| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.
But more seriously, the dynamics of the rules have changed from 1e to 2e, often to give GMs more power to make decisions via fiat. There's still plenty of mechanical crunch, but it seems that one of the design goals is to make things a little more up to GM interpretation.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanics of PF2E are designed such as to make the conversion between narrative and mechanics seemless, easy, and intuitive by making mechanics apply to as broad a range of narrative situations as possible.
Its a robust mechanical system that means a player can say, "I really don't like this guy. I want to set up an elaborate scheme to defraud him of his family valuables, using my magic to impersonate a fake noble woman and making him fall in love - then run off with all his stuff."
And the system allows you to take that narrative, and resolve it as a single roll, or as few rolls as possible.
The GM can respond, "OK. Thats an 'Earn Income' check using Deception during downtime - the level of the NPC determines the level of the action and its DC, and because you're willing to use your magical resources to sell the whole thing I'll give you a +4 status bonus to the check (as supported by numerous examples in APs, and by illusion magic like Disguise). I'm not going to set a specific time, but you can do it until (consults the chart for earn income, determines what time period the GM wants for the activity, determines that gold total) you've earned a total of X GP, which is his liquid worth."
What makes PF2E my favorite system is the ability of the system to translate narrative to mechanics intuively and simply.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get that a single roll is the quickest way to resolve player highjinks but it has to be the least interesting way to do it.
I mean, I skipped over the roleplaying aspect of the example including description, interaction, etc. To address just the mechanical aspect of it.
The players and GM don't need to roll a ton of dice to make situations interesting.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take "my dragon can fly" for our example.
I think we only have one person suggesting "treat climb like flying" levels of imagination. But I do think we have more people okay with "grab the spell for early flight, then use focus for flight, and eventually your eidolon can fly permanently" levels of imagination.
Take "damage is shared".
That can be an eidolon using the summoner's life force to stay manifested. That can be a leash on a daemon or demon that would otherwise just kill the summoner. That could be a holy summoner manifesting stigmata so that they don't take the pain of their angel lightly and fall into sin. That can be a summoner who sucks at their job, and got their life force tangled up. That can be a condition for a velstrac/kyton working with a summoner- or just a perk, if the summoner is more philosophically aligned. That can be divine punishment for binding a god's servant (however lowly). That can be the empowering element that makes the eidolon so much stronger and more permanent than summons. That can be a twist of the fey bargain or infernal contract. That can be the animating force of the construct. With Synthesis, that could be the result of splitting off part of your flesh into a separate being.
I think we only have one person siggesting "treat climb like flying" levels of imagination.
I'm just offering a solution.
Climb speeds aren't limited in description just to Spider Man abilities, with both insect and snake style climbing being the very starting points for rationales provided... and the ability to traverse vertical obstacles is the most fundamental aspect of Flight.
Its not a huge lift, mentally speaking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably want multiple rolls so their were multiple chances for complications and interesting things to emerge out of it
I get that a single roll is the quickest way to resolve player highjinks but it has to be the least interesting way to do it.
I mean, I skipped over the roleplaying aspect of the example including description, interaction, etc. To address just the mechanical aspect of it.
The players and GM don't need to roll a ton of dice to make situations interesting.
Requiring multiple rolls in situations like this is statistically setting up players to fail.
Requiring multiple consecutive successes is always to the players detriment, and is one of my biggest pet peeves in gaming.
Way too often, its done by DMs that don't understand the probability related consequences who take something that could be resolved simply and make it statistically improbable for success to actually be achievable, by requiring enough rolls that the nature of random numerical skew means at least one bad roll is extremely likely.
Even though PF2E mitigates this with its design of generally only having critical failures come with negative consequences - which is probably one of the most often misunderstood or overlooked aspects of the ruleset I see most often - making players roll more is just baiting them to roll a 1 more than they should have to.
I'm not saying that you personally don't understand the probabilities well enough to manage this, but its something I've found extremely frustrating in the past.
My goal as a GM isn't to make failure more likely for Players. Its to help them tell a story. Complications are an important part of that, but making Complications too common reduces the players feeling of agency because it reduces the sense that they have control in the narrative.
Side rant over.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also can become particularly frustrating for players who focus on non-combat situations such as social encounters, where they have to make numerous rolls just to talk to someone and then end up failing a lot in a single encounter with an NPC, especially when their roleplay is otherwise exceptional. (As is often the case with my group - I play with a lot of actors and theater kids.)
Contrasting with say, combat, where someone playing a combat beast just steamrolls and succeeds more often than not and the social character is left feeling frustrated.
2E mitigates this a whole lot, with only really needing one roll in most situations, and is super welcomed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I roll 4e skills challenges for these so generally they need to get a majority of successes. But I tend to note failed rolls if their interesting for potential future complications.
Thats a significantly different scenario in my mind than a sequence of rolls, and is how I generally default to resolving checks for the group as a whole or significant plot challenges. One roll per player in a skill themed encounter, needing more success than failure.
And yeah, asking the player to explain their failure and working that into future events is great - or capitalizing on it to personalize a future development if I see an opportunity is a good use for the failed rolls (or critical successes, on the opposite end).
My original scenario example was meant to illustrate how well the system can accommodate a narratively complex diversionary side event in a mechanically sound and consistent way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep sounded like cool npc interaction at least to me or even a mini adventure/ sidequestI get that a single roll is the quickest way to resolve player highjinks but it has to be the least interesting way to do it.The mechanics of PF2E are designed such as to make the conversion between narrative and mechanics seemless, easy, and intuitive by making mechanics apply to as broad a range of narrative situations as possible.
Its a robust mechanical system that means a player can say, "I really don't like this guy. I want to set up an elaborate scheme to defraud him of his family valuables, using my magic to impersonate a fake noble woman and making him fall in love - then run off with all his stuff."
And the system allows you to take that narrative, and resolve it as a single roll, or as few rolls as possible.
The GM can respond, "OK. Thats an 'Earn Income' check using Deception during downtime - the level of the NPC determines the level of the action and its DC, and because you're willing to use your magical resources to sell the whole thing I'll give you a +4 status bonus to the check (as supported by numerous examples in APs, and by illusion magic like Disguise). I'm not going to set a specific time, but you can do it until (consults the chart for earn income, determines what time period the GM wants for the activity, determines that gold total) you've earned a total of X GP, which is his liquid worth."
What makes PF2E my favorite system is the ability of the system to translate narrative to mechanics intuively and simply.
That's perfectly fine if you wanted to run it that way.
The difference being I don't think Krispy had to look up the earn an income rules to write that paragraph. (I know I wouldn't have needed to.)But if I wanted to do that scenario in PF1, well, I don't exactly know the Heist rules out of Ultimate Intrigue off by heart. Which means spending half a session digging through books and rules.
Or you can resolve the whole thing with one roll.
By handing more fiat power to the GM, the rules became simpler and easier to use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By handing more fiat power to the GM, the rules became simpler and easier to use.
To the player, as well.
If a player was specialized in Deception and wanted to use it to Earn Income during downtime, the system supports the player going to the GM saying, "Id like to use Deception instead of another skill to earn income, and here's the scenario I'm envisioning to make that happen."
That's why the system is magical.
It gives narrative power to everyone involved, and still maintains a solid mechanical foundation with the best internal balance in any TTRPG I've ever seen.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. It wasnt. What defined the summoner was having a customizable pet. Not a completely watered down but mathematically enhanced summon monster spell.
Where is the FLAVOR ? Its just not there.
Verzen, the flavor is there. Flavor has nothing to do with mechanics.
Its the "customization mechanics" that you're missing.
What defined the 1E summoner was the "man and his summoned companion dynamic" - the customizable pet was just how that was implemented.
The implementation has changed, not the concept.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It “plays” like a P1 Summoner, cause you have your Eidolon. That was what defined the Summoner.
I mean if that's all it takes to be a summoner, then we don't need a new class: we can just take the druid class and with the power of imagination call it a summoner as we can just call our animal companion a summoned Eidolon... You know, since mechanics are meaningless in the face of imagination. I mean, where do you make the line on what mechanics you need and how much imagination can cover? ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, where do you make the line on what mechanics you need and how much imagination can cover? ;)
Where it makes the most sense.
No one is suggesting mechanics are unimportant or irrelevant - suggesting that is a misrepresentation of many peoples position - but there's definitely a sweet spot between "minimal mechanics" and "mechanics only", and its not like its impossible to find.
Generally, that sweet spot is near, "What do we need mechanics to address, and what can we leave to the player?"
Theres absolutely no need to tie the description of the Eidolon or its physical shape to mechanics - it can be left entirely to the player.
On the other hand, the balance concerns of PF2E mean that combat mechanics need to be solidly established in the core writeup of the class, and only minimally up to the player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. It wasnt. What defined the summoner was having a customizable pet. Not a completely watered down but mathematically enhanced summon monster spell.
Where is the FLAVOR ? Its just not there.
Verzen, the flavor is there. Flavor has nothing to do with mechanics.
Its the "customization mechanics" that you're missing.
What defined the 1E summoner was the "man and his summoned companion dynamic" - the customizable pet was just how that was implemented.
The implementation has changed, not the concept.
There's a joke about how the British sailed all over the world in search of spices and then decided they liked none of them.
Same concept here. The playtest summoner is the equivalent of the British while all the other classes make up various different cultures where they enjoy flavor for their food.
In your opinion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where it makes the most sense.
Which is a meaningless metric as 'what makes sense' varies from person to person. :P
Generally, that sweet spot is near, "What do we need mechanics to address, and what can we leave to the player?"
You're missing the area between what's needed and what is wanted. A car WORKS perfectly fine if they only come in one color but people like to put their own spin on things: there is a reason for a multitude of animal companions instead of a single blob of mechanics and you pick what animal type it was with your imagination. The single blob of mechanics works, but isn't satisfying as people don't want them to work identically. With one blob of mechanics per spell list, it's not hard to see it as pretty limiting with magic items and/or feat evolutions coming later than start and slow to come about.
absolutely no need to tie the description of the Eidolon or its physical shape to mechanics - it can be left entirely to the player.
It DOES have mechanical impact: number of limbs/hands for instance in one area it has impact. My 10 armed angel can use multiple tool sets, have bolas handy for ranged trips, a Net for a ranged grapple, carry a shield, ect... A humanoid shape means it can wear humanoid gear [like dark clothes for stealth, or winter clothing for cold or High-Fashion for impression checks].
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. It wasnt. What defined the summoner was having a customizable pet. Not a completely watered down but mathematically enhanced summon monster spell.
Where is the FLAVOR ? Its just not there.
Verzen, the flavor is there. Flavor has nothing to do with mechanics.
Its the "customization mechanics" that you're missing.
What defined the 1E summoner was the "man and his summoned companion dynamic" - the customizable pet was just how that was implemented.
The implementation has changed, not the concept.
There's a joke about how the British sailed all over the world in search of spices and then decided they liked none of them.
Same concept here. The playtest summoner is the equivalent of the British while all the other classes make up various different cultures where they enjoy flavor for their food.
Yes, like the immense mechanical flavour of Rogues, who get a total of three major options for class paths, all of which are massively generic. Plus sneak attack.
The Playtest Summoner has more meaningful and flavourful options than the Rogue as written with only 4 Eidolon base types, AND more options for picking up characterful abilities as evolution feats along the way.
If the only thing that happens in the full release is is the addition of 2-3 base types of Eidolon per spellcasting tradition, Summoners will already be the most customizable class in 2E by a huge margin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In your opinion.No. It wasnt. What defined the summoner was having a customizable pet. Not a completely watered down but mathematically enhanced summon monster spell.
Where is the FLAVOR ? Its just not there.
Verzen, the flavor is there. Flavor has nothing to do with mechanics.
Its the "customization mechanics" that you're missing.
What defined the 1E summoner was the "man and his summoned companion dynamic" - the customizable pet was just how that was implemented.
The implementation has changed, not the concept.
There's a joke about how the British sailed all over the world in search of spices and then decided they liked none of them.
Same concept here. The playtest summoner is the equivalent of the British while all the other classes make up various different cultures where they enjoy flavor for their food.
Well, yeah. Who else's opinion would it be?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Playtest Summoner has more meaningful and flavourful options than the Rogue as written
With skill increases and skill feats every level, this isn't really a fair evaluation: part of their chassis IS skill monkey and can be quite "meaningful and flavourful".
If the only thing that happens in the full release is is the addition of 2-3 base types of Eidolon per spellcasting tradition, Summoners will already be the most customizable class in 2E by a huge margin.
Really? Druids have 22 animal companions to pick from, with 4 Advanced Options and 10 Specialized options [and the druid can take 3]. So if we are calling base pet forms customizations, 3 per spell list leaves it pretty far from the "most customizable class".
That's.. that's linear customization. What we're asking for is exponential customization. Do you know the difference?
I'm not sure that means what you think it means.
In 1E, the customization of an Eidolon progressed at a non geometric rate, as you received evolutions at a linear rate.
In 2E, the Eidolons evolutions actually are non-linear, as the value of an 8th level evolution is worth more than two 4th level evolutions. Doubly so since a higher level choice can be used for a lower level choice, but not vice versa.
...not that this is really relevant.
You want to break everything down into tiny components to build your eidolon for yourself, to not real purpose.
For balance purposes, all of their combat numbers are going to be outside your control regardless.
The only meaningful customization at level 1 is going to be descriptive, or essentially equivalent regardless. Thats why you get base type and weapon damage type - because those can't break the balance of the class.
Customization of things like limb types and combat abilities are outside your influence for a reason, and that reason is balance (and a newly friendly lack of complexity).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a joke about how the British sailed all over the world in search of spices and then decided they liked none of them.
First, forgive the derail but ...
It wasn't just the British or even really them primarily in the first place.
Beyond that, they weren't in search of spices or even valuable resources like gold, they wanted vast stretches of land they could conquer which didn't have organized governments who would/could fight back against them, timber, and slaves. All that talk of spices is literally just "the victors write the history books" in action as a way to make our ancestors seem nobler and less monstrous than they really were. People are far more comfortable reading that simple greed in the name of vanity and luxury are the genesis of their existence versus rape and genocide.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your underselling the rogue, the rogues defining feature is the king of skills for which they are still is not beaten, at first level the rogue has 1 skill feat on everyone else (which gives them dozens of options), lots more proficiencies to pick, as well as sneak attack and 4 class paths. Not to mention the rogue clan use a variety of armor, a variety of weapons, shields. That is a lot more options and customization all of which are not options for the eidolon.
I like how "King of Skills", which is literally just "the same skills as everyone else, but more" gets consideration as a potent class feature...
...but having two bodies with two points of influence on the world and different statblocks and different personalities and capabilities is routinely dismissed.
You're applying wildly different standards here, to support a conclusion you've already drawn. The Summoner gets a lot of cool features, if you don't just ignore their existence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you talking about Eidolon customization you have to remember that not doesn't it get its own pool of customization with evolution points it is locked out of the customization every other "character" in the game gets through skill feats, archtypes, armor, weapons, heritages.These make a huge difference in the feel of every character and eidolons have nothing like it.
Like so many other things with the Summoner class, the Summoner and Eidolon together are limited to the same number of Class Feat options as any other Player.
The Summoner Player is not entitled to more resources just for playing a Summoner. In fact, the fact that they get a second character should be (and is, in the playtest) significantly offset to maintain parity with other Players.
An Eidolon Base form comes with several abilities built in to simulate many of the choices made during character creation, like ancestry and background (due to being an Angel, for example).
Everyone wants more options for Eidolons... but some are adding to that "within reason".
In this case, "within reason" means without elevating Summoner Players over other players.
That means, ultimately, that a Summoner can't have significantly more options and choices than anyone else... especially if those options or choices also increase the characters power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
..but having two bodies with two points of influence on the world and different statblocks and different personalities and capabilities is routinely dismissed.
Mainly because it's not always a good thing: "different statblocks" means chances are likely good for one and bad for the other. "two points of influence" also means 2 points of attack. You think we're underselling it and we think you're overselling it.
You're applying wildly different standards here, to support a conclusion you've already drawn. The Summoner gets a lot of cool features, if you don't just ignore their existence.
It's not us using "wildly different standards", it's you. The 2 bodies use the same pool of skills but only one gets the skill feats: the rogue gets twice the skill increases and feats AND can use them all. He's not making 1/2 his rolls with minuses and without skill feats... I'm not ignoring cool features but evaluating them far differently than you as I don't see them in nearly as favorably as you seem to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your going to also have to accept for the eidolon to move from the most customizable pc in pathfinder 1e and the least customizable pseudo pc in pathfinder 2e is never going to be a thing that was going to be easy to swallow for someone who liked the original warts and all.
Oh, I can understand this in theory.
I loved the concept in 1E, and the point buy character building was fun (in concept).
I love point buy character creation in systems like Shadowrun, or Mutants and Masterminds.
But it works there because its a level playing field, and everyone is working from the same system and to the same standards.
The 1E summoners entire concept was essentially point buy in DnD, which fundamentally put you on a different (and generally superior) character building dynamic from anyone else.
It was cool, but it was not remotely fair.
I'll happily trade what I consider to be dead weight mechanics that other players dislike for the new Summoner, which has so far generated only mild reservations about OPness.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny how you claim it breaks the class if we have exponential customization while every class has exponential customization.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's funny how you claim it breaks the class if we have exponential customization while every class has exponential customization.You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
LOL Are you a flat earther, too?
Exponential means just that. EXPONENTIAL.
You include just ONE more option, what happens? The growth is not linear. It is EXPONENTIAL.
I don't know how else to explain maths to you.
In order for something to be exponential, it has to experience growth that is both non-linear and the rate of growth continues to increase at each iteration, generally with the added qualifier that the rate of growth is "very rapid".
Exponential customization would mean that your options double at every interval (or similar), such as at every level.
You're looking to describe non-linear growth, where the increase in customization isn't described by a constant or flat progression.
Exponential growth is proportional to the current value that is growing, so the larger the value is, the faster it grows.If you add in just one more option at each level, what happens?
4*4*4 = 64 different combinations.. Just by adding one more per iteration of when you get abilities.
1*1*1 = 1
2*2*2 = 8
3*3*3 = 27
4*4*4 = 64
5*5*5 = 125The rate of growth is not linear. It's exponentially growing.
You have a linear progression of 10 options. Just having 5 options to pick from at level 1, 7, and 15 would indicate 12.5 times more customization than what you desire. This is why I do not like the "pick your own package" option. It innately leads to far far far less customization potential.
Uh... if you're "counting" customization as unique combinations of possible options, and not based on how many absolute choices you get to make, you're already describing the current Summoner.
You get 5+ options to customize your character (summoner and eidolon) at every even level.
That already meets your standard, for all intents and purposes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Druids have 22 animal companions to pick from, with 4 Advanced Options and 10 Specialized options [and the druid can take 3]. So if we are calling base pet forms customizations, 3 per spell list leaves it pretty far from the "most customizable class".
If by Druids, you mean "any character whois trained in Nature and spends exactly as many class feats as a Druid when you consider they get a bonus feat at 1, like every other class"...
...including Summoners.
Animal Companions are not really a unique Druid class feature. Its a feat tree theyre not really better at than anyone with Beast Master.