One of my players is unhappy with how weak summoned monsters appear to be at later levels so i rustled up a couple feats that allow him to focus on summoning monsters to aid in battle. The main design goal was to make the highest level summoned spell allow you to summon a level -2 creature. I feel this is a much better level for summoned creatures to be as they can do well in normal fights and aren't completely useless in boss fights.
Summoner's First Rites Feat 4
Bard Cleric Druid Oracle Sorcerer Witch Wizard
When you cast a spell that lets you summon a minion creature, the highest level of creature you can summon is increased by 1 and you can also summon uncommon creatures.
Summoner's Second Rites Feat 8
Bard Cleric Druid Oracle Sorcerer Witch Wizard
The highest level of creature you can summon is now increased by 2 and you can spend 2 actions to sustain the spell instead of 1. If you do, your summoned creature uses an additional action.
I hate to tell you, summons being weak is intended in PF2.
As to whether or not your suggestion to make it not weak would be acceptable...I'm not sure.
The designers definitely intended minions to not be as good as a martial character. As long as what is accessible is still inferior enough that the summoner isn't dropping the equivalent of an extra martial character on the table then it might be okay.
I do agree with the general sentiment that summoned creatures are so weak that you might as well not bother with them. But to me the answer is knowing that, and avoiding summoning.
Yes it a big change from PF1, but with good reason. Since summon creatures could easily dominate compared to martial PCs considering the ability to summon many of them. Even though the PF1 martial was definitely better in terms of numbers, they only had one set of actions. And the PF1 summoner could cast multiple summon spells and bring out several creatures that collectively were stronger than any 1 martial.
The devs decided to make that not an option in PF2.
I second Claxon ( though instead of avoding summoning creatures, I'd still summon them depends the situation ).
As for the feats, I think they are quite broken.
1) The level they are available is too low ( lvl 8 for the first one and lvl 16 for the second one, forcing the summoner to choose between the lvl 16 feat and effortless concentration would be more balanced ).
2) They are always available. They could be 1x day each ( consider, for example, that quickened spell is a lvl 10 feat once per day ). Having a skill to increase once per day the level of the summoned creature could be the real deal, but being able to summon always creatures of a higher level would result in a massive powercreep.
3) Being able to summon uncommon creatures. I didn't see all the uncommon creatures, but since they are uncommon I suppose there could be spells/skills/special moves way too strong than normal ones. I also think that their attack could be overall higher than a the common ones.
4) Expending 1 extra action to sustain the spell to give the minion a third one could be nice to have ( though I doubt you will sacrifice the chance to cast a 2 action spell most of the time ).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I don't think the answer to a player dissatisfied with summoning is to tell them "Don't summon." After all, this is the houserules subforum, so finding a houserule solution that satisfies all players should be the answer.
It's true that PF2e summons are not the powerhouses that existed in PF1e. For optimization, learning which summons are useable is an exhausting labor that players might not do. I think by adding straightforward power, you're headed in the right direction. In case you're unsure of the effects of the above feats, I can do a breakdown of what you might expect to see.
We can assume the summon always gets flanking since the summoner gets to choose where it appears. The below calculations assume flat-footed AC on the target using the monster creation chart as reference. We can assume "High" for accuracy, damage, and AC, and assume "Moderate" for health pool.
A level 4 summoner summons a level 2 minion. They're fighting a level 4 monster:
Offense: +11 vs AC 19 for 9 damage against a health pool of 60. Hits on 8, crits on 18
Defense: +14 vs AC 18 for 14 damage against a health pool of 30. Hits on 4, crits on 14
A level 5 summoner summons a level 3 minion. They're fighting a level 5 monster:
Offense: +12 vs AC 20 for 12 damage against a health pool of 75. Hits on 8, crits on 18
Defense: +15 vs AC 19 for 16 damage against a health pool of 45. Hits on 4, crits on 14
A level 6 summoner summons a level 3 minion. They're fighting a level 6 monster:
Offense: +12 vs AC 22 for 12 damage against a health pool of 95. Hits on 10, crits on 20
Defense: +17 vs AC 19 for 18 damage against a health pool of 45. Hits on 2, crits on 12
Once the caster hits level 8, their summons become 2 levels higher, and that effectively simulates their summon spell levels being 1 higher.
A similar breakdown as follows:
A level 8 summoner summons a level 5 minion. They're fighting a level 8 monster:
Offense: +15 vs AC 25 for 16 damage against a health pool of 135. Hits on 10, crits on 20
Defense: +20 vs AC 22 for 22 damage against a health pool of 75. Hits on 2, crits on 12
A level 9 summoner summons a level 7 minion. They're fighting a level 9 monster:
Offense: +18 vs AC 26 for 20 damage against a health pool of 155. Hits on 8, crits on 18
Defense: +21 vs AC 25 for 24 damage against a health pool of 115. Hits on 4, crits on 14
A level 10 summoner summons a level 7 minion. They're fighting a level 10 monster:
Offense: +18 vs AC 28 for 20 damage against a health pool of 175. Hits on 10, crits on 20
Defense: +23 vs AC 25 for 26 damage against a health pool of 115. Hits on 2, crits on 12
Jumping a bit, we'll take a look at levels 15~17:
A level 15 summoner summons a level 13 minion. They're fighting a level 15 monster:
Offense: +27 vs AC 35 for 32 damage against a health pool of 235. Hits on 8, crits on 18
Defense: +30 vs AC 34 for 36 damage against a health pool of 275. Hits on 4, crits on 14
A level 16 summoner summons a level 13 minion. They're fighting a level 16 monster:
Offense: +27 vs AC 37 for 32 damage against a health pool of 235. Hits on 10, crits on 20
Defense: +32 vs AC 34 for 37 damage against a health pool of 295. Hits on 2, crits on 12
A level 17 summoner summons a level 15 minion. They're fighting a level 17 monster:
Offense: +30 vs AC 38 for 36 damage against a health pool of 275. Hits on 8, crits on 18
Defense: +33 vs AC 37 for 38 damage against a health pool of 315. Hits on 4, crits on 14
A few words of warning regarding the math: I assumed flanking because it's very easy to get with summons, but depending on your party composition and tactic level, your party might also be benefitting from party-wide buffs like inspire courage or enemy debuffs like frightened, which might skew the math. I don't know how your group plays, so I assumed only flat-footed. Feel free to adjust the math to fit your expectations.
From looking at the above, my straightforward opinion is that summons will do reasonable damage over time. It's definitely not weak any more.
However, from the defense side, summons are very very strong, especially at later levels. Take the level 17 summoner case, the monster can swing twice, get lucky and crit twice, and the summon will still have about 130 health left. If you GM late game with these rules, you might consider having the enemy monster ignore the summons and attack players instead.
Obviously, the above is not a complete picture of what your table might look like with these houserules. A lot of monsters have special abilities on top of their strike damage. Many can automatically grab or trip, for example. My impression of the above is that the summons will have competent offense, extreme defense, and high flexibility regarding special abilities and debuffs. Definitely strong and worth casting at the highest spell slot.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Keep in mind that automatically grab and trip always require an action. You simply avoid the check ( so no map, but also no critical chance).
HumbleGamer wrote: Keep in mind that automatically grab and trip always require an action. You simply avoid the check ( so no map, but also no critical chance). Unless it's a Improved Grab, Improved Trip, etc.
Hey OP, do you have martials at your table?
If I was a martial at your table, and suddenly the caster can spend one of their resources and control almost a "other me" I would be pretty upset. But I'm not a player at your table, so my feelings matters less than your players feelings.
What do you think about asking your martials about it?
KyoYagami068 wrote: Hey OP, do you have martials at your table?
If I was a martial at your table, and suddenly the caster can spend one of their resources and control almost a "other me" I would be pretty upset. But I'm not a player at your table, so my feelings matters less than your players feelings.
What do you think about asking your martials about it?
Yeah, that's exactly what summoner's shouldn't be able to do.
If they can summon a creature that's nearly as good as a PC, then it's definitely too strong. However, I understand the from the summoner's perspective if they're not at least close then they might often be too weak to bother with.
I got feedback on this at reddit and i agree that giving them extra levels and blanket access to uncommon monsters is way too strong so ive instead gone for a blanket bonus to the summoned monsters stats. this should make the monsters strong enough to make a more meaning impact on combat if you use your highest level spell.
Summoner's First Rites Feat 4
Bard Cleric Druid Oracle Sorcerer Witch Wizard
When you cast a spell that lets you summon a minion creature, increase the creature’s AC, attack modifiers, DCs, saving throws, Perception, and skill modifiers by 1. You can also spend 2 actions to sustain the spell instead of 1. If you do, your summoned creature uses an additional action.
Summoner's Second Rites Feat 10
Bard Cleric Druid Oracle Sorcerer Witch Wizard
The summoned creature's modifiers are now increased by 2 and can use reactions at the cost of your own.
Also please remember that the character is using feats to specialize into the type of spells they want to cast which i think is something desperately missing for spellcasters in general not just conjurers.
Its kinda lame that the spellcasters see the martials consistently get cool feats that improve there combat style when they already have a generous amount of math going there way while wizards and witches are left out in the cold. Even secrets of magic has more class feats for the monk than it does for witch and wizards.
The devs really cracked down on magic being too strong ( a huge problem in PF1).
However this has resulted in spells that have little ability to be customized or tweaked into being better, because the devs established a ceiling they wanted to maintain on power level.
You're right that there's no really being a specialist into a certain kind of spell. That's intentional.
It's why earlier in the thread I mentioned that not trying to "specialize" into being a summoner is a valid path because there's nothing to specialize into.
Your player's character is not a summoner specialist wizard. At best they're a conjuration specialist, which honestly means very little. They get an extra spell slot to use with conjuration spells and that's basically it.
At this point casters are best done as utility knives, and occasional AoE damage against on level or lower enemies.
Seems more or less the same as before.
HumbleGamer wrote: Seems more or less the same as before. They keep the attack accuracy and ac to keep them viable in a fight but have far less health, less damage and less access to spells....So not really.
Claxon wrote: The devs really cracked down on magic being too strong ( a huge problem in PF1).
However this has resulted in spells that have little ability to be customized or tweaked into being better, because the devs established a ceiling they wanted to maintain on power level.
You're right that there's no really being a specialist into a certain kind of spell. That's intentional.
It's why earlier in the thread I mentioned that not trying to "specialize" into being a summoner is a valid path because there's nothing to specialize into.
Your player's character is not a summoner specialist wizard. At best they're a conjuration specialist, which honestly means very little. They get an extra spell slot to use with conjuration spells and that's basically it.
At this point casters are best done as utility knives, and occasional AoE damage against on level or lower enemies.
Im sorry but this just isnt true. Dangerous sorcery is a prime example of a feat increasing the strength of damage spells, Clerics can enhance their heal/harm spells and druids have many feats to improve their focus spells.
A large segment of spellcaster players dont want to be utility knifes or buff bots for martials. Some want to be themed casters, some want to be blasters and some want to be summoners. Should they not be allowed that through feat investment just because paizo dropped the ball on giving spellcasters good feats?
Davido1000 wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Seems more or less the same as before. They keep the attack accuracy and ac to keep them viable in a fight but have far less health, less damage and less access to spells....So not really. It's basically the same.
Monsters already have higher hp, and their damage is probably similar to the one of a character of the same level.
Take for example the axiomite and compare it with
Less access to spells doesn't really kick in because you gave them more spell power, so they'll be able to land spells easily. Giving them more spells was out of the question even with the previous one ( you would have had a different creature ).
I mean, there's way less powercreep than the previous ones ( for the feats level and their effect effect ), but it doesn't change "that much", and the bonuses are high ( compared to any other martial ).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Claxon wrote: But to me the answer is knowing that, and avoiding summoning. You realize why that's a terrible answer for someone who wants to play a summoner of some kind though, right?
Squiggit wrote: Claxon wrote: But to me the answer is knowing that, and avoiding summoning. You realize why that's a terrible answer for someone who wants to play a summoner of some kind though, right? I think it's expectations vs reality.
Reading the OP, it's clear that the player expected that summons worked differently ( not in the way they are designed to in this 2e, for balance purposes).
And so, knowing that the summons work in a specific way, by raw there are just 2 alternatives: use them or not.
Anyway, a wizard with spell blending thesis might be the best summoner at the moment.
HumbleGamer wrote: And so, knowing that the summons work in a specific way, by raw there are just 2 alternatives: use them or not. Luckily this is the houserules subforum so we can pick the 3rd alternative to ditch raw and houserule.
voideternal wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: And so, knowing that the summons work in a specific way, by raw there are just 2 alternatives: use them or not. Luckily this is the houserules subforum so we can pick the 3rd alternative to ditch raw and houserule. Context first.
The answer was to enlight why summons work this way in this 2e.
As homebrew stuff you might put summon level equal to the caster level, but this wouldn't change the answer.
HumbleGamer wrote: Context first.
The answer was to enlight why summons work this way in this 2e.
As homebrew stuff you might put summon level equal to the caster level, but this wouldn't change the answer.
And the original implied context was asking for review on the proposed houserules because there's an unhappy player. Playing RAW and explaining why doesn't help the unhappy player.
voideternal wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Context first.
The answer was to enlight why summons work this way in this 2e.
As homebrew stuff you might put summon level equal to the caster level, but this wouldn't change the answer.
And the original implied context was asking for review on the proposed houserules because there's an unhappy player. Playing RAW and explaining why doesn't help the unhappy player. In my opinion, you are wrong here.
Consider that the TS, as well as his players, are currently unhappy with the current summoning system.
Getting to know why things work in a specific way is helpful when it comes to understand the game balance.
For example:
- Feats Power ( they were op in the fist thread and are still op in his second proposal, if compared to any other feat and given how they affects the whole balance ).
- Comparison with a melee class ( Either KyoYagami and Claxon pointed out this one ).
- Understanding the reason behind it. Claxon said
Quote: I do agree with the general sentiment that summoned creatures are so weak that you might as well not bother with them. But to me the answer is knowing that, and avoiding summoning. but he also said ( just after that ):
Quote: Yes it a big change from PF1, but with good reason. Since summon creatures could easily dominate compared to martial PCs considering the ability to summon many of them. Even though the PF1 martial was definitely better in terms of numbers, they only had one set of actions. And the PF1 summoner could cast multiple summon spells and bring out several creatures that collectively were stronger than any 1 martial. There difference in not liking a mechanic but knowing and understanding what's the reason behind it.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The explained reason is that in PF1e, summons were so strong they outshone martials. In the current edition, people say "summoned creatures are so weak that you might as well not bother with them."
I believe there's a gray area in between that a houserule can aim to put summon power level that can please all players at a specific table.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: Seems more or less the same as before. Also the newer proposed rules are different than before as far as raw numbers are concerned. The first houserule increased level by 2 but the second houserule increases stats by 2. If you're familiar with the monster creation chart, it's pretty obvious that every two levels, all non-health / damage monster stats increase by 3, so already the new houserules are 1 point below the old houserules.
The reaction bit I'm unsure of though. It really depends on the monster being summoned. Do you know which magic tradition is going to be used?
voideternal wrote:
The reaction bit I'm unsure of though. It really depends on the monster being summoned. Do you know which magic tradition is going to be used?
That's a big part of the reason that things are somehow similar.
Anyway, I explained it in response to the TS in the post after the one from you quoted my post
Quote: I mean, there's way less powercreep than the previous ones ( for the feats level and their effect effect ), but it doesn't change "that much", and the bonuses are high ( compared to any other martial ). For example, take an adult copper dragon ( lvl 12 ) compared to an adult forest dragon ( lvl 14 )
with his second proposa, the adult copper dragon is just 1 point behind the lvl 14 adult forest dragon in:
- AC
- Attack
- Fortitude
the forest dragon is 3 points behind for what concerns will, but because of the feats the copper one is ahead of 2 points in reflex ( so, even a more balanced build, which covers for the "weaker save" ).
In adjunct, to compensate the -1 hit/Ac, the monster also has his reaction which might use.
It didn't change things "that much", so they are similar.
ps: note that while the copper one is common, the forest dragon is uncommon ( just to took a more powerful creature for comparison ).
pps: all of this leaving apart that the caster will be able to summon creatures even using not maximum slots, and still making them moderately efficient ( compared with the standard creatures )
ppps: consider also that while it might be standard for low level creatures not to have a reaction, from lvl 10 you'll be finding the majority of creatures able to use reactions.
Davido1000 wrote: Claxon wrote: The devs really cracked down on magic being too strong ( a huge problem in PF1).
However this has resulted in spells that have little ability to be customized or tweaked into being better, because the devs established a ceiling they wanted to maintain on power level.
You're right that there's no really being a specialist into a certain kind of spell. That's intentional.
It's why earlier in the thread I mentioned that not trying to "specialize" into being a summoner is a valid path because there's nothing to specialize into.
Your player's character is not a summoner specialist wizard. At best they're a conjuration specialist, which honestly means very little. They get an extra spell slot to use with conjuration spells and that's basically it.
At this point casters are best done as utility knives, and occasional AoE damage against on level or lower enemies.
Im sorry but this just isnt true. Dangerous sorcery is a prime example of a feat increasing the strength of damage spells, Clerics can enhance their heal/harm spells and druids have many feats to improve their focus spells.
A large segment of spellcaster players dont want to be utility knifes or buff bots for martials. Some want to be themed casters, some want to be blasters and some want to be summoners. Should they not be allowed that through feat investment just because paizo dropped the ball on giving spellcasters good feats? I guess it's a matter of semantics, but those aren't examples of spells being customizable but rather of class feats that will let you tweak stuff.
Currently you can't be a wizard that buff's his damage output like a sorcerer with dangerous sorcery.
They've pigeonholed certain magic classes as being able to do certain things and if you don't play that class then you don't get to play ball. In theory, the summoner class should have something to make summon spells more viable. I didn't look at the play test version, but heard lots of complaints.
Honestly, the only first party way your player would get what they want is to wait until the summoner class came out and might resolve their issues.
Also, I'm not saying it's not okay to want to be things other than what is currently working (utility/buffing) it's just that those things seem to be the most effective in PF2 and that anything else just tends to have very limited support.
Compared to PF1, playing a caster in PF2 is nowhere near what it used to be.
Squiggit wrote: Claxon wrote: But to me the answer is knowing that, and avoiding summoning. You realize why that's a terrible answer for someone who wants to play a summoner of some kind though, right? It might be dissatisfying answer, but sometimes it's the truth.
In my mind it's a bit like someone who asks why sticking their hand in fire is asking how they can not get burned. Stop putting your hand in fire.
Now that may come off as rude, but it's not meant that way. It's just the best analogy I could come up with quickly to express something that is fairly obvious IMO (summoning is not very good with the rules as written in PF2).
I guess within the context of homebrew forum, I should propose a solution. Buffing the spells with feats seems like a reasonable course of action, the question is by how much and how often.
And I simply don't have a good feel for that, but what the OP has proposed in both instances seems like it might be too good.
Have you tried the variant rule for removing level from proficiency? It would help kinda remove the level disparity between the creatures.
Edit: spelling
Claxon wrote: Squiggit wrote: Claxon wrote: But to me the answer is knowing that, and avoiding summoning. You realize why that's a terrible answer for someone who wants to play a summoner of some kind though, right? It might be dissatisfying answer, but sometimes it's the truth.
In my mind it's a bit like someone who asks why sticking their hand in fire is asking how they can not get burned. Stop putting your hand in fire.
Now that may come off as rude, but it's not meant that way. It's just the best analogy I could come up with quickly to express something that is fairly obvious IMO (summoning is not very good with the rules as written in PF2).
I guess within the context of homebrew forum, I should propose a solution. Buffing the spells with feats seems like a reasonable course of action, the question is by how much and how often.
And I simply don't have a good feel for that, but what the OP has proposed in both instances seems like it might be too good. So why are you here then? This is a homebrew discussion forum and the only feedback you have given is summoning sucks and you shouldn't try to fix it with homebrew. Feats could easily fix weaker aspects of spellcasting which also allows for players to follow a theme and give power to an otherwise weak option.
HumbleGamer wrote: For example, take an adult copper dragon ( lvl 12 ) compared to an adult forest dragon ( lvl 14 )
with his second proposal, the adult copper dragon is just 1 point behind the lvl 14 adult forest dragon in:
- AC
- Attack
- Fortitude
the forest dragon is 3 points behind for what concerns will, but because of the feats the copper one is ahead of 2 points in reflex ( so, even a more balanced build, which covers for the "weaker save" ).
In adjunct, to compensate the -1 hit/Ac, the monster also has his reaction which might use.
It didn't change things "that much", so they are similar.
ps: note that while the copper one is common, the forest dragon is uncommon ( just to took a more powerful creature for comparison ).
pps: all of this leaving apart that the caster will be able to summon creatures even using not maximum slots, and still making them moderately efficient ( compared with the standard creatures )
ppps: consider also that while it might be standard for low level creatures not to have a reaction, from lvl 10 you'll be finding the majority of creatures able to use reactions.
But in context you will be summoning the copper dragon at level 17 with a 9th level spell and at that point you will be facing monsters lvl 14 at the weakest. Are you saying that its a problem a summoner using their highest level spell and investing in 2 feats shouldn't be able to summon something that's at the weakest tier of the things you will be normally fighting?
Davido1000 wrote:
So why are you here then? This is a homebrew discussion forum and the only feedback you have given is summoning sucks and you shouldn't try to fix it with homebrew.
I think you missed the point there.
While he, as others, recognizes that summons are now not the best deal when it comes to expend one of your higher available slots, it also recognizes that they were too strong in the 1e, to the point that martial classes weren't unable to shine.
Plus
Davido1000 wrote:
Feats could easily fix weaker aspects of spellcasting which also allows for players to follow a theme and give power to an otherwise weak option.
"Feats could easily fix weaker aspects" doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't alter the overall balance, and either your first and second proposal shows this in an obvious way.
Summons are close ( I say close because at some level you might have a -1/-2 hit ) compared to a companion with the best existing archetype ever ( the beastmaster ), which requires 5 class feats and it's just a companion ( so you won't be able to choose a different creature depends the situation ).
So it's a niche comparison, because you are competing with the best and not something general.
By giving extra power for free ( because let's be honest, the feat tax is definitely free in terms of comparison between level , number of feats, plus no cd, which makes it always available ) you are not fixing the summons.
You are giving them more power than intended ( for the listed reasons in the thread ), allowing them to be used in a way better way than intended. You might think this would solve the issues with the summons, but it's just some powercreep given to them, which is going to affect all combatants.
Homebrew doesn't mean that anything proposed is meant to be accepted by anybody, or that your proposal couldn't receive critics in terms of mechanics and balance.
What we know is that summons are not strong as they were in the 1e because of balance.
They are not useless, though people might consider casting a damaging spell rather than use a summon to help allies with DPR, HP ( by taking some of the hits ), Flanking and extra maneuvers or perks.
They are just alternatives.
PS: The summoner class ( which will be released in about 1 month ) will offer an alternative, giving a permanent summon with a combat proficiency of any other martial class ( and because so, the spellcaster is going to have 4 spells per day instead of 3/4 per level per day ). This might be interested for anybody who wants to play a minion master.
Talking about the summoner, here's some of his feats which "empower" its summoned creatures ( not the eidolon, but the summoned ones ), so you could make a comparison in terms of "power" given per level.
DISTRACTING SUMMON SPELL [free-action]
Quote: CONCENTRATE MANIPULATE METAMAGIC SUMMONER
LVL 2 CLASS FEAT
You summon a creature exactly in the right spot to distract
your foe from your eidolon, providing a perfect opportunity
for your eidolon to attack. If the next action you take is to Cast
a Spell to cast a 3-action summoning spell, when the spell is
complete, your eidolon Strikes a foe within reach of both the
summoned creature and the eidolon as a free action. The foe is
flat-footed to the eidolon’s Strike.
OSTENTATIOUS ARRIVAL [free-action]
Quote: CONCENTRATE MANIPULATE METAMAGIC SUMMONER
LVL 6 CLASS FEAT
When you summon creatures or manifest your eidolon, there
always seems to be an explosion. If the next action you take
is to Manifest your Eidolon or to Cast a Spell to cast a 3-action
summoning spell, the summoned eidolon or creature appears
in an explosion of energy or other visually impressive display.
This deals 1d4 fire damage per spell level (or 1d4 damage
per 2 levels you have when Manifesting your Eidolon) to all
creatures except you within a 10-foot emanation around the
eidolon or summoned creature.
If the eidolon or summoned creature has the acid, cold,
electricity, sonic, or water trait, the damage is that type
instead (or cold damage in the case of the water trait).
BOOST SUMMONS
Quote: SUMMONER
LVL 10 CLASS FEAT
Your ability to augment your eidolon extends to also benefit
creatures you summon. When you cast boost eidolon, in
addition to targeting your eidolon, it also targets any of
your summoned creatures within 60 feet, granting them the
same effects.
I could get behind feats like these being in a conjurer archetype that cuts the eidolon parts out. Maybe ill knock it down to +1 and make it the entry feat for an archetype with the improved action economy feats too.
It really depends on your party composition, your player's tactical awareness, and your player's personalities. At this point, I'd process all the advice that you've received, and then move to a trial-and-error method to get the right power balance with your party. After all, you can take back and tweak a houserule if it ends up not working.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
