|
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.
Really the Conjurer was a Better Summoner? Is that really how you will continue this?
* The Summoner who had 3+Cha uses of Summoned Monster when you could easily get +8 Cha (Not counting the Extra Summons feat). Thats 11 uses of Summon Monster X or Gate, when conjurer only gets 3, maybe 5.
* The same Summoner who could get Summon Monster to last 20 minutes when the Conjurer's only last 20 rounds.
* The same Summoner who could get Master Summoner or Brood Summoner and solo a campaign with pure action economy if they wanted to.
Looking at the way the Playtest Summoner is set up its not even close to meeting the thematic of the class. Even if we ignore Master Summoner and Brood Summoner, the Summoner was the best class at summoning. Conjurers were the best at conjuration in general.
The Conjurer added their level (or was it half) to the summon duration and later they became permanent.
Master Summoner (banned) and Brood Summoner (banned) were archetypes added in later books.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK I don't know why calling it Summoner is so important to you Rysky, but I think we get your point. But besides the class name, I guess the issue I see in the different comments - and that I share - is the following:
First let me make clear that I know we do not see on the playtest the whole rules - mostly only the ones dealing with the eidolon. But taking that into account:
For the "so called-summoner" to be really a summoner (forgetting about the eidolon manifesting part), she's gonna have to have specific rules to make her better at summoning than other classes.
Since she will use the same skills or spells lists (yes we WANT that for simplicity) than the other classes, then the difference will have to come from feats or focus stuff.
And this is where I'm worrying a bit: for the eidolon to be interestning/competitive/balanced, right now, I have to pretty much use up all my ancestry/class feats or focus stuff on eidolon-oriented choices.
Nothing left to invest in (yet to be revealed) summon-oriented feats/focus.
To summarize my point: if I have to sacrifice the eidolon part to become a decent summoning-summoner, might as well play a conjurer. If I have to sacrifice the summoning part to become a decent eidolon-manifester, might as well call it a "manifester".
We don't know enough to see if we'll have a decent summoning-summoner AND eidolon-manifester class. But until then, I think that stating that it MIGHT be an issue isn't inappropriate as a playtest feed-back. IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And on the topic of Vanguards and names and such, it immediately brings to mind the Vanguard from Mass Effect. Like when I was reading the class during the playtest, I immediately went "Oh this is the Mass Effect class, and the entropy powers are just their version of biotics" - so it definitely works and fits with a space fantasy setting.
Summoner also works perfectly fine, especially if we many of the classes have names that really aren't that related to anything except "the name has always been this" - barbarian, druid, sorcerer, ect.
I also don't really consume any media that has a 'Summoner' type so the one I know the best IS the Pathfinder Summoner - and that's what I think of when I see the word Summoner. Which the 2E version still fits.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I notice that "X is fine, but its not [whatever I think X should mean] so it should be it's own separate thing, not X" is getting to be a common rhetorical tactic on the forums in an effort to force certain mechanical choices as being bundled with the name by proxy, even if the design might go in a different direction.
It doesn't seem to have much merit, since usually the concept applies to the thing being discussed as much to the original mechanic.
I'm certainly not opposed to the Summoner being able to use the "Summon X" Spells (in fact I'd like to see their spell casting partially replaced by a font feature for that.) But the Eidolons are very much Summons in their own right, so the class that revolves around Summoning them... is a Summoner.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I notice that "X is fine, but its not [whatever I think X should mean] so it should be it's own separate thing, not X" is getting to be a common rhetorical tactic on the forums in an effort to force certain mechanical choices as being bundled with the name by proxy, even if the design might go in a different direction.
It doesn't seem to have much merit, since usually the concept applies to the thing being discussed as much to the original mechanic.
I'm certainly not opposed to the Summoner being able to use the "Summon X" Spells (in fact I'd like to see their spell casting partially replaced by a font feature for that.) But the Eidolons are very much Summons in their own right, so the class that revolves around Summoning them... is a Summoner.
It's not rhetorical, though. People genuinely believe that the mechanics do not reflect the name currently, and if Paladins got expanded/changed to Champions, maybe Summoners can be expanded/changed too.
As a primary point of contention, the bolded part is one thing that people are hung up on. For you, it's summoning in its own right. For myself and others, it's a whole separate thing that doesn't make much sense compared to something already labeled summoning in the game with its own baggage and rationalizations separate from what's mentioned. If it really is summoning, why the differences in power and terminology? Because it's different. Different from the summoning currently shown in the game, which is quantified as being its own thing that this does not have.
So it evokes the question: Is it summoning, or something else? Well, we have it being referred to as "manifesting," which has more of a creation element than a calling or transporting one, and summoning does not have that kind of application. Eidolon, as a term, originates from the word "Idola," which is referred to as a conscience or a concept created from one's mind. Eidolon in particular refers to an idealization of an entity that is entirely mental or metaphysical (or in Pathfinder terms, extraplanar), meaning it doesn't have a physical application.
To me, the class named Summoner manifesting an Eidolon is basically more of a super powerful spiritualist able to make metaphysical entities (like ghosts and other make-believe concepts) become real or physical, serving as a conduit for these entities to be able to affect the real world.
In fact, there is a science-fiction fantasy series depicting a self-functioning entity of pure metaphysical evil, which has been coloquially referred to as "Idola" by the original creators, meaning that technically speaking, it is an Eidolon. It is described in-series as not having an actual body and needing a host (read: conduit, which serves as numerous plot points in the series) to be able to affect the real world, though it often tempts, tricks, and turns real world entities to serve as its host, growing more and more powerful with each successful succumbing to its influence and power.
To me, that is an Eidolon. Not the whole "super evil and corruptible and all-powerful" part, but the "metaphysical entity needing a conduit to affect the physical realm because otherwise they are an ideal" part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But nothing about anything you just said suggests it isn't summoning, especially when its canon to Golarion that the Summon X spells don't just pull entities from elsewhere, but instead create a being that exists for the duration of the spell.
So an "Eidolon" as you define it here, and "Summon X" spells are very similar in the fiction anyway, differentiated by the special bond the Summoner shares with the Eidolon. So there isn't any point being made here that applies in regards to the existing fiction of the setting. The only remaining oddity is that the two systems aren't directly married in a game mechanical sense-- but that's fine, because the game rules are an abstraction to simulate the world anyway. So its ok to represent two related things in a way that don't use the same mechanical system.
At this point, the only question is if we as a community think this also implies they should be decent at Summon X if they want to be, which I do, as mentioned above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But nothing about anything you just said suggests it isn't summoning, especially when its canon to Golarion that the Summon X spells don't just pull entities from elsewhere, but instead create a being that exists for the duration of the spell.
That is actually the strongest "in game" argument that something very different is going on with Eidolons compared to Summoning spells. Angel, Dragon, and Phantoms each imply or state that the intelligence at least is coming from somewhere else, even if the physical body they occupy is stitched together by you. And if Beast Eidolons are representative of God-Callers, we know that they are often passed down from God-caller to God-caller, which means that they are also not limited by the duration of the spell. Even if you go with the bond as the "summoning spell" instead of any single instance of manifestation, these are all intelligences that last beyond that time frame.
That said, we have examples of other spells, like the various Pact spells, that I would count as "Summoning" (in that they are a Conjuration spell that results in a Minion) that do pull a unique intelligence into this plane. So I could see it going either way on if Manifesting is a subclass of Summoning, or its own thing.
But nothing about anything you just said suggests it isn't summoning, especially when its canon to Golarion that the Summon X spells don't just pull entities from elsewhere, but instead create a being that exists for the duration of the spell.That is actually the strongest "in game" argument that something very different is going on with Eidolons compared to Summoning spells. Angel, Dragon, and Phantoms each imply or state that the intelligence at least is coming from somewhere else, even if the physical body they occupy is stitched together by you. And if Beast Eidolons are representative of God-Callers, we know that they are often passed down from God-caller to God-caller, which means that they are also not limited by the duration of the spell. Even if you go with the bond as the "summoning spell" instead of any single instance of manifestation, these are all intelligences that last beyond that time frame.
That said, we have examples of other spells, like the various Pact spells, that I would count as "Summoning" (in that they are a Conjuration spell that results in a Minion) that do pull a unique intelligence into this plane. So I could see it going either way on if Manifesting is a subclass of Summoning, or its own thing.
You might be right, but I think those 'minds' and such are kind of plucked/formed as part of the Summoner's 'special' form of summoning. Remember that the way entities like angels are formed involve petitioners becoming part of the plane and reforming through its energies. So if you're pulling the 'raw potential' together to make an angel eidolon, its the same process outsiders are typically created with , which might render the distinction of their pre existence kind of moot.
The only interesting implication is the idea that the spirit may have pre-existed, but maybe thats even normal. We don't really know what it means to exist before you pop back up as an angel.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But nothing about anything you just said suggests it isn't summoning, especially when its canon to Golarion that the Summon X spells don't just pull entities from elsewhere, but instead create a being that exists for the duration of the spell.
So an "Eidolon" as you define it here, and "Summon X" spells are very similar in the fiction anyway, differentiated by the special bond the Summoner shares with the Eidolon. So there isn't any point being made here that applies in regards to the existing fiction of the setting. The only remaining oddity is that the two systems aren't directly married in a game mechanical sense-- but that's fine, because the game rules are an abstraction to simulate the world anyway. So its ok to represent two related things in a way that don't use the same mechanical system.
At this point, the only question is if we as a community think this also implies they should be decent at Summon X if they want to be, which I do, as mentioned above.
That doesn't fly here. If players can't reference PF1 as a reason for Summoners to function the way they want, neither can you. The lore from PF1 to PF2 has changed quite a bit, to suggest that it functions identically is quite the stretch when a lot of other things have changed from the old ways as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't fly here. If players can't reference PF1 as a reason for Summoners to function the way they want, neither can you. The lore from PF1 to PF2 has changed quite a bit, to suggest that it functions identically is quite the stretch when a lot of other things have changed from the old ways as well.But nothing about anything you just said suggests it isn't summoning, especially when its canon to Golarion that the Summon X spells don't just pull entities from elsewhere, but instead create a being that exists for the duration of the spell.
So an "Eidolon" as you define it here, and "Summon X" spells are very similar in the fiction anyway, differentiated by the special bond the Summoner shares with the Eidolon. So there isn't any point being made here that applies in regards to the existing fiction of the setting. The only remaining oddity is that the two systems aren't directly married in a game mechanical sense-- but that's fine, because the game rules are an abstraction to simulate the world anyway. So its ok to represent two related things in a way that don't use the same mechanical system.
At this point, the only question is if we as a community think this also implies they should be decent at Summon X if they want to be, which I do, as mentioned above.
I'm really not sure what about The-Magic-Sword's post makes you think they're referencing first edition lore. That post they linked was from Oct 1st 2020, and literally one post down from it James Jacobs references a piece of Second Edition lore specifically. (That of Nocticula being a goddess of artists.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only interesting implication is the idea that the spirit may have pre-existed, but maybe thats even normal. We don't really know what it means to exist before you pop back up as an angel.
The descriptions are pretty clear that dragon and phantom eidolons existed as different entities before they become Eidolons. Which is pretty firmly in conflict with what James describes in the post you linked:
They didn't exist before the summon effect brought them into being, and they don't exist after that effect expires (or they're slain, whichever comes first). Summoned creatures don't have souls, nor do they have free will. They're magical conjurations, not real creatures.
Beasts as described in the playtest document might fit into that, but that doesn't really fit with what we know about god-callers, or how they've been described in PF2 lore so far, so not even all of them.
So. Either they are a Summoned creature, as James describes them, or they're not. It seems pretty clear that they don't much resemble minions coming off a Summon spell.
And if Eidolons are mechanically distinct from Summons, and also don't fit into what the setting says a Summoned creature should be, I don't really see how it is either petty or
b$~@$$#&
to point that out as a discrepancy or see it as a problem with an extremely easy fix.
I'm really not sure what about The-Magic-Sword's post makes you think they're referencing first edition lore. That post they linked was from Oct 1st 2020, and literally one post down from it James Jacobs references a piece of Second Edition lore specifically. (That of Nocticula being a goddess of artists.)That doesn't fly here. If players can't reference PF1 as a reason for Summoners to function the way they want, neither can you. The lore from PF1 to PF2 has changed quite a bit, to suggest that it functions identically is quite the stretch when a lot of other things have changed from the old ways as well.But nothing about anything you just said suggests it isn't summoning, especially when its canon to Golarion that the Summon X spells don't just pull entities from elsewhere, but instead create a being that exists for the duration of the spell.
So an "Eidolon" as you define it here, and "Summon X" spells are very similar in the fiction anyway, differentiated by the special bond the Summoner shares with the Eidolon. So there isn't any point being made here that applies in regards to the existing fiction of the setting. The only remaining oddity is that the two systems aren't directly married in a game mechanical sense-- but that's fine, because the game rules are an abstraction to simulate the world anyway. So its ok to represent two related things in a way that don't use the same mechanical system.
At this point, the only question is if we as a community think this also implies they should be decent at Summon X if they want to be, which I do, as mentioned above.
There are still discussions about old content being done today, a date reference is circumstantial indication at best, and irrelevant by this standard. If it was a PF2 specific question, then it'd be more applicable. But nothing indicates that it is a statement for PF2 lore, meaning it could also reference PF1, which doesn't apply here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first edition / second edition lore thing seems like an unrelated tangent because they're the same lore-- the only way it could be irrelevant is if it old enough to have been altered (like Second Darkness Elves and such), it was an explanation of the current lore in the current day.
Its a play test so the lore of the eidolon could be messed with a bit, or maybe they're both true in some nuanced metaphysical explanation (which is what it seems like to me) so these strike me as a little nit picky. The general point was that Summon X and Eidolons aren't that different, if anything it seems like Eidolons may or may not have an extra component related to a pre-existing consciousness, but the process of summoning itself is still the same--
Whether you put nothing on your burger, cheese on your burger, cheese, lettuce, and tomato on your burger, or whatever-- you're still making burgers... and in this case, you're still summoning.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether you put nothing on your burger, cheese on your burger, cheese, lettuce, and tomato on your burger, or whatever-- you're still making burgers... and in this case, you're still summoning.
Yeah except the rules explicitly point out that you're making sandwiches and NOT burgers. That's the thing here, if they didn't go out of their way to create a new term (yet fail to codify it as a Trait) and just specified that it's not subject to X, Y, Z functions of the Summoning Trait the whole thing wouldn't be an issue be it a perception or mechanical problem.
As it stands, the strongest and most versatile Class to use [Conjuration] and [Summoning] Spells is NOT the Summoner (In fact they're not even 2nd, 3rd, or 4th on this list), something that is a huge departure from 1st Ed and flies in the face of the very name and role of the new Class as a whole. The easy fix here is just to give them a catch-all Summon Creature Focus Spell that can function as any other Summon X Spell at the approriate level, perhaps even give them a dedicated Font for it like the Cleric.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether you put nothing on your burger, cheese on your burger, cheese, lettuce, and tomato on your burger, or whatever-- you're still making burgers... and in this case, you're still summoning.Yeah except the rules explicitly point out that you're making sandwiches and NOT burgers.
Burgers are a type of sandwich, so maybe not the best comparison.
Burgers are a type of sandwich, so maybe not the best comparison.
Tom Hardy GIF "That's bait"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Burgers are a type of sandwich, so maybe not the best comparison.Whether you put nothing on your burger, cheese on your burger, cheese, lettuce, and tomato on your burger, or whatever-- you're still making burgers... and in this case, you're still summoning.Yeah except the rules explicitly point out that you're making sandwiches and NOT burgers.
Its the perfect comparison, actually, it doesn't support their point, but it best reflects the reality of the situation. The Eidolon is still Summoning, just a kind of summoning.
Hence it being the purview of the Summoner class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please explain in what way is it Summoning. Either mechanically or lore, whatever.
I, and others, have pointed out the ways it is mechanically not Summoning. I have also pointed out how it is, by lore, not Summoning.
If your only argument is that manifesting an Eidolon is by definition summoning, because that is what the PF1 Summoner class did, then I really don't know what to say. Except that you are carrying on a completely different conversation and using a different definition of the word than I am.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please explain in what way is it Summoning. Either mechanically or lore, whatever.
I, and others, have pointed out the ways it is mechanically not Summoning. I have also pointed out how it is, by lore, not Summoning.
If your only argument is that manifesting an Eidolon is by definition summoning, because that is what the PF1 Summoner class did, then I really don't know what to say. Except that you are carrying on a completely different conversation and using a different definition of the word than I am.
Summoning is literally defined as calling something to be present.
Using the Manifest Eidolon activity is literally summoning your eidolon to your location, supported by its various traits such as Conjuration and Teleportation and its use of making a thing which is currently elsewhere present.
It is not the same thing as using Summon Animal to call a "summoned" creature, no. There are multiple reasons for this, including mechanical limitations of the "summoned" trait.
But it is literally, by the actual definition of the word, summoning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if it did not simultaneously have an in-game definition, there would be no issue.
It does, so there is.
Edit: This is actually a good example of what I mean by "carrying on a different conversation". Everyone that objects to the name knows the dictionary definition. You don't need to define it for us, google exists. All of us are talking about the mechanics and lore of the setting, which the class name seems to violate. If you prefer to use the dictionary definition, perhaps because you don't play on Golarian or the mechanics are not allowed to trump narrative at your table, that is fine. But when we say it is not "Summoning", we aren't talking about the dictionary.
For me personally, for example, I prefer to have the rules dictate and define the narrative, rather than the reverse. So when I say "this is not summoning", that is the context in which I am saying it.
I am not asking you to agree with it. I am asking you to at least respect that other people are allowed to have opinions, because a LOT of posters seem to have a problem with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Burgers are a type of sandwich, so maybe not the best comparison.Whether you put nothing on your burger, cheese on your burger, cheese, lettuce, and tomato on your burger, or whatever-- you're still making burgers... and in this case, you're still summoning.Yeah except the rules explicitly point out that you're making sandwiches and NOT burgers.
So are pizzas and hotdogs by certain definitions of the term, which is coloquial and defined separately between each of the United States. But that's not the point here.
We already have a definition of what the sandwich is, and what it entails. The question is if this new thing falls under that definition. To them, it does. To others, it doesn't. To me, it's a whole different animal, like a soup or stew.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if it did not simultaneously have an in-game definition, there would be no issue.
It does, so there is.
Does summoning have an in game definition?
Or are you referring to specific elements, like Summon Animal and the summoned trait?
If there were an enchantment spell called "Summon Courage" which granted a bonus to saves vs fear, would you say it qualifies as summoning just because of the name?
Summoning in Pathfinder (and DnD) has ALWAYS covered a range of effects between the movement, conjuration, and calling of various creatures or objects. It has never just been "one thing".
Any conjuration effect that causes and object or creature to appear which was not present a moment ago falls under the general description of summoning, even if it doesn't have an appropriate name.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if it did not simultaneously have an in-game definition, there would be no issue.
It does, so there is.
Does summoning have an in game definition?
Yes actually. Or, rather, "Summoned" does:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=154
Summoned
Source Core Rulebook pg. 637 1.1
A creature called by a conjuration spell or effect gains the summoned trait. A summoned creature can't summon other creatures, create things of value, or cast spells that require a cost. It has the minion trait. If it tries to Cast a Spell of equal or higher level than the spell that summoned it, it overpowers the summoning magic, causing its own spell to fail and the summon spell to end. Otherwise, the summoned creature uses the standard abilities for a creature of its kind. It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its abilities. If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows your commands. Immediately when you finish Casting the Spell, the summoned creature uses its 2 actions for that turn. A summoned creature can't control any spawn or other creatures generated from it, and such creatures return to their unaltered state (usually a corpse in the case of spawn) once the summoned creature is gone. If it's unclear what this state would be, the GM decides. Summoned creatures can be banished by spells and effects. They are automatically banished if reduced to 0 Hit Points or if the spell that called them ends.
Edit: To clarify, I don't limit "Summoned" to just the literal summon spells. By my read, it should broadly apply to any conjuration spell or effect that results in a Minion. Manifesting, as it does not result in a minion and does not have actions and HP independent of yours, breaks the mold in too many places for me.
Please explain in what way is it Summoning. Either mechanically or lore, whatever.
I, and others, have pointed out the ways it is mechanically not Summoning. I have also pointed out how it is, by lore, not Summoning.
If your only argument is that manifesting an Eidolon is by definition summoning, because that is what the PF1 Summoner class did, then I really don't know what to say. Except that you are carrying on a completely different conversation and using a different definition of the word than I am.
Summoning is literally defined as calling something to be present.
Using the Manifest Eidolon activity is literally summoning your eidolon to your location, supported by its various traits such as Conjuration and Teleportation and its use of making a thing which is currently elsewhere present.
It is not the same thing as using Summon Animal to call a "summoned" creature, no. There are multiple reasons for this, including mechanical limitations of the "summoned" trait.
But it is literally, by the actual definition of the word, summoning.
So then why isn't it called "Summon Eidolon"? No ambiguity, and a "no summoned trait" clause can fix the action issues quite easily.
To me, there is more behind the name than a mere calling to an entity to appear. As the Eidolon is a part of the Summoner more than typical summoning magic is, I'm of the opinion that an Eidolon is an ideal created by the Summoner, and is present within them at all times, but can take physical manifestations at the will of the Summoner.
As such, it can't be "summoned," but made reality by the Summoner manifesting it to the real world, an ideal come to life.
Of course, this conflicts with the Eidolon lore at first glance, but as outsiders like Angels and Spirits aren't of the material plane, and eventually are beings and entities of a given ideal, it imparts the ability to manifest its being to the Summoner, something that Summoning does not actually do.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if people don't want the Eidolon to obey all the summoned rules. If it's going to be such contention as to "the summoner is not a summoner because the eidolon doesn't have the summoned trait", let's grant that.
Eidolons now have to be Sustained every turn to do anything, and only get two actions. They also only get the standard abilities for a creature of their kind, so goodbye special customization.
Or is that not what you wanted when you started this complaint?
And for those saying "it can have the summoned trait, but specify that it ignores XYZ in it", that's approximately as helpful as saying "this has the fortune trait, but it is not negated by misfortune effects, and the effect it alters can be altered by other fortune effects".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That or Summoners get some other ability that makes them particularly good at Summoning. The Summoning font, a Summoning focus spell, the ability to apply Evolution feats to Summoned creatures, something like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So then why isn't it called "Summon Eidolon"?
Almost certainly to reduce the chance that new players confuse an Eidolon for a "summoned" (trait) creature because they read the name of the ability and not the fine print.
Remember, a major audience for this class is not veteran players - its new players.
And there are good reasons to go an extra yard to make sure that they know an Eidolon doesn't come with "summoned" or the minion trait and changing the ability name is a good start.
I would be shocked if they even considered that people might argue that manifesting an eidolon isn't "summoning", but who knows.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So then why isn't it called "Summon Eidolon"?
Almost certainly to reduce the chance that new players confuse an Eidolon for a "summoned" (trait) creature because they read the name of the ability and not the fine print.
Remember, a major audience for this class is not veteran players - its new players.
And there are good reasons to go an extra yard to make sure that they know an Eidolon doesn't come with "summoned" or the minion trait and changing the ability name is a good start.
I would be shocked if they even considered that people might argue that manifesting an eidolon isn't "summoning", but who knows.
Agreed (except for the last bit, we'll argue which way the sun rises on this forum, I don't think we surprise them any more on that note), which is why I think the same logic applies to the class name itself. Even as a class's name is in and of itself a game term, the dictionary, colloquial definition conflicting on a mechanical definition of Summoned is a potential source of confusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So then why isn't it called "Summon Eidolon"?
Almost certainly to reduce the chance that new players confuse an Eidolon for a "summoned" (trait) creature because they read the name of the ability and not the fine print.
Remember, a major audience for this class is not veteran players - its new players.
And there are good reasons to go an extra yard to make sure that they know an Eidolon doesn't come with "summoned" or the minion trait and changing the ability name is a good start.
I would be shocked if they even considered that people might argue that manifesting an eidolon isn't "summoning", but who knows.
If players are keen on following traits (most new players aren't), and the Eidolon is stated as not having the trait, I fail to see the problem, as "Specific Trumps General" is in effect here, which is now RAW.
Introducing new players to content outside of Core isn't exactly an affluent move on the introducer's part. It's like saying a new player at 1st level can play 12th level characters just fine, which is patentedly false.
If you haven't seen the amount of responses to a thread like this one that calls into question what summoning is precisely and what it entails, then sure. Good thing there's a playtest for Paizo to see that, for some players at least, verbiage and application matters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed (except for the last bit, we'll argue which way the sun rises on this forum, I don't think we surprise them any more on that note), which is why I think the same logic applies to the class name itself. Even as a class's name is in and of itself a game term, the dictionary, colloquial definition conflicting on a mechanical definition of Summoned is a potential source of confusion.
So then why isn't it called "Summon Eidolon"?
Almost certainly to reduce the chance that new players confuse an Eidolon for a "summoned" (trait) creature because they read the name of the ability and not the fine print.
Remember, a major audience for this class is not veteran players - its new players.
And there are good reasons to go an extra yard to make sure that they know an Eidolon doesn't come with "summoned" or the minion trait and changing the ability name is a good start.
I would be shocked if they even considered that people might argue that manifesting an eidolon isn't "summoning", but who knows.
The Summoner in Pathfinder in defined by the relationship of the Summoner and the Eidolon.
They could call the action to summon an Eidolon Birthing or Composting or Assemble and it wouldn't change the fact that players associate Summoners with Eidolons.
Hence the name.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if people don't want the Eidolon to obey all the summoned rules. If it's going to be such contention as to "the summoner is not a summoner because the eidolon doesn't have the summoned trait", let's grant that.
I'm, personally, not trying to make the case that the Eidolon should be a summoned creature or have the summoning trait; there are great reasons why the Eidolon is not a summoned creature and should stay that way.
I think people are more irate about the fact the Summoner itself isn't good at Summoning, nothing to do with the Eidolon.
I mean, out of all the spellcasters that can summon...Summoner is literally the worst.
There is nothing to augment any summons, no extra resource for summoning, and spellcasting only scales to 9th-level spells so you can't even use any 10th-level summoning spells.
Again, i have no problem with it because i only care about the Eidolon, but i see exactly why people are angry over this.
It's not just the fact that the class' name is adverse to what it's actually good at, it's also the fact that the Summoner using summoned spells and augmenting summoning was a big part of Pathfinder 1e Summoner's playstyle for many people.
It's definitely not an insignificant portion of the Summoner's identity, like Aspects were.
(Sorry to all who actually were fans of Aspects, i never met any of you lol)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are more irate about the fact the Summoner itself isn't good at Summoning, nothing to do with the Eidolon.
I mean, out of all the spellcasters that can summon...Summoner is literally the worst.
There is nothing to augment any summons, no extra resource for summoning, and spellcasting only scales to 9th-level spells so you can't even use any 10th-level summoning spells.
I think this was the original issue, and it'd be a valid concern if -
- there wasn't reason to expect this to be fixed, and absolutely no one is not encouraging people to put "More Summoning!" On their surveys.
(PS, if it matters to you put More Summoning! On your survey. It will be on mine)
-people are insisting Eidolons arent summoned, which ignores the definition of "summon" in favor of a tag Eidolons lack for good reasons which has nothing to do with them being conceptually summoned or not.
Theres little chance the class won't be better at Summoning in its final form. Most people are probably going to ask for it, in one form or another, even if it doesn't matter to them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Summoner in Pathfinder in defined by the relationship of the Summoner and the Eidolon.
They could call the action to summon an Eidolon Birthing or Composting or Assemble and it wouldn't change the fact that players associate Summoners with Eidolons.
Hence the name.
If it is important to not confuse new players, then us older players can cope. We absorbed all the changes to various classes, and even the renaming of paladins. We can handle this too.
Edit: as alternates, Callers and Binders are both alternate names for the summoner class that exist in setting. Promoting either would work well and still be thematically/narratively appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like banishment, etc. shouldn't function against an Eidolon because "having something fairly common shut off most of your class features" kind of sucks.
It'd be like if Anti-Magic Field were a common spell, and there were also six of them, available at a variety of levels.
I feel like banishment, etc. shouldn't function against an Eidolon because "having something fairly common shut off most of your class features" kind of sucks.
It'd be like if Anti-Magic Field were a common spell, and there were also six of them, available at a variety of levels.
It works because the plane they are on (your plane) is not their home plane. If we followed the real-world manifest definition, that would be technically false and therefore wouldn't be a valid target for Banishment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It works because the plane they are on (your plane) is not their home plane. If we followed the real-world manifest definition, that would be technically false and therefore wouldn't be a valid target for Banishment.
Banishment shouldn't function on the Eidolon for non-diagetic reasons. Making it easy to entirely negate the main draw of a class is bad design since it makes "playing that class" seem less appealing.
Diagetically you can handwave it away as something like "the Eidolon's link to the Summoner's soul anchors it in this plane". But there should be a series of exception that makes the Eidolon almost impossible to get rid of short of "hitting it until it has no more HP." The difference between "an Eidolon" and "a Bear" here is that the Eidolon doesn't actually die when it's dropped."