The problem with Fix 1 is it makes the Summoners con more easy to treat as a dump stat, especially since currently they have "good" proficiency in Fort saves.
The first half of Fix 2 is essentially the path I've advocated for previously, if its determine Summoners actually need it.
Fix 3 may not be OP if it is needed, but it has significant "perception" issues from the POV of other players. I prefer something like Fix 2, as it only applies while the Eidolon is summoned.
So... Fix 2 is my current favorite, by and large, if the devs are convinced its needed.
Problem here is that players want to stick with boost instead of endure as 3rd action.
To me it's simply logical that if a summoner goes offensive it's eidolon will suffer more damage.
As for the heals, there's already battle medicine and a healing spell among 3 out of 4 traditions. Arcana may give you some protective stuff.
A summoner has the possibility to take some healing spell while any other martial can't.
It also has focus pool and 3x refocusing.
Given a dedication it might be able to heal in an easy way.Balance here is really delicate.
This is the basis of my concern.
My Angel Summoner with Medic is already insanely damage spongey, and only becomes more so if I can fit Blessed One in down the line - kill me in one go or don't bother. And I already get enough hitpoints to make that a difficult proposition in reality.
The extra action economy from Act Together is a direct factor - and is the main reason other classes can't duplicate this amount of effective hp.
Extra survivability on top of this wouldn't just feel excessive, it'd feel silly.
I get that this isnt all Summoners... but it may be an excellent argument for tieing any extra survivability "fixes" into a cost in class feats, to make it harder to stack such things with already existing survival enhancers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll suggest it again. D10 hit points, CON primary and casting stat. This makes sense thematically. (You are canonically using your lifeforce to conjure this creature, and your spells come from that link.) This puts you on par with a Barbarian with 14 con (which is pretty standard.)
Why on par with a Barbarian? Well to answer that question you have to answer the question "Why do Barbarians have 2 more hit points?" Because Barbarians in any edition have infamously bad AC compared to other martials, especially thanks to their equally famous Rage.
If everyone's wishlist gets fulfilled and Expert Unarmored gets dropped to level 1, the eidolon will have similar AC as a monk, but the summoner definitely won't. The summoner will remain a point of vulnerability compared to other martials. So I think having similar hit point levels as a Barbarian will remain balanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Con as a primary and casting stat sounds great. I get the feeling Paizo would be reluctant to go for it, as it's something of a departure from typical casters, but I think it'd be real cool.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Con as a primary and casting stat sounds great. I get the feeling Paizo would be reluctant to go for it, as it's something of a departure from typical casters, but I think it'd be real cool.
Its great in combat, and garbage everywhere else.
I normally don't like to use such negative or loaded language, but having zero skills tied to my main stat (which I need for casting offensively, which is a major perk) is a character crippler to me.
And to be totally clear, I'm not saying the idea/Sagiam's idea is garbage - its perfectly functional and theoretically valid as a combat fix.
But it doesn't work where I need my characters main stat to work for me.
I can DO things with Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, Intelligence or Charisma. I can find things to do with each that help my character be good at stuff, and actively have agency in the world and gameplay.
I can't DO anything with Constitution.
Its not a compromise I would EVER choose to make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Con as a primary and casting stat sounds great. I get the feeling Paizo would be reluctant to go for it, as it's something of a departure from typical casters, but I think it'd be real cool.
Con as a casting stat ends up feeling bad. It will take Summoner from being good at face stuff while the Eidolon handles martial things, to both sides being bad at skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, those are good points, never thought about it that way. I still like the idea, but yeah, not being able to actually actively utilise your best stat would be pretty sucky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, those are good points, never thought about it that way. I still like the idea, but yeah, not being able to actually actively utilise your best stat would be pretty sucky.
Random note - I Love the idea in concept. Blood Mages are one of my favorite visual caster archetypes, and I love "cast from hitpoints" as a gameplay concept.
In DND though, con as a primary stat ends up being crippling in the roleplaying side of gameplay, where it results in you having so little you're good at outside of combat.
Which is a shame. I'd love it if it could actually work, but I just don't think it does in DnD.
Ok, those are good points, never thought about it that way. I still like the idea, but yeah, not being able to actually actively utilise your best stat would be pretty sucky.Random note - I Love the idea in concept. Blood Mages are one of my favorite visual caster archetypes, and I love "cast from hitpoints" as a gameplay concept.
In DND though, con as a primary stat ends up being crippling in the roleplaying side of gameplay, where it results in you having so little you're good at outside of combat.
Which is a shame. I'd love it if it could actually work, but I just don't think it does in DnD.
I'm going to admit that I hadn't thought this all the way through. I actually had considered the unsurprisingly popular trope of, Summoner as face, Eidolon as muscle in the back, and thought that you could just take a 16 cha for your summoner. You'd be a point behind where you are right now but you'd be on par with a non-charlatan rogue or champion that wanted to face. Is what I thought.
Except no you wouldn't. Cuz a Redeemer Paladin that wanted to play the redemption trope and off-face a little with a 16 cha still has an 18 STR to make climb checks with. Your summoner won't.
I still think they can do Con as primary stat and make it interesting, but I'll have to think on it a bit more.
My Angel Summoner with Medic is already insanely damage spongey, and only becomes more so if I can fit Blessed One in down the line - kill me in one go or don't bother.
The Angel Summoner for my Playtest this coming weekend went Blessed One, Heal, Vampiric Touch, and 2 Vampiric Maidens.
I do not expect hp to be a problem even with them only running a Champion Medic as their primary healer (party of three so adjusting for damage).
______________
con casting..... hmmmm...
If the Summoning Font were CHA based it might work but probably problematic. Now that stats are normalized it should be less of an issue than the Scarred Witch Doctor (?) from PF1 though.