The Summoner: How do you like it now that it's live?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 419 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
I think the martial wave caster chassis is pretty solid. It's not MAD and gets good action economy. I also really like the monster tactics you can get at 10th level. My main problem is the arrays you can choose from.

Okay. What's your issue with them? What pain points do you see, and what would you want to see changed?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
I think the martial wave caster chassis is pretty solid. It's not MAD and gets good action economy. I also really like the monster tactics you can get at 10th level. My main problem is the arrays you can choose from.
Okay. What's your issue with them? What pain points do you see, and what would you want to see changed?

2 options aren't enough for every concept. If you could build it like your own stats, that would solve the issue. Has some weird effects like I've posted a little bit ago like the beast eidolon having a good intimidation ability but only starting with 10 charisma.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
I think the martial wave caster chassis is pretty solid. It's not MAD and gets good action economy. I also really like the monster tactics you can get at 10th level. My main problem is the arrays you can choose from.
Okay. What's your issue with them? What pain points do you see, and what would you want to see changed?

For me the only real sticking point I can think of is the fact that beast eidolons are given a tool to help interacting with intimidate, but there isn't yet a way to get them a higher starting charisma score.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

And if you look, the "Summoner" (Eidolonist) fails at most of what it's supposed to be doing.

Does it summon monsters better? No, not really.

Does it have good martial power? No, the eidolon is quite meh even if you spent all your feats on it.

Does it have a lot of combat control? No, it lacks the spells or abilities for it outside of huge plant eidolon.

Does it have a ton of customization? No, all of that was straight up removed from the eidolon.

The only thing its good at is having two bodies in the field, and even that would be done better by other classes.

- It's not really meant to summon monsters better. Not really what it does. It's got some feat support, but that's more of a side thing.

- It's not meant to have "good" martial power. It's meant to have okay martial power... which, so far as I can see, it does.

- Electric Arc plus Eidolon grab/trip looks like it's pretty decent for combining control with damage-dealing. It's true that the plant makes it better.

- I personally found the level of customization gratifying. I'm sorry you found it inadequate.

- I can at least see the argument about having two bodies on the field. Have you tried three? You can take an Eidolon and a companion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, the power you get from just being a martial wave caster fills out the class budget pretty well. That's unique enough of a role for me. The rest of the class design didn't need to add much power to it. Versatility and action economy between the 2 bodies is what the class does pretty well.


Sanityfaerie wrote:
Norade wrote:
Both parties should be expected to overcome the exact same challenges in PFS or AP-based play. So shouldn't they be able to use their unique strengths to do that?
But... this has nothing to do with the question at hand. Mathmuse says "Specialists are really good at doing the thing they do, but they're a bit more brittle, and find it harder to handle the really weird encounters or step outside their comfort zones. Generalists reward creativity." Now, he was really pretty snide abotu it in a "look how much more awesome my party is than your party. Trolololo." way, especially given what he was responding to. (Deriven wasn't complaining htat they were useless - just noting some frustrations and pain points and trying to figure out reasonable solutions to them.) Then you say something like... "Hey! I have this hand-picked party of the best classes in the game, arranged in a good configuration. I'm going to call that the specialists. I have this other party that leans heavily into the classes that are generally accepted to be pretty weak or otherwise problematic - one that has no cohesion. I'm going to call that the generalists. Obviously if you agree that the 'specialist' party is better in their area of specialty than the 'generalist' party that your argument is broken and wrong." I mean, it doesn't work that way. Nobody is arguing that a Witch is more effective overall than a Bard. The only thing that people have been talking about is how well the Summoner fills a slot... and that didn't even make it into your example at all. I'm sure you could adjust your example to fit that, but "the Alchemist, Oracle, Witch and/or Wizard have issues" is not a particularly pertinent argument to make when what we're talking about is the Summoner.

You miss what I'm about.

I'm talking a circle around the idea of generalists and post-CRB specialists with action economy boat anchors hung on them ever being optimal. The Summoner is both of those at once. What problem does it solve better than any other class?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another weird thing though is it's similar to companions with it's gear rules. That limits the kind of skill feats you could pick. Battle medicine doesn't work for instance because it requires healers tools, and eidolons can't use or wear any items that don't have the eidolon trait. I think that would also prevent them from treating wounds at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
- It's not really meant to summon monsters better. Not really what it does. It's got some feat support, but that's more of a side thing.

What is the class called? If it wasn't meant to summon they should have called it an Edolonist or a Totemist.

Quote:
- Electric Arc plus Eidolon grab/trip looks like it's pretty decent for combining control with damage-dealing. It's true that the plant makes it better.

Only when all the parts work. If you have either mode fail it's pretty awful.

Quote:
- I personally found the level of customization gratifying. I'm sorry you found it inadequate.

People want PF1 level options. You can draw back lots of power from a PF1 concept and people will be happy. If you start taking away things they could do entirely, people get upset.

Quote:
- I can at least see the argument about having two bodies on the field. Have you tried three? You can take an Eidolon and a companion.

Why not just hire mooks at that point?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Now, [Mathmuse] was really pretty snide about it in a "look how much more awesome my party is than your party. Trolololo." way, especially given what he was responding to. (Deriven wasn't complaining htat they were useless - just noting some frustrations and pain points and trying to figure out reasonable solutions to them.)

I apologize for sounding snipe and for picking on Deriven Firelion. He has an excellent understanding of tactics, but I have been pondering a mystery for two years why my players' roleplaying-based tactics work much better than standard tactics in Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Their unconventional tactics worked in PF1, too, but the contrast became greater in PF2. I figure out some principles. One day after I figure out more I hope to write a Guide to PF2 Tactics. In this instance, Deriven Firelion was expounding some principles that worked beautifully in PF1 but are not as effective in PF2. I slipped into schoolteacher mode and started calling him mistaken. That was rude.

Norade wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Specialization tactics work great in ordinary battles and fail on other occassions. Versatile tactics work okay all the time. Specialization failure is more likely to kill the party than versatile underperforming when the specialists work great.

That's only true if the party were all specialized to face the same threats. I feel like what he's saying is that a party where each character does one thing, as well as PF2 allows for, will beat a party of generalists.

For example which of these parties would you rather face in open combat:

Fighter, Champion, Cleric, Druid, Bard

-or-

Swashbuckler, Monk, Oracle, Witch, Alchemist

I feel like the first team just has more impact in most battles while only struggling with edge cases and intentional gotcha-type encounters.

I asked two of my players: my wife and a housemate. Their first question was what party my players would have? I said their current Ironfang Invasion party. The Ironfang Legion had hired five mercenaries to wipe out the party.

Their answer was that they would fear the 2nd group more: swashbuckler, monk, oracle, witch, and alchemist. The 1st group would be more predictable and they could take advantage of that.

My wife also commented that bard is the best generalist. I narrowed that foe down to a maestro bard who specialized in occult spellcasting rather than jack of all trades. She started to make plans: take out the bard so that their enemies are less versatile, and then target the two healers, the cleric and the druid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Temperans wrote:

And if you look, the "Summoner" (Eidolonist) fails at most of what it's supposed to be doing.

Does it summon monsters better? No, not really.

Does it have good martial power? No, the eidolon is quite meh even if you spent all your feats on it.

Does it have a lot of combat control? No, it lacks the spells or abilities for it outside of huge plant eidolon.

Does it have a ton of customization? No, all of that was straight up removed from the eidolon.

The only thing its good at is having two bodies in the field, and even that would be done better by other classes.

- It's not really meant to summon monsters better. Not really what it does. It's got some feat support, but that's more of a side thing.

- It's not meant to have "good" martial power. It's meant to have okay martial power... which, so far as I can see, it does.

- Electric Arc plus Eidolon grab/trip looks like it's pretty decent for combining control with damage-dealing. It's true that the plant makes it better.

- I personally found the level of customization gratifying. I'm sorry you found it inadequate.

- I can at least see the argument about having two bodies on the field. Have you tried three? You can take an Eidolon and a companion.

Four with a summon spell! Five with a familiar!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Temperans wrote:

And if you look, the "Summoner" (Eidolonist) fails at most of what it's supposed to be doing.

Does it summon monsters better? No, not really.

Does it have good martial power? No, the eidolon is quite meh even if you spent all your feats on it.

Does it have a lot of combat control? No, it lacks the spells or abilities for it outside of huge plant eidolon.

Does it have a ton of customization? No, all of that was straight up removed from the eidolon.

The only thing its good at is having two bodies in the field, and even that would be done better by other classes.

- It's not really meant to summon monsters better. Not really what it does. It's got some feat support, but that's more of a side thing.

- It's not meant to have "good" martial power. It's meant to have okay martial power... which, so far as I can see, it does.

- Electric Arc plus Eidolon grab/trip looks like it's pretty decent for combining control with damage-dealing. It's true that the plant makes it better.

- I personally found the level of customization gratifying. I'm sorry you found it inadequate.

- I can at least see the argument about having two bodies on the field. Have you tried three? You can take an Eidolon and a companion.

Four with a summon spell! Five with a familiar!

Multiclass witch to get cackle and sustain 3 summon spells, command your companion and still have 1 action left to punch with your eidolon.

Edit: forgot summon spells take 3 actions. You would need to spend 3 focus points over 3 turns to pull this off


4 people marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
Another weird thing though is it's similar to companions with it's gear rules. That limits the kind of skill feats you could pick. Battle medicine doesn't work for instance because it requires healers tools, and eidolons can't use or wear any items that don't have the eidolon trait. I think that would also prevent them from treating wounds at all.

I think they can. I know there is some debate over this point, the "Key Terms" sidebar for summoners says that eidolons can't use items without the Eidolon trait, while the "Gear and Your Eidolon" sidebar indicates that this restriction applies to magic items, not all items.

I lean on the side of the second sidebar, because otherwise eidolons couldn't do things like drink from a cup, or open a door, or bounce a ball, and that swerves into "too bad to be true" territory for me.


Perpdepog wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Another weird thing though is it's similar to companions with it's gear rules. That limits the kind of skill feats you could pick. Battle medicine doesn't work for instance because it requires healers tools, and eidolons can't use or wear any items that don't have the eidolon trait. I think that would also prevent them from treating wounds at all.

I think they can. I know there is some debate over this point, the "Key Terms" sidebar for summoners says that eidolons can't use items without the Eidolon trait, while the "Gear and Your Eidolon" sidebar indicates that this restriction applies to magic items, not all items.

I lean on the side of the second sidebar, because otherwise eidolons couldn't do things like drink from a cup, or open a door, or bounce a ball, and that swerves into "too bad to be true" territory for me.

Yeah, that's probably the better take. I'd say that they can't manifest with items that aren't eidolon specific, but they could use them. Shields are probably the biggest issue I could see since they don't require proficiency from the eidolon like armor or weapons would.


aobst128 wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Another weird thing though is it's similar to companions with it's gear rules. That limits the kind of skill feats you could pick. Battle medicine doesn't work for instance because it requires healers tools, and eidolons can't use or wear any items that don't have the eidolon trait. I think that would also prevent them from treating wounds at all.

I think they can. I know there is some debate over this point, the "Key Terms" sidebar for summoners says that eidolons can't use items without the Eidolon trait, while the "Gear and Your Eidolon" sidebar indicates that this restriction applies to magic items, not all items.

I lean on the side of the second sidebar, because otherwise eidolons couldn't do things like drink from a cup, or open a door, or bounce a ball, and that swerves into "too bad to be true" territory for me.

Yeah, that's probably the better take. I'd say that they can't manifest with items that aren't eidolon specific, but they could use them. Shields are probably the biggest issue I could see since they don't require proficiency from the eidolon like armor or weapons would.

I wouldn't be too concerned with shields. It would actually incentivize someone to use shields made of non-standard materials for once, since a Sturdy Shield is generally better by every metric, but is also magical, and therefore disallowed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Another weird thing though is it's similar to companions with it's gear rules. That limits the kind of skill feats you could pick. Battle medicine doesn't work for instance because it requires healers tools, and eidolons can't use or wear any items that don't have the eidolon trait. I think that would also prevent them from treating wounds at all.

I think they can. I know there is some debate over this point, the "Key Terms" sidebar for summoners says that eidolons can't use items without the Eidolon trait, while the "Gear and Your Eidolon" sidebar indicates that this restriction applies to magic items, not all items.

I lean on the side of the second sidebar, because otherwise eidolons couldn't do things like drink from a cup, or open a door, or bounce a ball, and that swerves into "too bad to be true" territory for me.

Yeah, that's probably the better take. I'd say that they can't manifest with items that aren't eidolon specific, but they could use them. Shields are probably the biggest issue I could see since they don't require proficiency from the eidolon like armor or weapons would.
I wouldn't be too concerned with shields. It would actually incentivize someone to use shields made of non-standard materials for once, since a Sturdy Shield is generally better by every metric, but is also magical, and therefore disallowed.

The material probably wouldn't be relevant since there's no way an eidolon can get shield block.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Norade wrote:

I feel like the first team just has more impact in most battles while only struggling with edge cases and intentional gotcha-type encounters.

I don't disagree, but that has more to do with you picking some of the best classes in the game to compare against some of the worst. Literally nothing to do with generalist vs specialist at all.


Squiggit wrote:
Norade wrote:

I feel like the first team just has more impact in most battles while only struggling with edge cases and intentional gotcha-type encounters.

I don't disagree, but that has more to do with you picking some of the best classes in the game to compare against some of the worst. Literally nothing to do with generalist vs specialist at all.

So why would you ever take anything but the best classes in a tactical combat game with roleplaying elements such as PF2? Why didn't Paizo bring those other five classes properly into line, do they lack the skill or the playtest time, are they under a mandate to keep the CRB ever green in terms of power?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

“Deliberate design choice” rather than mandate, but the latter, yes. Or a least that’s what most of us have assumed going by the power level of new classes.


Norade wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Norade wrote:

I feel like the first team just has more impact in most battles while only struggling with edge cases and intentional gotcha-type encounters.

I don't disagree, but that has more to do with you picking some of the best classes in the game to compare against some of the worst. Literally nothing to do with generalist vs specialist at all.
So why would you ever take anything but the best classes in a tactical combat game with roleplaying elements such as PF2? Why didn't Paizo bring those other five classes properly into line, do they lack the skill or the playtest time, are they under a mandate to keep the CRB ever green in terms of power?

In any system there's gonna be something of a tier list for classes. Some people might decide that they only want to choose the "best". Can't you imagine someone picking a class for it's flavor or specific mechanics over just raw combat potential? 2nd edition isn't flawless with it's balance but it's not at the point where it's just a bad idea to play one class over the other in a vacuum.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Norade wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Norade wrote:

I feel like the first team just has more impact in most battles while only struggling with edge cases and intentional gotcha-type encounters.

I don't disagree, but that has more to do with you picking some of the best classes in the game to compare against some of the worst. Literally nothing to do with generalist vs specialist at all.
So why would you ever take anything but the best classes in a tactical combat game with roleplaying elements such as PF2? Why didn't Paizo bring those other five classes properly into line, do they lack the skill or the playtest time, are they under a mandate to keep the CRB ever green in terms of power?

Some people don't care about absolute power as their one and only motivation for picking a class. Some like odd mechanics. Others like flavor.

It is all mostly fine once you stop trying to "solve" the game.


aobst128 wrote:
In any system there's gonna be something of a tier list for classes. Some people might decide that they only want to choose the "best". Can't you imagine someone picking a class for it's flavor or specific mechanics over just raw combat potential?

It seems easier to properly flavor an existing good class to do the job. Plus, PF2 just doesn't support a lot of things I'd want to play.

Bomber Alchemist
Summoning
Divine Striker
A class with an even mix of martial power and casting
Anything properly multi-classed
Real specialists

Quote:
2nd edition isn't flawless with it's balance but it's not at the point where it's just a bad idea to play one class over the other in a vacuum.

Bomber Alchemist that wants to contribute as a damage dealer.

Any class using a gun that isn't a gunslinger.

Non-bow ranged physical attackers.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I GM more than I get to play, but I'm less interested in "who has the biggest numbers" than "who is fun to play". The tandem action economy stuff is fun and picking feats is fun because there's a bunch of attractive ones. I'm not playing every summoner, but the one that I am playing is fun to roleplay and is fun in combat.

If a class gives me a theme or mechanic or idea that seems fun to me, then I'm probably going to give that class a whirl even if other classes are stronger in specific ways.

FWIW, the PF1 summoner was my single least favorite class in the entire edition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Norade wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
In any system there's gonna be something of a tier list for classes. Some people might decide that they only want to choose the "best". Can't you imagine someone picking a class for it's flavor or specific mechanics over just raw combat potential?

It seems easier to properly flavor an existing good class to do the job. Plus, PF2 just doesn't support a lot of things I'd want to play.

Bomber Alchemist
Summoning
Divine Striker
A class with an even mix of martial power and casting
Anything properly multi-classed
Real specialists

Quote:
2nd edition isn't flawless with it's balance but it's not at the point where it's just a bad idea to play one class over the other in a vacuum.

Bomber Alchemist that wants to contribute as a damage dealer.

Any class using a gun that isn't a gunslinger.

Non-bow ranged physical attackers.

You're talking about playstyles rather than classes as a whole, as for bombers, because of their consumable nature, no class does it better than alchemists.


Mathmuse wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I want each class to be built for a few roles within the group structure. And be competitive in key metrics like damage, buffing, debuffing, defense, or some measurable aspect of the game.

Classes that have weird niches that are hard to measure I find are not enjoyable. They get overshadowed by other classes and appear to have a less dramatic effect on combat outcomes which makes the class less desirable, especially so when you have builds that have escalating damage outcomes while your escalation is muted and less extreme.

Given the way striking runes work, a d12 weapon user will have scaling outcomes that are much better than a d8 or d6 class if they don't have some factor that boosts their damage to be in line with a d12 damage wielder like a rogue or some ability that provides a unique and useful tactical element like a Champion's Reaction.

The summoner has none of this. The ability to use maneuvers that gets used on these forums way too often is insufficient. You can literally build a wizard with a 22 strength and Legendary in Athletics good at combat maneuvers if you felt like it. That means maneuvers are not a unique class ability, but an acquirable ability that any class can build for who wants to.

So my goal for modifying the summoner will be to build into the class some unique ability that allows them to perform the base class fantasy better than any other class in the game, while not breaking the math of the game or causing them to overshadow other classes.

I think I have a good model for this with some concepts used to build the druid. I will post them soon in the House Rules forum. Then I'll test in play.

What about martials that pick up a d6/d8 weapon and a shield? Also, I'm losing the point of the thread. It appears to have shifted from asking people what their opinion of the summoner is to arguing that it's a bad class to those that view it favorably. Going back to the original thread topic, I think it's
...

I do not know why you make these assumptions. You know next to nothing about my games.

My players are a highly experienced group. I send them against beyond extreme encounters all the time. I focus fire single targets and play the monsters as tactically sound as your players play their characters depending on the type of monster.

My basis for discussion is based on competitive gameplay. I have a group and I myself measure the quality of a class by its measurable mathematical contributions. That usually comes down to damage dealt and damage mitigated with a few other factors pushed in like nova ability, battlefield control, buffing, debuffing, and a few other factors.

I run an extremely ruthless and difficult game. I don't even use any of the games recommended extreme or what not guidelines. I know from experience what my party can and cannot handle. It's a real tight line because bad rolls by the party can lead to death, so I have to be real careful sometimes.

I'm glad you like your group. I like mine too. We've been playing this way across editions for a long time. We like a very deadly game. As a DM I like to play the monsters as intelligent and capable of strong tactical play forcing strong tactical play from my players.

I tend to leave that part out of these discussions because I get the feeling only a handful of people play as I do. Maybe Exocist and Gortle play this style of game, but with some modification.

But that does not change that the summoner is a very unfocused class whose numbers are non-competitive, which does not mean unplayable or you can't have fun if you don't care about competitive numerical play.

My players and myself care about this. As in we look at what the guy next to us is doing, if his numbers are twice as good as ours then that class is going in the trash heap unless he provides something to the game that other classes can't do.

It's just how we play and view the game. Then it also comes down to personal tastes. Some of my players don't like playing rogues even though the rogue is an extremely strong class. Some don't like casters even though casters are very good at high level.

It all just depends. But mainly each class has to be numerically competitive or it just goes to the scrap pile.

I personally like summoners. I want to make sure they are numerically competitive and have some good group roles whether damage dealer or tank type. That will be the goal of my changes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
I think the martial wave caster chassis is pretty solid. It's not MAD and gets good action economy. I also really like the monster tactics you can get at 10th level. My main problem is the arrays you can choose from.
Okay. What's your issue with them? What pain points do you see, and what would you want to see changed?
2 options aren't enough for every concept. If you could build it like your own stats, that would solve the issue. Has some weird effects like I've posted a little bit ago like the beast eidolon having a good intimidation ability but only starting with 10 charisma.

I allow players to choose any array they want from any creature for any type of eidolon they want. They can even order the array any way they wish. I don't believe it will have a material impact on game balance, so I don't worry about that part.


aobst128 wrote:
You're talking about playstyles rather than classes as a whole,

That's what classes should do. Your class should facilitate all playstyles it seems to offer and all playstyles should have a class.

Quote:
as for bombers, because of their consumable nature, no class does it better than alchemists.

Is a DPS class bomber good? If I want to play a character that does nothing but throw bombs, is that supported?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Norade wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
You're talking about playstyles rather than classes as a whole,

That's what classes should do. Your class should facilitate all playstyles it seems to offer and all playstyles should have a class.

Quote:
as for bombers, because of their consumable nature, no class does it better than alchemists.
Is a DPS class bomber good? If I want to play a character that does nothing but throw bombs, is that supported?

It's supported. Not optimal, but it is supported.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Norade wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
You're talking about playstyles rather than classes as a whole,

That's what classes should do. Your class should facilitate all playstyles it seems to offer and all playstyles should have a class.

Quote:
as for bombers, because of their consumable nature, no class does it better than alchemists.
Is a DPS class bomber good? If I want to play a character that does nothing but throw bombs, is that supported?

Yes bombers are supported. Although I do wish there was a bomber archetype that existed like the poisoner archetype but for bombs. Demolitionist comes close but doesn't actually give reagents for some reason. I do like bombers as they are. At this point, you can do persistent damage of any type aside from force.


We're getting a little off topic though. The summoner. If we could make a list of the issues people have what would it be? Something concrete.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
It's supported. Not optimal, but it is supported.

Would your group play one using strict RAW? Could any form of RAW alchemist find a useful role at your table and not be 100% the worst choice a player could make?


aobst128 wrote:
Yes bombers are supported. Although I do wish there was a bomber archetype that existed like the poisoner archetype but for bombs. Demolitionist comes close but doesn't actually give reagents for some reason. I do like bombers as they are. At this point, you can do persistent damage of any type aside from force.

So was a Fighter taking nothing but skill-boosting feats in PF1. Supported =/= playable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
I think the martial wave caster chassis is pretty solid. It's not MAD and gets good action economy. I also really like the monster tactics you can get at 10th level. My main problem is the arrays you can choose from.
Okay. What's your issue with them? What pain points do you see, and what would you want to see changed?
2 options aren't enough for every concept. If you could build it like your own stats, that would solve the issue. Has some weird effects like I've posted a little bit ago like the beast eidolon having a good intimidation ability but only starting with 10 charisma.
I allow players to choose any array they want from any creature for any type of eidolon they want. They can even order the array any way they wish. I don't believe it will have a material impact on game balance, so I don't worry about that part.

The text alludes to possible future arrays or something like your houserule. It's kinda strange. It's a weird thing to future proof. If they planned to add more arrays, why wouldn't they just start with them. That's a good houserule though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Norade wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Yes bombers are supported. Although I do wish there was a bomber archetype that existed like the poisoner archetype but for bombs. Demolitionist comes close but doesn't actually give reagents for some reason. I do like bombers as they are. At this point, you can do persistent damage of any type aside from force.
So was a Fighter taking nothing but skill-boosting feats in PF1. Supported =/= playable.

Bombers are totally playable. You just don't want to play them. It's understandable. They're not the best for ranged combat but I wouldn't hassle anyone if they picked it. It's a unique enough playstyles to be rewarding.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
We're getting a little off topic though. The summoner. If we could make a list of the issues people have what would it be? Something concrete.

I don't know if this is a misread of the rules but as ediolons can't use items that don't have the eidolon trait and that includes all tools and nearby all objects eidolons can't do very much other than fight, remember and talk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
siegfriedliner wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
We're getting a little off topic though. The summoner. If we could make a list of the issues people have what would it be? Something concrete.
I don't know if this is a misread of the rules but as ediolons can't use items that don't have the eidolon trait and that includes all tools and nearby all objects eidolons can't do very much other than fight, remember and talk.

Items and eidolons are probably gonna be another big poorly understood issue like familiars. Not as bad though. At least downtime and exploration activities are pretty straightforward with how your actions work. A whole freaking angel struggling to open a healing potion is a funny scene though.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Norade wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
It's supported. Not optimal, but it is supported.
Would your group play one using strict RAW? Could any form of RAW alchemist find a useful role at your table and not be 100% the worst choice a player could make?

We already had someone try a goblin alchemist bomber. He had quite a good time playing it. It got better when they released more bombs.

The alchemist proved surprisingly useful in the group setting. I'll explain some of the mechanical reasons why:

1. Their damage is nonmagical. That means it works against golems, doesn't activate abilities like spell turning or increased status bonuses to saves against magic, or prevented by magic immune creatures like will-o-wisps.

2. They do damage even if they miss, often in an area. Their damage adds up over the course of a fight as it hits for 5 or 7 damage on multiple targets a couple of times a round.

3. They can be good at taking advantage of weaknesses because they can mix bombs or alchemical items as needed with Quick Alchemy.

4. Certain elixirs are high value buffs like mist elixir and cheetah elixir. You can also use certain elixirs situationally against creatures with poison or disease to boost saves or hit points.

5. They have a high intelligence so it pays to invest in skills that can allow you to recall knowledge against as an alchemist is more useful if they know what they are going against.

6. Alchemist can be quite powerful, but it takes an actively interested player who wants to learn how to exploit all of his abilities. Whereas someone like a barbarian just rages and swings, an alchemist benefits far more from preparation and information.

There are so many bombs, elixirs, and alchemical formulas and tools that you really need to be able to read and remember them and apply them when useful.

Disadvantages:

1. Alchemist starts off slow because of low number of reagents. This eventually becomes a nonfactor when they get endless infusions for constructing lower level bombs.

2. Alchemist Goggles were really badly designed. Basically seems like they were designed for a non-alchemist as they provided no real bonus. We added precision damage to bombs on the goggles to make them useful for an alchemist. Seemed like a waste to have these goggles seemingly for an alchemist that did not help the class in some way.

3. Alchemist is a complex class requiring a higher level of system mastery to play well. Not everyone wants to invest that much time reading books and every single formula to ensure they have the knowledge necessary to pull out the right thing at the right time.

4. They don't do big number damage. It's more like lots of small numbers that eventually added up to dead.

We did not view it as badly as some on here seem to do. It's a very different than most of the other classes and can be extremely helpful in the hands of a player who invests the time to make it so. It's probably one of the most effectively versatile classes in PF2.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Norade wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
It's supported. Not optimal, but it is supported.
Would your group play one using strict RAW? Could any form of RAW alchemist find a useful role at your table and not be 100% the worst choice a player could make?

We already had someone try a goblin alchemist bomber. He had quite a good time playing it. It got better when they released more bombs.

The alchemist proved surprisingly useful in the group setting. I'll explain some of the mechanical reasons why:

1. Their damage is nonmagical. That means it works against golems, doesn't activate abilities like spell turning or increased status bonuses to saves against magic, or prevented by magic immune creatures like will-o-wisps.

2. They do damage even if they miss, often in an area. Their damage adds up over the course of a fight as it hits for 5 or 7 damage on multiple targets a couple of times a round.

3. They can be good at taking advantage of weaknesses because they can mix bombs or alchemical items as needed with Quick Alchemy.

4. Certain elixirs are high value buffs like mist elixir and cheetah elixir. You can also use certain elixirs situationally against creatures with poison or disease to boost saves or hit points.

5. They have a high intelligence so it pays to invest in skills that can allow you to recall knowledge against as an alchemist is more useful if they know what they are going against.

6. Alchemist can be quite powerful, but it takes an actively interested player who wants to learn how to exploit all of his abilities. Whereas someone like a barbarian just rages and swings, an alchemist benefits far more from preparation and information.

There are so many bombs, elixirs, and alchemical formulas and tools that you really need to be able to read and remember them and apply them when useful.

Disadvantages:

1. Alchemist starts off slow because of low number of reagents. This eventually becomes a nonfactor when they get endless infusions for constructing...

That changes my view some.

I only had it at my table in a core-only game at low levels and trying to use your bombs as your main damage dealing tool at that level was less than useful and frustrated the player using the class to no end.

EDIT: I also think we may have played pre-errata. Which also changes things, but is 100% on Paizo for releasing the Alchemist in that state in the first place.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I figured the alchemist's goggles were for perpetual bombs to keep your bonus to hit with them as good as your higher level ones.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We thought the alchemist would suck too given what we read on here. But the player who tried it worked at it and made it pretty useful.

Some of his tactics:

1. Stack persistent damage. He liked to stack a sticky fire bomb with an acid bomb and get two types of persistent damage going on a target.

2. Get the other players in the group to get some kind of resistance to fire or acid so he can use splash damage without concern. So had the martials invest in some fire resistance so he could splash fire damage as needed. Since the damage was low, even low fire resistance helped. But when you're hitting 3 or 4 targets a couple times a round for 7 splash fire damage each, it adds up.

3. He often handed out Goldenmist Elixirs and Cheetah Form before every fight. DC 5 seems low, but it adds up to a lot of misses in group fights with multiple attacks from each target. And Cheetah gave us a mobility advantage which is always helpful. An extra 5 or 10 feet of movement can sometimes be the difference between 2 actions spent on a move and 1 action spent on a move.

We had pretty low expectations for the alchemist going in. The more the alchemist player found ways to help, the more we liked the alchemist.


aobst128 wrote:
I figured the alchemist's goggles were for perpetual bombs to keep your bonus to hit with them as good as your higher level ones.

Maybe. But the added precision damage made them more attractive.

We did +1d4 for the lesser goggles, +1d6 for the medium, and +1d8 for the greater. Alchemist isn't a big number hitter, so it was just a little added damage to make the magic item more attractive.


Yeah, the bomber is pretty solid in my opinion. I think the main problems people have with the alchemist are with the other research fields that don't work as well in combat.


We went in expecting PF1 style bombing and it just wasn't at all what we got. I don't think that the player would have enjoyed the class even if we knew how to play it well just because it wasn't what he wanted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
I figured the alchemist's goggles were for perpetual bombs to keep your bonus to hit with them as good as your higher level ones.

Maybe. But the added precision damage made them more attractive.

We did +1d4 for the lesser goggles, +1d6 for the medium, and +1d8 for the greater. Alchemist isn't a big number hitter, so it was just a little added damage to make the magic item more attractive.

That'll do it. I see the goggles as similar to handwraps for the item bonus except you can't put property runes on them. Although You could technically put property runes on bombs, I wouldn't recommend it unless you have unlimited money. Some extra precision damage is similar to a property rune that other classes get. Seems fine to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Norade wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Norade wrote:

I feel like the first team just has more impact in most battles while only struggling with edge cases and intentional gotcha-type encounters.

I don't disagree, but that has more to do with you picking some of the best classes in the game to compare against some of the worst. Literally nothing to do with generalist vs specialist at all.
So why would you ever take anything but the best classes in a tactical combat game with roleplaying elements such as PF2? Why didn't Paizo bring those other five classes properly into line, do they lack the skill or the playtest time, are they under a mandate to keep the CRB ever green in terms of power?

Some reasons to play a non-best class in PF2:

1. The player wants to try a class they haven't played before.
2. The player likes playing a particular non-best class.
3. The player wants to challenge themself by playing a weak class.
4. The player disagrees which classes are best.
5. The other players claimed the best classes and the party needs variety.
6. The GM explained the setting in a Session Zero and a non-best class fits the setting better.

In my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign, I explained the starting village of Nirmathas and warned that the adventure would soon drive their characters into the Fangwood forest where they would have to hide and protect refugees from Phaendar. Thus, everyone made their characters trained in Nature, Stealth, and Survival. We had an elf ranger, a gnome druid, a gnome rogue, a halfling rogue, and a lizardfolk champion. That last character had to drop out when the player fell sick. The remaining four characters fit the setting fine. When three other characters joined, the story had progressed. The new players chose exotic characters that would have been out of place in Phaendar: goblin champion, leshy sorcerer, and catfolk monk.

That raises the question, "What setting would encourage playing a summoner?"

First, a summoner can look ordinary for a game where the corrupt government has forbidden obvious heroes. A wizard and a magus have a spellbook, an alchemist has alchemist's tools, a cleric has a holy symbol, a witch has a familiar, an inventor has an invention, and a gunslinger has a gun. Most barbarians, champions, fighters, rangers, and swashbucklers have martial weapons. In contrast, bards can sing without an instrument, monks fight with their fists, investigators and rogues can fight well with knives, and druids, oracles, sorcerers, and summoners can cast without special tools. The summoner's eidolon can remain hidden.

Second, summoners, along with bard, cleric, magus, and battle oracles, mix martial abilities and spellcasting. A setting where magic is unreliable would encourage backup martial proficiencies, though that might inhibit manifesting the eidolon. A setting where martials are considered brutes and spellcasters are considered nobility would encourage characters who can cast more than a focus spell.

Third, a summoner could plausibly come with ambitions and a backstory unrelated to their class. Wizards studied in academies, clerics studied in seminaries, monks trained in monasteries, fighters trained in boot camp, etc. Their classes are their life. Would a monk leave his monastery to join the circus in The Show Must Go On? In contrast, a peasant who manifests a dragon eidolon could immediately decide that training her dragon for the circus is the way to go.

"Okay players, here is the initial story. Your characters are professional sailors on the merchant ship Fine Exchange. You will all receive Sailing Lore for free. The previous captain mysteriously disappeared between the cities of Peace and Mundania. You need to search both cities. The first city confiscates any weapons bigger than a dagger when a crewman goes ashore. The second city has outlawed magic. And gnomes, too, so don't play a gnome without good Deception. What classes do you want?"

Dataphiles

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Norade wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
You're talking about playstyles rather than classes as a whole,

That's what classes should do. Your class should facilitate all playstyles it seems to offer and all playstyles should have a class.

Quote:
as for bombers, because of their consumable nature, no class does it better than alchemists.
Is a DPS class bomber good? If I want to play a character that does nothing but throw bombs, is that supported?

Bomber damage isn't that bad at a certain point this assumes 2 rounds of persistent doing Sticky Blight Bomb + XXX Alchemist Fire (tbf there really isn't a great additive to put here). The issue is mostly in feeling with bomber damage rather than the numbers of it once everything is crunched.

Build is

1: Quick Bomber, retrain to Far Lobber sometime between 7 and 9

2: DWW Dedication

4: Calculated Splash

6: Dual Thrower

8: Sticky Bomb

10: Expanded Splash

12: Uncanny Bombs

14: Extend Elixir

16: Eternal Elixir

18: Improbable Elixirs

20: Plum Deluge, retrain your subclass to Toxicologist.

You kinda need perpetual bombs and double brew to do this consistently though, so you'll be waiting a bit. Bomber as a primary damage dealer early is no bueno.

This graph does use Burn It! but it's really not necessary, it doesn't add too much. I also used the most conservative interpretation of Burn It! and sticky bomb (sticky bomb pers damage doesn't double on a crit, Burn It! doesn't apply to splash damage).


How to be good bomber: become toxicologist. I guess the double poisons you can make by 20th level are too brutal to pass up lol.


Can you double brew perpetual bombs? I thought it only worked with reagents.

Dataphiles

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
aobst128 wrote:
How to be good bomber: become toxicologist. I guess the double poisons you can make by 20th level are too brutal to pass up lol.

It's not that, it's Plum Deluge - that feat is the best Alchemist feat by far, and tox gives you the most uses of Tears of Death burst. The double poison thing sucks.

aobst128 wrote:
Can you double brew perpetual bombs? I thought it only worked with reagents.

It's kinda unclear but alchemist needs help anyway

Double Brew wrote:
You know your formulas so well that you can concoct two items at once. When using the Quick Alchemy action, instead of spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item, you can spend up to two batches of infused reagents to make up to two alchemical items as described in that action. These items do not have to be the same.
Perpetual stuff wrote:
You have learned how to create perpetual alchemical infusions that can provide a near-infinite supply of certain simple items. You gain the ability to create two 1st-level alchemical items using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents. The items you can select depend on your research field and must be in your formula book.

I believe the text for this was errata'd to be more clear, in any case Double Brew does use Quick Alchemy, so if you make perpetuals you should be able to substitute the cost.


I had seen it before but I'm only now realizing how busted plum deluge is. It's a 20th Level feat alright. But if you're only using the research field for the extra uses, I'd say stick to bomber. Double poison is cool. I kinda wish you could use 2 of the same poison for a more effective double tap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

17th+ level toxicologists also have access to perpetual shadow essence that your archers will appreciate. As long as my understanding of using quick alchemy poisons is right.

101 to 150 of 419 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / The Summoner: How do you like it now that it's live? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.