea what that actually means, but it certainly sounds like they exist before the summoner comes along.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It could be worse. It could be called the Witchwarper and have nothing to do with Witchs. Or it could be called the Vanguard and have nothing to do with vanguards and have weird entropy magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's called the witchwarper because the paradigm shift stuff kinda resembles hexes? Sorta? And it also warps reality, I guess.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's the real issue. The inconsistency of word use that we are apparently expected to overlook.
I think before this is published they really need to nix the use of the word manifest. Because it doesn't make a lot of sense with the context of what the summoner is doing. If they were consistent in referring to the summoning of the eidolon as opposed to the manifesting. And then also mentioned it not having the summoned trait. I'd be on board. But I cannot do long as they keep incorrectly using the word manifest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'd definitely agree with that.
One solution I quite like is just adding a "Manifested" trait, along the lines of "creatures with this trait are summoned from another plane, but don't have the summoned or minion traits, and generally aren't affected by effects that target summoned creatures".
That'd give them somewhere to put eidolon rules so they're easier to find for multiclass characters too. Then again, making a whole new trait just for the eidolon might be wasteful, but it'd at least be handy if ever they add something else that uses similar rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well the manifest eidolon activity has the teleportation trait, so the eidolon is presumably coming from somewhere.
My interpretation is that the body is created by the summoner, while the consciousness is pulled from elsewhere. I'm mostly basing that off the dragon eidolon, what with the aforementioned memory echo thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
why validate what is incorrect and correct at the same exact time.
that means the issue is on paizo's end. manifest and summon by their definitions are not the same thing. if you are going to tell me that well galorian is a fantasy world so this plain english word in the rules book doesnt mean plain english then i will proceed to ignore your rediculous claim.
so the issue is they need to drop the term manifestation, as you are not manfesting jack, you are summoning the eidolon from wherever it is, and you maintain its existence in this plane via your force of will (charisma). thats why when it gets hurt, you are getting hurt until you go sleepy and it poofs back to where it was.
just change the word manifest to summon, and it makes sense, even with the texts explaining it doesnt have the summon trait as its a unique situation. thats fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Manifesting, which they haven’t defined yet if you actually look into the Playtest document, works perfectly fine.
You’re need for it to be an issue and have to be a Summoned with all the pros and cons and spelled out exceptions is the issue.
Manifesting is summoning until Paizo says otherwise.
So that means the sky doesn't have a color until they say so? Or are we not allowed to use logic and common sense and *the definition of words* to formulate our own thoughts?
I don't need it to be a summoned creature in that it has all the pros and cons personally. But it in effect of what happens when you can it into our realm is a summoning not a manifestation. They already have the mentioning of it not having the typical summoned trait. So there is no narrative of mechanical reason I can think of to use this word (manifestation) in place of summoned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Manifesting, which they haven’t defined yet if you actually look into the Playtest document, works perfectly fine.
You’re need for it to be an issue and have to be a Summoned with all the pros and cons and spelled out exceptions is the issue.
Manifesting is summoning until Paizo says otherwise.
I don't think it's intended for a Summoner's Eidolon to critically fail a Banishment spell and leave the Summoner completely belly-up for an entire week, meaning for it to function better, it cannot be considered a summoned creature.
After all, if Oracle got splatted for the 24 hours unconsciousness mechanic, I don't expect Summoner to be happy about being useless for a week or more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean? You say "hence", as though someone said something in support of split hp, but I don't see any recent posts along those lines. Unless you're referring to Darksol talking about the banishment spell, which has nothing to do with hp.
In any case, I think summoner works fine as a name. Manifest eidolon and summon spells both have conjuration and teleportation traits, and both bring a creature from elsewhere to you. The only difference is that manifesting doesn't give the summoned trait and related baggage (baggage that wouldn't work well when dumped onto the eidolon, imo).
I think the idea is to avoid using the word summon in regards to the eidolon, to avoid misinterpretations of the rules. i.e. "some spell targets summoned creatures, and the eidolon is referred to as summoned, so it should still work even without the summoned trait".
Either that, or manifesting is some summon adjacent thing, like creating the body and calling the consciousness into it. That would explain why the summoner gets to decide on the eidolon's physical form, and why they share hp and whatnot.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it very confusing. You don't have a summoned creature, you just have another you, mechanically; there's an entire thread about how the most logical use of this class mechanic is Jojo Stand. None of the Eidolon's seem to be actually summoned by the character; we've got guardian angel, druid animal companion plus, and dragon ghost. Then there's the devotion phantom where it's literally just a ghost possessing you so it can say, "I'm totally not a ghost."
I've been trying to come up with summoner characters for this class, but every time they just make more sense being a different class using "summon x" spells and just pretending the entities are important. The non-summoner characters I've come up with for the class are a wimpy monk astral projecting a dragon to bite people two rooms away, a false Messiah "summoning" an "angel" to prove his divinity, a failed magician with an ego so large it literally overshadows everything else, a possession gone wrong, and a Soul Binder (not necessarily through slavery, could be contract-based; lifelink is to keep the demon from just letting you die).
So, I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the name summoner when a less specific name would be less held to existing notions of summoning. My vote would be Channeler, since no matter what Eidolon you have (or what story you're telling), you are bringing (or holding) some kind of entity to the physical world. Summoner suggests calling in something disposable. Channeler suggests a deep connection; put that lifelink right in the class name.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
good to see this thread is going great with completely normal conversations
God-callers definitely aren't just making up the Sarkorian deities they're summoning. These are preexisting entities. The phantom was presumably someone alive once, borne out by the text of the actual eidolon. They're still being summoned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem here is the binary notion of "The Summoner does/doesn't summon the Eidolon" when the two sides are using different meanings. Having a different name that didn't overlap with an existing game mechanic would make it more clear that regardless if the entity is "summoned" (lowercase as the real word) in the story is irrelevant to the mechanics where it is not "Summoned" (capitalized as a game keyword).
I also think the Eidolon lore bits are too rigid and would be better if they were just stated as examples; your Angel Eidolon could be an actual angel working with you or it could be an overlooked aspect of yourself taking form (with help from an actual celestial, perhaps) to force you to face your issues. Be more open, like Witch Patrons and Bard Muses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK now for the fun...
"An eidolon is a being formed of ephemeral essences—typically mind, life, or spirit—that needs your body and connection to this world to manifest."
This is where it isn't a summoning.
If you summon an animal, or a demon, you just "call" it. It could have come without you calling it. It doesn't depend on you to come in this world.
And nothing prevents someone else to call that same creature.
Manifesting is a very very different matter. If it wasn't for its summoner, a particular eidolon would never be seen anywhere in Golarion.
In V1, a summoner was (depending how you play it, but just looking at the rules by the book) splitting her life between manifesting her eidolon and summoning a bunch of other things. Many of her powers/feats/spells/blabla were aimed at summoning.
In V2 pretty much all the class is aimed at the manifesting-my-eidolon part. A very few feats help summoning other stuff but nothing pushes you to mandatory take them.
So the V2 class is something like 80% Manifester - 20% Summoner.
So it would make sense IMHO to rename it (Manifester ? Symbiote? whatever).
Especially has the Mage-Conjurer is way more a summoner than the "Manifester" so keeping the "Summoner" name feels like confusing new players.
Since the whole purpose of V2 is to make things easier...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In V2 pretty much all the class is aimed at the manifesting-my-eidolon part. A very few feats help summoning other stuff but nothing pushes you to mandatory take them.So the V2 class is something like 80% Manifester - 20% Summoner.
So it would make sense IMHO to rename it (Manifester ? Symbiote? whatever).
Especially has the Mage-Conjurer is way more a summoner than the "Manifester" so keeping the "Summoner" name feels like confusing new players.
Since the whole purpose of V2 is to make things easier...
Periodic Reminder - the Playtest Summoner left out Summoning related class features, intentionally, to focus testing on the Eidolon since Paizo already knows how Summoning functions.
It should not be taken as implying that the final class will not have additional support for Summoning.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the summoning class features in a different subclass? Is an Eidolonless Summoner allowed? How are they supposed to test if the Eidolon works properly if the Summoner's other abilities aren't present as opportunity costs? How does the Eidolon make the Summoner better at summoning than other classes? I have a lot of questions.
This definitely explains all the commotion people made about the Summoner feeling useless without the Eidolon around though.
|
|
Manifesting, which they haven’t defined yet if you actually look into the Playtest document, works perfectly fine.
You’re need for it to be an issue and have to be a Summoned with all the pros and cons and spelled out exceptions is the issue.
Manifesting is summoning until Paizo says otherwise.
I don't think it's intended for a Summoner's Eidolon to critically fail a Banishment spell and leave the Summoner completely belly-up for an entire week, meaning for it to function better, it cannot be considered a summoned creature.
After all, if Oracle got splatted for the 24 hours unconsciousness mechanic, I don't expect Summoner to be happy about being useless for a week or more.
It’s not, why it’s Manifested, as pointed out above. Also as Doombug points out its to prevent shenanigans that buff or alter Summons (remember Augment Summoning?)
|
|
It’s not, why it’s Manifested, as pointed out above. Also as Doombug points out its to prevent shenanigans that buff or alter Summons (remember Augment Summoning?)Manifesting, which they haven’t defined yet if you actually look into the Playtest document, works perfectly fine.
You’re need for it to be an issue and have to be a Summoned with all the pros and cons and spelled out exceptions is the issue.
Manifesting is summoning until Paizo says otherwise.
I don't think it's intended for a Summoner's Eidolon to critically fail a Banishment spell and leave the Summoner completely belly-up for an entire week, meaning for it to function better, it cannot be considered a summoned creature.
After all, if Oracle got splatted for the 24 hours unconsciousness mechanic, I don't expect Summoner to be happy about being useless for a week or more.
Eidolons should 100% be affected by Augment Summoning is the type of spell that Summoners should have 100% access to.
Also no matter how much you argue, manifesting does not count as summoning in the playtest. And that is what we are testing. The playtest.
I was referring to P1 Augment Summoning.
The Conjurer Focus Spell is much more in line, but still really strong, since if it worked it would buff the Eidolon for a whole minute.
Manifesting is summoning until you produce something that officially says otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't we ask the designer of the class then? Is Manifest (keyword) summoning (regular word), Summoning (keyword), or neither. Also, would you test-drive my car? Yes, it's missing a wheel; that's intentional.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Manifesting is summoning until you produce something that officially says otherwise.
You yourself said this: "Manifesting as is in the Playtest is a specific term, not flavor text." I agree and NO WHERE in that is the word summoning. So once again, you have it backwards: it's officially NOT summoning unless you can produce something official saying otherwise... :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't we ask the designer of the class then? Is Manifest (keyword) summoning (regular word), Summoning (keyword), or neither. Also, would you test-drive my car? Yes, it's missing a wheel; that's intentional.
As I recall he said they weren't interested in testing summoning mechanics in the playtest. I don't recall him saying that we will 100% get that kind of mechanic. I think people are just jumping to a the conclusion they hope will come to pass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Periodic Reminder - the Playtest Summoner left out Summoning related class features, intentionally, to focus testing on the Eidolon since Paizo already knows how Summoning functions.
It should not be taken as implying that the final class will not have additional support for Summoning.
I've seen this asserted multiple times, but as yet nobody has cited an actual source from the designers that this was their plan all along.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Manifesting is summoning until you produce something that officially says otherwise.You yourself said this: "Manifesting as is in the Playtest is a specific term, not flavor text." I agree and NO WHERE in that is the word summoning. So once again, you have it backwards: it's officially NOT summoning unless you can produce something official saying otherwise... :PYeah the playtest actively goes out of its way to say its not summoning, does not act as summoning, does not count as summoning, and it is not affected by things that affect summoning.
You see it not only in the class rules text. But also in how the 2-3 weak summoning feats are worded. Actively dictating that the eidolon is not summoned.
I call Eidolon from far away point A to nearby point B instantaneously.
Summoning.
|
|
Manifesting is summoning until you produce something that officially says otherwise.You yourself said this: "Manifesting as is in the Playtest is a specific term, not flavor text." I agree and NO WHERE in that is the word summoning. So once again, you have it backwards: it's officially NOT summoning unless you can produce something official saying otherwise... :P
No that’s on you to provide official rules stating the thing functioning as summoning labeled Manifesting is not summoning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you saying that the situation is either that the play-test is intentionally only part of a class or that the people who like the class just think it is and expect more? I don't know which of those is worse.
Wait, the angel specifically lists a change for summoning "celestial" animals and there are some summoning feats (though as Temperans pointed out, they do specifically buff the Eidolon separately). Why bother with the animals if summoning isn't important to test?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s not, why it’s Manifested, as pointed out above. Also as Doombug points out its to prevent shenanigans that buff or alter Summons (remember Augment Summoning?)Manifesting, which they haven’t defined yet if you actually look into the Playtest document, works perfectly fine.
You’re need for it to be an issue and have to be a Summoned with all the pros and cons and spelled out exceptions is the issue.
Manifesting is summoning until Paizo says otherwise.
I don't think it's intended for a Summoner's Eidolon to critically fail a Banishment spell and leave the Summoner completely belly-up for an entire week, meaning for it to function better, it cannot be considered a summoned creature.
After all, if Oracle got splatted for the 24 hours unconsciousness mechanic, I don't expect Summoner to be happy about being useless for a week or more.
Too bad that per RAW, you are wrong, as Banishment works on creatures not on their home plane, and your Eidolons are home to a plane different from the one they are manifested to. Angels from Heaven, Nirvana, etc. Ethereal/Astral Plane...the list goes on. Making it a valid target for Banishment. Enjoy a worthless class for an entire week when a smart spellcaster can counter you with a single spell.
All of this "Yes, but actually no, but actually yes, but actually maybe kinda sorta possibly" of the interpretations between it being summoned or not summoned is not the simplification that PF2 promised. A simple yes or no should be sufficient. The fact that it isn't means the design needs to be clarified and/or changed until it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I call Eidolon from far away point A to nearby point B instantaneously.
Summoning.
How is that not MORE Teleportation? Note it has the Teleportation Trait but no Summoned Trait... So I'm not seeing the self-evident summoning part at all. If it wasn't called a summoner, would you be as insistent that it was summoning?
No that’s on you to provide official rules stating the thing functioning as summoning labeled Manifesting is not summoning.
I'm not sure you understand how proving something works: You claim it's summoning when the abilities in no way mentions that so you have to put forth some proof of that. The person putting forth a theory has to bring some evidence, you don't get to ask for them to disprove it first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen this asserted multiple times, but as yet nobody has cited an actual source from the designers that this was their plan all along.Periodic Reminder - the Playtest Summoner left out Summoning related class features, intentionally, to focus testing on the Eidolon since Paizo already knows how Summoning functions.
It should not be taken as implying that the final class will not have additional support for Summoning.
Check Marks posts in the initial subforum thread. I'm doing a slight amount of inferring, but it was pretty clear that they were less interested in playtesting summoning mechanics than the Eidolon mechanics, since the effectiveness of Summons are a known quality.
They did include several Summoning related feats, with the clear expectation that the player should spend spell slots on them.
If you want more Summoning, by all means ask for it, to make sure that the amount of Summoning in the final class hopefully reflects your desires - but people saying that the class isn't a Summoner because "it doesn't Summon things" are clearly ignoring the fact that this was clearly de-emphasized for a reason in the playtest version of the class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
people saying that the class isn't a Summoner because "it doesn't Summon things" are clearly ignoring the fact that this was clearly de-emphasized for a reason in the playtest version of the class.
I'm ignoring it BECAUSE it's not part of the playtest: My reply on the playtest class only includes what is IN the playtest and not on what I hope might be included after the playtest is over. "it doesn't Summon things" is 100% valid given the current set-up as it's doesn't unless you spend one of your limited 4 slots on it.
IMO, it seems REALLY, REALLY odd to evaluate a class on what isn't presented but instead on what isn't presented...
Making it a valid target for Banishment.
What would you consider anathema to a dragon eidolon? Considering the banishment spell says
The component must be a specially gathered object that is anathema to the creature, and not from a spell component pouch.
What about construct or amalgamation eidolons? Angels and stuff, sure, there's probably some obvious examples. And for the devotion spirit, I think that could have some really flavourful tie-ins to it's backstory.
But I don't think eidolons would really easily be banished, nor should they be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, it seems REALLY, REALLY odd to evaluate a class on what isn't presented but instead on what isn't presented...
And it is completely disingenuous to hold against the class things that aren't present for a known reason.
"The class feels incomplete without the presumably missing Summoning elements." Is perfectly valid feedback.
"It doesn't Summon things other than Eidolons, it doesn't deserve to be called a Summoner!" While ignoring the fact that you know there are missing Summoning elements is a Bad Faith position, because you know the underlying premise is false.
Whether Manifesting counts as summoning is irrelevant, because its not the only Summoning the class will do.
Summoning is almost certain to be more present in the final build, and we have good reason to expect this.
You should be playtesting with that in mind, not pretending you don't have knowledge of events outside the playtest document.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it is completely disingenuous to hold against the class things that aren't present for a known reason.
IMO, it seems REALLY, REALLY odd to evaluate a class on what isn't presented but instead on what isn't presented...
Not in the least as I DO NOT KNOW SUCH THINGS ARE GOING TO BE IN THE CLASS. Mark saying 'that isn't the kind of thing we need to playtest' isn't him saying 'we are specifically not including the rules we are going to include in the class because...'.
"It doesn't Summon things other than Eidolons, it doesn't deserve to be called a Summoner!" While ignoring the fact that you know there are missing Summoning elements is a Bad Faith position, because you know the underlying premise is false.
It's only Bad Faith IF we've been told we are 100% definitely going to get it when the class comes out and that just isn't the case.
Whether Manifesting counts as summoning is irrelevant, because its not the only Summoning the class will do.
I don't know that at all and I don't know how you say that.
Summoning is almost certain to be more present in the final build, and we have good reason to expect this.
"almost certain" and "we have good reason to expect" aren't a certainty so I'm ignoring them as we DO NOT know if we'll get any or in what form. As such, why would I evaluate the class on things I can't quantify and examine to see if they even exist at all?
You should be playtesting with that in mind, not pretending you don't have knowledge of events outside the playtest document.
I don't think YOU should pretend things not in the playtest have meaning in evaluating the playtest. I can hope the Magus gets it's action economy fixed but I'm not basing my playtest experience on it's future form but on what I actually played with following the playtest rules..