It's clear that someone with a minion gets effectively 2 actions/turn, while the minion gets 2. If the familiar is independent, the "master" can get 3 actions/turn, while the familiar takes 1. Total in each case: 4. (I don't know about animal companions, but I believe it's the same.)
So what about Summoners & Eidolons? I think that you can do any of the following forms of action economy, but my players(!) think the pair can get only 2 or 3, potentially. (Act Together (AT), in short, is very poorly worded.) I'm sorry to write all this out, but it's gotten contentious.
Summoner: 1 (AT) + 1 + 1; Eidolon: 1 (AT)
Summoner: 1 (AT) + 2; Eidolon: 1 (AT)
Summoner: 2 (AT) + 1; Eidolon: 1 (AT)
Summoner: 3 (AT); Eidolon: 1 (AT)
Summoner: 1 (AT) + 1; Eidolon: 2 (AT)
Summoner: 1 (AT); Eidolon: 3 (AT)
I further believe that you cannot get something like this, since the action pool starts out with the summoner:
Summoner: 2 (AT); Eidolon: 1 (AT) + 1
You certainly cannot get this anyway possible:
Summoner: 2 (AT); Eidolon: 2 (????)
Is there something wrong or missing with my understanding?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I further believe that you cannot get something like this, since the action pool starts out with the summoner:
Summoner: 2 (AT); Eidolon: 1 (AT) + 1
Why do you think you can't do this? A Summoner who spends two actions on Act together has one action left over afterwards and they share actions with the eidolon.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it easier to simplify it to this:
You and your eidolon get a total of 4 actions between yourselves.
Rules:
1) Each has to use at least 1 action.
2) Only 1 two-action activity can be done. If a two-action activity is done, the other two actions can only be one-action activities.
I find it easier to simplify it to this:
You and your eidolon get a total of 4 actions between yourselves.
Rules:
1) Each has to use at least 1 action.
2) Only 1 two-action activity can be done. If a two-action activity is done, the other two actions can only be one-action activities.
Yes, this is what it boils down to, even with the Tandem feats. Act Together was simply a patch to get there and remain cohesive with PF2's action system & meta. The AT structure keeps the more powerful actions, i.e. spellcasting 2-3 action spells, to their standard limit of 1/round. And the lack of AT also puts MCD Summoners in the niche they likely belong in in terms of balance w/o making their Eidelons nonviable.
I find it easier to simplify it to this:
You and your eidolon get a total of 4 actions between yourselves.
Rules:
1) Each has to use at least 1 action.
2) Only 1 two-action activity can be done. If a two-action activity is done, the other two actions can only be one-action activities.
I think that comes out correct for the cases you have specified. But you haven't accounted for 3-action activities.
I think it is just a misunderstanding about Act Together. Mechanically it doesn't cause both the Summoner and Eidolon to act at the same time. What it does is lets one of the two take a 1-action for free.
Oh, also either of the Summoner or Eidolon can take any of the standard three actions given at the start of the turn. Summoner gets priority in the case of contention between the two, but generally (especially since they are both being played by the same player) they work together seamlessly to decide who uses which actions.
Hmm... Let's see here. Practical examples
Summoner: 1 (AT) + 1 + 1; Eidolon: 1 (AT)
Summoner: Move + Take Cover + Recall Knowledge; Eidolon: Move
Summoner: 1 (AT) + 2; Eidolon: 1 (AT)
Summoner: Demoralize + Cast 2-action spell; Eidolon: Strike
Summoner: 2 (AT) + 1; Eidolon: 1 (AT)
Summoner: Cast 2-action spell + Move; Eidolon Cast 1-action spell
Summoner: 3 (AT); Eidolon: 1 (AT)
Summoner: Cast summoning spell; Eidolon: Defend Summoner
Summoner: 1 (AT) + 1; Eidolon: 2 (AT)
Summoner: Move + Raise Shield; Eidolon: Cast 2-action spell
Summoner: 1 (AT); Eidolon: 3 (AT)
Summoner: Shield Cantrip; Eidolon: Cast 3-action spell like Wall of Water
I further believe that you cannot get something like this, since the action pool starts out with the summoner:
Summoner: 2 (AT); Eidolon: 1 (AT) + 1
Summoner: 2-action spell; Eidolon: Move + Strike
This one works since you can choose a different number of actions for Act Together to take. One of the two gets to use an activity that takes that many actions. It doesn't always have to be the Summoner of the pair that gets the larger number of actions either.
You certainly cannot get this anyway possible:
Summoner: 2 (AT); Eidolon: 2 (????)
I don't think that this one works. The Eidolon could cast a 2-action spell using Act Together, but the Summoner would only get a 1-action free from Act Together and the pair would only have 1 action left in their turn allotment. Same if reversing who takes which action groups: The Summoner could do a 2-action spell, but the Eidolon would only get a 1-action for free and the pair would have 1 action left.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that comes out correct for the cases you have specified. But you haven't accounted for 3-action activities.I find it easier to simplify it to this:
You and your eidolon get a total of 4 actions between yourselves.
Rules:
1) Each has to use at least 1 action.
2) Only 1 two-action activity can be done. If a two-action activity is done, the other two actions can only be one-action activities.
*sigh* ... except it does account for 3-action activities...
Refer to the overarching 4 actions and number 1.
I didn't address 3-action activities specifically because they don't need to be addressed specifically. The 2-action activities needed to be addressed to make sure that the player doesn't utilize two 2-action activities.
NOTE: This changes if you utilize the tandem movement. You will have to understand how the action economy actually works.
EDIT: This does make me wonder...If you use act together, say 3-action and 1-action. The 1-action goes first and uses tandem movement. Would the strides occur before the 3-action is taken? Or, said differently, can you nest the tandem movement inside of act together?
HumbleGamer's right. Act together is a tandem action in and of itself and all actions with the tandem trait are subject to the following:
you can't use a tandem action to take another tandem action.
I think there might even be an example of what's meant by that somewhere, but I wasn't able to find it, so I could be remembering wrong.
I think you Can't use tandem actions with act together ( I remember a rule saying this).
So it would be, for example, the summoner casting summon celestial and the eidolon using the last one to stride.
Correct, you can't, not together at the same time, but you can together in the same round (if I recall). This can get you to 5 actions (2+1+(1+1)), where those bonus two (1+1) are either "the other one moves with you" (which you can also get w/ a Steed Eidelon) or "the other one attacks with you", and there aren't enough actions to do both with Act Together too.
And since Tandem abilities are off limits to MCD Summoners, that keeps the delineation intact.
Correct, you can't, not together at the same time, but you can together in the same round (if I recall). This can get you to 5 actions (2+1+(1+1)), where those bonus two (1+1) are either "the other one moves with you" (which you can also get w/ a Steed Eidelon) or "the other one attacks with you", and there aren't enough actions to do both with Act Together too.
Tandem Movement lets you get up to 5 actions.
Summ: 1 stride (TM), 2 action spell (AT); Eid: 1 stride (TM), 1 strike (AT).Tandem Strike does not allow for 5 actions, but it does allow for two attacks w/o MAP.
Those are the only two [Tandem] feats currently.
Other options could be if the Summoner has some other feat that improves Action Economy, like Twin Takedown or Sudden Charge.
Summ: 2 Sudden Charge (AT)[stride stride strike]; Eid: 1 stride (AT), 1 strike.
Summ: 1 twin takedown (AT) [strike strike]; Eid: 1 stride, Cast 2 action spell (AT).
The main problem w/ a Summoner taking those Flourish feats which grant another action embedded in a set is that it's the Summoner doing said actions, not the actual combatant, the Eidelon. All the ones I can think of offhand involve Strikes, and despite Tandem Strike's allure, I do not recognize the Summoner themself as a legitimate striker.
Tandem Movement seems really important to me in any tougher or more tactical campaign. Often everyone needs to be moving somewhere better while still contributing as much as possible.
Act together is a 1 to 3 action activity that gives a free single action to the one not using the activity, resolve the activity (and the free action) before using any other actions.
The main problem w/ a Summoner taking those Flourish feats which grant another action embedded in a set is that it's the Summoner doing said actions, not the actual combatant, the Eidelon. All the ones I can think of offhand involve Strikes, and despite Tandem Strike's allure, I do not recognize the Summoner themself as a legitimate striker.
Tandem Movement seems really important to me in any tougher or more tactical campaign. Often everyone needs to be moving somewhere better while still contributing as much as possible.
100% these are sub-optimal actions for the summoner, but they are options.
The main problem w/ a Summoner taking those Flourish feats which grant another action embedded in a set is that it's the Summoner doing said actions, not the actual combatant, the Eidelon. All the ones I can think of offhand involve Strikes, and despite Tandem Strike's allure, I do not recognize the Summoner themself as a legitimate striker.
Would be nice if Tandem Strike allowed for ranged Strike too.
I agree that I wouldn't have the Summoner actively going into melee combat intentionally. But Tandem Strike is still not a terrible feat to have if the GM often has skirmishing attackers that like to target spellcasters. It ends up being a free 0 MAP attack that doesn't interfere with the Summoner protecting itself afterward. But that said, there are likely better feats to take even in that scenario.
The main problem w/ a Summoner taking those Flourish feats which grant another action embedded in a set is that it's the Summoner doing said actions, not the actual combatant, the Eidelon. All the ones I can think of offhand involve Strikes, and despite Tandem Strike's allure, I do not recognize the Summoner themself as a legitimate striker.Would be nice if Tandem Strike allowed for ranged Strike too.
I agree that I wouldn't have the Summoner actively going into melee combat intentionally. But Tandem Strike is still not a terrible feat to have if the GM often has skirmishing attackers that like to target spellcasters. It ends up being a free 0 MAP attack that doesn't interfere with the Summoner protecting itself afterward. But that said, there are likely better feats to take even in that scenario.
Yes, there are definitely better feats, like getting an AoO (also representing a MAPless attack, and a much better one at that) vs. those hypothetical skirmishers trying to slither past. Or they could explode w/ one of the best Focus spells in the game. Way better ways to go.
It'd take the Summoner a lot of stat & feat investment to become adequate w/ Strikes, and adequate isn't worth that. The Eidelon already has a decent Agile attack to compete against for that action, and later gets some great follow up actions, i.e. Knockdown.
Demoralize or casting a Cantrip would make better use of their time.
Which is kind of a shame, since I do like the imagery of a duo.
Why do you think you can't do this? A Summoner who spends two actions on Act together has one action left over afterwards and they share actions with the eidolon.I further believe that you cannot get something like this, since the action pool starts out with the summoner:
Summoner: 2 (AT); Eidolon: 1 (AT) + 1
Okay, I found where it said that! Thank you.
Would be nice if Tandem Strike allowed for ranged Strike too.I agree that I wouldn't have the Summoner actively going into melee combat intentionally. But Tandem Strike is still not a terrible feat to have if the GM often has skirmishing attackers that like to target spellcasters. It ends up being a free 0 MAP attack that doesn't interfere with the Summoner protecting itself afterward. But that said, there are likely better feats to take even in that scenario.
Well, sort of 0 MAP, the summoner has caster weapon proficiency and a mental KAS, so the attack is running at a deficit anyways.
It ends up actually fumbling quite a bit compared to something like Electric Arc + Strike, which has the same action economy with act together and isn't burning feats and in order to make it competitive you're looking at a strength based summoner with a big weapon (which means even more feats to get your weapon and armor up to snuff).
... If the Summoner had a martial proficiency track for weapons it'd still be a little meh but an interesting choice for someone who wanted to mix it up in melee with their eidolon.
But, y'know, that would be fun.
Oh, also either of the Summoner or Eidolon can take any of the standard three actions given at the start of the turn. Summoner gets priority in the case of contention between the two, but generally (especially since they are both being played by the same player) they work together seamlessly to decide who uses which actions.
Hmm... Let's see here. Practical examples
[deleted for space -- but thank you very much!]I further believe that you cannot get something like this, since the action pool starts out with the summoner:
Summoner: 2 (AT); Eidolon: 1 (AT) + 1Summoner: 2-action spell; Eidolon: Move + Strike
This one works since you can choose a different number of actions for Act Together to take. One of the two gets to use an activity that takes that many actions. It doesn't always have to be the Summoner of the pair that gets the larger number of actions either.
I don't think that this one works....You certainly cannot get this anyway possible:
Summoner: 2 (AT); Eidolon: 2 (????)
Thank you so much!
I find it easier to simplify it to this:
You and your eidolon get a total of 4 actions between yourselves.
Rules:
1) Each has to use at least 1 action.
2) Only 1 two-action activity can be done. If a two-action activity is done, the other two actions can only be one-action activities.
This is a GREAT simplification. *sigh* I wish they'd said just this.
And thank you all. My player's Summoner is starting at 2nd level, so I think (*hope*) it will be a bit before we have to figure out the rest.
The main problem w/ a Summoner taking those Flourish feats which grant another action embedded in a set is that it's the Summoner doing said actions, not the actual combatant, the Eidelon. All the ones I can think of offhand involve Strikes, and despite Tandem Strike's allure, I do not recognize the Summoner themself as a legitimate striker.Would be nice if Tandem Strike allowed for ranged Strike too.
I agree that I wouldn't have the Summoner actively going into melee combat intentionally. But Tandem Strike is still not a terrible feat to have if the GM often has skirmishing attackers that like to target spellcasters. It ends up being a free 0 MAP attack that doesn't interfere with the Summoner protecting itself afterward. But that said, there are likely better feats to take even in that scenario.
Yes, there are definitely better feats, like getting an AoO (also representing a MAPless attack, and a much better one at that) vs. those hypothetical skirmishers trying to slither past. Or they could explode w/ one of the best Focus spells in the game. Way better ways to go.
It'd take the Summoner a lot of stat & feat investment to become adequate w/ Strikes, and adequate isn't worth that. The Eidelon already has a decent Agile attack to compete against for that action, and later gets some great follow up actions, i.e. Knockdown.
Demoralize or casting a Cantrip would make better use of their time.
Which is kind of a shame, since I do like the imagery of a duo.
Depends what you are talking about. A finesse melee weapon would only take an ancestry feat to pick up. Something with reach like a bladed scarf perhaps a bit more. But if you are going to get heavily into melee and want to take Strength points on the Summoner, then the cost is a fair bit more.
Tandem Strike is still a pretty good to hit bonus for your second strike.
I do struggle to find the space for it though.
A finesse weapon could be picked up cheap, yet even a Rapier would do so much less damage it'd hardly make a difference (being past the early levels and into Expert proficiency for martials). It's just better to let the Eidelon Strike w/ its Agile attack even before factoring in the Tandem feat and its opportunity cost (which as your words suggest the feat simply doesn't warrant), plus there's the positioning of your less-armored half in melee.
Reach assuages the risk, but you're still lacking offense, and I'd rather carry other items. And blast with a MAPless Cantrip of course.
A finesse weapon could be picked up cheap, yet even a Rapier would do so much less damage it'd hardly make a difference (being past the early levels and into Expert proficiency for martials). It's just better to let the Eidelon Strike w/ its Agile attack even before factoring in the Tandem feat and its opportunity cost (which as your words suggest the feat simply doesn't warrant), plus there's the positioning of your less-armored half in melee.
Reach assuages the risk, but you're still lacking offense, and I'd rather carry other items. And blast with a MAPless Cantrip of course.
Cantrips are pretty weak attacks too. I just don't see the trade off with the Summoner investing in a weapons as clear cut as all that. I like to have options.
Act together is a 1 to 3 action activity that gives a free single action to the one not using the activity, resolve the activity (and the free action) before using any other actions.
Does the act together activity resolve before the free single action or is it player’s choice?
Cantrips are pretty weak attacks too. I just don't see the trade off with the Summoner investing in a weapons as clear cut as all that. I like to have options.
Same, but it'd be nice if those options actually felt worth the investment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the act together activity resolve before the free single action or is it player’s choice?Act together is a 1 to 3 action activity that gives a free single action to the one not using the activity, resolve the activity (and the free action) before using any other actions.
For the most part, it is player's choice.
Example: Summoner using Act Together; Summoner casting a 2-action spell (Fireball), Eidolon using Stride.
Scenario 1: Start of combat, so Summoner and Eidolon both 20 or so feet away from an enemy.
* Act Together as first two shared actions.
** Summoner's Fireball resolves first
** Eidolon moves to melee range
* Eidolon uses 3rd shared action to Strike.
Scenario 2: Mid combat. Summoner in safe place, Eidolon in melee range.
* Eidolon uses 1st shared action to Strike.
* Act Together as last two shared actions.
** Eidolon Strides away from enemy
** Fireball resolves and doesn't hit Eidolon because it is no longer in range.
One thing that wouldn't work is to not have the two parts of Act Together back-to-back. You can choose which order they go in, but you couldn't put in a different action for one of them that happens after the first action of the Act Together pair but before the other action of the Act Together pair. Reactions and Free Actions are probably allowed though.
Also, I can't think of any scenario where this would be important. If you want to do something else in between, just have that something else be the other action being done as part of Act Together.
Does the act together activity resolve before the free single action or is it player’s choice?
In world they happen at the same time, so because we break things down into turns you get to choose before or after.
You might get someone who says you can't get the free action until you do the activity that triggers it, but the only time that would matter is if your doing a three action act together, even still that feels overly restrictive.|
|
This is a GREAT simplification. *sigh* I wish they'd said just this.I find it easier to simplify it to this:
You and your eidolon get a total of 4 actions between yourselves.
Rules:
1) Each has to use at least 1 action.
2) Only 1 two-action activity can be done. If a two-action activity is done, the other two actions can only be one-action activities.
This is a mechanics heavy game. They needed to iron out how the action economy would work so that it could be seamless with the mechanics of the system. Such things are an inevitability.
Luckily, us players can find the shortcuts to help games run efficiently.
This is a GREAT simplification. *sigh* I wish they'd said just this.I find it easier to simplify it to this:
You and your eidolon get a total of 4 actions between yourselves.
Rules:
1) Each has to use at least 1 action.
2) Only 1 two-action activity can be done. If a two-action activity is done, the other two actions can only be one-action activities.This is a mechanics heavy game. They needed to iron out how the action economy would work so that it could be seamless with the mechanics of the system. Such things are an inevitability.
Luckily, us players can find the shortcuts to help games run efficiently.
You said earlier that 3-action activities are handled by your rewrite as well, but that may not be strictly true. If the Summoner is quickened (this would need to be without restriction to Strikes etc., which I am not sure is something that's in the game at this point), your rule would allow a 3-action and a 2-action activity, but that's not actually allowed. However, two 2-action activities and one single action would be possible. Your rewrite can be modified to make it precise and I do prefer that way of looking at it, just wanted to point this out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You said earlier that 3-action activities are handled by your rewrite as well, but that may not be strictly true. If the Summoner is quickened (this would need to be without restriction to Strikes etc., which I am not sure is something that's in the game at this point), your rule would allow a 3-action and a 2-action activity, but that's not actually allowed. However, two 2-action activities and one single action would be possible. Your rewrite can be modified to make it precise and I do prefer that way of looking at it, just wanted to point this out.This is a GREAT simplification. *sigh* I wish they'd said just this.I find it easier to simplify it to this:
You and your eidolon get a total of 4 actions between yourselves.
Rules:
1) Each has to use at least 1 action.
2) Only 1 two-action activity can be done. If a two-action activity is done, the other two actions can only be one-action activities.This is a mechanics heavy game. They needed to iron out how the action economy would work so that it could be seamless with the mechanics of the system. Such things are an inevitability.
Luckily, us players can find the shortcuts to help games run efficiently.
My write up also doesn't work as well with tandem movement. If you are adding or fiddling more with action economy beyond the base, you need to understand how it all works. My write up is more of a temporary measure to use while the mechanics are beginning to be understood.
To be clear, it is not intended to be used in place of understanding how the class works. A player has the responsibility to the rest of the table to understand how their character works. There is not an excuse to get around this.