| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Summoner is supposed to summon and its biggest class feature was turned from a Summoned creature that you customize with a multitude of options to a manifested creature that is more akin to a marionette with a single option.
No options other than at least 11 base types (the ones listed in the playtest), 9 unique combinations of attacks at level 1, skills, and 15 evolution feats present in the playtest plus all those added in the final book.
At least be honest when you make hyperbolic statements like this - Eidolons have a ton of options for customization, you're just not happy that the form they come in doesn't conform to your preferred specification and that they compete with options for the summoner themselves.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The Summoner that I'm playtesting presently works perfectly and meets all of my expectations on what it should be doing in-universe thanks to the additional unspecified feats/class features that will surely be included in the final version."
Useful advice/feedback or not?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, saying an eidolon doesn't have customisation is like saying a ranger doesn't have customisation.
Like, yeah, sure, it doesn't - if you ignore all the feats that customise it. They statement "the customisation isn't achieved in the way I would prefer" is a valid statement. Saying "there isn't any customisation" is ignorant at best, and a disingenuous lie at worst.
| 3 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.
Why don't we simply look at the posts in question?
From Mark's posts
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4363f&page=3?Welcome-to-the-Summoner-Class -Playtest#141
Yeah, I love them both too, and those four big heals are outstanding for angel summoner. Ultimately for the playtest we wanted to test this new sliding window of four spells setup because we have no idea how it plays, but in truth, I had actually already considered Verzen's idea of swapping for a font style of summons as a possibility, we just know how that works so we need more playtest data on the idea that made it into the playtest. If that makes sense?I don't know if we're at a point where we can recommend wildly divergent class setups, but I think its worth bringing up that replacing the class spellcasting with a Summoning Font type ability sounds super awesome.
It also kills my absolute favorite thing about the current setup of Summoner, which is that my Divine Summoner gets enough spellcasting to play an effective mini-cleric (in theory, testing monday!) with healing magic in addition to my Eidolon.
Also relevant:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs436fb?A-very-boring-and-simple-fix-for-Summone rs#5In my first draft, every eidolon actually did give a specific extra summon spell, but we cut it in a later draft. Returning it could be a possibility for the final.
It is good to know that they are considering strengthening the Summoner's ability to summon, but taking it as a given seems premature.
Edit: In particular, the first post I quote, which seems to be the one you are referencing as it talks about an ability that they already know how it works, seems to imply the summoning font would be an either/or with spell casting, not on top of it. I definitely don't think we should assume that will be the final version of the class.
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.
That line is in reference to applying a -2 circumstance penalty to the target's saving throw.
For phantoms, it could be a symbol antithetical to their purpose in life, maybe an unholy symbol that the phantom fought against in the living, or the fang of a type of demon it was killed by. For dragons, based on their new upbringing in PF2, a scale from a Dragon of the opposing type (metallic versus chromatic and vice-versa) that it is weak to, would be appropriately anathematic. For the beasts, that would be the most troublesome, but an animal part that belongs to a predator of the beast wouldn't be too out of the way to come by. Of course, basic material components probably would not be a part of what provides the bonus, but it's certainly not impossible to drum something up.
As for it being banished so easily, this is somewhat true as well. It does require a critical failure for the Eidolon to be banished for the week. But it is both possible and more likely than you think, as the enemies who will most likely be using this tactic are A. Higher level than you, meaning a much harder DC to overcome, and B. Able to be equipped with tools to make the PCs lives a living hell, as well as capable of maximizing these tactics.
Of course, there is also Dispel Magic, Anti-Magic Field, and probably other things that I am missing, which can disrupt this conduit as well. Banishment is just the most debilitating one if used appropriately.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That line is in reference to applying a -2 circumstance penalty to the target's saving throw.
Ahh, of course, I knew I shouldn't have skimmed the spell entry. That's my bad, apologies.
As for everything else you said, I'd agree wholeheartedly. The flavour with the phantom examples is great!
I don't personally think the eidolon should be able to be banished or dispelled, or should at least get some sort of extra resistance against it (perhaps owing to the link with the summoner, or something like that), but yeah, as it stands it can definitely get banished.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Summoner sounds good.
I don't want the eidolon to use the rules of the summoning spells.
I don't want the Summoner to have their eidolon playing second fiddle to summoning spells, or trading out flexible magic for summoning.
So, I'm happy with things the way they are. If I'm technically manifesting an eidolon instead of technically summoning it, that's fine. To me, it's similar to how Diviner Wizards are generally better at oracular things than Oracles are. I acknowledge that it's different because "summon" has technical usage in the game that "oracular" does not, but it's also not a big deal to me.
If Paizo decides to change the class' name, I'll be fine, but I don't think they should.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you! I appreciate the correction.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The eidolon is supposed to be the single most customizable companion.
This isn't a factual statement.
The Eidolon was the most customizable player asset in 1E, for sure... but that isn't what made it an Eidolon.
What makes it an Eidolon is its relationship with the Summoner. What an Eidolon is 'supposed to be' is a powerful, conjured companion to a Summoner that functions more as a partner and peer than a minion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The eidolon should have its own set of customization even if its very basic.
I wouldn't agree with that.
The fighter fights, and gets feats that improve their fighting.
The investigator investigates, and get feats that improves their investigating.
Likewise, the summoner summons (or manifests, or calls, or whatever. They are all - to me - functionally and narratively indistinct (but definitely are not mechanically indistinct)) and so gets feats that improve their summoning.
Whether those feats affect their summon spells, or the manifesting of their eidolon, or act as evolutions for the eidolon, they're all customisation for the summoner, as they're customising either how the summoner summons, or customising the things that the summoner summons (or manifests, or whichever term you prefer). The eidolon is very customisable, you just have to use class feats to do it. I don't see any reason that summoner should be the only class to get an extra set of upgrades/customisability, other than "1e did it", which I think is a poor excuse given the general trend of 2e trying to distance itself somewhat from its predecessor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I had the energy to spend this many posts arguing that a word isn't a synonym for another word when it, by every definition that exists, is. it's magic baybee
Exactly, all conjuration spells are summoning. Heck, you can non-magically summon things with the Diplomacy and Nature skills or Interacting with a bell. Why bother having a tag for Summoned things? Just use the Minion tag. Shove the Summoned paragraph at the end with "If the Minion was brought about by a Conjuration spell or effect, wall of text." Because apparently this is too confusing a mechanic for this forum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's what I'm saying; "summoning" is not "Summoning", but "Summoning" is "summoning". That is the basis of this entire thread. That is the problem. The word has two different meanings here.
Think if summoning were animals and Summoning were dogs, then the Eidolon is a tiger. It is not a dog, but is an animal. Roughly half this thread is people reading Summoner as the Dogger and being confused as to why it uses a tiger and why some people think tigers are dogs, and the other half is reading it as Animaler and being confused as to why some people don't think tigers are animals.
That's what I'm saying; "summoning" is not "Summoning", but "Summoning" is "summoning". That is the basis of this entire thread. That is the problem. The word has two different meanings here.
Think if summoning were animals and Summoning were dogs, then the Eidolon is a tiger. It is not a dog, but is an animal. Roughly half this thread is people reading Summoner as the Dogger and being confused as to why it uses a tiger and why some people think tigers are dogs, and the other half is reading it as Animaler and being confused as to why some people don't think tigers are animals.
The basis of this entire thread is that I've heard a lot of people say that the summoner needs more summoning because it doesn't feel enough like the summoner, to which I respond, I don't want more summoning, so maybe it shouldn't be the summoner anymore.
Then everyone went off on a 100-comment debate about what "manifest" means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The basis of this entire thread is that I've heard a lot of people say that the summoner needs more summoning because it doesn't feel enough like the summoner, to which I respond, I don't want more summoning, so maybe it shouldn't be the summoner anymore.Then everyone went off on a 100-comment debate about what "manifest" means.
Emphasis mine.
The problem with a summonless summoner, is all your left with is "Eidolon-Bro the class", which isn't a bad thing necessarily. But Galorian (and hence the mechanics built around it) is a very humanoid-centric setting (as compared to something like Starfinder.) In such a humanoid-centric setting and rules, the answer to the question of "How and where did you find that thing?" has to be either "I tamed it." or "I summoned it."
If your answer is the former, you're basically a ranger or druid with an Animal Companion (and we have rules for those). And if your answer is the latter, the question then becomes "How?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with a summonless summoner, is all your left with is "Eidolon-Bro the class", which isn't a bad thing necessarily. But Galorian (and hence the mechanics built around it) is a very humanoid-centric setting (as compared to something like Starfinder.) In such a humanoid-centric setting and rules, the answer to the question of "How and where did you find that thing?" has to be either "I tamed it." or "I summoned it."
I mostly agree, but I think “It found me” should also be on the table. Oracles neither seek out nor are born with their power, it seeks THEM out whether they like it or not. A similar dynamic should be able to apply to Eidolons.
As for already having rules for animal companions, sure. A slightly stronger animal companion that isn’t restricted by creature type, based on the current animal companion and/or familiar rules, is exactly what some are asking for out of this class. I would certainly prefer that as a baseline option with the ability to spec into stronger Eidolons through subclass and feat choices. I haven’t been pushing that angle as ardently as some, as that would not need much playtesting where the much more intimately tied version they have at the moment does, so I’m still hopeful some aspects of that might happen down the line even if it isn’t even whispered at in the playtest.
Emphasis mine.
The problem with a summonless summoner, is all your left with is "Eidolon-Bro the class", which isn't a bad thing necessarily. But Galorian (and hence the mechanics built around it) is a very humanoid-centric setting (as compared to something like Starfinder.) In such a humanoid-centric setting and rules, the answer to the question of "How and where did you find that thing?" has to be either "I tamed it." or "I summoned it."
If your answer is the former, you're basically a ranger or druid with an Animal Companion (and we have rules for those). And if your answer is the latter, the question then becomes "How?"
"I invoke it," says the invoker. Or "I call it," says the caller. There are plenty of things you could name the class to refer specifically to the eidolon that don't set up the expectation of bonus summon spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I invoke it," says the invoker. Or "I call it," says the caller. There are plenty of things you could name the class to refer specifically to the eidolon that don't set up the expectation of bonus summon spells.
Everyone I know associated the 1E summoner with the aspect of the class that was unique to it - the Eidolon.
Summon spells were just something it did that other classes also got, but somewhat better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone I know associated the 1E summoner with the aspect of the class that was unique to it - the Eidolon.
Big agree. I routinely forgot it had regular summoning stuff. The whole point of the class to me, and everyone I know, was the eidolon.
As an apology for misstating the basis of this thread (I meant what I believed was the root of where the thread's derail), my I ask something back to it's original point?
Is there room in PF2 for both an Eidolon Class and a class centering on the "Summon X" spells (or effects similar in nature)? Archetypes then allowing the two to have weaker versions of the other. If so, wouldn't the latter be more clearly the Summoner?
Bear in mind, I don't have anything against the Buddy Cop Double Dragon Class wherein you fight crime with your great-grandmother's ghost (Why does Paizo love Kobolds more than WotC?), but I don't see where the name Summoner and class meet. The name suggests versatility to me and it seems like its only called that because it is the name in 1e.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I invoke it," says the invoker. Or "I call it," says the caller. There are plenty of things you could name the class to refer specifically to the eidolon that don't set up the expectation of bonus summon spells.Emphasis mine.
The problem with a summonless summoner, is all your left with is "Eidolon-Bro the class", which isn't a bad thing necessarily. But Galorian (and hence the mechanics built around it) is a very humanoid-centric setting (as compared to something like Starfinder.) In such a humanoid-centric setting and rules, the answer to the question of "How and where did you find that thing?" has to be either "I tamed it." or "I summoned it."
If your answer is the former, you're basically a ranger or druid with an Animal Companion (and we have rules for those). And if your answer is the latter, the question then becomes "How?"
The only people specifically "expecting" bonus summon spells would be those who played the P1 Summoner constantly and were expecting it to be unchanged in P2, which isn't the case for any class so far.
And to echo Krispy and Kirin, everyone I've known and all that I've seen, when the Summoner is brought up people think of the Eidolon they get, not bunches of extra summoning spells.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an apology for misstating the basis of this thread (I meant what I believed was the root of where the thread's derail), my I ask something back to it's original point?
Is there room in PF2 for both an Eidolon Class and a class centering on the "Summon X" spells (or effects similar in nature)? Archetypes then allowing the two to have weaker versions of the other. If so, wouldn't the latter be more clearly the Summoner?
Bear in mind, I don't have anything against the Buddy Cop Double Dragon Class wherein you fight crime with your great-grandmother's ghost (Why does Paizo love Kobolds more than WotC?), but I don't see where the name Summoner and class meet. The name suggests versatility to me and it seems like its only called that because it is the name in 1e.
It's a Summoner because it summons its main class ability.
As for a Class focused on Summon spells specifically, that's a Conjuration Specialist Wizard.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the best summoner isn't the Summoner? You realize how confusing that is, right? The Summoner isn't the best summoner. Isn't the Fighter the best fighter?
And the Conjuration Wizard can't even cast all the summon spells. A class centering on having those lists and the cost of having limited (or even no) other spells would be a very different beast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the Conjuration Wizard can't even cast all the summon spells. A class centering on having those lists and the cost of having limited (or even no) other spells would be a very different beast.
In fairness, neither can this version of the summoner. Or at least, no single summoner has access to all of them. Though I agree, a class ability that collapsed all those into a single focus spell (sort of like what wildshape does to polymorph spells) would be an interesting ability. Not sure if that alone is enough to build a class around, but I could be wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In game terms, sorcer (which isn't a real word) would be using one's inherent magic, as the only class that does so, yes, by definition the Sorcerer is the best at being a sorcerer. And from what I've heard, they do seem to be held as one of the best magic classes.
Why are people so held to the sacred cow name of a class that even the most vocal defenders of admit they don't no anyone who actually thinks of the Summoner as a summoner? A class that at least one of those defenders also pointed out was a hated OP mess of a class in 1e.
Why after days of derailing the thread to argue that the dictionary is more important the game rules, did it suddenly become kosher to invent words to dodge questions?
This is the problem of having a class and a game mechanic share a name. The Fighter (or any other martials) isn't called the Striker. None of the magic classes are called the Caster. The Rogue isn't called the Skill-Man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Classes's names aren't picked on what they're best at, but on thematics.
This is the problem of having a class and a game mechanic share a name.
Don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, but these two statements get to the heart of things. While the summoner is, thematically, appropriate for this class, is it the only name that is thematically appropriate? Could something else work as well, and not bump up into the game term issue? (God-)Callers and (Genie-)Binders are in setting terms, as well as Spiritualist. Though I'd personally not want to use Spiritualist for the same game term issue.
Moreover, if they do at some point wind up introducing a class or subclass that is built around the actual Summon spells, what do you call that? Or even an Archetype (which I think is most likely where we'd see that focus spell I imagined a couple posts ago). Is that class/archetype not also deserving of the name Summoner?
|
|
Hi goal posts by goal posts.
You tried to argue that if it's in the name that they should be the best at that specific thing (fight fight, summoner summon), which is kinda silly, which I brought up by mentioning Sorcerer. What about Ranger?
Now you're changing to accommodate Sorcerer with "they're the best with inherent magic so of course their name fits" but Bestwithinherentmagicer is not the Class's name.
Nothing's being dodged, the Summoner of Pathfinder is paired with their Eidolon, that's what their known for, that's why the majority of people played them. Not under the assumption that they were better than any other class at using summon spells.
Words aren't being invented, and I haven't once claimed that the dictionary beats the rules, I've been arguing the opposite if that.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The class needs work, no one is claiming otherwise as much as you want to demonize, this IS a Playtest. But to claim the class doesn't work is complete hyperbole born of your bias and hate over this version of the class.
It is a Summoner, its companion is an Eidolon.
Conjurer was a better summoner in P1 as well, it comes with being the specialist and master of Conjuration magic, of which summoning is a part.
The thematics are there, a caster with their buddy, that's what the Summoner is, that's what it was in P1.
I have never changed my goal or any posts. I want a name that isn't misleading, sacred cows be killed. At no point has anyone convinced me that the Summoner deserves to keep the name.
The ranger is the best at being on the range. They are given abilities specifically for doing things associated with that, like hunting and tracking.
I don't like that the sorcerer's name doesn't say anything. I don't like that the magus' name basically means the same thing as it too. Two classes that are named "magic user" without much else, when other magic classes have more immediate themes to them is also a problem for me. (Witches being those accused of working with the devil {Patron} and casting curses {Hexes}, for example.)
Now if the summon tag where changed to the conjured tag, then my main problem with the summoner is solved. That opens the door for a conjurer archetype/class that specializes in conjuring too. I still wouldn't like the summoner's name, but I would accept it. I doubt they'd change it though; that ship has sailed, but the summoner isn't official yet. When it becomes official I will accept whatever name they give it. I got over the shapeshifter class being called Druid a while ago.
But right now is the time to voice opinions on the summoner and I'm doing that. The name is stupid. Please give this two-character class a name that makes it clear to everyone that it is the two-character class. Bound, Soul-linked, Ghost Host, Spirit-Anchor, or just make up a word like the Entwiner.