Get rid of evolution surge

[Temperans]

I dont even think Summoners should have multiple spell lists. I really think they should be arcane make a solid class. Then maybe at some point later at a Class archetype that changes the spell list.

I still think the game has too many pick a list classes. And after seeing how the witch is pulled all over the place. I think you need to make pick a list classes revolve around being pick a list.

The Summoner should revolve around their Eidolon and Summon Monster spells. Not which tradition their Spell list is.

[Megistone]

graystone wrote:

Megistone wrote:

I have to point out that multiclassing caster is in no way "more casting" than the Magus or the Summoner has, unless you are only counting the number of slots in the high levels.

For a lot of levels, the 4-slots caster is way, way better than a multiclass caster; later on, if you give a lot of value low-level utility spells, then maybe you can say that the multiclasser is ahead.

I know for myself, I DO count number of slots and the keeping of lower level slots. I find multiclass spell progression far superior to the 4 slot system. Not increasing the number of slots you have after 4th just feels really, really bad to me. Losing the ability to cast a non-maxed featherfall, invisibility, jump, glitterdust, water walking, ect. for a handful of top slots seems upside-down.

I mean, let's see the comparison (Summoner or Magus vs caster dedication):

Level 2 - 5 cantrips, 2xlvl 1 slots vs 2 cantrips
Level 4 - 2x1, 2x2 vs 1x1
Level 6 - 2x2, 2x3 vs 1x1, 1x2
Level 8 - 2x3, 2x4 vs 2x1, 1x2, 1x3
Level 10 - 2x4, 2x5 vs 2x1, 1x2, 1x3
Level 12 - 2x5, 2x6 vs 2x1, 2x2, 1x3, 1x4
Level 14 - 2x6, 2x7 vs 2x1, 2x2, 2x3, 1x4, 1x5
Level 16 - 2x7, 2x8 vs 2x1, 2x2, 2x3, 2x4, 1x5, 1x6
Level 18 - 2x8, 2x9 vs 2x1, 2x2, 2x3, 2x4, 2x5, 1x6, 1x7
Level 20 - 2x8, 2x9 vs 2x1, 2x2, 2x3, 2x4, 2x5, 2x6, 1x7, 1x8

Proficiency is more or less the same.
Until level 8, the 4-slots caster is vastly superior both in number of slots and power; between 8 and 11, the number of slots is equal but their power is still very far.
At level 12 the multiclasser pulls ahead with the number of slots (6 vs 4), but has basically only utility while the other can cast things like Chain Lightning or Synesthesia.
Then, the multiclasser keeps gaining two slots more every two levels, and at that point I concede that while they don't have nearly the same power, they are becoming better at basic utility. But we are talking level 14+: before, there's no contest.
Not gaining anything at levels 19-20 hurts the 4-slots casters, and something should be done about it.

[Temperans]

You are also talking about classes that either have:
* Full martial proficiencies and feat support. Which means they can already deal damage and just wanted more utility.

Or,

* Full caster in ehich case they had way more spells from the start.

The only exception is Alchemist. But Alchemist is the worst class balance wise, being super highly dependent on their own feats to do anything. Much like how Krispy wants all Eidolon evolutions to be tied up by the feats. Meaning, the Summoner who multiclasses makes the Eidolon more boring than it already it.

[KrispyXIV]

Temperans wrote:

Meaning, the Summoner who multiclasses makes the Eidolon more boring than it already it.

Weren't you arguing for more meaningful choices?

If you want to supplement your spellcasting, it costs resources you could use to enhance your Eidolon. If you want to enhance your Eidolon...

Luckily, all the combat proficiency of the Eidolon is included in the base package for free.

And you have a focus spell for conditional significant bonuses, like movement modes.

Its like its all been designed so that you have to make meaningful, difficult choices, but even if you do you aren't completely left hanging.

[HumbleGamer]

Temperans wrote:

Meaning, the Summoner who multiclasses makes the Eidolon more boring than it already it.

As any other class.

The point that you see it boring and you want either summoner feats and multi class feat is not a flaw in the system.

I am currently playing a champion who only took acrobat and staff acrobat feats.

It has nothing from the champion class apart from its reaction and its divine ally.

As the summoner will just have its base eidolon if he decides not to invest in feats meant to empower its eidolon.

[Verzen]

Our multiclassing should really be able to effect and alter the Eidolon rather than the summoner as an option.

[Ventnor]

I'd be down for an option of some kind that allows the Eidolon to use combat feats from archetypes like Power Attack or Flurry of Blows. I don't exactly know how to balance it, but it would be a pretty good way to help bolster the fantasy of, say, a Phantom who was a master swordsman before they died.

[HumbleGamer]

Verzen wrote:

Our multiclassing should really be able to effect and alter the Eidolon rather than the summoner as an option.

On this I agree.

As the magus can take, for example, fighter feats, so it should be able to do the same the summoner for its eidolon.

The summoner might also be able to use them ( in my opinion ) but, let's be serious, we all know that unless specific situations A summoner will expend its attack actions on the eidolon.

I mean, I see no harm in a lvl 4 summoner who invested in

2- Fighter Dedication
4- Power Attack

In order to give a different attack to its pet ( and even himself ).

I'd rather say it's definitely balanced.

ps: as always, flourish moves which makes a character save actions won't be an issue on a summoner either.

Want to go for a flurry with your eidolon and then cast a cantrip/spell?

Go for it. Your eidolon won't benefit from neither boost nor dr.
An excellent trade.

[Midnightoker]

Ventnor wrote:

a Phantom who was a master swordsman before they died.

Absolutely feel like this is what's "missing" for me. My ghost is just a regular ghost, not an ex-swordsman or a shadow-touched ghost.

And I do feel like it should start with more definition in general, and not just "I become more of my identity only if I take Feats/Level up". Like your "ex-swordsman" should feel like an ex-swordsman ghost at level 1 and then accentuates his roles/powers as they level.

Even on the Dragon side, most Dragons have breath weapons but vary GREATLY outside just the energy type but that's me.

___________

Actually yeah, that's my big issue.

Compare a Ghost summoner to another summoner at level 1 and the only variations between Eidolons is what they flavored their weapon as and the damage type (piercing, bludgeoning, slashing) even down to the die and statistical nuance.

That seems wrong to me, but maybe I'm alone there.

[TheGentlemanDM]

Temperans wrote:

Deriven I used only PF2 material for that 1 post giving a quick outline on how, I would make it. I was on a phone so I could not go into much detail and a more detailed system needs more time than a few hours. Don't you agree? Not to mention that my forte is not in the design aspect, but in finding the parts that dont make sense.

Now I am on a computer so lets try to get some more detail.

Base forms:

• * Biped
  Size: Medium. Speed: 25 ft. Ability modifiers: +3, +1, +2, -1, +0, +1. It gains the Manual Dexterity evolution.
• * Quadruped
  Size: Medium. Speed: 35 ft. Ability modifiers: +2, +2, +2, -1, +0, +1. It gains the Fast Movement evolution.
• * Serpentine
  Size: Medium. Speed: 25 ft. Climb 15 ft. Ability modifiers: +1, +3, +2, -1, +1, +0. It gains the climber evolution.
• * Aquatic
  Size: Medium. Speed: 25 ft. Swim 25 ft. Ability modifiers: +3, +1, +2, -1, +0, +1. It gains the Amphibious evolution.
• * Avian
  Size: Small. Speed: 25 ft. Fly 15 ft. Ability modifiers: +1, +3, +1, -1, +0, +1. It gains the Flier evolution.

I can't see how the suggestion here that Eidolons should be comparable to animal companions is remotely adequate.

Animal Companions come in at the power level of feat options. They're a tactical option, and represent a mild increase in total power. They're designed to supplement an already fully functional character- Druids, Rangers and Champions are plenty powerful enough that a character with a companion is on par with a character without a companion.

For the Summoner/Eidolon pairing, though, the Summoner is clearly not a full character. They have the effective presence of a spellcaster with half the spellcasting. The Eidolon, with their full martial proficiencies, is meant to represent the mathematical power behind the class.

Having a eidolon which starts with an array of +2, +2, +2, -1, +0, +1 is laughably awful. It'd be like playing a Monk or Ranger and saying "if you have no stat better than a 14 at 1st level, you get a few free spells (with sub-par proficiency)".

[Themetricsystem]

Ditch all Spell Slot based Spellcasting, retain the majority of the Focus Spells, and grant them a Font for a new Summon Creature Focus Spell that emulates all other Summon X Spells.

For the Eidolon choose one option from each list at level 1 which determines your Eidolons Form, Type, and Role.

Forms: Biped, Quadruped, Serpentine, Aquatic, Avian, etc

Type: Dragon, Beast, Angel, Demon, Devil, Phantom, etc

Role: Striker (Melee), Skirmisher (Mobility), Brute (Defense), Ranged (Duh), Specialist (Skills), Mystical (Spellcasting)

In addition, each day during Daily Preparation the Summoner may choose any two of the non-movement based Familiar Abilities its form would qualify for. At level 6 and every 4 levels thereafter they may choose one additional Familiar Ability. At level 14 you are no longer prohibited from selecting movement-based Familiar Abilities and can change your selections during a 10-minute rest when you Refocus.

Include something to the effect, somewhere, that Eidolons are incapable of using Weapons outside of those granted by its Form/Type or those granted by Summoner Class Feats.

Each Form comes with one PERMANENT Familiar Ability that cannot be changed but also does not count against their Daily selections such as Avian gaining the Flier Ability, Quadraped has Fast Movement, Aquatic gains Amphibious, etc and so on. Each Form also includes an Unarmed Attack with appropriate Weapon Traits to its body. The Form also determines the Size category of the base Eidolon before other adjustments. All Forms have a minimum (Land) Speed of 10 feet unless otherwise noted.

Each Type determines the type of Eidolon and grants the appropriate Trait. The Type also grants a number of Abilities unique to that selection at set levels (almost exactly like what it has now) and determines the Tradition of the Summoner Innate Spellcasting. Certain Types can also grant the Eidolon a unique Unarmed or Weapon Attack whose training scales with their existing proficiency.

Each Role will define the Ability Scores, Skill Training, AC Profs, and each grant a unique scaling set of Abilities (Again like what already exists but with more bang-for-your-buck since we ditched Spellcasting design space) unique to the selection. For example the Mystical Spellcasting Role could grant the Eidolon a Spellcasting Dedication Archetype at level 2, and offer as associated Spellcasting Archetype Feat at level 6, 12, & 18.

[Temperans]

TheGentlemanDM wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Deriven I used only PF2 material for that 1 post giving a quick outline on how, I would make it. I was on a phone so I could not go into much detail and a more detailed system needs more time than a few hours. Don't you agree? Not to mention that my forte is not in the design aspect, but in finding the parts that dont make sense.

Now I am on a computer so lets try to get some more detail.

Base forms:

• * Biped
  Size: Medium. Speed: 25 ft. Ability modifiers: +3, +1, +2, -1, +0, +1. It gains the Manual Dexterity evolution.
• * Quadruped
  Size: Medium. Speed: 35 ft. Ability modifiers: +2, +2, +2, -1, +0, +1. It gains the Fast Movement evolution.
• * Serpentine
  Size: Medium. Speed: 25 ft. Climb 15 ft. Ability modifiers: +1, +3, +2, -1, +1, +0. It gains the climber evolution.
• * Aquatic
  Size: Medium. Speed: 25 ft. Swim 25 ft. Ability modifiers: +3, +1, +2, -1, +0, +1. It gains the Amphibious evolution.
• * Avian
  Size: Small. Speed: 25 ft. Fly 15 ft. Ability modifiers: +1, +3, +1, -1, +0, +1. It gains the Flier evolution.

I can't see how the suggestion here that Eidolons should be comparable to animal companions is remotely adequate.

Animal Companions come in at the power level of feat options. They're a tactical option, and represent a mild increase in total power. They're designed to supplement an already fully functional character- Druids, Rangers and Champions are plenty powerful enough that a character with a companion is on par with a character without a companion.

For the Summoner/Eidolon pairing, though, the Summoner is clearly not a full character. They have the effective presence of a spellcaster with half the spellcasting. The Eidolon, with their full martial proficiencies, is meant to represent the mathematical power behind the class.

Having a eidolon which starts with an array of +2, +2, +2, -1, +0, +1 is laughably awful. It'd be like playing a Monk or Ranger and saying "if you have no stat better than a 14 at 1st level, you get a...

I gave it those stats and added in evolutions that give stats because people like Krispy were saying that Eidolons cannot have special abilities because they had martial level power.

I agree that the Eidolon could have +4,+3, +2, -1, +0, +1 and still have special abilities. That version I gave initially was just an attempt at compromise. Which Krispy denied because it was a compromise and gave players choice. If a compromise is not an option, than the Eidolon really should have access to 18 in Str or Dex and still have evolution points/slots.

[Pronate11]

Temperans wrote:

That version I gave initially was just an attempt at compromise. Which Krispy denied because it was a compromise and gave players choice. If a compromise is not an option, than the Eidolon really should have access to 18 in Str or Dex and still have evolution points/slots.

Now that's a straw man and you know it. The problem isn't "choice", it was the fact that if you make players chose between being effective in combat and being effective out of it, they're either going to chose combat effectiveness or regret it. People actually like having a eidolon that's a functioning marital, and if you give the ability to fully recreate that with your version, every other option becomes a trap option. I would rather have no choices that have one true choice and 20 traps new players will need to avoid. The class, through a combination of summoner and eidolon, needs to at minimum be at the same combat level of a investigator, wizard, or a rouge. all three of those classes traed some combat abilities for utilities, but are still powerful enough on there own to be worthy combatants in their own right. An AC can't reach that level without so many changes you might as well not base it on AC's

[Temperans]

Pronate11 wrote:

Temperans wrote:

That version I gave initially was just an attempt at compromise. Which Krispy denied because it was a compromise and gave players choice. If a compromise is not an option, than the Eidolon really should have access to 18 in Str or Dex and still have evolution points/slots.

Now that's a straw man and you know it. The problem isn't "choice", it was the fact that if you make players chose between being effective in combat and being effective out of it, they're either going to chose combat effectiveness or regret it. People actually like having a eidolon that's a functioning marital, and if you give the ability to fully recreate that with your version, every other option becomes a trap option. I would rather have no choices that have one true choice and 20 traps new players will need to avoid. The class, through a combination of summoner and eidolon, needs to at minimum be at the same combat level of a investigator, wizard, or a rouge. all three of those classes traed some combat abilities for utilities, but are still powerful enough on there own to be worthy combatants in their own right. An AC can't reach that level without so many changes you might as well not base it on AC's

Like I said it was a compromise because people like Krispy said that the eidolon was too strong to have actual customization. Since the Eidolon is not taking the Summoner's feats. Those can be used to give the Summoner more power.

I do agree that they are weak than could use more power. I would not mind having Eidolons being based around 16/18 in their core physical stat and +2 on their weakest physical stat. But Eidolons do need to have choices for special abilities that are not tied to feats. Can we at least agree on that?

The version I gave can easily be tweaked to increase its power. From giving more evolutions points/slots. I can see have 9 slots before extra slots from feats being a thing. That would allow players to pick more of the power increasing options. I can see the base stats of the Eidolons increase so the minimum is closer to a martial.

I do think that Summoners should have better defenses (8 HP and Master in light armor) and more spells slots than just 4. Having a weaker Eidolon as a base, does mean that there is no excuse to not give the Summoner more spells slots and defenses. Heck it could mean that the Summoner is able to get both the Eidolon and a Summon Monster font up to 10th spell level. Which would truly make them a Summoner (unlike the Playtest Summoner).

There are many ways to modify things to try an find a balance point. But scraping the system that core aspect of the eidolon and removing all the customization will just make for a bad Summoner.

[KrispyXIV]

Pronate11 wrote:

The problem isn't "choice", it was the fact that if you make players chose between being effective in combat and being effective out of it, they're either going to chose combat effectiveness or regret it.

This. This is the point, put succinctly and clearly.

This is also related to why Evolution Surge is so good - Evolution Surge allows an Eidolon to be functional in a range of scenarios, without forcing me to spend class resources on unlocking basic functionality.

I now have the choice of spending a feat on climb speed (or flight, or swim, or whatever), because even if I don't choose to spend a feat on it I can function at a baseline capability in those scenarios.

If not for Evolution Surge, an Eidolon with the Wings evolution at 16 is superior to one without, unless I mitigate that through a different class resource expenditure elsewhere.

Because Evolution Surge exists, I can choose to spend those feats elsewhere and not cripple myself by doing so.

[Temperans]

I literally said that Evolution Surge works better with my system that makes it smaller but a lot more powerful.......*sigh*

The eidolon having evolution points/slots does not invalidate Evolution Surge. It just brings it to the correct for of an emergency button. Not the default way to get evolutions.

[AnimatedPaper]

Pronate11 wrote:

Now that's a straw man and you know it. The problem isn't "choice", it was the fact that if you make players chose between being effective in combat and being effective out of it, they're either going to chose combat effectiveness or regret it. People actually like having a eidolon that's a functioning marital, and if you give the ability to fully recreate that with your version, every other option becomes a trap option.

I don't think I fully agree with the "locked down" camp. Yes, if the only way for an Eidolon to contribute to combat is via smacking the bad guy around, then players are going to be forced to pick the feats that enhance that at the expense of any other option.

But what is that was not the only option?

Personally, I'd love to see the summoner have the ability to choose a few different roles. The starts of debuffer and buffer eidolons are there already, why not lean into that? Make it so the summoner, with the right feats and eidolon options selected, can back up the bard or rogue instead of just the champion.

I think if we see any deviation from the Martial Eidolon, it is going to almost have to be along the lines of a caster instead. And as everyone has pointed out, Summoners already have most of the proficiencies of a full caster. So...give them the ability to pick up the rest, as long as you simultaneously downgrade the Eidolon to AC level, like in the kits that Temperans is proposing.

All that said, it would have to be either/or. Trying to implement a system where you have the ability to split the difference is absolutely anathema to PF2, no argument there.

[Pronate11]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Pronate11 wrote:

Now that's a straw man and you know it. The problem isn't "choice", it was the fact that if you make players chose between being effective in combat and being effective out of it, they're either going to chose combat effectiveness or regret it. People actually like having a eidolon that's a functioning marital, and if you give the ability to fully recreate that with your version, every other option becomes a trap option.

I don't think I fully agree with the "locked down" camp. Yes, if the only way for an Eidolon to contribute to combat is via smacking the bad guy around, then players are going to be forced to pick the feats that enhance that at the expense of any other option.

But what is that was not the only option?

Personally, I'd love to see the summoner have the ability to choose a few different roles. The starts of debuffer and buffer eidolons are there already, why not lean into that? Make it so the summoner, with the right feats and eidolon options selected, can back up the bard or rogue instead of just the champion.

I think if we see any deviation from the Martial Eidolon, it is going to almost have to be along the lines of a caster instead. And as everyone has pointed out, Summoners already have most of the proficiencies of a full caster. So...give them the ability to pick up the rest, as long as you simultaneously downgrade the Eidolon to AC level, like in the kits that Temperans is proposing.

All that said, it would have to be either/or. Trying to implement a system where you have the ability to split the difference is absolutely anathema to PF2, no argument there.

That's not the problem I was talking about. choosing HOW your eidolon is effective in combat is very valid. It's choosing IF your eidolon is effective that's a problem. also, I don't think a full caster with an AC is what many want. We already have the druid for that. Imagine if the witch just had the extra familiar abilities and nothing else. We would have to give the summoner something else so it's not just a sorc with a slightly better beast master dedication.

[AnimatedPaper]

Pronate11 wrote:

That's not the problem I was talking about. choosing HOW your eidolon is effective in combat is very valid. It's choosing IF your eidolon is effective that's a problem. also, I don't think a full caster with an AC is what many want. We already have the druid for that. Imagine if the witch just had the extra familiar abilities and nothing else. We would have to give the summoner something else so it's not just a sorc with a slightly better beast master dedication.

Bolding mine, as that is exactly what some people do want, as an option at least. I personally don't, but some do.

But even besides that, it really depends on the details. If divine Eidolons had an aura they could invest in, with Celestials getting status buff upgrades, Fiends throwing out conditions like candy, and Monitors giving your allies the ability to target weaknesses or burn through resistances, that's pretty far outside the range of what an animal companion can accomplish, but could be balanced against what a champion, bard, or martial can do and not require giving the summoner half any additional spell slots.

Edit: I chose your quote to respond to not because I particularly wanted to disagree with you, but several posters seem to feel that striking in combat is the only valid way for an Eidolon to be effective in combat. I want to challenge that notion.

Like the numbers Deverin put up upthread. You actually don't have to hit those numbers if the Eidolon is not going to be in melee all that much, and is instead going to be one move action's distance behind melee.

We even have an example of that kind of proficiency bundling with cleric doctrines.

[Rysky]

Midnightoker wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

a Phantom who was a master swordsman before they died.

Absolutely feel like this is what's "missing" for me. My ghost is just a regular ghost, not an ex-swordsman or a shadow-touched ghost.

And I do feel like it should start with more definition in general, and not just "I become more of my identity only if I take Feats/Level up". Like your "ex-swordsman" should feel like an ex-swordsman ghost at level 1 and then accentuates his roles/powers as they level.

Even on the Dragon side, most Dragons have breath weapons but vary GREATLY outside just the energy type but that's me.

___________

Actually yeah, that's my big issue.

Compare a Ghost summoner to another summoner at level 1 and the only variations between Eidolons is what they flavored their weapon as and the damage type (piercing, bludgeoning, slashing) even down to the die and statistical nuance.

That seems wrong to me, but maybe I'm alone there.

Something to point out, this was the case in P1 for the Phantom as well. The Iconic Phantom was a knight with a sword and shield. He didn't have sword and shield feats, he had the Phantom's slam attacks and the Emotional Focus that modified the slams, because that's what the sword and shield were for him, slam attacks, since they were connected to his being. Giving them a bunch of bonus combat feats to emulate a Fighter/Swordmaster wasn't really a thing.

Which is what I really want to see, the various Emotional Foci back.

[Midnightoker]

Yeah I don't know that I necessarily love the idea of like Power Attack feats or any of that type of stuff.

But a little nuance to the attack routine besides "1d8 unarmed attack" would be preferred.

[Sagiam]

An idea I had suggested earlier was to give the Summoner or Eidolon an archetype feat (or even several over the levels)... for free. This makes sense both mechanically (since most builds multiclass anyway, the class as a whole could use a little buff, and letting the eidolon multiclass seems to be on everyone's wishlist) and thematically, since even in PF1 summoners were less of career choice and more of a phenomenon.

The archetype feat would be framed lore-wise as things you ( or your eidolon!) did before you two got stuck together. Like maybe your apostle was training to be a Cleric or Medic before the forces of good gave them a literal guardian angel. Or maybe your angel was actually cast out from heaven do to a bad temper and is serving as an Eidolon as punishment until they've learned their lesson (and thus they have a Barbarian's Rage.)

I think this could be interesting and help give a little more character to eidolons and answer some questions of what they were before.

[Ventnor]

Pronate11 wrote:

That's not the problem I was talking about. choosing HOW your eidolon is effective in combat is very valid. It's choosing IF your eidolon is effective that's a problem. also, I don't think a full caster with an AC is what many want. We already have the druid for that. Imagine if the witch just had the extra familiar abilities and nothing else. We would have to give the summoner something else so it's not just a sorc with a slightly better beast master dedication.

I mean, any spellcaster can take the Beastmaster or Cavalier archetypes if they want to have a full-strength animal companion. Hell, Summoners can take the Beastmaster or Cavalier archetype if they want an animal companion!

Eidolons shouldn't be animal companions, because what is the point of a class that doesn't add anything new to the game?

[graystone]

Ventnor wrote:

Eidolons shouldn't be animal companions, because what is the point of a class that doesn't add anything new to the game?

Why does the new thing have to be Eidolons? For something out of the box, how about some new SUMMONING mechanics for the summoner and leave the majority of the pet mechanics to existing mechanics? Call me crazy but it'd feel nice to actually be good at summoning things.

[Temperans]

graystone wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Eidolons shouldn't be animal companions, because what is the point of a class that doesn't add anything new to the game?

Why does the new thing have to be Eidolons? For something out of the box, how about some new SUMMONING mechanics for the summoner and leave the majority of the pet mechanics to existing mechanics? Call me crazy but it'd feel nice to actually be good at summoning things.

Agreed Graystone. There is no reason for Paizo to create new mechanics that have nothing to do with summoning, when the class is supposed to be all about Summoning.

Even I only though of the animal companion baseline because of the pushback against making Eidolons work like more interesting summoned creatures.

[Rysky]

The reason is the Eidolon is the main draw of the Summoner, just like it was in P1.

[graystone]

Rysky wrote:

The reason is the Eidolon is the main draw of the Summoner, just like it was in P1.

To some maybe: I was there for the 1 min/level summons. I didn't mind in the least if an archetype gave me a Lesser Eidolon as most times, mine was a glorified mount.

[Temperans]

I liked PF1 Summoner because I could make a Summoner that focused on his Summon Monster pool. Or one that tried to be a pseudo martial (it used to have the same stats as a Rogue). Or it could focus on the Eidolon and act as a support.

That flexibility is entirely lacking.

[Deriven Firelion]

What if you were to tie the eidolon's combat math to the summoner's charisma? That would leave you a little more leeway to customize the statistics and weapons. It's hit roll and damage bonus derived from the Summoner's charisma, then adjust a little bit with attack routines to provide a little variation.

[Midnightoker]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

What if you were to tie the eidolon's combat math to the summoner's charisma? That would leave you a little more leeway to customize the statistics and weapons. It's hit roll and damage bonus derived from the Summoner's charisma, then adjust a little bit with attack routines to provide a little variation.

It would certainly help with the balancing aspect of the Summoner and actually make the Summoner's choice of CHA matter.

No one has really talked about dealing with that issue, the fact that CHA is pretty unnecessary to build on a Summoner. A Font would certainly change that, but nonetheless, current doesn't really need it.

And I've pitched Animal Companions as a starting place for what the Eidolon can build on, but I don't want the buck to stop there. It needs to go beyond that in terms of abilities (if only slightly at first) and then the integrated action economy can provide the other "push" to be different than an Animal Companion.

But all things considered, as much as people complained about Minion mechanics, I actually like the way Minions work currently in the game because they are balanced, strong, and most importantly the action economy makes sense.

The free archetype idea (ala Ancient Elf) for Eidolons is interesting, but I dont know that it really "works". There would be a LOT of imbalanced pieces for that.

For instance, pet Archetypes for the Eidolon is a bit weird. MCD Caster classes are a bit weird since they are effectively a better version of the level 2 feat for Eidolon casting. Fighter MCD gives you Martial Weapons. Champion gives you heavy armor. How do those work? How does it handle prerequisites?

So while I like the idea of Archetypes in theme and idea, there's a lot of complications (IMO) with doing that.

[KrispyXIV]

Midnightoker wrote:

No one has really talked about dealing with that issue, the fact that CHA is pretty unnecessary to build on a Summoner. A Font would certainly change that, but nonetheless, current doesn't really need it.

Its come up, and its a reasonable point - but I still say that people not taking max charisma for offensive spellcasting are sleeping on a potent option for the character.

Summoners are only behind on Spell Proficiency for half their life, and even when they are not all encounters are against higher level foes, and not all spells are equally reliant on your foe failing a save (any spell that is reasonably effective on a Successful save by a foe remains reasonably effective for a Summoner).

Theres also the argument to be made that being less tied to a primary stat allows for more build variety in general if you do want to skip on offensive spellcasting.

All that said, I fully support determining Eidolon accuracy based on Charisma. It lets you do more interesting things with the base stat array and instantly solves the "accuracy lag" levels for the Eidolon AND the apex item issue all at once, with one simple change.

[Midnightoker]

KrispyXIV wrote:

All that said, I fully support determining Eidolon accuracy based on Charisma. It lets you do more interesting things with the base stat array and instantly solves the "accuracy lag" levels for the Eidolon AND the apex item issue all at once, with one simple change.

My only concern on the CHA to attack issue is that it makes CHA literally more important to the Summoner than any other Class in the game, to the point where it comes off as funneling (even more so than the Rogue, because at least that's confined to a single Class Path).

Now, sure, you can't stack CHA like you could in the old editions.

But CHA to attack, CHA to Spell DC, CHA to Demoralize (on a Class that's honestly perfect for it), CHA for Bon Mot, etc.

I mean CHA isn't the best stat in the game, but it sure as heck would be if it was your to hit on spells, your main mode of attack, your spell DCs, etc.

I think I'd prefer something that incorporates CHA a little less aggressively and an accuracy fix in another regard, but that's me.

[KrispyXIV]

Midnightoker wrote:

My only concern on the CHA to attack issue is that it makes CHA literally more important to the Summoner than any other Class in the game, to the point where it comes off as funneling (even more so than the Rogue, because at least that's confined to a single Class Path).

I dont know that it's significantly different than any other class, though.

Fighters derive literally all their class abilities (attacks, damage, saves) from strength.

Heck, when I was running this character as a Cleric I never did anything that was meaningful that was not based on Wisdom.

Bards also don't need any additional stats, and arguably have even better synergy with Demoralize/Bon Mot.

Classes having all their attack prowess channeled through their main stat is the new "normal" really - doing this for Summoners would be odd because you're now essentially doing Strikes with it, but I dont think you're suddenly breaking the game on this item.

[Midnightoker]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Fighters derive literally all their class abilities (attacks, damage, saves) from strength.

Fighters don't cast spells, and if you go Full STR, you don't have 18 CHA for Demoralize, Feint, etc.

Quote:

Heck, when I was running this character as a Cleric I never did anything that was meaningful that was not based on Wisdom.

You may not have, but CHA factors into your Font, Warpriests need STR/CON if they want to wade into combat, and you can still be an effective Cleric (I'd argue at least as good if you pack Heals) without 18 WIS.

Quote:

Bards also don't need any additional stats, and arguably have even better synergy with Demoralize/Bon Mot.

And a Warrior Muse Bard can't have their cake and eat it too. CHA to attack when you want to be attacking is WAY more funneling than should be allowed.

Quote:

Classes having all their attack prowess channeled through their main stat is the new "normal" really - doing this for Summoners would be odd because you're now essentially doing Strikes with it, but I dont think you're suddenly breaking the game on this item.

As I've pointed out above, not really. There are admirable choices for other ability scores and most importantly:

Not a single Class in the game as of current gets CHA to attack with a melee attack that is not a Spell Attack.

It's a stronger funneling than even the Thief Rogue. That's got a lot of ramifications just on its own.

[KrispyXIV]

Midnightoker wrote:

As I've pointed out above, not really. There are admirable choices for other ability scores and most importantly:

Not a single Class in the game as of current gets CHA to attack with a melee attack that is not a Spell Attack.

It's a stronger funneling than even the Thief Rogue. That's got a lot of ramifications just on its own.

You've got a lot of good points, but theres one thing to keep in mind -

The Summoner can currently stack Charisma exactly as you said, and they still get to make melee Strikes that are not spell attacks with an "equivalent" stat for levels 5-9 and 15-17.

And a lot of people think that gap should be closed by boosting 1st level Eidolon Strength (or finesse Dex) to 18 anyway.

So moving Eidolon attack to Summoner Charisma doesn't actually functionally change the desire attack progression for Eidolons unless you're ok with them lagging on accuracy at some levels (I'm not) and DOES fix the perceived Apex item issue.

Essentially, Summoners already get most of the benefits you're describing because their Eidolons melee strike accuracy doesn't compete with the Summoners Charisma from a resource perspective.

...am I making sense?

I'm not disagreeing with your points here btw, theyre all valid. I just don't know that they weigh enough not to go ahead in spite of that.

[Midnightoker]

I agree, they need a fix for the accuracy, I just don't agree CHA is the way to handle it.

If CHA didn't hold a LOT of valuable actions in its belt, I'd be less averse to it.

I personally don't know why the Eidolons are behind on stats in the first place if we're being honest. The shared action economy and lack of martial feats and traits means they are worse than all martials for pretty much all portions of the game (and as you level, the differential gets worse).

[KrispyXIV]

Midnightoker wrote:

I agree, they need a fix for the accuracy, I just don't agree CHA is the way to handle it.

If CHA didn't hold a LOT of valuable actions in its belt, I'd be less averse to it.

I personally don't know why the Eidolons are behind on stats in the first place if we're being honest. The shared action economy and lack of martial feats and traits means they are worse than all martials for pretty much all portions of the game (and as you level, the differential gets worse).

The primary issue I identified on my survey was the accuracy and AC "lag" levels.

I had a great experience at levels 6-7, but I totally acknowledge thats because my Eidolon is "on track" for accuracy with other martials and my AC on my Eidolon isn't "bad" like it is at level 1-2.

Like you noted, there's already a number of safety mechanisms that keep the class honest and reasonable by comparison to other classes - bumping stats to include a first level 18 for accuracy and dropping expert unarmored to level one are absolutely critical IMO.

Maybe it was intentional for the playtest, to see if it was really unbearable at the "lag" levels and to see if feedback on the "on target" levels was generally better? Dunno. But its absolutely my pick for "fix it fix it fix it" item for the class.

[AnimatedPaper]

Midnightoker wrote:

I agree, they need a fix for the accuracy, I just don't agree CHA is the way to handle it.

If CHA didn't hold a LOT of valuable actions in its belt, I'd be less averse to it.

I personally don't know why the Eidolons are behind on stats in the first place if we're being honest. The shared action economy and lack of martial feats and traits means they are worse than all martials for pretty much all portions of the game (and as you level, the differential gets worse).

Key stat Con! Key stat Con!

[Midnightoker]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

I agree, they need a fix for the accuracy, I just don't agree CHA is the way to handle it.

If CHA didn't hold a LOT of valuable actions in its belt, I'd be less averse to it.

I personally don't know why the Eidolons are behind on stats in the first place if we're being honest. The shared action economy and lack of martial feats and traits means they are worse than all martials for pretty much all portions of the game (and as you level, the differential gets worse).

Key stat Con! Key stat Con!

I don't hate it and said so when it was suggested in another thread.

Con casting for Summoner sort of makes sense too, since the idea is their "bond" is the tether with the Eidolon.

CON to attack is.. an interesting thought. With the shared HP pool, I don't think it's unbalanced, but it's certainly interesting.

[Sagiam]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

I agree, they need a fix for the accuracy, I just don't agree CHA is the way to handle it.

If CHA didn't hold a LOT of valuable actions in its belt, I'd be less averse to it.

I personally don't know why the Eidolons are behind on stats in the first place if we're being honest. The shared action economy and lack of martial feats and traits means they are worse than all martials for pretty much all portions of the game (and as you level, the differential gets worse).

Key stat Con! Key stat Con!

I've thought about it a bit and think they could make con primary and casting. But they'd need to make it more interesting.

Tieing it to accuracy might be one way.
Another might be "Conduit Skills"; ie the two skills you get from your link with your eidolon are tied to Constitution.

[KrispyXIV]

Sagiam wrote:

Another might be "Conduit Skills"; ie the two skills you get from your link with your eidolon are tied to Constitution.

I feel like at that point we're performing multiple really big stretches to make Con work for anything but "in combat".

Having no skills tied to it really kills Con as a main stat for me.

I love the concept, but mechanically it takes so much to make it work without "killing" a characrer concept that I can't find it worth it.

[Katrixia]

KrispyXIV wrote:

I feel like at that point we're performing multiple really big stretches to make Con work for anything but "in combat".

Having no skills tied to it really kills Con as a main stat for me.

I love the concept, but mechanically it takes so much to make it work without "killing" a characrer concept that I can't find it worth it.

I remember you were the first one to cast down CON casting for the Summoner.

I have to admit that while it makes great thematic sense for the Summoner to be a CON caster, you made some great points i agree with.

CON has no skills tied to it, so you don't really "excel" at anything outside of combat.

[Deriven Firelion]

A Con-based caster would be interesting. I'm not even sure it has been done yet. It would make make sense for a summoner who puts so much of their life into an eidolon.

[Verzen]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

A Con-based caster would be interesting. I'm not even sure it has been done yet. It would make make sense for a summoner who puts so much of their life into an eidolon.

Kineticist and scarred witchdoctor were con based.

[Midnightoker]

Verzen wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

A Con-based caster would be interesting. I'm not even sure it has been done yet. It would make make sense for a summoner who puts so much of their life into an eidolon.

Kineticist and scarred witchdoctor were con based.

Scarred Witchdoctor was errata'd because it was problematic in PF1.

This edition it's probably less of an issue though.