| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 changed Summon spells so they create simulations of creatures, not summon actual creatures. So no moral quandaries, but also no relationships, souls, bargains, etc. No permission from gods necessary either since Divine casters that hate gods can cast them too.
There are Rituals already for actual summoning, like Planar Servitor. Though it does mention having to call upon a deity, it also allows other divine powers instead. Most importantly, you don't have to be a Divine caster (or caster at all). As for swapping out promises/blood/bargains for the actual payment, that'd be GM territory.
Oh, and they're not Outsiders anymore. They don't share a mechanical trait. In fact, the Planar Servitor doesn't have to be planar, though it's implied since the divine entity does the choosing.
Then there's Binding Circle, where the target is extraplanar.
Both of these are in the Remaster, so quite up to date & suitable, but Uncommon which is normal for Rituals so GMs have to opt in to this style of narrative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summons were always short lived "copies" of the original, never the actual creature.
If you wanted to make deals with them, you needed to Call (in PF1) not Summon. In PF2 you have Planar Servitor, which is basically the same thing, except as a ritual.
PF2 changed Summon spells so they create simulations of creatures, not summon actual creatures...Castilliano, do you have a cite for that? I'm not seeing it in the 'Summoned' section of spell descriptions (PC1 p301). Now the spell lists use the word 'conjure', but the actual spell descriptions consistently start out with "You summon a creature that has the ______ trait...". That seems pretty clear: you are summoning something, not creating a simulacrum.
Additional texts in some spells (see specifically "Summon Monitor", PC1 p361) also seems to point to this being a real critter. Urgathoa doesn't prevent her followers from creating illusions of psychopomps, but she does care if her followers summon one.
Hmm, citation needed indeed, but I lack one.
I learned it from an extended online discussion several years back with Paizo officials, so maybe it's not in the rules themselves, but it had been a conscious choice. In the previous editions, summoned creatures poofed back to their world/plane/former life when killed, a dubious strain to inflict on them (and something Planescape addressed as terrifying in those societies). But they'd survive. Paizo had changed it so extraplanar creatures die now in the Universe, so Summon spells became morally reprehensible; kidnapping, then mind-controlling, odds are they're slaughtered. This fixed that.Naturally I may be mistaken, and I threw in simulation a bit too swiftly when they described it more like a simulacrum or facsimile; as in the caster is summoning planar stuff that they shape into the creature (as opposed to creating it from nothing as a pseudo-illusion). So I can imagine Urgathoa disliking "Pschopomp" essence being summoned too because the creation does have the mentality/spirituality of one.
PF2 Reddit threads repeat this, one person saying Secrets of Magic says this, but I couldn't find it in AoN. (I don't frequent Reddit, so didn't get it there.) Okay, others have legitimate counterarguments (quoting from spells like you did), and in another thread one commenter mentions that it comes directly from Jacobs himself and how that fact has no bearing on the RAW or RAI.
(Hmm. Pretty sure this interpretation doesn't alter RAW or RAI one bit anyway, at least mechanically. So I'm unsure of their point, being as Jacobs does control the mythos, doesn't he?)
And it's different for Rituals which sometimes call existing creatures.
But yeah, no citation. Jacobs, Jacobs, Jacobs! (*crossing fingers*)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Summons were copies even in PF1.
This wasn't changed in PF2.
AFAIK it was a popular house rule to let someone summon the same instance of a creature every time so you could form a relationship with it (or have it be really annoyed that you keep interrupting what it's doing to yank it here to fight for you), but that was never RAW in Pathfinder.
It may have been in D&D, and it can vary by setting. One of the fun things about this stuff is how as a lot of us initially transitioned from D&D, something that was a rule or a common convention there may have simply carried over even if it wasn't in Pathfinder itself. It all gets muddied up in our memories over time. :)
Now if you want to get really confusing, PF1 itself wasn't consistent in this. Conjuration's school description says this:
bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning);
"Manifestations" here seems clear that it's creating a new one. The same description also mentions calling as being the one that teleports a creature to you:
Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling)
But, farther down the page it also says this:
Summoning: a summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again.
That description says it "brings a creature to a place", and sends it back where it came from when the spell is over. That sounds an awful lot more like teleporting an actual creature vs manifesting a copy of one, doesn't it? So it's inconsistent within itself on what it's doing.
Both of these are basically the same as their 3.5 equivalents IIRC.
Given that ambiguity, I tend to just assume that what James said is what was intended. They simply made it clearer in PF2 by not carrying over the contradicatory 3.5 wording.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 changed Summon spells so they create simulations of creatures, not summon actual creatures...Castilliano, do you have a cite for that? I'm not seeing it in the 'Summoned' section of spell descriptions (PC1 p301). Now the spell lists use the word 'conjure', but the actual spell descriptions consistently start out with "You summon a creature that has the ______ trait...". That seems pretty clear: you are summoning something, not creating a simulacrum.
Additional texts in some spells (see specifically "Summon Monitor", PC1 p361) also seems to point to this being a real critter. Urgathoa doesn't prevent her followers from creating illusions of psychopomps, but she does care if her followers summon one.
It's mentioned in the writeups of the old spell schools in Secrets of Magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rituals are very expensive for a creature that is close to level equivalent. The message from the Paizo designers is "We don't want summoning to be very good any more and if you want it close to usable, you will have to pay huge sums of coin."
It's a very costly endeavor and summoned creatures using summon spells are very weak compared to what you fight. Unless you find some utility function for a creature, you can't expect them to be as good in combat as a direct damage spell.
Summoning was too powerful in P1. It would allow you to take over a combat. That is why they instituted the sustain mechanic, keeping you to one at a time. Also with the cleaner math of P2, you didn't have to worry about a creature 5+ levels lower than your opponent hitting easily or using touch spells, etc.
It is part of the effort to prevent spellcasters from being better than other classes at their niche.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoning was too powerful in P1. It would allow you to take over a combat. That is why they instituted the sustain mechanic, keeping you to one at a time. Also with the cleaner math of P2, you didn't have to worry about a creature 5+ levels lower than your opponent hitting easily or using touch spells, etc.
It is part of the effort to prevent spellcasters from being better than other classes at their niche.
I don't mind the one creature part as the swarms of archons and elementals used by power gamer summoners was pretty hated not just by DMs, but by players.
I sure wish the one creature you summon was more fearsome in combat.
That option occurred to me too, Easl. There's already a similar mechanic in place for Companions which compete w/ top summons without costing a slot. Maybe a remastered Summoner would have such an option & with a stronger creature too; maybe a +1 level, give those even-numbered monsters some stage time.
Or a Master Summoner Class Archetype could give up their Eidelon for a Focus Spell w/ such competitive summons & feats to boost them further like the Wild Shape ones; broader choices + small perks when summoning something else. Summoned Monster + Cantrip should be about even in power. The breadth of options balanced with the actions to summon & loss of Tandem abilities & other double-entity perks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind the one creature part as the swarms of archons and elementals used by power gamer summoners was pretty hated not just by DMs, but by players.
I sure wish the one creature you summon was more fearsome in combat.
With sustain being one action, it has to balance against third actions. A summon attack 3-5 points behind is exactly that.
They could probably make a balanced 'full level' summon if the sustain took 2 actions, and that would balance out because it wouldn't allow casters 'double full attack' with spell and creature. But if they did that, I'm sure players would complain about how full level summons were terrible because they have to spend 2 actions to keep them up ;)
They are not worth using for 3rd action damage.
The best summons have access to spells or effects that are very good like the Muse Azata.
Summoning was too powerful in P1. It would allow you to take over a combat. That is why they instituted the sustain mechanic, keeping you to one at a time. Also with the cleaner math of P2, you didn't have to worry about a creature 5+ levels lower than your opponent hitting easily or using touch spells, etc.
It is part of the effort to prevent spellcasters from being better than other classes at their niche.
Much like a bunch of spells in PF2, they responded to a real problem in PF1 by nerfing it in too many directions at once.
Sustain goes a long way to addressing the issue, since you can't just keep chain summoning while Invisible the way you could in PF1. They also could have added a thing so you can't have more than one summon active at once, and the problem is largely solved.
But they also made most of the summons really bad. That's why folks lean on summons that have special abilities: you're not summoning them for direct combat power because any encounter actually worth blowing a high rank spell slot on will find a summoned monster trivial. They function as decoys to soak attacks and that's about it. Most players don't find that very fun, so usage of summon spells has fallen off a cliff.
I've only seen one person even attempt to build a "small-s summoner" in PF2 and they were really unsatisfied with it.
I'll agree summons were nerfed a little too hard.
There probably should be a dedication (or class feat) with an option that improves them to being like -2 behind dedicated martials, but costs the caster 2 actions to sustain.
The idea of spending two actions, to temporarily control a creature that's a little less effective as a martial character and only has 2 actions, sounds pretty balanced to me.