SuperBidi's page

I made a comparision with PF2Calculator and the DPR difference between rogue and swashbuckler become huge when rogue get Precise and Bloody Debilitations. The advantage of do precision damage in every Strike in tremendous.

I don't think anything can compete with your Rogue. At level 20, 70 damage per round is a good measure of expected damage, 100 when taking reactions into account. Anything beyond that starts to raise one of my eyebrows.

Rogue is a massively damaging class when everything is under control. On the other hand, it has a lot of pain points that can suddenly turn it into a dead weight, especially at the worst moment, ie. when s**t hits the fan. That's why I don't like to use it as a measure of effectiveness as it's a really unreliable class. I prefer to use a good Greatsword Fighter who's damage output is really consistant.

This is an analysis of if the swashbuckler damage is competitive in groups, so this talk of a third action is irrelevant. If that is what is expected of the swashbuckler, they are going to suck.

On that I fully agree with Deriven. Third actions are not impactful enough to shift a build value.

The Swashbuckler asset, like the Precision Ranger and the Monk, is action economy. That's always really hard to judge as it's value is partly GM/table-dependent and otherwise asks for complicated builds.

The action is "you are fencing with an enemy and waiting for the perfect moment to strike so that they wouldn't be able to avoid ally's strike". Or "you are observing an enemy and waiting for the perfect moment to strike so that they wouldn't be able to avoid ally's strike". And the reaction is that striking/feinting attempt which results in a check. For example. You could make your own description.

Or "Their shield gets stuck with your weapon and you keep it that way while your ally attacks the enemy" or "you grab the dragon leg for a couple of seconds while your ally attacks". There can be 2 ways of describing it, either focusing on the reaction or on the preparation.

I actually love these sentences: "You’ll also need to determine how long the preparation takes. Typically, a single action is sufficient to help with a task that’s completed in a single round, but to help someone perform a long-term task, like research, the character has to help until the task is finished."

The first one speaks about the preparation duration and the second one, which is supposed to help determine the duration of the preparation, completely replaces the word preparation by help: "The character has to help until the task is finished" when we are speaking of the preparation duration...

The preparation for an ally's attack could be taking swings at the enemy yourself, the reaction is when you make your well timed attack giving your ally a better chance at getting through.

I react, a bit late, at that statement because I think it points out a real issue with Aid.

Aid is a reaction with a preparation phase. But it actually doesn't really make sense. If you are aiding a surgeon during an hour, the preparation is... actually the Aid itself and the Aid reaction represents nothing.

Even in the lockpick example given in the rules, the preparation is the Aid itself and the reaction is meaningless.

And when you Aid an attack, what is supposed to be the preparation? You think: I gonna Aid this attack! How is that supposed to even take an action.

So I think Aid is misleading, which is why there are so many disagreements. If, when aiding your ally attack a foe, you visualize a single action that you perform exactly when your ally attack, then the preparation is meaningless. But if you visualize a process where you badger the opponent for your ally to find the good moment to Strike, then the reaction is meaningless.

I feel that this concept of action + reaction is a balance one. But it's misleading as it isn't clear. In my opinion, they should have removed the reaction as it makes the less sense to me.

Define 'rude'. People tell me that a lot - that I am being rude to them.

Bolding can be read as someone raising their voice and insisting. We are at a point in the conversation where I think everyone has understood the rules, it's not as if they were complicated. So bolding text is not necessary. We have all understood that you want to choose what "hard" means, but we disagree.

Explain how that bolded phrase is being used in your position that the GM is allowed by RAW to, for example, use the DC by level table permanently

Aiding to attack a goblin is easier than aiding to attack a dragon. That's just common sense. So there's a real reason to follow a DC progression either through the DC by level table or using the enemy AC - 10 (as I've seen in this discussion).

Explain how that bolded phrase is being used in your position that the GM is allowed by RAW to, for example, decide that MAP applies to the Aid process

Performing an action with a penalty makes the action harder. That's once again common sense.

The investigator does 5d6 once per round and they made it far easier for remastered investigators to get the Devise a Stratagem as a free action. I see no reason why one additional d6 of damage should lead to such an intense limit on the swashbuckler other than the name "Finisher" which I guess the designer wanted to be a killing blow type of attack.

Sorry, but a Finisher does much more than 6d6 damage. Bleeding Finisher (which is a staple) does 6d6 damage + 6d6 Persistent damage. Dual Finisher allows you to make 2 attacks with no MAP + 6d6 damage. That's a whole lot of damage that could largely justify a second action. And even if Perfect Finisher doesn't exactly increase your damage, rolling twice and taking the best result, especially on an attack with extra damage, leads to crazy average damage output.

The damage issue of the Swashbuckler is mostly a low level one, when you are stuck with Confident Finisher which is far from overwhelming (dealing damage on a miss is kind of stupid, the whole goal of making a Finisher is to hit for high damage, not to get ridiculous damage on a miss).

Not seeing and acknowledging the clear contrasts with Ready is crazy to me.

But I do. I acknowledge both their similarities and their contrast.

On the other hand, you are still not acknowledging the similarities between Aid and Ready, which is really crazy :)

Ho, more bolded text, great... When you start bolding text, you should wonder if you are still having a real conversation or are just considering the other one to be stupid.

That sounds like a variation of "You are just being rude".

It is. Bolding, as if we were not able to read or understand the rules, is rude. Sorry to state it.

That isn't logic. That is just an attempt to shame someone else into leaving an argument.

I am the one leaving the argument. I don't think there's anything else to add. Which is certainly the reason why you end up bolding text, because rational arguments have run dry. This is just a matter of opinion, of how we envision Aid from the rules as written. Differently. I don't think I can convince you because I understand your arguments, I'm not even sure you think you can convince me.

"Agree to disagree" is the conclusion, even if I think, from the multiplicity of rulings we have seen in this discussion, that there are really a lot of different ways to run Aid. So it's more, in my opinion, an "expect table variation" than just a disagreement between 2 sides.

The GM can adjust the Aid DC to something other than 15... for particularly hard or easy tasks.

Bolding it doesn't make you look good.

All of us are following RAW, which is not hard considering how loose the rules are.

It also made me realize how every table envisions Aid differently, leading to very different ways of adjudicating it. At least, I know I can expect very different rulings around the tables I play with, there was a lesson to get out of this conversation.

What's funny is that there's nearly no RAW to Aid. The only thing that is RAW is the need to use a reaction and the bonus. Besides that, the GM can do whatever they want.

I agree the rules let you apply any numerical penalty you want. I don't agree with your reasoning or your contention that the rules are supposed to work that way.

Great!

IMO getting the RAW wrong.

...

As a side note:

The argument is that the Aid roll IS a reaction. Which it is. You don't disagree, do you?

I do disagree. Aid is composed of a Preparation and an Aid reaction. These are 2 actions sanctioned by a single roll. It's not just a reaction, it's more complicated than that.

As they are two distinct and separate actions, with their own rules, it is not logical to assume that the intent is that they follow the same rules.

Aid specifically indicates that you can add any trait you want to the preparation or the reaction. And most traits are either weird for an aid (Move for example) or useless (all the Linguistic, Visual, etc... are already covered by the fact that the GM is supposed to indicate if you can perform the Aid or not). The elephant in the room is Attack. That's why I use this rule, because I feel an intent that Aid should work like Ready.

Also, I love when some of you use the argument that Aid should work like "other reaction attacks" but then you bring the argument that it shouldn't work like Ready (which is the closest reaction attack to Aid in the game).

Why is Bob the fighter aiding by a reaction 'attack' (which does no damage) harder than Bob the fighter striking by a reaction attack?

It's not harder. The closest rule to Aid is Ready which applies MAP.

I have no issue with people not playing it like that. But my intention is clear and motivated by actual rules. We can disagree, but there's no reason to not understand why I do it.

There isn't a rule definition for "successful thrown" so define that "successful thrown" is equal to "successful Strike" is just arbitrary too also because this doesn't respect any Format of Rules with a Captalization, italicized nor Glossary and Index defining it.

The issue is the justaposition of a game term, successful, and a non-game term, throw. And the first reflex of every player (I have it, too, I'm not above that) is to read it the best possible way from a player perspective. So they consider that successful is fine and replace throw. But the truth is certainly that the writer used the natural English word successful as a synonym to good, proper and the flavor text was purely flavor. Successful is both a game term and a natural English term, it doesn't always mean "a successful check against a set DC", sometimes it just means "well made".

Ignoring flavour text is a position I reject. It is just arbitrarily choosing to accept some rules and not others.

It's not arbitrarily, it's forced. When rules are incompatible, you have to choose a rule. You can consider flavor text takes precedence over mecanical text and then it returns only on a successful Strike (considering that throw is a synonym to Strike) but considering it always returns is not supported by any rule.

So rules text can very clearly be in that block, and it's not just flavor. So that leaves two possibilities for the boomerang:

1. They wrote flavor text that does nothing despite saying that it does something and expect people to pick up on it not actually doing anything because it uses the word "throw" instead of "strike".

2. It's simply a terminology error that didn't get caught by editing but the obvious plain English reading of the text is what they intend it to do.

I know which one of those I'd bet on given that such mistakes are fairly common.

Let me explain my thought:

1. Rule text can definitely be inside a weapon description but that's not the issue with the Boomerang. The issue with the Boomberang is that the description is in opposition to the weapon trait (Recovery). So you have to choose one. And when I have a description and mecanical text that are in opposition, I choose the mecanical description always.

Dispel Magic is the embodiment of such issue and it hasn't been fixed since first print. So Paizo doesn't really care when flavor text is wrong.

2. "returning to the wielder after a successful throw" is not mecanical text. Look at the Recovery trait: "When you make an unsuccessful thrown Strike with this weapon, it flies back to your hand after the Strike is complete, allowing you to try again. If your hands are full when the weapon returns, it falls to the ground in your space."

It specifies when the Boomerang returns and how. Unlike the boomerang description that is just up to the GM. After all, it may return 3 rounds later and ask for a reaction to catch it or it makes an attack against you. Who knows?

So, we are in a classic case where flavor text hints at an ability the weapon doesn't have and some players want to make up a rule to cover it. I don't think there's any discussion in this case.

Count me in the "It's just flavor text" crowd.

A throw is not a mechanical term and as such can hardly be used as a rule argument. Also, it doesn't make sense for a boomerang to return when you hit so I'd need a bit more than a non conclusive sentence to consider it behaves against common sense.

This part is not RAW: "doing so will increase the DC of the aid check by the amount of MAP for that preparation".

Can the GM add the Attack Trait to the preparation action?

Is the DC affected by the preparation action?
Implied: The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks.

So the GM is in their full right to consider that the MAP you have when performing the preparation action affects the preparation action and that it impacts the final DC.

I'm not saying anything about the fact that you should or shouldn't do it, just that it's fully possible by RAW. And there's an RAI logic to it: It follows the rules for Ready.

That's also very clearly a houserule.

If you give the preparation action the attack trait then MAP should apply to it as it happens during your turn. The final check sanctions both the preparation action and the Aid action and as such it's legitimate to apply a penalty that was there during the preparation. It's not a houserule, it's an edge case: if you have a penalty that only applies during a part of an action, it's up to the GM to determine if you apply it to the final check or not.

Aid would never have MAP applied.

That's not really the case. The preparation and the Aid actions are linked together. If you have an impediment during the preparation (like a MAP penalty) it's legitimate to see it applied to the Aid check to represent the preparation was harder.

Most commonly, I'll be in melee with an enemy* and an ally, often flanking. Then I declare that my third action will be to Aid my flanking ally, to better ensure they hit or crit. Then I make an attack roll, and seeing that it's a success or crit success against DC 15, even with the occasional MAP, I declare the roll total to the GM.

Then the GM says something along the lines of "you failed; no bonus" or "not enough to aid".

So far I've not put a whole lot of effort into describing precisely how my character is aiding the other.

I agree your GM is not real upfront about what's happening.

My level 9 SoT party is crit succeeding on a DC 15 Aid in things they're good at on 5-8 on the dice.

And as such it's not trivial. As you said, you need to wait for high levels to crit succeed on a 2-4, which would be the moment where it actually becomes trivial.

That's not my experience and I use higher DCs. What it does do is stop the Cursebound (aka: Enfeebled) 3 Cosmos Oracle (aka: my Kingmaker character) from going "well I ended up in melee and have one action left, I'm going to crit succeed to aid someone else's strike with my fist that would probably miss if I attacked and would do almost no damage even if it did."

If at level 11+ you don't have anything better to do with your last action as an Oracle, I think it's very much on you. 1-action Focus Spells, Trip, move to Flanking position and Demoralize/Scare to Death are common competitors. And moving away from melee range is also an excellent choice for a caster.

Aid for anything but an automatic +3 is not really worth the action cost. Unless you have badly built your character you should have better things to do with your actions.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for Ravingdork to explain at least one of the situations so I could better understand his GM position.

What about real shots? With ammo expended if you are counting it, action costs for reload if required and no damage even on good rolls (higher than AC).

Just curious. Maybe we even have discussed that, I don't remember.

What's the in character difference between shooting an enemy to hurt them and shooting an enemy to help your friend hitting? If there's none then there should be no mechanical difference.

I don't see any way to shoot at an enemy to help an ally and as such I don't allow Aid with a ranged weapon. It just looks like a way to gain a benefit without having paid for anything.

That's still not a great example. The GM problem in this scenario is letting the character use the Aid Preparation action with that far-fetched description.

If the GM doesn't like the narrative explanation of Aid that is being proposed, that is fine. But don't have the player waste their action and reaction on something that you have already determined will not be possible.

More details will help me understand the situation better. Devil is in the details ;)

Isn't it one of the most powerful and easily accessible buffs in the game?

Not really. Unless you are Legendary, which doesn't happen often, you'll roll for a +3. And you need a critical success, so DC 25, which isn't trivial before the highest levels. It costs an action and a reaction, which is a steep cost, especially at high level where you should have a use for your reaction and interesting third actions.

I've never used Aid in combat. Outside combat, it's nice as it gratifies characters who have high proficiency in a skill but are still not the best in the party (which happens rather regularly if you play in a PFS or Westmarches environment).

Overall, I find Aid to be working as intended. Raising the DC would very certainly make it not worth it.

This has happened again and again, to the point that I'm considering abandoning Aid as a viable 3rd action at this particular table.

Can you provide examples so we can judge your GM position? Because there are some forms of Aid I'd never allow at my table, like the archer "aiding" the melee character attacks with fake shots. So maybe you are using Aid in far-fetched ways that make the GM disagree with its use.

Paizo announced the Commoner class as an April's fool and... I found the idea interesting. Here's my take on a balanced and interesting Commoner class. Have fun reading it and don't hesitate to comment.

Commoner class

PS: As I'm not a native English speaker, there are certainly a fair amount of mistakes and weird formulations. Don't hesitate to correct me.

I don't think any theory on religion in Golarion would manage to cross the gap between tables.

I hope I can sort of piggyback off this conversation: would it be possible to play a divine inquisitor? Not in the sense of "our" inquisitors, which sought out heretics, but someone who literally questions the power and scope of the deities? Coud a Cleric (or maybe a Champion) be critical of their own faith, of their own deity, and still be a proper follower of that faith? Or would it be better to drape that flavour over a non-divine class, such as maybe a Wizard who uses their intellect?

Reason is, I got inspired by a fictional character who uses their intellect to solve mysteries, even within his own church. And I'm just wondering if it's possible for a Cleric to be skeptical of, or question the power, scope, and limits of their deity, or if that's grounds for expulsion from the church. I want to believe indeed in critical thinking rather than blind faith, but which deity (if any) would fit best with that?

That's roughly the plot of Sky King's Tomb and as such I'd say that it's more than possible, it's very much accepted.

Sure, but is a cleric having their own agency typically seen as a bug, as the divine magic essay implies, or are there canon clerics that would scoff at that essay? I think that's the bedrock of what I'm trying to ask.

I personally make a big difference between the "line" cleric forming the clergy of the religion and the PC cleric. PC clerics are definitely "bugs". I can see a million reasons for a deity to choose a PC cleric and close their eye(s) regularly on their actions.

First, PC clerics will certainly impact the world in a way no one else will and as such having them following you means you will impact the world greatly. Second, PC clerics have great chances to become heroes, spreading the faith like no one else. Third, I can see deities with similar portfolios fighting over PC clerics to get them in their rank and as such a deity can choose to give powers to a PC not because they perfectly embody their faith but because they don't want the other one to get a hero in their ranks.

That's why, in my opinion, the relationship between a PC and their deity can range accross the whole spectrum of relationships, even getting to the point where the deity can be seen as subservient to the cleric. I don't see it as an intrinsic reason to block good stories.

PCs are above the norm, they are meant to be heroes. And in the great god game of ruling the universe they are the best tools at a god's disposal.

Well, there's plenty of room for different forms of devotion, depending on the god you choose. Chaotic gods, for example, will rarely ask for strict obedience. But that has to do with the gods you like.

Also, even if Roidira isn't released, I think no one in PFS would object if you play one of her clerics, choosing another deity for the mecanical aspects.

I personally like Force Bolt, it's simple and effective as a third action. And it doesn't push you towards a specific (and weak) playstyle).

But overall, Wizard's Focus Spells are nowhere close to impactful.

To hear Superbidi tell it, it's caused perturbations at his table often I guess. I haven't experienced that at all. It hasn't even come up. We efficiently kill everything where 1 round duration cantrips don't really cause such consternation.

TableS

You play always at the same table so it's easy to say that you don't have rule issues. When, like I do, you change table roughly every game, rules issues become much more of a problem.

When a player is used to have a specific effect for Dirge of Doom and suddenly they arrive at my table and they get a significantly different effect, the game stops for the time to adjudicate the problem. When it's during a PFS adventure supposed to last 4 hours, and considering the length the discussion can have, it is very much a massive issue.

It also creates issues in shared spaces like here. OP's question is "Rallying Anthem vs Dirge of Doom?". When you compare Lightning Raven's version of Dirge of Doom and mine, we are speaking of completely different spells. So how can we answer the question meaningfully?

Okay so Bob Bard casts Song of Marching. He and two of his party members are in the AoE. But fourth party member Alice was not.

Why isn't Alice inside the AoE? I agree with Deriven, this situation doesn't make sense.

Strike not being able to target objects at all is too bad to be true.

Just read Strike and you'll see.

Now you don't need Strike to attack an object. The GM just adjudicates on a case by case basis.

Using Strike to attack objects actually doesn't work. If I want to cut a rope with my Sap, it shouldn't work. Similarly, I shouldn't be able to destroy a door with a bow. But Strike doesn't cover such questions.

Attacking objects would need many rules. But at the same time it's a story element, not a combat one. For story elements, it's better to give a few guidelines and let the GM do their work. That's why neither Strike nor spells describe effects on items (besides a few that are meant to target items like Disintegrate). I don't think anyone needs a precise rule to determine how much time it'll take the Barbarian to hack a door to pieces, the effects of a Fireball inside a library or Ignition on an explosive barrel.

Like Maya says: Before even getting into tactical considerations, are the numbers right?

I'd spend some time checking the character sheets to see if an issue has been overlooked here. For example, not adding level to proficiency bonus, something like that may cripple your chances to hit.

Second, I'll also check basic character optimization, mainly their attack stat, is it maxed out? If not, there's an issue. Having an 18 in Strength for a Barbarian, Dexterity for a Rogue and Intelligence for a Wizard is a system expectation. 16 works but it's a significant downgrade (some classes don't use their key attribute as attack stat so you can't go beyond 16 at level 1), 14 is a massive failure of a build.

After that, it's just a question of learning the system. Many players struggle at first but slowly get used to the system. It's especially true for players coming from other systems like D&D5 and PF1. So it should smoothen out slowly.

Not having an AC implies that you can't attack them at all with Strike or with spells with a spell attack roll.

You already can't attack items with Strike or spells with spell attack roll. They all target creatures only.

Realistically, L5 is not much more complex than L1; you don't gain /that/ many meaningful options from L1-L5 on most classes.

I have the opposite opinion (as it can only be an opinion).

Level 5 asks you to have an idea of your build, if you want to go for a Dedication or a "monoclass" character, what feats and abilities you'll focus on. Skills also progress greatly, before level 5 a lot of skills are barely usable (Medicine without Battle Medicine nor Continual Recovery? Mostly useless). At level 1, you actually don't even have to think about the skills you'll raise. Skill actions exist at level 1 but they really take off at level 7 due to their rapid gross at low level, faster than the enemy saves. Intimidate at level 1 is meh, at level 7 it's gorgeous. Also, at level 1 casters' power comes from cantrips, it shifts exactly at level 5 when slotted spells gets crazy good. And most classes don't have built in reaction with Reflexive Strike becoming common at level 6. And I obviously don't speak about equipment.

At level 1, you can just focus on your class main ability and it's fine. No need to do anything else to be roughly optimal. At level 5, you need to understand the broader game to play properly, it's much harder to play well at this level. Also, fights are faster at low level and it's actually a boon: Spending 5 rounds only doing Strike Strike Strike because it's actually optimal at your level would be boring to death. Number of rounds significantly increases at the same rate your number of abilities increases.

It would be similar if PF2e took the player by the hand and carried them around, forcing them to teach them every detail of the game and how to use it optimally.

And that would also mean "optimal" exists in PF2 and is widely acknowledged. That's not the case at all, both because there are countless ways to play the game, countless combinations of classes and abilities raising different "optimal", simplicity having a vastly different value depending on player's tactical savvyness and no way to prove an "optimal" is optimal.

That's why I say there's no One True Way to play: someone's optimal is not someone else's.

I really feel items shouldn't have an AC unless they are somehow moving or extremely small. That would simplify attacking them. Because rolling an attack roll on an AC 5 item is mostly a waste of time (and a very sad experience when you roll a nat 1).

I do think low levels aren't representative of the rest of the play experience—to the degree that if I could redesign the game, I'd consider starting the game's scaling at the powerlevel of level 4 or level 5.

But new players need to start with less complexity. At level 1, you have at most one feat to choose from, your character is simple and mostly limited to its class abilities. At level 4-5, your character starts fleshing out due to your number of feats and such. The choice of level 1 is a choice of simplicity, so I understand why Paizo chose it as first level.

The most played levels should represent the feel of the game, and right now, they just don't.

There's a difference between most played and most representative. People tend to remember the last levels much more than the first levels (that's a classic human bia, we remember the end more than the beginning). Even your sentence shows it: You don't consider that the most played levels carry the game feel, which seems ridiculous when you state it out loud.

But I'm pretty sure if you tell us what levels represent the game well and if we compare it to the levels your characters have reached, it will be roughly between the 50th percentile and the 90th percentile of the levels you have played (for example, if you have reached level 10 at most, the game feel will be best represented by level 5-9 roughly, players who have reached level 20 and play it regularly tend to consider that levels 10-18 are the most representative of the game).

Because the game feel actually changes much more often than once. You can at least separate the levels in 4 brackets: First levels (1-2) where the game is super swingy and fights last 2 rounds, low levels (3-6) where characters are not really fleshed out, martial still dominates and fights tend to be rather quick, mid levels (7-12) where characters are fleshed out, martial/caster balance is fine and fights last 4-5 rounds, and high levels (13+) where fights tend to be a slog, casters becomes more and more dominant and characters start to be really complicated (especially if you made the mistake of allowing Free Archetype).

Noxious Vapors seems to adjudicate its concealed condition just fine without specifying "any creature within the spell's area when its Cast, or any creature that enters". In fact, it specifically only does so for the Fort save. I don't believe there's a reasonable reading of the spell that makes the concealed condition it gives "snapshot" upon casting. If you're in the cloud, you're concealed. If you're out of the cloud, you're only concealed to those in it.

It's because Concealed is not the property of a creature but the property of the environment. Like if you are in dim light you are Concealed but not because of something on you but because of the environment (lighting one). Effects that provide Concealment as such have this unique wording.

If you start considering that AoE effects with a duration continue affecting enemies every time they enter the AoE during the duration you significantly modify a lot of spells. There are 177 such spells, a lot of them having the exact same kind of wording Dirge of Doom has: AoN query.
I let you dive into this list to realize you are having a very special treatment for Dirge of Doom.

Enemies can also go for the healer...

what do you think?

That there's no One True Way to play the game.

I personally find that buff and debuff are sold over and over again and damage is not sold enough. Your post is another one that feed this feeling.

Combat ends when someone reaches a certain hp threshold. So leave damage be.

a GM shouldn't be TRYING to kill a character.

But monsters should. That's actually their point.

I'd rule them case by case.

Ready actions are super rare, from my experience. So a Ready action that bumps into such ruling has great chances to be an attempt at exploiting an edge case.

So I'll rule them on a case by case basis as I don't think there's a need for a general rule.

Generally, I agree with the sentiment.

However, if someone took a sap and beat a patient in critical condition over the head, I can see the case being made for the possibility that the patient could easily die from the abuse.

After all, that's as precarious a situation as it gets.

That's a situation where you deal lethal damage with your sap, as you are specifically aiming to kill.

If I have the acid and flaming runes on my fist (due to handwraps of mighty fists or some other effect), are my fist attacks still considered nonlethal?

It seems odd to me to be nonlethally burning and melting a victim's flesh.

Non-lethal damage is better explained by damage done on non-vital parts of the anatomy. So you are non-lethally burning and melting the victim's leg, so you can't kill it because of that (well, on paper, you should, but this is a game where you can take an arrow and survive, so...).

I was a Pathfinder 1 player. And I became one because friends started playing it. And these friends were playing D&D 3.0 before and were testing most of D&D knock offs...

So I'm not sure my answer is really helpful :)

Oh. At first I wanted to answer exactly like that. But then the definition of ability says: " rules that provide an exception to the basic rules". But Strike is one of the basest of the basic rules. Using this definition Strike absolutely can't be an ability at all.

I have hard time considering that something you do is not an ability.

I think I'll stick to the most basic English term for "ability". And being able to Strike is as such an "ability".

As the question is raised, there's certainly a chance for multiple interpretations. I'd certainly stick to mine/Gortle's as it's rather simple to apply and I tend to err on player side in case of ambiguity unless there's an obvious exploit.

To give more details about what the Summoner can accomplish:

Damage dealer

That's really the easiest role to cover with a Summoner. Just cast a cantrip with the Summoner and Strike once or twice with the Eidolon and you're doing fine damage, on par with good damage dealers like Fighters, Barbarians and Rogues.
Summoner damage is composite. It's ideal to avoid resistances, exploit weaknesses, it's both ranged and melee, spells and Strikes, it's really versatile.

Off tank

The Summoner is no tank. It has martial hp but you can't raise the Eidolon AC beyond average, you have absolutely no mean to increase the Eidolon survivability as classic feats like Armor Proficiency or Shields don't work so you can't do anything to go beyond average. But you also have the Summoner, increasing damage taken by AoE effects and sometimes getting attacked itself with its inferior defenses. And then the big drawback that if you ever go down the Eidolon unmanifests. Overall, the Summoner can't tank sh*t. But it's a good off tank, it can help with tanking as long as it doesn't put too much pressure on it.

Skill monkey

Between the 2 attributes array and the ability to Aid yourself with your best skills, the Summoner is a rather good skill monkey. And if you build for it, grabbing extra proficiency increases or feats to Aid, it becomes one of the top skill monkeys in the game.

Secondary healer

The Summoner has the excellent ability of being able to 2-action Heal/Soothe and also keep a bit of damage output with the Eidolon. It is one of the best secondary healer in the game thanks to that. Still, you need to choose your tradition accordingly.

AoE damage dealer

With the proper tradition, you can get access to good AoE spells like Fireball or Chain Lightning, which makes an AoE damage dealer out of your Summoner.

Mobility

A specific section about mobility as Evolution Surge gives you access rather early to at will swim/climb/fly/speed bonus. A very nice and useful ability.

Scout

One of the special abilities of the Summoner: as you can Unmanifest your Eidolon when sh*t hits the fan, you can use it as a scout with extreme effectiveness. But you need to build for it, obviously.

Controller

Mostly available only to the Plant Summoner. But it's a rather common build so I feel I have to speak about it. For other types of Eidolon, it's only available at rather high level with the proper feats and it doesn't have the impact of the Plant build.

I think I haven't forgotten anything. Overall, the Summoner plays ideally in Westmarches/PFS games where you'll have to fill multiple roles depending on sessions. In a fixed party, its versatility is less important but it can still help in a lot of areas which can prove useful in a party where every character is super specialized.

The Summoner is a very versatile class, trying to tie it to one role is a waste of its potential. I've personally played my Summoners as main healer + ranged damage dealer (it works wonders, unlike what the d4 may suggest) + offtank + skill monkey. The Summoner can really perform a lot of things, there's no point in specializing.

From my experience, the Summoner and the Eidolon are low aggro characters. The Summoner is mostly using Cantrips and Focus spells, with very occasional slotted spells and it doesn't benefit from 3 actions every round. On top of that, Electric Arc does low critical hits and spells in general only score a crit on a nat 1. The end result being subpar aggro, the Wizard next to them will be a far more attractive target during most fights.

The Eidolon... well, it really depends on its appearance. By default, the Eidolon doesn't hit as hard as the next martial and as such tend to raise lower aggro unless it starts criting. But before the enemies realize it, they will certainly determine the Eidolon dangerousness from its appearance and that's where things can go one way or another. The Large or even Huge Eidolon attracts a lot more attention than the Small one. So there's no general rule for the Eidolon aggro. I have a small and a medium Eidolon among my characters, none of them tend to attract extreme aggro by default.