| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strength based martials can have the same Strength score. They get the same item bonuses.
Strength-based martials lose 2/3rd of their damage output to make a maneuver, the Summoner loses 1/3rd of their damage output. And as you say: they have the same bonus.
Primal and Divine Caster are just better healers.
The Summoner has 4 spell slots, it's roughly a Font. When the Cleric uses a 2 or 3-action Heal, it's in general their whole turn. As a Summoner, you add one or 2 full martial attacks on top of it. So you're not a better healer because you heal more but because you deal significant damage while healing. The turns where you heal, your contribution is above the ceiling.
Ranged damage and you are talking about a d4 30ft range weapon attacking twice plus an electric arc? I guess that is reasonable given your spell DC is OK. But is that is is nothing to what other ranged characters can do. Further 30ft range is so small as to be useless fairly often.
Compared to a Fighter archer, you deal 90% of its damage on the primary target, and then you have to consider the second target of Electric Arc (against level +2 bosses, you outdamage the Fighter thanks to Electric Arc being save-based). So you deal more damage. You also are a perfect switch hitter, able to dive into melee when needed, increasing your damage, avoiding AoOs, switching damage type (super important, archers are crippled by resistances) and potentially grabbing flank. Your only drawback is range but most fights happen at 30ft or less so its not crippling.
So before taking feats into account you are more than competitive: you are even better than specialists. And you need extremely few feats (Ranged Combattant and Tandem Move) to get all of that while the specialists need to take feats to break even with you. That's not really right: specialists shouldn't have to take feats to break even with generalists.
If I take my Angelic Summoner as an example. I have 3 main roles:
- Ranged damage dealer
- Healer (I'm regularly the sole healer in the party and I'm doing fine (I play in a Westmarches campaign so I switch companions often))
- Skill monkey
In these 3 roles I'm at the level of specialists. If there's a difference it's less than 10% and not necessarily at my disadvantage.
I have 2 secondary roles:
- Buffer (Amp Guidance and 2 Focus Points)
- Off-Tank (when the Summoner is out of harm, the Eidolon is able to take hits)
A few opportunities I can seize:
- 5 spells in my repertoire (one of them is obviously Heal, but I still have 4 spells to cover rare but decisive cases, like Dispel Magic for example)
- Weakness exploitation (my Eidolon does Bludgeoning, Slashing, Good, Fire and Cold damage)
I have the Summoner "shenanigans":
- Scouting with the Eidolon
- Double Exploration Activities
And then the Summoner resiliency and reliability:
- 10 hp for a second line character
- So many damage types I never face resistances nor immunities
- Crazy mobility when needed thanks to Evolution Surge
- 2 characters to avoid Conditions (I faced Ghouls, and while my Eidolon was Paralyzed I was casting 3-action Heals in the middle of the fight, I don't know many characters who are that efficient while Paralyzed)
- AoE resistance (I don't have Protective Bond yet, but I had enemies specifically targeting my Summoner and Eidolon with their AoEs thinking we were 2 targets, reducing the overall damage taken by the party)
That's a lot for a single character. You'll hardly find classes with even half of such a list.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I get the want for a flexible summoner with what it summons, people are being HUGELY disingenuous suggesting that the eidolon isn't a summoned creature or is only so 'technically'.
I would like to see a master summoner style class archetype though, maybe a focus point based set of summoning abilities similar to wildshape.
As for the summoner as it is. I have only had one player play it, they excelled in combats, but the player is by far my most mechanically minded and always tends to be the best in combats.
The eidolon is not a summoned creature, does not count as a summoned creature, does not act like a summoned creature, does not benefit from things that only affect summoned creatures.
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. It is more disingenuous to say that a duck is a goose because they are both aquatic birds.
This really seems like a bad faith argument. Should everyone who rolls a monk complain they don't have chanting feats and free viticulture skills?
What you are doing is comparing the mixed AC + saving throw to the regular routine of a character.
Yes the Summoner is good at this, and I was always doing this even with a melee Eidolon. It is a nice staple. Not especially great though. In melee you typically have to move. So the ranged option as you say can do more damage as it gets a second attack more often.But other characters can do this too, but they have one less action to do it. I'm sorry but its not that exciting to me. It is just a solid base.
A simple fighter archer, so not even talking about an Eldrtich Archer or a Starlight Span Magus, can pick up electric arc, put a 16 in a casting stat which can be Wisdom, go down a spell casting archetype and do a similar job. Their casting DC is pretty good (it gets to master). If they take a mature mount they have the extra move action as well.
Likewise a simple cleric can pick up a bow and do a similar thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But other characters can do this too, but they have one less action to do it. I'm sorry but its not that exciting to me. It is just a solid base.
No, they can't. Your Eldritch Archer is no healer, your Cleric with a bow is not a skill monkey. The Summoner does that among other things. Its asset is versatility, not specialization. And fortunately a bow Fighter, with proper feat support, ends up better at ranged damage than a Summoner. It's just that the difference is, in my opinion, rather low. The Summoner, thanks to its versatility, easily contributes more to the party than a Fighter archer.
Now, compared to the very best and optimized builds, like the Starlit Span Magus for ranged combat, the Summoner is not better. I don't consider the Summoner overpowered, just a solid top tier class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your Eldritch Archer is no healer, your Cleric with a bow is not a skill monkey. The Summoner does that among other things. Its asset is versatility, not specialization.
I'm not getting this no healer or skill monkey thing, a summoner doesn't get extra skills unless you take dual studies. But then you have chosen another one of their feats. If the Eildon goes for a range attack then its athletics is going to be lower.
These characters can have feel hands. Even the archer can have a heal spell. What is your point? You are choosing among options that everyone can do.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The eidolon is not a summoned creature, does not count as a summoned creature, does not act like a summoned creature, does not benefit from things that only affect summoned creatures.
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. It is more disingenuous to say that a duck is a goose because they are both aquatic birds.
There is no eidolon present.
"Come forth my mighty eidolon!"
*POOF*
Now there is an eidolon present.
I have just magically summoned my eidolon to my side out of thin air. Ergo, it is a summoned creature.
If the duck magically poofs out of nowhere at a summoner's command, it is a summoned duck.
That is all the definition that I need.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The eidolon is not a summoned creature, does not count as a summoned creature, does not act like a summoned creature, does not benefit from things that only affect summoned creatures.
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. It is more disingenuous to say that a duck is a goose because they are both aquatic birds.
There is no eidolon present.
"Come forth my mighty eidolon!"
*POOF*
Now there is an eidolon present.
I have just magically summoned my eidolon to my side out of thin air. Ergo, it is a summoned creature.
If the duck magically poofs out of nowhere at a summoner's command, it is a summoned duck.
That is all the definition that I need.
Yeah, but that's not fitting one dude's hyper specific mechanics-only definition of what a summoned creature is that ignores all in-world reasoning!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not getting this no healer or skill monkey thing, a summoner doesn't get extra skills unless you take dual studies. But then you have chosen another one of their feats. If the Eildon goes for a range attack then its athletics is going to be lower.
These characters can have feel hands. Even the archer can have a heal spell. What is your point? You are choosing among options that everyone can do.
I was describing my Summoner, so it's a sample build just to show what you can do outside theory crafting. Yes, he has Dual Studies.
My Summoner heals more than my Divine Sorcerer (I assume Divine Sorcerers can be considered good healers). Mostly because healing with my Sorcerer costs important resources and "wastes" my turn as the fight is not closer to completion after I cast Heal. So I tend to use it only when I don't have the choice. For the Summoner, healing is a strong move: I heal a companion while keeping half of my damage output. Also, I don't have to rely on my spell slots for my efficiency so I don't feel the resource expenditure as much as my Sorcerer.
Similarly, my Summoner is equivalent to my Scoundrel Rogue in skills. Depending on level, one is better than the other or the other way around. They have very close values (in roughly the same skills as they are both raising Charisma and Dexterity skills).
In terms of damage output, I find my Summoner much more reliable than my Eldritch Archer Rogue. They have similar constraints (30 ft. ideal range mostly). But they have a very different interaction with events: while my Summoner can periodically seize an occasion to deal more damage (Weakness, an enemy coming at melee range, etc...), my Rogue damage output is often reduced (Resistance, need to move, etc...). Also, my Rogue has extremely random damage output, a critical hit with an Eldritch Shot deals tremendous damage but when luck is not with me I struggle. And reliability is important for PCs as you need to win each and every fight.
But you can continue to consider than an archer with a Heal Scroll can heal as much as a Divine Sorcerer and that my Summoner is choosing options that "everyone can do". I strongly disagree, but to each their own.
Yeah, but that's not fitting one dude's hyper specific mechanics-only definition of what a summoned creature is that ignores all in-world reasoning!The eidolon is not a summoned creature, does not count as a summoned creature, does not act like a summoned creature, does not benefit from things that only affect summoned creatures.
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. It is more disingenuous to say that a duck is a goose because they are both aquatic birds.
There is no eidolon present.
"Come forth my mighty eidolon!"
*POOF*
Now there is an eidolon present.
I have just magically summoned my eidolon to my side out of thin air. Ergo, it is a summoned creature.
If the duck magically poofs out of nowhere at a summoner's command, it is a summoned duck.
That is all the definition that I need.
Raving Dork here is being the more pedantic one here. It's clear that an eidolon doesn't feel like a summoned creature at all. It's an extension of the player in thematic and mechanical terms. Which is why me and others feel the class is misnamed. This is not a class about utilizing the best aspects of summoned creatures, the biggest boon being disposability. Summons are great because they soak up damage and actions, Eidolons are not good at that due to the shared health pool. Summons are also great to get more spells out of what you summoned, for instanced fourth rank summon fae(fey?) grabbing a unicorn that can use two rank 3 (one or two action) heal spells. The eidolon I don't believe can cast it's own spells. The summoner as a class can cast summon spells technically, it just doesn't do it better than anyone else, but I don't think it should either btw. I just think the class is misnamed and that whenever we get around to a 3rd edition or a remaster of this class we get a new name for the class. Then summoner as a class name can be freed up for people who like them summon spells and wanna be the best at it
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Summoners use summon spells better than anyone else. Aside from the feats which can enhance summons and the ability to poach the relevant focus spells from witch or wizard, Act Together lets them get over one of the biggest hurdles of summon spells: action economy.
Other classes can do it more often, but it doesn't matter because summons are not "every battle" type spells.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's clear that an eidolon doesn't feel like a summoned creature at all.
That is not clear at all, and is a massive personal bias. To me, it's the ultimate Summon. It's the reason people who just happen to have some summon spells aren't called summoners: because they can't create the Ultimate Summon.
In-world, the Eidolon is 100% a summoned creature in all NPC's eyes, and you have to really want it *not* to count as one to interpret it otherwise. If you're hung up on specific mechanical definitions, I don't really care whether or not it meets your criteria, because it's definitely meeting the storytelling criteria which matters a whole lot more.
Would granting summoners a Divine Font type of ability, but with summon spells, rather than heal and harm, help to make them seem more summoner'y do you think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would granting summoners a Divine Font type of ability, but with summon spells, rather than heal and harm, help to make them seem more summoner'y do you think?
I think that's basically what they had in PF1 and I don't recall people making the criticism there, so... Probably? But again, this is semantics. I think the real problem is people just don't think summon spells are strong enough anymore, but there's like a million good reasons for that, and the spells still have their place. You just can't always rely on them like you could in PF1. (Which is true for just about any spell in PF2; compare the PF1 and PF2 versions of Haste for example.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The eidolon is not a summoned creature, does not count as a summoned creature, does not act like a summoned creature, does not benefit from things that only affect summoned creatures.
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. It is more disingenuous to say that a duck is a goose because they are both aquatic birds.
And yet it is a summoned creature, functions in lore as a summoned creature...
https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx?ID=18
Here, read the class, not sure if you just skipped over it... it is a creature, that the summoner, summons. Manifest eidolon has the conjuration trait too for that matter.
I think that's basically what they had in PF1 and I don't recall people making the criticism there, so... Probably? But again, this is semantics. I think the real problem is people just don't think summon spells are strong enough anymore, but there's like a million good reasons for that, and the spells still have their place. You just can't always rely on them like you could in PF1. (Which is true for just about any spell in PF2; compare the PF1 and PF2 versions of Haste for example.)
In pf1e they kinda had a system like that, but it only worked while your eidolon was stowed.
I wonder if summons could be better feeling if they had similar auto scaling features like the various form spells. But I guess people would have conniptions if the summon spells were restricted to summoning a set of statblocks bespoke to the spell instead of any suitable family of creature.
I tend to see smarter players use summon spells in mid/high level play as a means of having one spell that can target a bunch of weaknesses (not just the weakness mechanic ofc). But that takes a fair amount of research into knowing a whole list of summons and being able to recall it at the drop of a hat when necessary.
|
Glad you changed your mind. I am still not sure about the class. I had one player who played it from level 1-11 and he thought the class was really underpowered. There was a Fighter and Wizard in the group and I was using free archetype. I feel like Fighter tends to cause this issue in general.
He just felt like he was a worse version of both of them.
To me Summoner seems to just be about having 4 actions but being weaker. Like a lot of things in PF2 balance can hurt some people's expectation. Summons in general... In my experience most players want a character that EXCELS at something. Of course, if a player wants to be a "jack of all trades" Summoner feels great.
I mostly just get to theory craft right now. I have been theory crafting Summoner with Free Archetype (Kineticist). Would make the Summoner feel much more impactful without having to use spell slots while having the Eidolon mostly being the support. At the same time Free Archetype Kineticist at 12+ just seems insanely strong.
At the end of the day this always comes up when I am theory crafting Summoner... Why not just play Caster + Animal Companion or now Kineticist + Animal Companion. Of course, technically you can go Beast Master + Summoner but I don't think GMs would be happy with you having 3+ characters every turn.
I will just state I hate "wave casting". I don't want to have 4 good turns an adventuring day... My experience is with Magus and it is just personal preference. I know they can get more slots, but I like having limitless options (Martial/Kineticist) or Tons of Spell Slots (Casters). I know it is my fault, but I really didn't think I would miss it so much.
I played PF1 Summoner and almost every archetype's Eidolon clashes with Summons just as much. The only difference was that the summons were so broken in PF1 I didn't need an Eidolon. I wasn't allowed to use the archetypes that synergized with summons :(. I don't blame the GM though, PF1 summons + Eidolon (master summoner) just seemed like it would be out of control.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with a specialist in summoning spells is summoning spells are the embodiment of what people complain about for PF2 casters. Summons are a utility toolbox which can solve for a huge number of niche problems. Need a hallway clogged? Need buffs? Need to fish the barbarian out of lava? Target a specific weaknesses? Cause a distraction? Divert a mindless creature? Set up flanking? Fly your melee bro into reach? Speak a new language? You can do all that and more from a single spell selection.
What you can't do is also expect that same spell to be the optimal choice for the least niche scenario, dealing damage to an enemy. Your Swiss Army knife will not be as good as hammer as a hammer. To make a true summon specialist (like the kineticist is to blasting) you'd need to overhaul the mechanics of summoning heavily to limit their options. Which is basically what the eidolon is, so if you didn't like that I am skeptical there would ever be a balanced solution you would be happy with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's basically what they had in PF1 and I don't recall people making the criticism there, so... Probably? But again, this is semantics. I think the real problem is people just don't think summon spells are strong enough anymore, but there's like a million good reasons for that, and the spells still have their place. You just can't always rely on them like you could in PF1. (Which is true for just about any spell in PF2; compare the PF1 and PF2 versions of Haste for example.)In pf1e they kinda had a system like that, but it only worked while your eidolon was stowed.
I wonder if summons could be better feeling if they had similar auto scaling features like the various form spells. But I guess people would have conniptions if the summon spells were restricted to summoning a set of statblocks bespoke to the spell instead of any suitable family of creature.
I tend to see smarter players use summon spells in mid/high level play as a means of having one spell that can target a bunch of weaknesses (not just the weakness mechanic ofc). But that takes a fair amount of research into knowing a whole list of summons and being able to recall it at the drop of a hat when necessary.
This was a discussion in the playtest and apparently pulling from the bestiary won out. I don't think the people who voted for that option really understood what they were getting into.
"Summon" spells that don't pull from the bestiary do exist and they tend to be pretty serviceable. Illusory Creature and Malicious Shadow are good uses of a spell slot or focus point because they create good minions.
This was a discussion in the playtest and apparently pulling from the bestiary won out. I don't think the people who voted for that option really understood what they were getting into.
I would absolutely believe that. Because creating your own creatures to summon (like creating an Eidolon) is how Starfinder Summon Creature does work.
How much better would Summon Animal be if it just gave you a stat array like Animal Companions do and let you put a skin on it. Instead of being very conservative on the creature level that you can pull out of the bestiaries.
The same discussion happened in the latest D&D playtest with Druids.
"Summon" spells that don't pull from the bestiary do exist and they tend to be pretty serviceable. Illusory Creature and Malicious Shadow are good uses of a spell slot or focus point because they create good minions.
Other examples would be Clone Companion and Duplicate Foe
An animal companion is a reasonable example of the power level a summons could be at. It is clearly down on a normal martial character by a couple of points but it can still contribute in terms of a reasonable basic attack without overshadowing a character.It is clear there is nothing wrong or broken about the concept of a generic focus point summoner. They just haven't put it in the game yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glad you changed your mind. I am still not sure about the class. I had one player who played it from level 1-11 and he thought the class was really underpowered. There was a Fighter and Wizard in the group and I was using free archetype. I feel like Fighter tends to cause this issue in general.
He just felt like he was a worse version of both of them.
To me Summoner seems to just be about having 4 actions but being weaker. Like a lot of things in PF2 balance can hurt some people's expectation. Summons in general... In my experience most players want a character that EXCELS at something. Of course, if a player wants to be a "jack of all trades" Summoner feels great.
I mostly just get to theory craft right now. I have been theory crafting Summoner with Free Archetype (Kineticist). Would make the Summoner feel much more impactful without having to use spell slots while having the Eidolon mostly being the support. At the same time Free Archetype Kineticist at 12+ just seems insanely strong.
At the end of the day this always comes up when I am theory crafting Summoner... Why not just play Caster + Animal Companion or now Kineticist + Animal Companion. Of course, technically you can go Beast Master + Summoner but I don't think GMs would be happy with you having 3+ characters every turn.
I will just state I hate "wave casting". I don't want to have 4 good turns an adventuring day... My experience is with Magus and it is just personal preference. I know they can get more slots, but I like having limitless options (Martial/Kineticist) or Tons of Spell Slots (Casters). I know it is my fault, but I really didn't think I would miss it so much.
I played PF1 Summoner and almost every archetype's Eidolon clashes with Summons just as much. The only difference was that the summons were so broken in PF1 I didn't need an Eidolon. I wasn't allowed to use the archetypes that synergized with summons :(. I don't blame the GM though, PF1 summons + Eidolon (master summoner) just seemed like it would be out of control.
The fighter is the top dog of PF2. It's pretty clear. So comparisons to the fighter in PF2 are almost as bad as comparisons to the wizard in PF1.
The summoner can be built for damage, but probably not ideal. I haven't tested that aspect.
The summoner so far seems to be good as a class with a lot of useful actions they can manage. Adding in Archetype casting feats or skills, good focus spells they can use every fight to extend casting power, picking up casting items to extend casting, and generally finding ways to take advantage of their action economy seems to be the best way to build them.
They have certain feats that are high value. But you don't want a ton of their feats unless you're trying something out like I am trying out by picking up casting to get battle forms to see how well that works for utility and upping damage. From what I am reading of the cast feats, you should be able to get two slots two levels behind your highest slot the Eidolon can cast and build up a battle form with that. Primal is probably the best list for this.
The summoner isn't good for summoning. The eidolon isn't the greatest to build around. Their feats aren't that great for the class. But the summoner action economy is very good. So picking up ways to use it that are more effective than the summoner feats can make for some interesting build options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I HATE build-a-summons.
Takes too long, adds needless complexity (while simultaneously limiting options), and is often completely un-usable by most casual players if they don't build the specific summons out in advance (as it is with Starfinder).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I HATE build-a-summons.
Takes too long, adds needless complexity (while simultaneously limiting options), and is often completely un-usable by most casual players if they don't build the specific summons out in advance (as it is with Starfinder).
I maintain that it is still better than summoning a level 5 creature to go up against a level 12 enemy and expecting anything useful to come from that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I HATE build-a-summons.
Takes too long, adds needless complexity (while simultaneously limiting options), and is often completely un-usable by most casual players if they don't build the specific summons out in advance (as it is with Starfinder).
I don't really get how picking between a handful of bespoke options in the spell is needlessly complicated in a way that dumpster diving through bestiaries wouldn't be.
I don't really get how picking between a handful of bespoke options in the spell is needlessly complicated in a way that dumpster diving through bestiaries wouldn't be.I HATE build-a-summons.
Takes too long, adds needless complexity (while simultaneously limiting options), and is often completely un-usable by most casual players if they don't build the specific summons out in advance (as it is with Starfinder).
Were you able to wrap you head around Starfinder summons? Took me a week to grasp it well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Were you able to wrap you head around Starfinder summons? Took me a week to grasp it well.I don't really get how picking between a handful of bespoke options in the spell is needlessly complicated in a way that dumpster diving through bestiaries wouldn't be.I HATE build-a-summons.
Takes too long, adds needless complexity (while simultaneously limiting options), and is often completely un-usable by most casual players if they don't build the specific summons out in advance (as it is with Starfinder).
Pre-build 4 creatures and pull out their sheet when you cast the spell.
It seems about as complicated as building an Animal Companion or Eidolon in PF2.
Were you able to wrap you head around Starfinder summons? Took me a week to grasp it well.I don't really get how picking between a handful of bespoke options in the spell is needlessly complicated in a way that dumpster diving through bestiaries wouldn't be.I HATE build-a-summons.
Takes too long, adds needless complexity (while simultaneously limiting options), and is often completely un-usable by most casual players if they don't build the specific summons out in advance (as it is with Starfinder).
That method gave you a big list of options.
I don't see why it would be any different to a a battle form spell like animal form. IE a simple template with a couple of flavours.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but have you played one, or is this more of white room armchair theorycraft?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pre-build 4 creatures and pull out their sheet when you cast the spell.
It seems about as complicated as building an Animal Companion or Eidolon in PF2.
This.
I mean honestly anyone who does summoning should pre-stat out their summons. Played a Summoner and someone whom summons on different occasions it's always faster to have a list of what you're summoning ahead of time. Especially if you're using a lego method like Starfinder. In my experience building the summons using the starfinder method is a bit longer in the beginning, but easier and just as quick as you gain experience doing so.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The eidolon is not a summoned creature, does not count as a summoned creature, does not act like a summoned creature, does not benefit from things that only affect summoned creatures.
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. It is more disingenuous to say that a duck is a goose because they are both aquatic birds.
And yet it is a summoned creature, functions in lore as a summoned creature...
https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx?ID=18
Here, read the class, not sure if you just skipped over it... it is a creature, that the summoner, summons. Manifest eidolon has the conjuration trait too for that matter.
It is a creature that the summoner MANIFIESTS, eidolons are not summoned or have the summoned trait. The word "summoned" appears twice in that page: 1st to talk about the 3 summoning feats "Summoners" get; 2nd to say that eidolons does not have the minion or summoned trait. Did you perhaps not read the class? Not sure if you missed it.
The eidolon functions in lore as a summon because the original Summoner actually did summon it. PF2 "summoner" has more in common with Spiritualists who manifest their phantom from their mind. Except you know, that Spiritualist's phantoms actually do count as summons unlike PF2's eidolons.
I get that some people think its "pedantic" but it is literally not when it affects the literal rules. By the rules no effect that targets or affects only summoned creatures works on an eidolon.
****************
A reminder I did not say the class was bad. I said that the name and theme being sold (being a summoner) is false advertisement to what the class is actually good at (getting one or two extra actions).
But that's the game mechanic named "summon." The theme of summoning doesn't care about that.
You can't have a very narrow, pedantic complaint about the way the word is used as a name in rules mechanics specifically and then say your complaint is about theme. If the summoner had come first, the rules would have used the word "summon" for Eidolons and "manifest" for other manifestation spells. But summoning spells came first, so that word was taken. They couldn't use it for Eidolons and Summoners because it already had a specific game definition that wasn't applicable.
In-character they're all dictionary-definition summons, but they're different mechanics so they need different names.
The eidolon functions in lore as a summon because the original Summoner actually did summon it. PF2 "summoner" has more in common with Spiritualists who manifest their phantom from their mind. Except you know, that Spiritualist's phantoms actually do count as summons unlike PF2's eidolons.
Wait wait wait. How come for this paragraph we can distinguish between the game rule "summons" and the description "manifests," but for the Summoner they have to have the same word?
Would granting summoners a Divine Font type of ability, but with summon spells, rather than heal and harm, help to make them seem more summoner'y do you think?
I don't think the eidolon class should get this, but a hypothetical summoner should. Like I said, the class is fine, the name is misleading. Having a bunch of summon spells and the eidolon is too much action tax, and too much a single character can do. The class is perfectly fine but I would be down for your idea on a new class
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's clear that an eidolon doesn't feel like a summoned creature at all.That is not clear at all, and is a massive personal bias. To me, it's the ultimate Summon. It's the reason people who just happen to have some summon spells aren't called summoners: because they can't create the Ultimate Summon.
In-world, the Eidolon is 100% a summoned creature in all NPC's eyes, and you have to really want it *not* to count as one to interpret it otherwise. If you're hung up on specific mechanical definitions, I don't really care whether or not it meets your criteria, because it's definitely meeting the storytelling criteria which matters a whole lot more.
Storytelling-wise it's a part of you, which I said in the sentence right after the one you quoted. It doesn't vibe like a summoned creature. It doesn't feel like one, it narratively isn't one and it also mechanically isn't one. You and it share vitality and life and both live and die together. A summoned creature is a disposable pawn. These are very different narratively
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would granting summoners a Divine Font type of ability, but with summon spells, rather than heal and harm, help to make them seem more summoner'y do you think?I don't think the eidolon class should get this, but a hypothetical summoner should. Like I said, the class is fine, the name is misleading. Having a bunch of summon spells and the eidolon is too much action tax, and too much a single character can do. The class is perfectly fine but I would be down for your idea on a new class
The PF1 Summoner had its summon monster pool, but they could only use it when their eidolon wasn't out. Doing the same thing wouldn't add any real power to the class, just the flexibility to use a different kind of monster when you think that you need something more tailored to the current situation, and clearly it wouldn't mess with their action economy either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean there isn't a major flavour difference between most eidolons and normal summoning spells beyond you having a stronger bond is what most people's point is. Like if you were to tell me that casting summon celestial to call forth an angel from the upper planes is flavour wise entirely different from a summoner manifesting their angel eidolon I would ask the meaningful flavour difference between the new actions because both of them are summoning an angel from the upper planes. The only reason they aren't summoned or have the minion trait is because both of those things are downsides most of the time and so you have control over your main class feature, as summoned creatures are (RAW, I can't imagine most GMs not just letting you control it) under the GM's control, with you giving order it might or might not follow.
Well, summon x spells and the planar ally ritual do different things. Apparently summon spells do not bring the actual creature in Pathfinder lore, but the ritual "planar ally" does bring forth the actual being. Apparently summon spells basically make magical constructs
|
|
I mean there isn't a major flavour difference between most eidolons and normal summoning spells beyond you having a stronger bond is what most people's point is. Like if you were to tell me that casting summon celestial to call forth an angel from the upper planes is flavour wise entirely different from a summoner manifesting their angel eidolon I would ask the meaningful flavour difference between the new actions because both of them are summoning an angel from the upper planes. The only reason they aren't summoned or have the minion trait is because both of those things are downsides most of the time and so you have control over your main class feature, as summoned creatures are (RAW, I can't imagine most GMs not just letting you control it) under the GM's control, with you giving order it might or might not follow.Well, summon x spells and the planar ally ritual do different things. Apparently summon spells do not bring the actual creature in Pathfinder lore, but the ritual "planar ally" does bring forth the actual being. Apparently summon spells basically make magical constructs
It was already the case in PF1. They just made it clearer in PF2.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PF1 Summoner had its summon monster pool, but they could only use it when their eidolon wasn't out. Doing the same thing wouldn't add any real power to the class, just the flexibility to use a different kind of monster when you think that you need something more tailored to the current situation, and clearly it wouldn't mess with their action economy either.Would granting summoners a Divine Font type of ability, but with summon spells, rather than heal and harm, help to make them seem more summoner'y do you think?I don't think the eidolon class should get this, but a hypothetical summoner should. Like I said, the class is fine, the name is misleading. Having a bunch of summon spells and the eidolon is too much action tax, and too much a single character can do. The class is perfectly fine but I would be down for your idea on a new class
PF2 Summoner has an affinity for Summons thanks to their feats : Master Summoner, Ostentatious Arrival, Boost Summons and Legendary Summoner and the fact that they can more easily Sustain Summons thanks to their action economy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 Summoner has an affinity for Summons thanks to their feats : Master Summoner, Ostentatious Arrival, Boost Summons and Legendary Summoner and the fact that they can more easily Sustain Summons thanks to their action economy.The PF1 Summoner had its summon monster pool, but they could only use it when their eidolon wasn't out. Doing the same thing wouldn't add any real power to the class, just the flexibility to use a different kind of monster when you think that you need something more tailored to the current situation, and clearly it wouldn't mess with their action economy either.Would granting summoners a Divine Font type of ability, but with summon spells, rather than heal and harm, help to make them seem more summoner'y do you think?I don't think the eidolon class should get this, but a hypothetical summoner should. Like I said, the class is fine, the name is misleading. Having a bunch of summon spells and the eidolon is too much action tax, and too much a single character can do. The class is perfectly fine but I would be down for your idea on a new class
Those options are so incredibly limited and in no way fulfill the class fantasy of operating a class that wants to use summoned creatures as their primary form of class power.
I tried to use Master Summoner. It amounts to three max level summons a day (2 at level 20, but that is equal to other classes) if that is all you use your highest level spell slots for. You have to make sure to pick the fights you use these three slots on. Then hope they last long enough to make it feel like those three summons spells were a good use of your max level slots. On top of hoping they are positioned close enough for something like Ostentatious Arrival to work.
Boost Summons is only effective if your creature can land a hit. You can't use boost summons on a round you spend 3 actions to cast a summoning spell, Which means boost summons is at best coming online in round 2 of a fight in combats that usually last around 3 to 4 rounds.
Martials aren't waiting for you to set up summons because they don't care about your weak hitting summons that don't do anything for them.
Summoning is currently a bad option in the vast majority of PF2 encounters. The only thing that would make summoning even somewhat attractive on the summoner is a focus point driven summon spell that at least would make the summon feel like something usable every battle so you could at least occasionally feel like your summon did something in those fights where it mattered rather than 3 times per day with your 3 highest level slots you can do nothing else with.
Investing in feats like Ostentatious Arrival or Boost summons for three max level slot summons is not a very attractive use of summoner feats. I wouldn't recommend it myself unless you're interested in massive disappointing results in often the most important fights.
|
|
Storytelling-wise it's a part of youI'd agree with you but for this. Eidolons aren't part of a Summoner. They are very much separate creatures, very likely with different aims and personality. It's just the magical link between them is exceptionally strong.
But yeah, they aren't at all summons.
I'm really surprised people argue with that. Just to not agree with Temperance in any smallest thing?Yeah I don't understand the logic.
Paizo says: "Eidolons are not summons".
I say: "Paizo says Eidolons are not summons".
Meanwhile they go: "Well you are wrong Eidolons are summons".Or the people trying to dismiss opinions because "do you even have experience" as if that changes anything about how the mechanics or language works.
People AFAICT were not arguing about this, but about saying the Summoner name didn't fit the class.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 Summoner has an affinity for Summons thanks to their feats : Master Summoner, Ostentatious Arrival, Boost Summons and Legendary Summoner and the fact that they can more easily Sustain Summons thanks to their action economy.The PF1 Summoner had its summon monster pool, but they could only use it when their eidolon wasn't out. Doing the same thing wouldn't add any real power to the class, just the flexibility to use a different kind of monster when you think that you need something more tailored to the current situation, and clearly it wouldn't mess with their action economy either.Would granting summoners a Divine Font type of ability, but with summon spells, rather than heal and harm, help to make them seem more summoner'y do you think?I don't think the eidolon class should get this, but a hypothetical summoner should. Like I said, the class is fine, the name is misleading. Having a bunch of summon spells and the eidolon is too much action tax, and too much a single character can do. The class is perfectly fine but I would be down for your idea on a new classThose options are so incredibly limited and in no way fulfill the class fantasy of operating a class that wants to use summoned creatures as their primary form of class power.
I tried to use Master Summoner. It amounts to three max level summons a day (2 at level 20, but that is equal to other classes) if that is all you use your highest level spell slots for. You have to make sure to pick the fights you use these three slots on. Then hope they last long enough to make it feel like those three summons spells were a good use of your max level slots. On top of hoping they are positioned close enough for something like Ostentatious Arrival to work.
Boost Summons is only effective if your creature can land a hit. You can't use boost summons on a round you spend 3 actions to cast a summoning spell,...
Yes. Summoner gets its name from being the PF2 equivalent to the PF1 class. Not from being the class that makes Summons a very strong option in PF2.
It still works better at using Summons than most other classes AFAICT.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty sure Deriven's argument would just be that summons are bad. So being good at them is a waste of time as a Summoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoner would be pretty good with summons if summon spells were good; a spell that provides encounter-long value out of one slot and benefits from expanded action economy is the kind of thing Summoners want. It's just, y'know, summon spells are not good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty sure Deriven's argument would just be that summons are bad. So being good at them is a waste of time as a Summoner.
Yes. Summons are a bad long-term investment for everyone as they scale badly as you level. As the level spread becomes wider between the summon and what they fight, they lose their value.
At low level they are not too bad and maintain useful ability.
The summoner could use them the best if they had a focus point driven summon spell that allowed a max level summons every battle. I might even try this as a house rule at some point to test its viability. Even with Master summoner, 3 slots is an insufficient number to spend those precious slots on summons and the feats to boost them. Investing a bunch of summon boosting feats that are dead feats other than those three times per day would feel badly for most. Even those three times per day they might feel useless due to the length of the fight.
I've used summons. They are not too bad at lower levels. I've had some fun with them and their unique abilities. Primal and divine list are the best summoning lists based on my experience. Occult and arcane are about the same.
Just wish summons didn't scale so badly. If you spend an 8th, 9th, or 10th level slot on a summoner, it should be able to hit what you're fighting consistently. The creature is so bad at hitting and affecting the battle and can so easily be torn apart, it's a bad use of a slot at higher levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Summons are a bad long-term investment for everyone
Not going to argue too much with that.
What I do want to mention is:
1) This does not mean that Summoner is a bad class.
2) This does not mean that the name Summoner is a misleading name for the class.
3) This does not mean that Summoners don't use summoning spells better than nearly any other class (Conjuration Wizard with Augment Summoning and Witch with Cackle being the only meaningful competition).
Claiming #3 is like saying that Gunslinger is bad at using firearms because firearms are so much worse of an option than bows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Summons are a bad long-term investment for everyone as they scale badly as you level. As the level spread becomes wider between the summon and what they fight, they lose their value.
The level difference stays at 4 levels, from character level 7 and up, rank 4 spells. But as hit points scale up faster than damage, summons actually become tougher.
Still 4 levels means a difference of about 6 on to hit and AC. Which is why people maintain that summons are poor. But given that you get to pick your summoned creature you can normally bring a couple of those points back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
6 points is only 1 point behind a secondary attack. That doesn't sound so bad to me.
People make secondary attacks all the time.
They wouldn't do that if they were objectively terrible.