"Missing" Eidolons

[Temperans]

Oh in that case I agree. I though you were talking about clarity and ease of conversion from Monster to PC.

[UnArcaneElection]

Another missing Eidolon: Devil Imposter (as the 1st Edition Unchained Summoner archetype).

[Throne]

QuidEst wrote:

We are still getting Synthesist, yes. The "temporarily meld into your eidolon" feat even had its name changed from the playtest to avoid confusion.

Is there somewhere this is confirmed/discussed?

I'm trying to build a melding construct eidolon iron-man pastiche, but it looks like it's all downside; you get a bunch of class abilities which are redundant, and in return.... what? You can't be targeted seperately? Big whoop when you share hitpoints and don't have much difference in AC anyway.

[HumbleGamer]

Throne wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

We are still getting Synthesist, yes. The "temporarily meld into your eidolon" feat even had its name changed from the playtest to avoid confusion.

Is there somewhere this is confirmed/discussed?

I'm trying to build a melding construct eidolon iron-man pastiche, but it looks like it's all downside; you get a bunch of class abilities which are redundant, and in return.... what? You can't be targeted seperately? Big whoop when you share hitpoints and don't have much difference in AC anyway.

I did a gnome with his mech and worked ok.

It's somehow the "cavalier" concept reverse.

The dm wouldn't attack the horse, unless some aoe ( or a bastard dm ), and given a gnome "riding" his mech ( for example ) the dm would target mostly the eidolon.

It is way more powerful than a cavalier, given the spell slots, the fact he can use his reaction by lvl 10 to roll with advantage against any damaging effect targeting either the eidolon and summoner, benefit from either tandem move and act together and so on.

If you have a DM targeting the non combat part ( aka the summoner ) while this one is not dealing damage, the problem "may be" the DM rather than the summoner rules.

The major issue I found is that the summoner is a Tax feat himself.

If I were to ride a huge mount I'd need

lvl 1 > Glider Form
lvl 2 > Steed Form
lvl 4 > Shrink Down
lvl 5 > ( Extend boost, through natural ambition )
lvl 6 > ( Eidolon's Opportunity or Eidolon's Wrath* )
lvl 8 > Hulking Size
lvl 10 > ( Protective bond* )
lvl 12 > Towering size
lvl 14 > Airborn Form

*My personal choices.

So, just to ride your mount, you'd be expending alsmot all your feat, resulting into no customization at all.

With FA it could shine, but honestly I'd rather play a summoner which doesn't invest that much into "Large Eidolons".

[Ezekieru]

Throne wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

We are still getting Synthesist, yes. The "temporarily meld into your eidolon" feat even had its name changed from the playtest to avoid confusion.

Is there somewhere this is confirmed/discussed?

I'm trying to build a melding construct eidolon iron-man pastiche, but it looks like it's all downside; you get a bunch of class abilities which are redundant, and in return.... what? You can't be targeted seperately? Big whoop when you share hitpoints and don't have much difference in AC anyway.

Yes, in the Aftermath blog post HERE.

"Synthesis: There was a lot of feedback on the Synthesis feat that allowed you to merge with your eidolon; it was popular but many folks said that being an option you choose each time you Manifest rather than mandatory didn’t fulfill the fantasy and that the ability to use both options caused it to have quite a few restrictions it might not need otherwise. Right now we are leaning towards changing the feat’s name and flavor to be clear that it is meant for an optional ability, and then make the synthesist a class archetype in a later book, with trade-offs based around having only the option to merge with the eidolon, not to Manifest it normally."