MongrelHorde's page

I see 3 options?
1: I can not take the "way of the spellshot" because I already have a dedication feat?
2:must take the spellshot dedication feat as stated in the way (specific trumps general?)
3:can't take spellshot dedication because I haven't completed my Witch dedication, and get a normal 2nd level class feat?

If I play as an Ancient Elf and pick up Witch Dedication, and I pick Gunslinger as my main class, can I still pick Way of the Spellshot? And how does that interact with the requirements of taking Spellshot Dedication on level 2?

My view; a fighter built for damage will always out damage a monk.

Where the monk is really strong is as a 'sword and board' and multiclass caster. Because a monk has better action economy (more movement and flurry of blowd) they have more actions for shield raise and casting spells.

The monk should be the first into the brawl and trying to soak as much hits as possible. Their ac is only sometimes behind a min-maxed fighter by 1 with a shield. Their stances allow them to effectively wield a D10 and a shield.

Use the monks greater action economy to get to the casters/archers faster

I like the idea of the Champion. Because now you can get in the fray of combat, while providing the Bards Utility and the Champs defense.

I dont think any of the other MCs are going to greatly improve your offense as much as the Champ will improve your (and the parties) defense.

Woah. I never even thought about rogue, dread stalker, and dirge of doom.

My go to was always fighter for power attack + true strike shenanigans. But i suppsose thats not dex based.

Fighters do have a similar feat to dread stalker... Shatter defenses?

Does rogue MC let you get dex to damage? I dont think so right?

I think bable incoherently is flavor text and not an actual effect. The effect is stunned one which is gone after the first round. The one minute duration is in regards to the failed and critically failed rolls.

The strongest argument is there is a specific example in the CRB stating Persistent Damage doubles on a Critical.

No where else in the Rules is there anything even hinting they don't double.

There is nothing in the rules talking about how Criticals and conditions work.

Persistent Damage doubling on a crit would be the only way a Alchemist would be playable.

There is at least one example in the Core Rule book of Persistent Damage being doubled.

How the condition is applied to you can absolutely make you go from Frightened 1 to Frightened 2 (Fear and Demoralize both worth this way). Frightening Strike (the fighter feat) works that way.

Stunning Fist goes from Stunned 1 to Stunned 3.

Dying has extra effects on a Crit Succ/Fail.

The same applies for many other effects that apply conditions, they generally have an extra effect on a critical success or a critical failure. I find this again and again in the core rule book.

There is nothing in the rules that leads me to believe Persistent Damage does NOT double on a crit.

Bump, anyone have any opinions on this? My thoughts are they would be able to apply metamagic feat, as the

Sorcerers and Bards: Sorcerers and bards choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to apply their metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. Because the sorcerer or bard has not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, he must apply the metamagic feat on the spot. Therefore, such a character must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than he does to cast a regular spell. If the spell’s normal casting time is a standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn’t the same as a 1-round casting time.) The only exception is for spells modified by the Quicken Spell metamagic feat, which can be cast as normal using the feat.

My thoughts are because it's a swift action, you wouldn't increase the casting time.

Bump, anyone have any opinions on this? My thoughts are they would be able to apply metamagic feat, as the

Sorcerers and Bards: Sorcerers and bards choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to apply their metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. Because the sorcerer or bard has not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, he must apply the metamagic feat on the spot. Therefore, such a character must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than he does to cast a regular spell. If the spell’s normal casting time is a standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn’t the same as a 1-round casting time.) The only exception is for spells modified by the Quicken Spell metamagic feat, which can be cast as normal using the feat.

My thoughts are because it's a swift action, you wouldn't increase the casting time.

Hiruma, we are disagreeing. I was saying precision is better against low ACs/debuffed targets, not just high ACs. I was also saying that flurry being better or equal at 3 attacks is what I might have thought before analysis, but after analysis I see it's better only in very rare circumstances, not common ones like 4 attacks in round.

I'm confused. What does this graph show then?

https://imgur.com/a/vYvksol

I read it as flurry out performing precision.

MongrelHorde wrote:

After doing some calculations by hand, I'm convinced the highest Ranger DPR build is a Flurry Ranger with an Animal Companion with Bear Support (assuming the bear Support ability can crit), regardless of if you have to mark your target or not.

This is comparing Flurry + Bear support, vs Precision vs Bear Support, specifically at level 10.

Comparing generic flurry vs generic precision, flurry wins when using all 3 actions to attack and you don't need to spend an action to mark.

Precision wins at 2 attacks.

Well, there's an issue somewhere as my graphs prove that Bear Support + Precision outdamages Bear Support + Flurry...

And I really tend to trust my graphs on this one, as the less arrows you throw with Flurry and the more Precision goes ahead.

Are you able to copy and paste the full attack routines from the graph? They are cut off, so I can't compare my analysis, my run of the tool, and your graph.

After doing some calculations by hand, I'm convinced the highest Ranger DPR build is a Flurry Ranger with an Animal Companion with Bear Support (assuming the bear Support ability can crit), regardless of if you have to mark your target or not.

This is comparing Flurry + Bear support, vs Precision vs Bear Support, specifically at level 10.

Comparing generic flurry vs generic precision, flurry wins when using all 3 actions to attack and you don't need to spend an action to mark.

Precision wins at 2 attacks.

MongrelHorde wrote:

Superbidi made a claim, and then backed that claim up with a mathematical model.

Except...you've got no proof that model is accurate. Neither he (nor Citrick) backed it up with real life data and proved his predictions model actual game play. So Bidi is back at square one. I can make a graph that shows 1+1=3. That doesn't mean its true.

Quote:

Until I see numbers I will be completely unswayed that flurry is better than precision for a ranged character.

I'm not try to "sway" you...at all. You are 100% entitled to subscribe to whatever belief you want to based on whatever good or bad science you accept as verities. I'm just interested in exploring the topic.

I think you have a misunderstanding of citricking's tool and the underlying math it uses.

Your math is wrong.

citricking wrote:

N, that sounds like a very harsh assessment of the tool I made. If you'd have looked at it you'd have found you can put any assumptions you want in it.

I have looked at your tool, extensively. My criticism isn't so much at the tool, it's at how it's presented and used as "proof" of something which it does not prove.

NN959 wrote:

I've seen Citrick's calculations and they are, imo, misinformation. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that people are looking at his results and thinking it proves something it does not.

By way of analogy, if I have a graph that shows falling from 30ft, head down, on to sharp pointy rocks six inches long is fatal, that's not proof that all falls are always fatal.

Superbidi made a claim, and then backed that claim up with a mathematical model.

Please provide any mathematical model that disproves his claim, or point out a specific error with his assumptions (and what the assumption should be, and how that then flows through the rest of the math).

Until I see numbers I will be completely unswayed that flurry is better than precision for a ranged character.

Consider me convinced.

I wonder what the numbers would be for a melee build? My gut tells me precision is still likely to be better, because how many times do you get to be next to an enemy, have it marked, and then get to flurry for 4 attacks? Seems much harder to do than a bow. The only damage you have over the bow being using full strength and a better die on one attack.

Gary Bush wrote:

With the Fly Speed being set at the time that the spell is cast...

While I originally thought the situation was ambiguous, I've become convinced that Fly Speed is not fixed, nor set at the time Fly is cast. I will try to explain my reasoning. First, I'll (re)post some of the rules text.

Fly wrote:

Duration 5 minutes

The target can soar through the air, gaining a fly Speed equal to its Speed or 20 feet, whichever is greater.

Cast a Spell wrote:

You cast a spell you have prepared or in your repertoire. Casting a Spell is a special activity that takes a variable number of actions depending on the spell, as listed in each spell’s stat block. As soon as the spellcasting actions are complete, the spell effect occurs.

Effect Duration wrote:

Most effects are discrete, creating an instantaneous effect when you let the GM know what actions you are going to use. Firing a bow, moving to a new space, or taking something out of your pack all resolve instantly. Other effects instead last for a certain duration. Once the duration has elapsed, the effect ends.

Spell Durations wrote:

The duration of a spell is how long the spell effect lasts. Spells that last for more than an instant have a Duration entry.

The Fly spell has a duration and an effect. Because it has a duration, the effect is not instantaneous, but rather is applied at all times until the duration has been exceeded.

This means that for every turn on every round for a duration of five minutes, a character who is being affected by the Fly spell has

"a fly Speed equal to its Speed or 20 feet, whichever is greater."

This is the effect, as written in the spell description. The effect is...

This is the most persuasive argument yet.

My thought process is inferring timing here is likely to make things weird (to Zap's previously raised point) for more than just this one scenario. However, I think there are going to be weird cases for either ruling, but there will be less weird scenarios for ruling Fly as "dynamic" in that it's speed changes with your (land) speed.

When timing is important, Paizo has very clearly outlined the timing.

Examples:
When do you get your reaction back? At the beginning of your turn.
When does Persistent Damage apply? At the end of your turn.
When do you roll for Persistent damage to fall off? At the end of your turn after persistent damage.
When does X condition fall off? Explained in the specific condition.
When do you get the extra action from Quickened? ONLY at the beginning of your turn.

After reading most of the thread I agree with Zap, Longstrider boosts the Fly spell.

I think whether the Speed of Fly is Static of Dynamic is ambiguous. In my game I'd rule it's dynamic, in that if you cast Longstrider after you cast fly you still get the speed boost to your fly speed..

There is no spell attack roll with the spell, only a Reflex save.

If I were being an absolute stinker I would arbitrate nothing happens. But how lame is that?

On a critical failure Weapon Storm does double damage and,

"the target takes double damage and is subject to the weapon's critical specialization effect".

For almost all weapons this makes sense. But how does this apply for Axes?

"Choose one creature adjacent to the initial target and within reach. If its AC is lower than your attack roll result for the critical hit, you deal damage to that creature equal to the result of the weapon damage die you rolled (including extra dice for its potency rune, if any). This amount isn't doubled and no bonuses or other additional dice apply to this damage."

I think if Charisma gave you anymore, it would easily be one of the top stats, especially for some builds. For example, rogues couldn't care less for INT because they're getting Skill Feats EVERY Level.

Everyone benefits from Intimidate. The Wizard, the Archer, the Fighter, lady-dady-every-body.

I would personally peg INT as the weakest stat. Could be it's just not my style. If you have a reasonably put together party you can spread around the important skills. At some point Magic just takes care of language.

I haven't parsed enough of the arguments presented to really pass judgement on the rules.

I just wanted to say the concept is REALLY cool.

Imagine a monkey sitting on your forearm or maybe a special pouch/carrier on your chest, named Bo Bo, he wears a hat and a vest.

"CRANK BO BO, CRANK!" The sweaty Alchemist commanded as the raging Troll began to charge.

And there's little Bo Bo, cranking away on his master's crossbow.

I did some light digging around on the forums and couldn't find if this has already been discussed. If it has please point me in the right direction!

The restrictions on the bonus actions for haste is they must be used for Stride or Strike.

This would leave me to believe you may only use the extra action for those two specific actions as detailed in the (I think it's Encounter) section of the CRB.

And you couldn't use the extra action for say... Power Attack (even though Power Attack is in essence a 'strike')?

For some reason I can't go back and edit my post, or I'm blind.

Level 13 Wizard with Fighter Dedication. Takes power attack, has a +2 greater Striking Great Pick. Takes Bespel Weapon.

Every turn casts True Strike, Bespell Weapon, and then Power Attack.

To Hit Bonus:
Level: 13
Proficiency(expert): 4
Ability (str): 4
Item: 2
Total: 23

Damage
Normal hit:
3D10 Great Pick, 2D10 Power Attack
D6 from Bespell Weapon
Weapon Specialization: 2
Str: 4
Total Average: 37

Crit:
5D10 turns into 10D12 plus 1 from Fatal, total 11D12
2D6 Bespell Weapon
Spec: 4
Str: 8
Total: 90.5 (Nice)

Chance to Hit: ~65% Weighted Average: 24.01
Chance to Crit: ~19% Weighted Average: 17.29

Total Weighted Average Damage per turn: 41.30

The Worm Dies in 6.5 Turns.

Full caster Gish that can P O P off on fools.

[Placeholder for Wizard -> Fighter, True Strike + Bespell + Power Attack analysis once I get to it.]

corwyn42 wrote:

I like the "always in range" argument, so the comparison is only about damage and not wasting actions on closing the distance for melee focused gish characters.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how many rounds to go. Perhaps we should compare how many rounds does it take your character to kill the Purple Worm.

Is the Worm doing anything in this scenario? Just using True Strike + Bespell + Ki Strike and a Monk/Wiz kills it on the third turn.

RAVIOLI RAVIOLI SHOW ME THOSE NUMBEROLIES!!!!

Perhaps a better use of this thread is to create actual full caster gish builds to level 13. Have it go 3 rounds against a standard/common Creature 13 entry from the Bestiary. Specify what actions your character would do for those 3 rounds and do the math so we have something concrete to compare.

So, requirements:

1. Character must start with a caster class:
- Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer or Wizard
2. Character must Archetype into at least one martial type:
- Alchemist, Barbarian, Champion, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue

3. You choose Ancestry, Background, Ability Scores, Skills, Feats advancing the character to level 13.

4. Select 2 items from the 13th Level Permanent Items (or lower) on the Treasure Table and 2 items from the 13th Level Consumables (or lower) and are able to spend up to 5000 gp for any kind of items/crafting/rune application, etc to outfit your character.

5. Specify the actions for 3 rounds of combat against a Purple Worm which starts 120 feet away and will not use the burrow speed during any of those rounds (so that it can always be targeted). The Purple Worm only moves 40 feet closer each round (no other actions). The gish goes first.

6. Calculate the damage done for those 3 rounds
(Avg damage for damage rolls * % chance to hit or failed save, etc)

7. We are able to compare/comment about the strengths/weaknesses of each build.

Sound reasonable?

I like this. I might say we just use the stats of a Purple Worm as a punching bag that's always in range. Quantifying melee damage vs ranged utility is hard. A melee gish will do more damage than a ranged gish, but only if they can be in ranged. So we just make the distinction, this is a range / melee (or both).

I'm also ok with however many rounds people want as well. OP's build requires a few rounds to get going.

While I don't think the OP's gish is the most optimized thing in the world, I do think it's a little unfair to compare a divine gish to the highest damage output build in the game. It's the same reason people day you shouldn't compare bonuses to hit to the fighter. Accuracy is the fighter's thing, while damage is the barbarian's thing. Gishes are better off compared to monks, rangers, and champions.

I agree. I more or less took offense to the claim below.

SuperBidi wrote:

I'm still a bit puzzled by the title: Why "best" gish?

First one I've seen that is a full caster and is capable of similar damage from range as a raging barbarian in melee.

MongrelHorde wrote:

I also agree with puksone.

I highly doubt your character comes close to the DPR of a semi-optimized barbarian. A +3 to hit is a big deal. Additionally an 11th Barbarian does a lot of damage.

You've thrown words at us, now throw numbers : )

Barbarian level 13 3 attacks.

Assuming a enemy required 10 to hit on his first attack.

10/15/20 for barbarian

13/18/23 for the cleric.

First thing to note is you won't be attacking 3x with your shortbow as the cleric. Your first attack is a spell.

So your 13/18 is equivalent action to the barbarian 15/20. His first hit should be compared to your spell you led with. . . .

So in this scenario. Comparing the 2nd and 3rd attacks.

A barbarian and cloistered cleric with a greater striking rune. Both are 13th level, the Barbarian is Giant Instinct, both have greater striking. The Barbarian has a D12 weapon.

The Barbarian, on average, will do 3x the damage as the cleric gish.

Barbarian damage is 3D12 (average of 16.5), plus Str mod of 5, plus weapon spec of 3, plus rage of 10. Total of 34.5

The cleric gish does 5D6, 3D6 from the short bow, 2D6 from emblazoned energy and divine weapon. Total of 17.5, plus 2 from weapon spec. Total of 19.5

The barbarian's chance to hit on the 2nd and 3rd attacks are:

25% to hit, 5% to crit, weighted average total of 12.075 Dmg.

5% to crit, weighted average total of 3.45

Total: 15.525

The gish's chance to hit on the 2nd and 3rd attacks are:

10% to hit, 5% crit, weighted average total of 3.09

5% to hit, weighted average total of 0.975.

Total: 4.07

---------------------------------------------------

This was a pretty straight forward scenario. And there are other variables that can swing it more one way or the other, but there's a huge gap when it comes to DPR.

edit: Some wording

I also agree with puksone.

I highly doubt your character comes close to the DPR of a semi-optimized barbarian. A +3 to hit is a big deal. Additionally an 11th Barbarian does a lot of damage.

You've thrown words at us, now throw numbers : )

I'm personally Ok with Champions being able to heal X every 10 minutes, especially because mostly anyone can get similar effects with Medicine.

You are a player on a Mount that is your Animal Companion.

You command your animal companion, giving it 2 actions. The mount uses one of it's two actions to Tumble through an enemy... while you are mounted. Mount makes an acrobatics role vs enemies Reflex...

And that's it? You, the rider / the player don't have to make any checks?

That's how I see the rules as written, coming here to get some perspective.

@SuperBidi

Which of the three Alchemist paths will you play? I ask because you seem to have a different view on the Alchemist than most. Also, tone doesn't go over well over the internet, but I'm not trying to be patronizing.

Whip also has half the die size, which is why people are "CUCKO FOR THE GNOMISH FLICKMACE!"

And because it's ancestral you can make it simple...? I think.

I don't get the flickmace hype. Ranseur has reach, one-handed and a D10 dmg. The crit specialization is a little bit situational.

What is the best dpr build for a fighter?

Flickmace isn't really focused on maximizing DPR, it's about having reach, and a shield, while rolling a decent Die size.

So it's really good with a Champion build, almost always allowing them to get their AoO when allies are struck (with a certain 1st level feat.. the name escapes me).

As for highest Fighter DPR build citricking has a google sheet, somewhere, that shows all the different Fighter attack routines at different levels with a Greatsword.

I don't think there will be 1 build that's just best, but more like 1 build at a level that's best. And the weapon includes either a Greatsword or a GreatPick.

Can we MC with this theoretically highest fighter DPR? Or Just straight Fighter?

I mean... spells are also generally AoE, whereas strikes aren't.

Flickmace fighters and paladin champions are heavily underrated.

Being able to proc an AoO is huge for DPR, especially if you can get multiple AoO's in a turn at higher level. Another attack at no MAP.

I'm prone to calling Natural Ambition a top tier ancestry feat, as well.

I think Sky Blue is a fair rating. I had the opposite opinion on 1st and 2nd level Barbarian Feats.

I think some classes REAALLLY want those class feats (Alchemist) and others are pretty meh. I think Rogue is pretty meh, Sorc, Wizard, and Barbarian are the ones I remember thinking I should Multi class with these classes because their early feats felt underwhelming.

Also, you only get benefit from Sudden Charge if you needed that extra Stride increment.

If you're a Level 1 martial (not Fighter) and you're fighting this dude.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=165

a +1 to hit will not increase your chances to crit. And that's not to say anything for any monster that has an AC of 16, and uses Raise Shield to give themselves more AC.

To know you're relative chance to hit requires having a target AC score to go against. Which is one of the reason this is again bad.

You don't know target ACs most of the time, and it changes as you level and the enemies change. You can pick an average AC value to do the math against, but that doesn't change the problem.

I mean... we're operating is a system with bounded accuracy. So we absolutely know the range of AC values people will fight at a given level.

I find value in the relative increase / decrease of events happening. I think it is a mistake to try and dissuade people from using it in their analysis.

I will say shroudb's initial post about the crit was enlightening to me. Because the axiom:

"+1 to hit is a 5% increase to hit AND crit"

isn't true, for reasons they've already pointed out.

For me personally thinking about things relatively is enormously helpful. Because you can get a sense for how much crits make up your average DPR, and knowing the relative increase in Crits you could then apply that (quickly) to someone's DPR; where you can't really do that with knowing the absolute chance to crit. (You could, but you'd end up converting it back to a relative increase and applying that to the ratio of normal:crit damage).

Also, if someone gets turned around by fairly simple statistical concepts, I don't know if I want them at the table talking about Mathematical modeling.

Oh yea, that would probably do it.

plus, Agile may indeed be a trap.

So just doing some Quick Maths. Comparing a D6 weapon to a D8. With a +23 to damage and the Three extra weapon dice the Agile weapon will do more damage, just barely. With the differences being more pronounced the higher the AC. The Agile weapon being anywhere from like 2% - 8% more DPR with those parameters.

i also feel that a straight up ranger two wielding is pretty crazy in pure dpr numbers.

i mean, 6 attacks at -2, 7 attacks if hasted, is no joke.

and even before that, having only -1/-2 MAP is pretty insane.

as for burst, i think that paladin can do a nasty 2 turn setup if he chooses to use his focus on litanies, but not sure.

How is the Ranger getting 6 attacks? Twin Takedown is flourish, so only 1 per turn = (

From some reasonably simple modeling I've done, a Giant Instinct Barbarian, MC into Fighter to get Double Slice took the cake. Moving to flank, then double slice with non-agile weapons.

Then, once Rogues get Gang Up and ... Backstab? (The Reaction that lets them attack someone their buddies attacked) they were our top contender.

However, I haven't tested how Weapon Scaling changes any of our base calculations, nor weapon specialization.

But if I had to put money on the most absurd Damage it would be a Rogue, who's hasted, who is flanking (Gang up) and has Backstab (so effectively 5 strike actions, 4 base + 1 for Backstab) who MC'd into ranger to get the 1 action 2 attacks, who has a Ranger buddy who gives him the Hunter's Edge benefits, and just rips into someone.

6 attacks. in this order. +0, +0, -2, -4, -4, -4

Glorious.

Oh hey, Power Attack is lower than SSS pretty much across the board.

... Did you look at the spreadsheet? It's glorious, and their doing God's work. And that's not at all what the analysis shows.

It shows SSS scales better with more To-Hit (or lower AC enemies). And Power Attack is not great at certain breakpoints (i.e between 4 and 6).

Finally the disparity between Power Attack and SSS between 1 and 5 is closer than what they have modeled, as striking, then power attacking is the more optimal routine before Furious Focus.

Two-Weapon Flurry is a Flourish (also Press), which means you can only do it once.

Given the verbiage of Double Slice, I'm going to assume each Strike applies it's own MAP.

So something like Strike (+0), Flurry(-5, -10), strike(-10)

Great Analysis, I love it. I agree with your sentiments that Electrical Arc is busted (for being a spammable cantrip). Maybe Reflex saves will be easier to come by (and Evasion) in the game, thus decreasing it's actual effectiveness.

Also, in regards to weapon attacks decreasing in scaling it should be important to note that you can get AoO's with Weapons. Strikes can be modified (with things like Power Attack or what have you) and their effectiveness in the moment can be increased (flanking, bard buffs, debuffing the enemy, etc. . .)

So I'm not sure how worried I am about the decrease in scaling of Martials weapon strikes.

Not to say that could actually be a problem (if someone provides the numbers to back up said claim), but that just in my gut of guts, it doesn't feel like a problem.

The thing is it's only weapon damage that's going down. Electric arc damage stays pretty level as a portion of HP.

How, or where, are you determining the average (Reflex?) save for Electrical Arc? But, Electrical Arc has crazy good scaling, so that statement wouldn't surprise me.

Cool. Just checking. Is that including flanking or not? It probably won't make a general trend difference but it's gonna be very common and I'm curious.

This would just shift the trend line up on the y-axis, it wouldn't change the scaling. So it would still be a downward trend.

Wow great analysis. So based on this, it looks like animal companions are pretty garbage and not worth the feats and action investment.

Only benefit I can see outside of flavor really is for a rogue with ranger/druid dedication to get a flanking buddy...

That's not what this analysis shows, it just shows the relative scaling of an animal companion, and their advances. NOT that it's a DPR decrease relative to other options for a Druid/Ranger. That would be a much more extensive analysis.

I haven't done a Level 1 -> 20 analysis, because of time, but at early levels Animal Companions are a juicy increase in DPR.

You're trading your lowest efficiency attack, for two more attacks (or a gnarly support buff) at a higher efficiency.

Not to mention when Animal Companions just get free actions, even if you don't command them (I think at 4 for Druid, unsure on Ranger).

I noticed this as well, and if a player brought it up I would allow it.

This "cheeze" is the spice of life that made me love Pathfinder 1 over other editions, so it warms my heart to know there are nuggets of this in Second.

Skimming through the Bestiary it takes effort to find a Creature between level 2 and 4 that has a Fortitude save of less than +7. A front-liner at level 4 is more likely to have a save of +10 - +12, so N O T E V E N C L O S E.

Where as our to-hit calculation needs an AC of 19; plenty of those between levels 2 and 4.

The monsters I found were Dhampir and Ghast, who had a Fort of +6 or less, and WERENT level 1.

So Channel Smite is actually, super good. Especially at lower levels.