Secrets of Magic: Is the summoner good at summoning?

[Starocious]

What makes the summoner better at summoning than a wizard using summoning spells?

I know 1e had the issue that the summoner was generally inferior to many archetypes of full casters when it came to summoning, so does 2e fix this and if so, how?

[Ascalaphus]

The summoner is much better at summoning eidolons than the wizard.

Summoning other stuff... not really?

[gesalt]

Well you need a 6th level feat to have as many spell slots for summoning as a wizard does (at the top end at least) . And a 20th level feat to cast 10th level summons. So not in that respect.

You can take an 8th level feat to have boost eidolon give your summons a damage bonus. Never mind that summons are generally awful for offense outside of being a flanking body.

So all in all, they're worse by default

[QuidEst]

Starocious wrote:

What makes the summoner better at summoning than a wizard using summoning spells?

I know 1e had the issue that the summoner was generally inferior to many archetypes of full casters when it came to summoning, so does 2e fix this and if so, how?

What? First edition Summoner was somehow worse at summoning, despite getting a sizable pool of silent, stilled minute-per-level standard action summons? Nothing will be good enough for you if that wasn't good enough.

But seriously, Summoners get the best summon in the game, their eidolon. It keeps pace with martial characters on first-hit accuracy, which the summoning spells don't. In exchange, they get less of any other casting. That includes fewer summoning spells. You can get a feat to split a top-level slot, allowing you to catch up on top-level summoning slots to Druid/Cleric/Witch, and only top-level slots matter for summoning.

What can make your summoning spells better than those of other casters? Ostentatious Arrival turns your summoning spells into minor AoEs, potentially of flexible energy type to trigger weaknesses. Boost Summons gives you a scaling one-action damage buff to all summoned creatures within sixty feet. Those are at 6th and 8th, and Master Summoner to catch up on slots is 6th, so something will need to wait for 10th's open slot.

You get access to Effortless Concentration, putting you ahead of Cleric and Oracle for late-game summoning, regardless of slot count.

Are they better at casting summoning spells than Conjuration Wizard using only in-class feats and features? Probably not. Conjuration Wizard doesn't have a whole mini-martial dedicated to preventing enemies from disrupting their concentration. But, if you count multiclassing, Summoner can get Augment Summons at fourth, and will be tied for the best summons in the game at that point (but on fewer slots). Once you get to 6th, they stop falling behind on slots, and at 8th and 10th, they start improving their summons. Wizard has to wait until 12th to get Ostentatious Arrival, and can never get Boost Summons.

[Claxon]

In general, summoning isn't the strong tactic like it was in PF1. The PF2 summoner is about as good at summoning (non eidolons) as anyone else in PF2, but it's not a tactic that is going to feel very strong.

I would generally recommend summoner to someone who wants to strongly focus on using a companion to contribute and their character is focused on supporting their companion.

[Starocious]

QuidEst wrote:

What? First edition Summoner was somehow worse at summoning, despite getting a sizable pool of silent, stilled minute-per-level standard action summons? Nothing will be good enough for you if that wasn't good enough.

Yes quidest, a few 1e archetypes gave the same action economy summoning as a summoner, with extended duration and also retained their full 9th level spellcasting progression, meaning they were both more powerful and more flexible than the summoner. (Because 9th level casting is amazing for everything)

Anyway, thanks everyone for the responses. I had assumed when the 2e summoner arrived it would bring summons up to being a little more viable and thought i must have missed something when looking over the nethys site.

As a related question, as I'm attempting to build a character that controls multiple beasts, is there anything preventing a summoner from having both an eidolon and an animal companion? And is there any drawback to using both at the same time?

[gesalt]

Starocious wrote:

As a related question, as I'm attempting to build a character that controls multiple beasts, is there anything preventing a summoner from having both an eidolon and an animal companion? And is there any drawback to using both at the same time?

Aside from feat starvation weakening the eidolon, no.

[Guntermench]

I guess the drawback of potentially upsetting the rest of your party when your turns take longer to finish? Otherwise no, not really.

[QuidEst]

Starocious wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

What? First edition Summoner was somehow worse at summoning, despite getting a sizable pool of silent, stilled minute-per-level standard action summons? Nothing will be good enough for you if that wasn't good enough.

Yes quidest, a few 1e archetypes gave the same action economy summoning as a summoner, with extended duration and also retained their full 9th level spellcasting progression, meaning they were both more powerful and more flexible than the summoner. (Because 9th level casting is amazing for everything)

I looked through, and could only find a single archetype that did that for a 9th level caster- Occultist archetype for Arcanist. And yeah- that's why Arcanist was banned in our games; it cherry-picked the best stuff from other classes and got archetypes that made unfairly good trades. (See also: Blood Arcanist.)

Starocious wrote:

Anyway, thanks everyone for the responses. I had assumed when the 2e summoner arrived it would bring summons up to being a little more viable and thought i must have missed something when looking over the nethys site.

Nope. "Has the strongest individual summons"? Sure, with two multiclass feats. "Strong enough summons to alter the dynamic"? Not really- you could definitely make a case for the AoE rider changing the value of the spell, but that doesn't do anything for the summoned creature itself.

Starocious wrote:

As a related question, as I'm attempting to build a character that controls multiple beasts, is there anything preventing a summoner from having both an eidolon and an animal companion? And is there any drawback to using both at the same time?

Nope, nothing preventing it! If you're willing to forgo the bonus damage of Boost Eidolon, you can even have your eidolon taking three actions while your animal companion takes two, using the "free" action from Act Together to direct your animal companion. You'll be sinking half your feats into an animal companion instead of upgrading your eidolon, of course.

[HumbleGamer]

Though I am not a big fan of it, but the "Master Summoner" Feat makes the summoner very competitive in terms of summoning.

And by lvl 8 you may also add the "Boost Summons" to your feats, making summons even more effective.

By lvl 16, effortless concentration may help you with the action management to sustain a summon.

Starocious wrote:

As a related question, as I'm attempting to build a character that controls multiple beasts, is there anything preventing a summoner from having both an eidolon and an animal companion? And is there any drawback to using both at the same time?

if you don't mind sacrificing a lot of feats, there no issue in getting a companion in addition to the eidolon.

lvl 2- Beastmaster deedication
lvl 4- Mature Companion
lvl 8- Incredible companion
lvl 14- Specialized 1 ( +2 for his main stat and master armor proficiency )
lvl 16- Specialized 2 ( +2 for his main stat )

But to be entirely honest, it's something which I might consider only with the FA variant rule.

[Sanityfaerie]

Starocious wrote:

As a related question, as I'm attempting to build a character that controls multiple beasts, is there anything preventing a summoner from having both an eidolon and an animal companion? And is there any drawback to using both at the same time?

The only thing preventing it is that the summoner really, really likes their in-class feats, and might not want to spend any on Beastmaster. On the other side, beastmaster is the sort of thing that calls for a degree of dedication - once you've picked up an animal companion (by whatever means) you really want to keep investing in the upgrade feats at each appropriate level in order to keep it at all relevant.

Only drawback to using them both at the same time is action economy. One of the strong points of both Summoner and Beastmaster (for casters) is they both solve the "what do I do with my last action" issue - once you cast a two-action spell, you can give that last action to your eidolon/companion, who can (presumably) use it better than you can. Having both means that you're effectively buying that advantage twice.

So... entirely doable, but maybe not ideal for efficiency with build resources.

[Starocious]

Thanks. Another tangentially related question: Can a summoner cast lower level spells with his spell slots? For example, casting a 3rd level spell at 15th level, using their 7th/8th level slots?

[Paul Watson]

Starocious wrote:

Thanks. Another tangentially related question: Can a summoner cast lower level spells with his spell slots? For example, casting a 3rd level spell at 15th level, using their 7th/8th level slots?

As with other casters, if its still in the repetoire, you can and it will he heightened to that level . All Summoner spells are signature spells.

However, as a spontaneous bounded caster, when the Summoner loses a spell level, they also lose two spells from their repetoire.

[Temperans]

The Summoner is straight up worse at summoning than other classes.

Wizards have more spell slots of all levels so you can actually "summon the thing you need when you need it". They have access to the 10th lv Arcane summon spells. They get effortless concentration. Their feats are so meh that they can spend them on Ritual casting archetypes to get even more summons. That one thesis that let's you upgrade spell slots also makes them much better summoners. The conjuration focus spell is also more useful for summons, even if it's a subpar spell in general.

Druids have more spell slots of all levels, like wizards. They have better summon support feats. They have access to 10th lv Primal summon spells. They get effortless concentration. Their focus spells makes them capable of providing damage while the summons body block.

Bards also have more spells. They technically have access to all 10th lv summon spells. They too get effortless concentration. Their focus spells grant a much more meaningful combat help to the summons.

Witch is in the same spot as Bard, but more restricted.

Sorcerer too has a lot of spells, they can also gain access to 10th lv summon spells multiple traditions from crossblood feats. They get effortless concentration. They are a lot more flexible being able to cast summon spells as needed without preping.

Oracles and Clerics both have more spells. They also have the healing and buff spells to sustain their summons, even if they don't get effortless concentration.

*******************

So what does the Summoner get?
* 2 feats to get a single (not two) extra slot for summoning.
* a feat that let's them deal a bit of damage when they summon.
* a feat to give summons bonus damage.

What they lack?
* The spell slots to actually use summoning with any reasonable frequency.
* The spell slots to cast actual support spells and area control to help summons.
* Focus abilities to actually help your summons.

Where does most of the class power go? A creature that is not summoned. Cannot be affected by any feats or spells that affect just summons. That is not affected by dedication feats the Summoner might get. But that outright requires you spend 90% of your feats into them or you are literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Not to mention that you now have to buy items for 1.5 characters. You can never be within 20-40 feat of each other or risk taking massive damage from AoE spells. Have more difficulty using stealth. You lose HP when the creature loses it, with no way to stop it without a feat. Any condition that affects actions on the creature affects you, no way to stop it. Also you have delayed save progression, because apparently sharing HP and taking the worst roll on saves wasn't enough.

[Starocious]

Paul Watson wrote:

Starocious wrote:

Thanks. Another tangentially related question: Can a summoner cast lower level spells with his spell slots? For example, casting a 3rd level spell at 15th level, using their 7th/8th level slots?

As with other casters, if its still in the repetoire, you can and it will he heightened to that level . All Summoner spells are signature spells.

However, as a spontaneous bounded caster, when the Summoner loses a spell level, they also lose two spells from their repetoire.

So does that mean you cant have a 3rd level spell from summoner levels once you lose your slots of that level?

For example, if you're playing a summoner and you're like "wow this aqueous orb spell(3rd level) is great", when you then reach 9th level, is it removed from your repertoire and you cant cast it, or can you choose to keep it/relearn it as a higher level spell despite it not having a heightened effect?

[Paul Watson]

Starocious wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Starocious wrote:

Thanks. Another tangentially related question: Can a summoner cast lower level spells with his spell slots? For example, casting a 3rd level spell at 15th level, using their 7th/8th level slots?

As with other casters, if its still in the repetoire, you can and it will he heightened to that level . All Summoner spells are signature spells.

However, as a spontaneous bounded caster, when the Summoner loses a spell level, they also lose two spells from their repetoire.

So does that mean you cant have a 3rd level spell from summoner levels once you lose your slots of that level?

For example, if you're playing a summoner and you're like "wow this aqueous orb spell(3rd level) is great", when you then reach 9th level, is it removed from your repertoire and you cant cast it, or can you choose to keep it/relearn it as a higher level spell despite it not having a heightened effect?

You choose which spells to lose, so you can retain favourite low level spells

[Captain Morgan]

Setting aside that the Eidolon not being a summon is essentially just semantics, the summoner is still the best at using summoning spells. They get less slots, but summons below your top two spell levels are pretty much useless-- too weak for battle, too short a duration for utility. Most of the uses I can think of are already covered by Evolution Surge, like the expanded mobility. And honestly, preparing more than two or three summon spells in a day is a terrible allocation of resources. They aren't "every combat" spells anymore, much less every round.

Boost summons gives them the hardest hitting summons in the game, which is nice. But the real reason they are the best is because they have a fix for the greatest drawback of summon spells: action economy. 3 actions to cast plus one each round to sustain is rough. But Act Together makes them pseudo Quickened at all times. And sustaining plays nice with the Eidolon's MAP. So the duo can maintain some offensive pressure in a way that other casters can't until they get effortless concentration (and they still can't get that benefit on the turn of initial casting.) Oh, and the Eidolon means you can benefit from flanking even if there's not a other frontliner, which is one of the most important reasons to use summons.

The biggest advantage conjuration wizards get is their focus spell which can be poached via multiclassing.

Edit: I'd also argue the summoner had more incentive to use summon spells thanks to their limitations. Summons are flexible and can give access to other spells, which is nice on a limited repertoire, and are slot efficient if they survive more than one round. (And if they don't, they probably drew some damage away from your party.) They also benefit from being signature spells. These facts don't make the summoner better with the spells than other classes, but still makes them relatively better choices.

[Temperans]

It's not a matter of semantics when Paizo outright tells us they are not summons. It is however a matter of some players choosing to ignore that part of the rules text (and the class descriptions).

Evolution Surge does not affect summoned monsters so it doesn't help summons. Similarly, while the duration is not great for utility it works well enough for when you want something short term. Otherwise you would use a ritual for something more long term.

Who ever said that you would cast Summon Monster every round? They have a minute duration, so why would you ever cast more than one when you can cast your support spells on them. Which, is actually very important, low level spells are great for casting buffs, debuff, and utility. Something that the Summoner has no real access to. Unlike a Wizard who can prepare his top level spells for Summons and low level for support. A Summoner can never do that.

Similarly, act together is not any different than Adult Companion granting the animal companion a free action. Or the PC using an action to give them 2. In any case, it's not something that makes "summons" better, it's something that makes the Eidolon (the real character) get an extra action.

* P.S. If all you want is a flank buddy Animal Companions do a better job while letting the PC actually be a character. Not just a sidekick.

[pixierose]

I find it disingenuous to count rituals as summons but not the eidolon. When ritual spells from what I can tell also don't include the word summon. If we are going to be pedantic we should be pedantic equally.

Although I would rather not be pedantic

[PossibleCabbage]

The thing the summoner summons is more potent and tangible than anything the wizard can summon. It's about manifesting your specific giant demon chicken to be the best giant demon chicken it can be, not about the wide variety of things you can conjure.

[breithauptclan]

Temperans wrote:

Bards also have more spells. They technically have access to all 10th lv summon spells. They too get effortless concentration. Their focus spells grant a much more meaningful combat help to the summons.

Witch is in the same spot as Bard, but more restricted.

Witch is in a similar spot as Bard, but less restricted.

Rites of Convocation (level 4 feat) lets them re-prepare a spell slot to be a summon spell, so they can be as flexible for casting summon spells as a spontaneous caster.
Witch can choose a tradition to get summon spells from.
Witch also gets Effortless Concentration (at level 16) and can get Cackle at level 1.
Witch is also no slouch at having focus spells to help their summons. Life Boost doesn't require further sustain actions, Elemental Betrayal can boost damage of Elemental summoned creatures. Stoke the Heart, Evil Eye, or Wilding Word would be useful depending on choice of patron. Blood Ward and Needle of Vengance are also useful.

So if choosing between Bard and Witch for a character tailored for summoning creatures, Witch seems a bit stronger. Probably still loses to Wizard though, but not by much. Wizard has to choose between Spell Blending to get even more higher level spell slots to use for summoning, or Spell Substitution to be able to re-prepare summoning spells that they have used up (though Drain Bonded Item helps with that).

[Deriven Firelion]

Summoning isn't worth using until Paizo does something to make them hit better against stronger enemies. So even if the summoner were better at summoning it wouldn't be worth developing until summons are better.

[Temperans]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Summoning isn't worth using until Paizo does something to make them hit better against stronger enemies. So even if the summoner were better at summoning it wouldn't be worth developing until summons are better.

Imagine if the "summoner" class had made summons actually useful. Instead of what ever it is we got that has nothing to do with it.

[Temperans]

pixierose wrote:

I find it disingenuous to count rituals as summons but not the eidolon. When ritual spells from what I can tell also don't include the word summon. If we are going to be pedantic we should be pedantic equally.

Although I would rather not be pedantic

I know that the current rituals are "calling" not "summoning". But it's not that those spells aren't possible.

But regular casters who naturally get Legendary in the needed skills. While also having the spells needed to support those casting. Makes them much better. It also helps a lot that they are not Gimping themselves by getting the Ritual archetype. After all the Eidolon really wants those feats.

[Malk_Content]

If Paizo called it Summoning it would then become lumbered with all the negatives that Summoning brings. Thats why they don't do it. Summon is a particular mechanical term. We all know the Summoner is doing little "s" summoning when they manifest.

I mean I can bet some of the folks arguing that because they didn't use the exact mechanical term therefore Summoners are bad at Summoning would be instead shouting about how a classes defining feature being shackled to the Summoned was a bad idea instead if Paizo had.

[pixierose]

Temperans wrote:

pixierose wrote:

I find it disingenuous to count rituals as summons but not the eidolon. When ritual spells from what I can tell also don't include the word summon. If we are going to be pedantic we should be pedantic equally.

Although I would rather not be pedantic

I know that the current rituals are "calling" not "summoning". But it's not that those spells aren't possible.

But regular casters who naturally get Legendary in the needed skills. While also having the spells needed to support those casting. Makes them much better. It also helps a lot that they are not Gimping themselves by getting the Ritual archetype. After all the Eidolon really wants those feats.

yes but those spells should not be a factor in your analsysis. They act different from summon spells, they don't benefit from feats or abilities that boost summons. Any potential rituals that involve summons don't exist yet, just like any summoner feats that can help with summons don't exist yet.

you know what ritual spells that call potential allies, Manifest Eidolon, and Summon spells have in common? They all have the conjuration trait( there is no summon trait), and bring forth a creature that previously wasn't in the location before. Summoner fits that description for all three.

Casters also don't naturally boost their skills? you have to put effort into that....

[Sanityfaerie]

Temperans wrote:

Imagine if the "summoner" class had made summons actually useful. Instead of what ever it is we got that has nothing to do with it.

That would be terrible, and I'm glad they didn't.

Or, rather, I'm sure that summoning *is* actually useful, in its niche. It's throwing a bunch of disposable bodies and HP onto the field, and soaking up enemy time and attention to deal with them. You even get some ability to pick and choose creatures that are particularly useful for the situation at hand. What's not to like?

But if it was instead getting to the point where it was worth building a character around? I'm glad they avoided that particular pitfall.

[Starocious]

Can someone explain what these rituals are to me and of they're worth looking into?

[pixierose]

Starocious wrote:

Can someone explain what these rituals are to me and of they're worth looking into?

Abyssal pact

Daemonic Pact
Div pact
infernal pact
Planar ally
Primal Call

They are rituals and take various hours, cost funds, and may prove unsuccessful. But they may get creatures to help you out with specific tasks. I havne't used them myself but they all seem really thematic.

[Starocious]

Ooh thats nice warlock flavor. Thanks.

[MEATSHED]

pixierose wrote:

Starocious wrote:

Can someone explain what these rituals are to me and of they're worth looking into?

Abyssal pact

Daemonic Pact
Div pact
infernal pact
Planar ally
Primal Call

They are rituals and take various hours, cost funds, and may prove unsuccessful. But they may get creatures to help you out with specific tasks. I havne't used them myself but they all seem really thematic.

Note that all the pacts require you to be the same creature type as the thing you are pacting with, so if you want to cast Infernal Pact you need to be a devil, so planar ally and primal call are about the only ones you can cast in most campaigns.

[Captain Morgan]

Temperans wrote:

It's not a matter of semantics when Paizo outright tells us they are not summons. It is however a matter of some players choosing to ignore that part of the rules text (and the class descriptions).

Whatever dude. This ship has sailed and you can choose that hill to die on if you want.

Quote:

Evolution Surge does not affect summoned monsters so it doesn't help summons.

The point is that it covers a lot of the uses of the low level spell slots: giving you something that can carry you around when you need to fly, or grow Large to clog up the map.

Quote:

Similarly, while the duration is not great for utility it works well enough for when you want something short term. Otherwise you would use a ritual for something more long term.

They can sometimes help in a pinch, but given their spell level limitations they will rarely provide more utility than the caster just preparing a utility spell. Below level summons aren't good. They are one many categories of spelled dependent on heightening to be worthwhile. *And I actually like and use summon spells in actual play.*

Quote:

Who ever said that you would cast Summon Monster every round? They have a minute duration, so why would you ever cast more than one when you can cast your support spells on them. Which, is actually very important, low level spells are great for casting buffs, debuff, and utility. Something that the Summoner has no real access to. Unlike a Wizard who can prepare his top level spells for Summons and low level for support. A Summoner can never do that.

Yeah, the caster with the most spell slots in the game is a better general caster than the class that gave it up for martial presence. And? We all know this already.

Quote:

Similarly, act together is not any different than Adult Companion granting the animal companion a free action. Or the PC using an action to give them 2.

Except the animal companion is much weaker and less versatile.

Quote:

In any case, it's not something that makes "summons" better, it's something that makes the Eidolon (the real character) get an extra action.

The end result is that summon spells are an objectively worse choice for the wizard because it eats up a higher percentage of their action economy. A great sword hit does the same damage regardless of whether it is swung by a fighter or a wizard. The fighter is still making a better choice to use the sword in the first place.

Quote:

* P.S. If all you want is a flank buddy Animal Companions do a better job while letting the PC actually be a character. Not just a sidekick.

We all know animal companions are lower impact resources. We all know the Eidolon is the reason you play a summoner. You aren't pointing out anything meaningful here.

You keep pointing out really obvious things about the class without acknowledging that the class *gets things in exchange for those drawbacks* If you don't like having the Eidolon be the star of the show, that does not make it an objectively worse class. It very much succeeds in its design goals which a lot of other people wanted.

[Perpdepog]

Starocious wrote:

Can someone explain what these rituals are to me and of they're worth looking into?

They're talking about the rituals Planar Ally, Planar Binding,, and Primal Call.

What's confusing is why everybody keeps talking about the rituals like they're something you have to take feats to get, when anybody can learn them as an adventure reward.

[pixierose]

Perpdepog wrote:

Starocious wrote:

Can someone explain what these rituals are to me and of they're worth looking into?

They're talking about the rituals Planar Ally, Planar Binding,, and Primal Call.

What's confusing is why everybody keeps talking about the rituals like they're something you have to take feats to get, when anybody can learn them as an adventure reward.

an excellent point

[AnimatedPaper]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Imagine if the "summoner" class had made summons actually useful. Instead of what ever it is we got that has nothing to do with it.

That would be terrible, and I'm glad they didn't.

Or, rather, I'm sure that summoning *is* actually useful, in its niche. It's throwing a bunch of disposable bodies and HP onto the field, and soaking up enemy time and attention to deal with them. You even get some ability to pick and choose creatures that are particularly useful for the situation at hand. What's not to like?

But if it was instead getting to the point where it was worth building a character around? I'm glad they avoided that particular pitfall.

Oh, I don’t know. I think about the only way it could be balanced was if you sunk a significant chunk of your class power into it, but there’s definitely eyelet players that would enjoy a disposable minion that could at least hit a boss level creature, albeit not particularly hard.

If the resulting average damage was slightly less than an at level cantrip, I could see a class built around ticking away with a minion while the master hit the same creature with real spells. If the summons could do other effects for even less average damage, even better.

I could imagine a wizard thesis to that effect, certainly.

Edit: the reason I say “less than a cantrip” is because they would ideally last an entire battle, and because that would roughly equate with a WoW warlock or Hunter, whose pet was effectively a dot effect with a taunt.

[UtaUta99]

There's really no point in arguing this. If you're mad that the eidolon doesn't have the summon trait, then be mad about it I guess. Everyone else who actually gets to play and enjoy the summoner will continue to do so, and you aren't going to accomplish anything by whining about it

[Temperans]

Well there were a bunch of critique to my post(s) so I will just respond in one post.

I mean I wouldn't be complaining if Paizo had said that its "treated as a summoned creature" Then the whole argument would be gone as the Eidolon would had been summoned, and automatically benefit from all effects that affect summons. While making the class name more truthful.

Or would having them be treated as summons be too difficult?

*************************
Given how feats have been released there is a much higher chance of a summoning ritual being created than a feat to make Summoners better at summoning. Which would not eliminate all the other problems limiting them from being good at it.

*************************
Evolution Surge helping with certain things does not make the Summoner better at "summoning" it mitigates the fact they have no spell slots that can be used for general utility.

*************************
The question was the summoner good at its name sake, if the Wizard (generally agreed to be meh in this edition) is better at it. Do you not think it is a problem? I know that people want to avoid power creep but come on, this would be insane.

*************************
Just because the Summoner has the extra action for the eidolon does not make the Wizard worse at summoning. It just means that the Summoner is just a squire to the real character: The Eidolon.

*************************
I play a Summoner because I want to summon creatures and be good at it. If I cannot be good at summoning, and the 1 strong creature I "manifest" is not a summon, how the heck am I a good summoner? But this part is clearly that we won't be able to look eye to eye on.

*************************

Some of you keep talking (in this thread) about how "the Summoner is all about the eidolon". But if you read the thread the question is not "Is the Summoner good at using the eidolon?" or "How good is the eidolon?" No, the question being asked here is:

Thread title wrote:

SECRETS OF MAGIC: IS THE SUMMONER GOOD AT SUMMONING?

So tell me, why should I not give my reason for why the summoner is not good? Why should I be quiet when a question is asked in a public forum and I have my opinion? Why should I care about whether other people will play or not, when the question has nothing to with that?

Cause it seems to me like I am being told to just "be quiet and stop talking about the ugly parts".

[Temperans]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Imagine if the "summoner" class had made summons actually useful. Instead of what ever it is we got that has nothing to do with it.

That would be terrible, and I'm glad they didn't.

Or, rather, I'm sure that summoning *is* actually useful, in its niche. It's throwing a bunch of disposable bodies and HP onto the field, and soaking up enemy time and attention to deal with them. You even get some ability to pick and choose creatures that are particularly useful for the situation at hand. What's not to like?

But if it was instead getting to the point where it was worth building a character around? I'm glad they avoided that particular pitfall.

Oh, I don’t know. I think about the only way it could be balanced was if you sunk a significant chunk of your class power into it, but there’s definitely eyelet players that would enjoy a disposable minion that could at least hit a boss level creature, albeit not particularly hard.

If the resulting average damage was slightly less than an at level cantrip, I could see a class built around ticking away with a minion while the master hit the same creature with real spells. If the summons could do other effects for even less average damage, even better.

I could imagine a wizard thesis to that effect, certainly.

Edit: the reason I say “less than a cantrip” is because they would ideally last an entire battle, and because that would roughly equate with a WoW warlock or Hunter, whose pet was effectively a dot effect with a taunt.

Honestly this doesn't sound too bad. I can see A summon monster font that lets a class get plenty of high level summons. While also getting feats that make it so that instead of "level-5" its something like "level-2". It wouldn't be "broken" but it would make it a lot more useable.

Specially if the duration were to be extended. Or if there were other things like Augment Summon, Harrow Summoning, Even just an "expanded summon" where you can pick from more diverse creatures. Not just from the narrow categories given by the current spells.

[Arakasius]

Geez this is tedious. Just flag and move on it’s not worth arguing.

[Deriven Firelion]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Imagine if the "summoner" class had made summons actually useful. Instead of what ever it is we got that has nothing to do with it.

That would be terrible, and I'm glad they didn't.

Or, rather, I'm sure that summoning *is* actually useful, in its niche. It's throwing a bunch of disposable bodies and HP onto the field, and soaking up enemy time and attention to deal with them. You even get some ability to pick and choose creatures that are particularly useful for the situation at hand. What's not to like?

But if it was instead getting to the point where it was worth building a character around? I'm glad they avoided that particular pitfall.

If it did this, it would be worth it. But a powerful enemy can completely ignore summons and not suffer much for having done so. The summons will miss 75 to 80% of the time and not do much damage if they hit. A boss monster can completely ignore a summon and focus on the PCs in my experience.

Summons don't even do the same damage as an equivalent spell that does direct damage or is sustainable for damage because their attack ability is so much lower than what they fight.

No one is asking for summons to be some spell replacing martials as you seem to think they are. We're asking for a spell that can be used to do some single target damage during those times when magic doesn't work very well either due to high saves, magic immunity, or preferring to do damage via summons than direct damage or attack spells. And they don't.

They're measurably inferior making them not even worth using even for the purpose you stated they could be used for.

[Deriven Firelion]

Starocious wrote:

Can someone explain what these rituals are to me and of they're worth looking into?

They take a lot of investment, but the summoned creatures from rituals are closer in level and more useful. The one that is usable is Animate Dead. You can obtain a powerful undead creature as a minion using Animate Dead without needing the rest of the party or a bunch of hirelings as extra casters.

[Deriven Firelion]

Visually the summoner looks like a summoner. This entire game is about the illusion of doing what you're doing with the game mechanics. It's not class D&D summoning, but if you we're in the world looking at a summoner manifest his eidolon you would think he summoned a powerful creature. In these games that is all that matters.

PF2 is all about providing the visually appropriate abilities to build the type of character you want, while being balanced in comparison to other classes.

The summoner visuals fit. I'm more interested to see if the comparative balance is also present.

[Gortle]

Temperans wrote:

The Summoner is straight up worse at summoning than other classes.

...

So what does the Summoner get?
* 2 feats to get a single (not two) extra slot for summoning.

What is the other Feat apart from Master Summoner? It doesn't have a prereq. It gives you one extra slot of potentially a maximum of 3 top level summoning spells.

Temperans wrote:

* a feat that let's them deal a bit of damage when they summon.
* a feat to give summons bonus damage.

What they lack?
* The spell slots to actually use summoning with any reasonable frequency.
* The spell slots to cast actual support spells and area control to help summons.
* Focus abilities to actually help your summons.

Everyone bar the cleric can take effortless concentration, so not sure why you talk about it.

Yes I agree 3 top level slots and only very minor boost option it is not much. But the other lower level slots are not that good in combat so why would you consider them.

I still don't think that summons are balanced for their mainline use in combat. They are just too weak offensively. Their utility value is good. But that is where Paizo have decided to go. Personally I think it dismisses summoning to obscurity. Which makes me upset because they have balanced summoning by weakening it far too much.

So I reject your assertion that Summoners are worse at summoning that other classes, rather its just that summoning is below average in offensive combat. Probably because it is strong in general utility.

To make the Summoner work as a Summoner it would need a Focus spell summoning ability. I suspect it would need to go on another class chasis. Because this class has the Eidolon and it would be wrong I think to give it both options. Maybe an archetype, or a wizard school would be right for it.

The non-spell, ritual based Summons are available to everyone. Yes the Summoner can use them. But they are all tightly under GM control, which they have to be as they effectively add characters to the party. I don't know that we can really consider them in this context of combat summoning. (Abyssal pact, Daemonic Pact, Div pact, Infernal pact, Planar ally, Primal Call). I must admit I hate the way that Primal Call refers its rules to Planar Ally, but Planar Ally is all about Deities which are just not relevant in a primal context.

The Eidolon is basically it for the Summoner. I'm OK with it as a concept(apart from the name). It seems to be reasonably well implemented and I will give it a run when I get a chance.

Despite what you say they do have some dedicated buffs for the Eidolon as cantrips. So I think it works. I'm concerned that the Eidolon is basically a Martial without much in the way of the really cool feats and powers that high level martial character get. At least the Eidolon can get a basic AoO. The buffing from the Summoner is Ok but it all seems really minor. I'm not seeing the better synergy combinations which you can get to work with the martial characters. I guess its all up to the Summoner to do. I suspect Aiding the Eidolon will be a good option.

I'll be happy to see what people will do with it.

[HumbleGamer]

In addition to the cleric, the magus ( since the summoner which is a wave caster can ) and the oracle can't take effortless concentration.

[Temperans]

Gortle wrote:

Temperans wrote:

The Summoner is straight up worse at summoning than other classes.

...

So what does the Summoner get?
* 2 feats to get a single (not two) extra slot for summoning.

What is the other Feat apart from Master Summoner? It doesn't have a prereq. It gives you one extra slot of potentially a maximum of 3 top level summoning spells.

Temperans wrote:

* a feat that let's them deal a bit of damage when they summon.
* a feat to give summons bonus damage.

What they lack?
* The spell slots to actually use summoning with any reasonable frequency.
* The spell slots to cast actual support spells and area control to help summons.
* Focus abilities to actually help your summons.

Everyone bar the cleric can take effortless concentration, so not sure why you talk about it.

Yes I agree 3 top level slots and only very minor boost option it is not much. But the other lower level slots are not that good in combat so why would you consider them.

I still don't think that summons are balanced for their mainline use in combat. They are just too weak offensively. Their utility value is good. But that is where Paizo have decided to go. Personally I think it dismisses summoning to obscurity. Which makes me upset because they have balanced summoning by weakening it far too much.

So I reject your assertion that Summoners are worse at summoning that other classes, rather its just that summoning is below average in offensive combat. Probably because it is strong in general utility.

To make the Summoner work as a Summoner it would need a Focus spell summoning ability. I suspect it would need to go on another class chasis. Because this class has the Eidolon and it would be wrong I think to give it both options. Maybe an archetype, or a wizard school would be right for it.

The non-spell, ritual based Summons are available to everyone. Yes the Summoner can use them. But they are all tightly under GM control, which they have to be as they effectively add characters to...

Master Summoner gives 1 more spell of your highest level. Legendary Summoner makes it so you instead sacrifice a 9th level to get 2 10th level. You end up with: 2 8th lv, 1 9th lv, 2 pseudo 10th lv (can only be used for Heightened summon spells).

I mentioned Effortless Concentration because some people where saying Summoner was good because of it. But when everyone has access to some version of, then its meaningless to claim it. So I placed it every time to make a point.

I consider lower level spells because low level spells are great for support and battlefield control. Ex: 7th of Haste can target 6 creatures, while Wall of X spells are always useful to funnel enemies, etc.

I agree that Summoner could had used a focus spell to get summons. Even with this Chassis I honestly would think it's fine. But given the attitude I am getting doubt it will happen.

I too am fine with the concept, and I wont deny good writing. But I think their implementation was off the mark.

If the thread was about how good the Eidolon was I would agree that it's not so bad. But as you mentioned, the Eidolon is basically just a martial with less cool feats. The Summoner buff cantrips I think exist to justify the need of even having an actual "summoner". Good enough to be visible, but not so good that the Summoner does much outside maybe cast Electric Arc, maybe 1 of their few top lv spells.