0 Sum Eidolon customization

[siegfriedliner]

So I was speaking with another person on this board and I was arguing that the eidolon didn't have customization on par with a player character and she put the point that doubling the customization (by giving similar amounts for both the summoner and the eidolon) would be too unfair and unbalanced. Given I liked the oodles of oodles of customization in pathfinder 1e this is a problem.

But their may be a solution as I care very little for summoner what would you recon would be the best way to rip their customization away from their unworthy hands and in a perfect 0 sum fashion give it whole sale to my eidolon.

How would you approach an option for the summoner to forsake his racial feat, skill feats and class feats to give the eidolon exclusive access to them or equivalents ?

[KrispyXIV]

Skill Feats

Simple and Easy Option 1 - add a clause to the Summoner Skill Feats class feature that lets you take a Skill Feat on your Eidolon instead.

Its almost certainly harmless balance wise, and would add a lot to the Eidolons ability to go skill monkeying.

Simple and Easy Option 2 is to add a Conduit Cantrip called something like "Lend Expertise" that costs a single action and lets you share a Skill Feat for a round, allowing your Eidolon to benefit from any skill feat you possesus by temporarily sacrificing your action economy advantage.

Not sure on if I'm as comfortable with Ancestry or General feats, but theres something to be said for a Halflings Eidolon being more Halfling-like than a Humans.

[siegfriedliner]

I think it would be neat to have a goblin dragon, drawf dragon etc no one onw would question those dragons were different from each other.

[KrispyXIV]

siegfriedliner wrote:

I think it would be neat to have a goblin dragon, drawf dragon etc no one onw would question those dragons were different from each other.

I'd almost prefer an Evolution feat with the Ancestry tag (so you could also take it as an Ancestry Feat option) with a level requirement of like 2 or 4, so that you had to share Ancestry stuff that your character actually had with your Eidolon.

But yes, in general that would be neat.

[Verzen]

siegfriedliner wrote:

So I was speaking with another person on this board and I was arguing that the eidolon didn't have customization on par with a player character and she put the point that doubling the customization (by giving similar amounts for both the summoner and the eidolon) would be too unfair and unbalanced. Given I liked the oodles of oodles of customization in pathfinder 1e this is a problem.

But their may be a solution as I care very little for summoner what would you recon would be the best way to rip their customization away from their unworthy hands and in a perfect 0 sum fashion give it whole sale to my eidolon.

How would you approach an option for the summoner to forsake his racial feat, skill feats and class feats to give the eidolon exclusive access to them or equivalents ?

I'd gladly sacrifice all summoner customization for my Eidolon to have all the customization. I do not like the "partnership" equal power dynamic. If that's what it takes.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Skill Feats

Simple and Easy Option 1 - add a clause to the Summoner Skill Feats class feature that lets you take a Skill Feat on your Eidolon instead.

Its almost certainly harmless balance wise, and would add a lot to the Eidolons ability to go skill monkeying.

Simple and Easy Option 2 is to add a Conduit Cantrip called something like "Lend Expertise" that costs a single action and lets you share a Skill Feat for a round, allowing your Eidolon to benefit from any skill feat you possesus by temporarily sacrificing your action economy advantage.

Not sure on if I'm as comfortable with Ancestry or General feats, but theres something to be said for a Halflings Eidolon being more Halfling-like than a Humans.

We. Do. Not. Want. Eidolon. Skill. Feats.

We want permanent options. Not borrowed powers.

[siegfriedliner]

The option to designate skill Feats for either the summoner or eidolon should take care of that.

[Verzen]

If there was an option to "gift" any feats I take, I'd be 100% comfortable with that. Including skill feats, general feats, ancestry feats, class feats etc.

[Verzen]

the reason i am pushing for this is that my Summoner playtime is 100% Eidolon. I never use my Summoner. Hes useless 90% of the time. Its all about my Eidolon. So if you remove the summoner whats left? No skill feats, no general feats, having to share class feats, no dedications, ancient elf won't let me put a dedication on my Eidolon so thats useless.

You get what im saying?

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

If there was an option to "gift" any feats I take, I'd be 100% comfortable with that. Including skill feats, general feats, ancestry feats, class feats etc.

I can see good, solid and thematic reasons for Paizo not want to allow Summoners to be functionally a "husk" of a developed character.

I get that you don't mind playing a functional invalid, but you should consider whether that presents a heroic image of the class.

The class is presented with the Summoner and Eidolon being peers, or partners.

[GameDesignerDM]

Yeah, I think we all understand what you're saying, Verzen, but we feel that's fundamentally at odds with what Paizo is intending, and is very unlikely to change.

[Verzen]

again. Thats not how I play my Summoner. Even in 1e I never cast spells. My summoner is a diplomat and does all the social aspects. My Eidolon is my beastly combat guy. Much like how the vigilante works but two bodies instead of 1.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

again. Thats not how I play my Summoner. Even in 1e I never cast spells. My summoner is a diplomat and does all the social aspects. My Eidolon is my beastly combat guy. Much like how the vigilante works but two bodies instead of 1.

And you get that no implementation of the class is going to cater to a single players expectations or desires, right?

And that the ability "get rid of all the things you don't want" in exchange for "more of the things I do want" is the literal definition of min maxing?

Theres likely no possible result for how the class gets printed thats going to result in you not having to make some sort of compromise to make your character work.

That's true for literally every player. Everyone has to compromise somewhere, otherwise a class is too open with too many resources.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

again. Thats not how I play my Summoner. Even in 1e I never cast spells. My summoner is a diplomat and does all the social aspects. My Eidolon is my beastly combat guy. Much like how the vigilante works but two bodies instead of 1.

And you get that no implementation of the class is going to cater to a single players expectations or desires, right?

And that the ability "get rid of all the things you don't want" in exchange for "more of the things I do want" is the literal definition of min maxing?

Theres likely no possible result for how the class gets printed thats going to result in you not having to make some sort of compromise to make your character work.

That's true for literally every player. Everyone has to compromise somewhere, otherwise a class is too open with too many resources.

Thats why they can create OPTIONS that allow you to choose HOW you want to play!

[Verzen]

getting rid of things I don't want and getting things i do want is literally how every class in every rpg works.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

again. Thats not how I play my Summoner. Even in 1e I never cast spells. My summoner is a diplomat and does all the social aspects. My Eidolon is my beastly combat guy. Much like how the vigilante works but two bodies instead of 1.

And you get that no implementation of the class is going to cater to a single players expectations or desires, right?

And that the ability "get rid of all the things you don't want" in exchange for "more of the things I do want" is the literal definition of min maxing?

Theres likely no possible result for how the class gets printed thats going to result in you not having to make some sort of compromise to make your character work.

That's true for literally every player. Everyone has to compromise somewhere, otherwise a class is too open with too many resources.

Thats why they can create OPTIONS that allow you to choose HOW you want to play!

Which you already have.

You can choose how to develop your character as a whole to support your playstyle.

What you may not do is trade all the things you don't want for more of the things you do.

Because that's min maxing, and not an option that is available to anyone else.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

getting rid of things I don't want and getting things i do want is literally how every class in every rpg works.

Ok, so challenge - what can a Fighter give up for extra class resources?

[OrochiFuror]

Sharing skill feats and/or having options like Dual studies to give you and your Eidolon a skill feat could do that.
But saying you only use half your class and expect a full result seems a bit off. We need better ways to share the load, otherwise you would be better off using synthesis, so long as that turns out to fill that play style in the final version.

[Verzen]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Verzen wrote:

again. Thats not how I play my Summoner. Even in 1e I never cast spells. My summoner is a diplomat and does all the social aspects. My Eidolon is my beastly combat guy. Much like how the vigilante works but two bodies instead of 1.

And you get that no implementation of the class is going to cater to a single players expectations or desires, right?

And that the ability "get rid of all the things you don't want" in exchange for "more of the things I do want" is the literal definition of min maxing?

Theres likely no possible result for how the class gets printed thats going to result in you not having to make some sort of compromise to make your character work.

That's true for literally every player. Everyone has to compromise somewhere, otherwise a class is too open with too many resources.

Thats why they can create OPTIONS that allow you to choose HOW you want to play!

Which you already have.

You can choose how to develop your character as a whole to support your playstyle.

What you may not do is trade all the things you don't want for more of the things you do.

Because that's min maxing, and not an option that is available to anyone else.

Rofl no. Its not min maxing to say I want my Eidolon, rather than me, to have all my feats lol.

[Wind Chime]

The developers must know that no one plays a summoner to be a sorcerer with a 5th of the spell slots. The eidolon and its customsiation has always been the meat of the class. So if they need to take resources from the summoner to flesh out the eidolon they should.

Before you say no one plays the class to just play the eidolon well the popularity of the synthesist proves that line false.

[Sagiam]

Verzen wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

So I was speaking with another person on this board and I was arguing that the eidolon didn't have customization on par with a player character and she put the point that doubling the customization (by giving similar amounts for both the summoner and the eidolon) would be too unfair and unbalanced. Given I liked the oodles of oodles of customization in pathfinder 1e this is a problem.

But their may be a solution as I care very little for summoner what would you recon would be the best way to rip their customization away from their unworthy hands and in a perfect 0 sum fashion give it whole sale to my eidolon.

How would you approach an option for the summoner to forsake his racial feat, skill feats and class feats to give the eidolon exclusive access to them or equivalents ?

I'd gladly sacrifice all summoner customization for my Eidolon to have all the customization. I do not like the "partnership" equal power dynamic. If that's what it takes.

Look we all know you want to play a 3.0E Monster Class, but this forums for discussing the Summoner.

[KrispyXIV]

Verzen wrote:

Rofl no. Its not min maxing to say I want my Eidolon, rather than me, to have all my feats lol.

Your eidolons base type already simulates Ancestry and background benefits.

Stacking more of those without limit is absolutely min maxing.

[Wind Chime]

Sagiam wrote:

Verzen wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

So I was speaking with another person on this board and I was arguing that the eidolon didn't have customization on par with a player character and she put the point that doubling the customization (by giving similar amounts for both the summoner and the eidolon) would be too unfair and unbalanced. Given I liked the oodles of oodles of customization in pathfinder 1e this is a problem.

But their may be a solution as I care very little for summoner what would you recon would be the best way to rip their customization away from their unworthy hands and in a perfect 0 sum fashion give it whole sale to my eidolon.

How would you approach an option for the summoner to forsake his racial feat, skill feats and class feats to give the eidolon exclusive access to them or equivalents ?

I'd gladly sacrifice all summoner customization for my Eidolon to have all the customization. I do not like the "partnership" equal power dynamic. If that's what it takes.

Look we all know you want to play a 3.0E Monster Class, but this forums for discussing the Summoner.

Synthesist summoner shows the devlopers already Know there is and has always been a substantial amount of summoner players that desire a ediolon first, eidolon only approach.

[Xathos of Varisia]

Synthesist is as close to playing what you want as you are going to get. The PF1 summoner was a complete disaster for PF1. The designers of PF2 do not want to break the game balance and they shouldn't break it. They have a great rules system here that relies on class balance. What you want breaks that balance.

Nobody says you can't home rule whatever you want in your own campaigns. But as far as the base rules go, there is no possible way they are going to allow players to ditch the human form completely and just play the eidolon with no penalties.

[Verzen]

Sagiam wrote:

Verzen wrote:

and to the condescending jerk, the pf1e summoner had the feel i like for customization. That IS the summoner. What ya'll want is a reskinned Animal companion with tweaks and very limited spellcasting.

Barbarian lost rage powers. Rogue lost rogue tricks. Alchemist lost discoveries.

Most classes lost customization between PF1 & PF2. The Summoner was never going to be an exception.

Wrong. Barbarians, fighters etc gained different forms of customization. Eidolons have zero customization.

[Wind Chime]

Xathos of Varisia wrote:

Synthesist is as close to playing what you want as you are going to get. The PF1 summoner was a complete disaster for PF1. The designers of PF2 do not want to break the game balance and they shouldn't break it. They have a great rules system here that relies on class balance. What you want breaks that balance.

Nobody says you can't home rule whatever you want in your own campaigns. But as far as the base rules go, there is no possible way they are going to allow players to ditch the human form completely and just play the eidolon with no penalties.

Oh come off it the summoner did nothing in Pathfinder 1e that I couldn't do better with a druid. All the people moaning about it were blowing steam it was a beast but so was every caster. I had far better go at breaking the game with a kitsune enchanter than I ever did with a summoner.

[Ruzza]

Wind Chime wrote:

Xathos of Varisia wrote:

Synthesist is as close to playing what you want as you are going to get. The PF1 summoner was a complete disaster for PF1. The designers of PF2 do not want to break the game balance and they shouldn't break it. They have a great rules system here that relies on class balance. What you want breaks that balance.

Nobody says you can't home rule whatever you want in your own campaigns. But as far as the base rules go, there is no possible way they are going to allow players to ditch the human form completely and just play the eidolon with no penalties.

Oh come off it the summoner did nothing in Pathfinder 1e that I couldn't do better with a druid. All the people moaning about it were blowing steam it was a beast but so was every caster. I had far better go at breaking the game with a kitsune enchanter than I ever did with a summoner.

Did you play in PFS? Did you ever look at the ban lists? Did you ever see Summoner CharOP boards?

[Sagiam]

Wind Chime wrote:

Xathos of Varisia wrote:

Synthesist is as close to playing what you want as you are going to get. The PF1 summoner was a complete disaster for PF1. The designers of PF2 do not want to break the game balance and they shouldn't break it. They have a great rules system here that relies on class balance. What you want breaks that balance.

Nobody says you can't home rule whatever you want in your own campaigns. But as far as the base rules go, there is no possible way they are going to allow players to ditch the human form completely and just play the eidolon with no penalties.

Oh come off it the summoner did nothing in Pathfinder 1e that I couldn't do better with a druid. All the people moaning about it were blowing steam it was a beast but so was every caster. I had far better go at breaking the game with a kitsune enchanter than I ever did with a summoner.

I played a chained summoner and loved it. I was able to keep up with the rest of the party, I helped out in combat alot and even managed to out DPR our damage dealers sometimes but only by a little bit and never felt I was overshadowing anyone.

I was playing a level 9 summoner. In a level 14 group.

So I know for a fact that it wasn't broken. It was very, very broken.

[Xathos of Varisia]

Everyone has their opinions. Mine says that I will never play or GM at a table with a PF1 summoner again. The entire table refused to play with one again.

[Wind Chime]

I did visit the charop boards, summoner was not the top tier damage dealer by any measures those were pretty much all pounce/spirited charge or the riding feat that did the same thing combined with a set up adding level bonus to damage and could go into the thousands. Who didn't love rage lance pounce whilst it was an option. You could do hundreds of damage with a summoner and it was an easy set up but you weren't top tier by any measure. The humble fighter archer with all the feats and tricks could keep up with an eidolon.

I have yet to see anything in the game that matches a kitsune mind control sorcerer with impossible to save dc and the undead feats and metamgics. It got to the point of all constructs all the time thank goodness for create pit.

[KrispyXIV]

Xathos of Varisia wrote:

Everyone has their opinions. Mine says that I will never play or GM at a table with a PF1 summoner again. The entire table refused to play with one again.

Yep.

I played a Synthesist for one session, designed to match a cool miniature i had, and broke the entire session because the AP couldn't handle perma flight with reach at low/mid level (things had ranged attacks, but they couldn't touch the barely optimized only obvious buffs ac).

I played a multiclass (less than half my levels) Summoner another time, with an Eidolon built to deal no damage and only do disruption. My GM said it was the most infuriating thing he ever ran with in the game.

It was silly without even trying to break it.

[Ruzza]

It doesn't help your case to point out another broken build. "It can't be broken, it didn't even do what this completely other off the wall build could do!"

Summoners invalidated the need for other players at the table. Yes, other classes could do that, too (Hi, wizard). A druid didn't have the min-maxing insanity that was the Evolution System.

[KrispyXIV]

Wind Chime wrote:

I did visit the charop boards, summoner was not the top tier damage dealer by any measures those were pretty much all pounce/spirited charge or the riding feat that did the same thing combined with a set up adding level bonus to damage and could go into the thousands. Who didn't love rage lance pounce whilst it was an option. You could do hundreds of damage with a summoner and it was an easy set up but you weren't top tier by any measure. The humble fighter archer with all the feats and tricks could keep up with an eidolon.

I have yet to see anything in the game that matches a kitsune mind control sorcerer with impossible to save dc and the undead feats and metamgics. It got to the point of all constructs all the time thank goodness for create pit.

It wasn't broken because it exceeded what was otherwise possible, it was broken because the class lent itself to min-maxing with point buy and its base power level crushed non-optimized characters without even trying.

And it got access to things like perma flight Way Too Early.

[Wind Chime]

Ruzza wrote:

It doesn't help your case to point out another broken build. "It can't be broken, it didn't even do what this completely other off the wall build could do!"

Summoners invalidated the need for other players at the table. Yes, other classes could do that, too (Hi, wizard). A druid didn't have the min-maxing insanity that was the Evolution System.

A druid could have an impressively solidly buffed animal companion (not in the ediolons league but competitive with a poorly optimised fighter and 8 sabretooth tigers. Each with there own smite evil there was absolutely no reason not use. Whilst being a full caster or another solid but not eidolon solid melee character through wildshape.

[Ruzza]

League is a strange misspelling of "galaxy"

[Wind Chime]

Ruzza wrote:

League is a strange misspelling of "galaxy"

You my friend are underestimating the power of stacking buffs and boots on the ground.

The pack has always been the premier over powered build, I have a good memory of looking quizzically at one gm who was focusing dementedly on killing all my summons only for me to summon 5 more the next turn.

[Ruzza]

I've given up on trying to parse what you want your words to say, honestly.

[KrispyXIV]

Wind Chime wrote:

The pack has always been the premier over powered build, I have a good memory of looking quizzically at one gm who was focusing dementedly on killing all my summons only for me to summon 5 more the next turn.

I'm confused what you think the problem is here.

The GM was able to meaninfully interact with and oppose your character by fighting your summons, and got you to spend additional resources.

Summoners in most cases denied opposition or meaninful interaction.

Top Tier AC + Flight + Reach before upper mid levels? Most things just died as you sat out of reach and murdered them.

[Wind Chime]

Ruzza wrote:

I've given up on trying to parse what you want your words to say, honestly.

I feel my point has been successfully made that the summoner was among the many broken things in pathfinder 1e and didn't deserve all this special animosity.

[KrispyXIV]

Wind Chime wrote:

Ruzza wrote:

I've given up on trying to parse what you want your words to say, honestly.

I feel my point has been successfully made that the summoner was among the many broken things in pathfinder 1e and didn't deserve all this special animosity.

It got the special animosity because its core system was point-buy customization that lent itself to both min-maxing and the extremely obvious appearance of min maxing.

It wasn't just the power of the class, it was the perception that went along with it.

[Wind Chime]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Wind Chime wrote:

The pack has always been the premier over powered build, I have a good memory of looking quizzically at one gm who was focusing dementedly on killing all my summons only for me to summon 5 more the next turn.

I'm confused what you think the problem is here.

The GM was able to meaninfully interact with and oppose your character by fighting your summons, and got you to spend additional resources.

Summoners in most cases denied opposition or meaninful interaction.

Top Tier AC + Flight + Reach before upper mid levels? Most things just died as you sat out of reach and murdered them.

It was more I thought it was strange tactics I could make more targeting my summons seemed fruitless, targeting me would have been more effective. I was used to hard ball gms who don't belive in level appropriate challenges so it seemed odd.But then again beating a close +7 level encounter was about as good an experience as I have had the combat side of roleplaying.

[Ruzza]

Wind Chime wrote:

Ruzza wrote:

I've given up on trying to parse what you want your words to say, honestly.

I feel my point has been successfully made that the summoner was among the many broken things in pathfinder 1e and didn't deserve all this special animosity.

No, I literally had to read your post several times to find the meaning (pre-edits, it looks like) not that I didn't get your point.

Also, special animosity? Asking the PF2 summoner to not become what it was in terms of broken capabilities isn't a vendetta.

[Verzen]

No one wants the PF2e eidolon to be broke. What we want is identity for our Eidolons. Mechanical identity.

[Physicskid42]

I find the endless hand wringing about balance odd.
I mean say for the sake of argument that the summoner winds up being the strongest class in the game. So what?
One class has to be the strongest. People have been saying for decades that wizards op and fighters suck and I still see plenty of fighters.
Pathfinder is not chess, it’s not a symmetric game. Cowering in fear of min maxing seems to be missing the forest from the trees somewhat.

[Ruzza]

One of the very obvious design goals seems to have been the implementation of a structure that prevents the over-the-top power levels while giving players the customization they're used to. I don't see people asking for the summoner to be weak or uninteresting, but to remain in these guidelines within reason.

If there truly must be a strongest class, what is it now and how is that good for the game?