This is how I tend to view it. The summoner is a martial option with some casting. It should fill that role in a group. It's basically a more versatile martial.
It doesn't do brutal alpha strikes like the magus, but it has more interesting gameplay than spell strike over and over again for those interested in a moderate damage martial with versatility and some nova capability.
Maybe not on a single strike, but a summoner can deal a generous amount of damage too.
lvl 10 Magus:
Spellstrike 2d12 ( maul ) + 1d6 ( random elemental rune ) + 2 ( arcane cascade ) + 7 ( STR + weapon spec ) + 5d6+4 ( telekinetic Projectile +4 from int )= 47 Average damage
lvl 10 summoner:
First attack - 2d6 ( agile strike, secondary attack ) + 4 ( boost eidolon ) + 7 ( STR + weapon spec ) +1d6 ( random elemental rune = 21.5
Second attack - 2d6 ( agile strike, secondary attack ) + 4 ( boost eidolon ) + 7 ( STR + weapon spec ) +1d6 ( random elemental rune = 21.5
Merciless Rend = 2d6 ( agile strike, secondary attack ) + 4 ( boost eidolon ) + 7 ( STR + weapon spec ) +1d6 ( random elemental rune = 21.5
64.5 average damage ( not sure how much this damage will lower because of the -4 MAP from the secondary strike, but even assuming a 30% it would be close to the average damage from a Maul Magus ).
...
If we assume a Divine/Occult summoner which casts heroism on his/her eidolon, well...
I know on paper the summoner should do good damage. But it tends to suffer more from movement than the magus so far in my experience. Maybe this changes later on, but it's action locked to do maximal damage with a move, attack, boost or the cantrip, boost, and attack which almost always relies on rounds with no movement which are honestly pretty rare in my games.
Whereas the Magus moves in, does one big smash. If it misses, they feel terrible. If it hits, they feel great.
I think in play it's a middle of the pack martial damage dealer with a higher ability to nova strike with spells.
This calculation and all prior are incorrect, you'd have to use an EDV calculation vs an average to hit value (both for AC and reflex in case of spells) in order to get expected average damage per attack.
For the Magus' strike, since you're using only 1 attack imma assume true strike (which for simplicity will add +5 to hit or 25% accuracy, with the translation into crit chance from there)
Using moderate values for a monster of their level gives AC 29:
Magus has an EDV of: 61.1, with an 90% hit chance and a 40% crit chance (roughly, true strike is hard to account for.)
Summoner has an EDV of: 49.45, based on what you said.
As an exemple a Power attacking fighter has: 58.725 by Power attacking and following up with a secondary attack.
Sorry, this has been bothering me for a while with everyone throwing numbers.
EDIT: Heroism Eidolon takes this to 52.675
Did you consider the third attack is automatically a hit if you land either attacks?
Anyway, I didn't assume true strike because those will be for the 4 big one spells, not something you can spam 2/3 times per fight, from 6 to 10 fights per day.
So, just to make it clear:
- magus in my example would use the highest dice weapon available ( 1d12 )
- no true strike ( but 4 of the 30 daily spell strike may include it, though it's not the case now).
- summoner is required to just hit twice ( the third one is automatic if the 2 attacks hit).
...
The intent was to match normal spellstrikes with eidolons normal attack ( don't know how to calculate the edv).
If quickened it would be electric arc in addition to the 2 strikes + merciless rend, but since it's circumstantial I didn't mention it.
My priority was to give the magus the highest weapon damage available, and make a comparison with the eidolon ( not the summoner. Or if we want to use the summoner and eidolon as both, I'd consider 2 strikes and electric arc).
I did consider that and its in the calculation.
If the Magus is not true striking, then I'll add a secondary normal attack and it becomes 49.075 so quite on par.
If quickened both have to be quickened, I CAN calculate electric arc average damage.
EDV is: =(D*(H-C))+(D*C*2))(Had to simplify it a bit, its based off the formula used in PF1E but back then you had to confirm crits)
Where D is Average Damage
H is Hit Chance (in percentage)
C is crit chance (in percentage)
Of course formula scales poorly for Fatal effects but its kinda easily adjustable
EDIT: Actually since you can Rend only if the second attack hits, the corrected summoner damage is 41.925.
This is how I tend to view it. The summoner is a martial option with some casting. It should fill that role in a group. It's basically a more versatile martial.
It doesn't do brutal alpha strikes like the magus, but it has more interesting gameplay than spell strike over and over again for those interested in a moderate damage martial with versatility and some nova capability.
Maybe not on a single strike, but a summoner can deal a generous amount of damage too.
lvl 10 Magus:
Spellstrike 2d12 ( maul ) + 1d6 ( random elemental rune ) + 2 ( arcane cascade ) + 7 ( STR + weapon spec ) + 5d6+4 ( telekinetic Projectile +4 from int )= 47 Average damage
lvl 10 summoner:
First attack - 2d6 ( agile strike, secondary attack ) + 4 ( boost eidolon ) + 7 ( STR + weapon spec ) +1d6 ( random elemental rune = 21.5
Second attack - 2d6 ( agile strike, secondary attack ) + 4 ( boost eidolon ) + 7 ( STR + weapon spec ) +1d6 ( random elemental rune = 21.5
Merciless Rend = 2d6 ( agile strike, secondary attack ) + 4 ( boost eidolon ) + 7 ( STR + weapon spec ) +1d6 ( random elemental rune = 21.5
64.5 average damage ( not sure how much this damage will lower because of the -4 MAP from the secondary strike, but even assuming a 30% it would be close to the average damage from a Maul Magus ).
...
If we assume a Divine/Occult summoner which casts heroism on his/her eidolon, well...
One move action or one missed attack eliminates merciless rend. I do not think rend attacks are good in PF2. They should have made rend a reaction like flensing slice. I may do that myself as a house rule soon.
I have a player who made a dual weapon warrior. He took Flensing Slice. In 9 total levels, they used Flensing Slice maybe 2 times because of what it takes to use. Two attacks hitting and then an action available. So often one attack misses or they need to move to the target or move to keep up with the target.
In play the summoner in my experience rounds go like the following:
Opening Round:
1. Move into position
2. Boost maybe unless the summoner also needs to move into position
3. Attack once or twice depending on how many move actions to close the distance.
Subsequent rounds:
1. Boost
2. Attack
3. Second attack or cantrip depending on if you can use non-attack cantrip.
The subsequent rounds assumes no movement and fight is against a static opponent.
If I have to spend a move action to change targets or keep up with the existing target, then the round changes to:
1. Move
2. Attack
3. Boost
4. Usually a second attack since I can't use the cantrip.
No room for merciless rend. If rend is what is required to competitive damage, it cannot be counted on.
That is not unique to the summoner. Any damage sequence that requires a double hit and an action to spend for a total of three actions is not a consistent damage routine. It will be hard to maintain.
That seems to be the case. No big deal. Just means I will assess classes differently than others I imagine.Definitely never heard of anyone else playing PF2 like this before on these forums. I can see the appeal in that story, but I don't know anyone (maybe one guy) in my assorted group of 14 that I've played with at some point that would enjoy that table atmosphere. While I won't decry it as badwrongfun, I do think you should realize how niche that style of table is a try to understand most people here are not viewing the Summoner through the lens of "gritty death game" level play. I think it's a perfectly serviceable class that, while it can struggle to uber-specialize, is quite flexible in the positions it can fill in a party, which is it's main point of power imo. The Bard, Swashbuckler, and Summoner are all good classes to fill a "role gap" a party might have during PC-gen time.If my PCs don't feel like they are in a battle to the death in at least a few fights every module of an AP, then I have failed.
I'm more than getting the feeling I'm in the minority as to how I run the game. It just wouldn't be fun for me as a DM if I don't make sure the players feel like they can die if they don't play really, really tight including understanding what they must do to counter high level tactical play where the same tactics they are using are being used against them and then some.
I like to give my players a combination of combat challenges, mystery/exploration challenges, social challenges, and moral challenges. They like the variety. For example. my players in Ironfang Invasion after the end of Assault on Longshadow decided to free the enslaved villagers in their home village Phaendar, invaded during the 1st module of the adventure path. I set up this side quest as a caper rather than as combat. Of course, if the caper failed, then combat would ensue, so I planned for combat, too. A 15th-level commander, a 14th-level slavemaster, two 8th-level lieutenants, three 9th-level centaurs, and ten 9th-level troop units versus a 12-level party would be 415 xp, but since the party has seven PCs I rate it as (4/7)(415) = 237 xp, a beyond-extreme challenge. The PCs scouted out the houses converted to a slave compound both invisibly and in Pest Form, made Stealth and Crafting checks over one week in-game time to dig a tunnel via a Dig-Widget to the basement of a house in the compound, and sneaked slaves out through the tunnel at dawn while some party members attacked elsewhere as a distraction. Pulling off a successful caper has a glory of its own.
But we did have an interesting combat at the end, which I already described in comment #86 in this thread. Fifteenth-level Commander Stabvistin was awesome at melee combat, so my players forced a ranged battle on him.
Deriven Firelion said his players have "to counter high level tactical play where the same tactics they are using are being used against them and then some." I can't figure out how to do that to my players. Their primary tactic is adapting to nullify opponents' strengths through teamwork-based versatility, such as when they nullified Stabvistin's mastery at melee. Creatures are not built as versatile as player characters. I have built some opponents using the PC rules, but that makes them equal to the PCs in combat numbers. The 14th-level slavemaster was built using the playtest Psychic class rules and could have nullified the party's ability to retreat and escape, but that gave him fewer hit points. He went down fast after taking a critical hit on a sneak attack. My one brain cannot match the inventiveness of the seven brains of my players.
In the combat environment created by my players, the summoner's lack of mastery in any singe form of combat is less important than the versatility provided by the mixture of martial and spellcasting abilities and the weirdness of a single player controlling two bodies at once. That makes summoner a worthwhile class for victory by teamwork tactics.
In play the summoner in my experience rounds go like the following:
Opening Round:
1. Move into position
2. Boost maybe unless the summoner also needs to move into position
3. Attack once or twice depending on how many move actions to close the distance.Subsequent rounds:
1. Boost
2. Attack
3. Second attack or cantrip depending on if you can use non-attack cantrip.The subsequent rounds assumes no movement and fight is against a static opponent.
If I have to spend a move action to change targets or keep up with the existing target, then the round changes to:
1. Move
2. Attack
3. Boost
4. Usually a second attack since I can't use the cantrip.No room for merciless rend. If rend is what is required to competitive damage, it cannot be counted on.
That is not unique to the summoner. Any damage sequence that requires a double hit and an action to spend for a total of three actions is not a consistent damage routine. It will be hard to maintain.
That is a solid example. My experience with NPC summoner Cirieo Thassadin in my campaign is that he never cast Boost Eidolon. The action economy did not favor spending an action on extra damage.
But Cirieo is a special case. He was an existing ranger NPC in Fangs of War that I converted to summoner for the playtest. He had recently lost a leg, bitten off weeks before by a dragon. His beast eidolon became his mount, correcting that deficiency. That is one reason I give the summoner class high points for adaptability. However, the loss of an action due to the Riding Sapient Creatures rule was very annoying until the final version of summoner added the Steed Form feat. And one important role for Cirieo had been casting Produce Flame against trolls to stop their regeneration, so the summoner's spellcasting was more vital to my party than the eidolon's martial attacks.
By the way, Cirieo had another adventure last week. The party attacked a supply train of the Ironfang Legion, reclaiming sheep, goats, and grain that the Ironfang Legion had stolen from local farmers. (Yes, my players care about logistics in this war.) They needed some shepherds to herd the livestock, especially shepherds with enough hit points in case the battle reached them, so they brough Cirieo along. He was trained in Nature so could herd sheep. Also, Cirieo and his eidolon Fluffy could herd twice as many sheep as a regular shepherd. In contrast, the champion used her velociraptor animal companion to scare some sheep toward the shepherds, which made the shepherds complain about having to calm the frightened sheep afterwards.
My experience with the summoner is that you are able to do a bunch of different things, but you're going to do them pretty poorly. You don't fight well, you don't cast well. You can't tank well because one of your "sides" will always be worse AC or save than the other.
Anytime something is needed of the party, there's a massive chance that someone else on the team is already going to be specialized in whatever that thing is and having the summoner do it would actively be a worse choice.
Well, that can be said about any class.
Do you want to hit the best AC to tank?
Just 2 classes out of 14 are able to hit legendary AC.Do you want Legendary hit?
Just 2 classes out of 14 are able to do so.Do you want to be a skill monkey?
Just 2 classes out of 14 are able to do so.Do you want 4 slots per level as a spellcaster?
Just 2 classes out of 14 are able to do so.and so on.
But I agree on that eidolons are not properly designed to tank, for several reasons:
1) Reinforce Eidolon doesn't keep up with raising a shield, because the DR provided by the spell doesn't keep up in terms of DR. Also, being a status bonus and not a circumstance bonus, it doesn't stack with spells like circle of protection ( in the eventuality the eidolon got spellcasting abilities ).
2) Unable to get property runes, and because so no fortification, which is a great defense against critical hits, available by lvl 12 ( 1 critical hit out of 5 is converted into a normal hit ).
3) Unable to get defensive reactions ( like shield block. The summoner can indeed use protect companion, while the eidolon can use shield, resulting in 2 shield block per fight, but it's clunky and not so reliable ).
4) No possibility to get a sturdier skin ( +6 AC rather than +5 ), like any other class has because of class feats or through the sentinel archetype.
I think a warpriest could be a better tank even given its limitations, and that's kinda sad.
I don't think that can be said about most classes.
Barbarian is an amazing class to build who is a top damage dealer.
Druid doesn't need 4 slots to be a legendary caster and one of the most versatile and powerful damage casters in the game with good focus options and an overall great kit of abilities.
Most classes can be built into an interesting and powerful role within a group.
The summoner is very limited and very hard to do this. Even the Magus has powerful alpha strike ability that really stands out in a group. The summoner in my experience doesn't stand out in a group for doing anything, not even summoning.
Even when you take archetypes, the eidolon doesn't get any of the benefits of your archetype feats other than maybe getting some buffs with more caster slots. But all the benefits of an extra archetype accrue to the PC class.
For example, I made a ranger with rogue archetype. He gets tons of extra skill ups from archetype feats. He gets nice extra feats for trapfinding. All the benefits of the archetype accrue to the ranger including sneak attack, but if you were to take free rogue archetype for the summoner it wouldn't get much from the archetype. The gang up feat wouldn't apply to the eidolon and you don't want to melee as a summoner due to the shared hit point pool. You wouldn't get the benefits of trap finder for the eidolon, even though you want to use it as the skill money. It would get the benefits of the additional skills, but not access to your abilities.
The summoner is one of those classes that Paizo designers spent a lot of time making sure to limit it because of the two character build and ended up making it very mediocre in several different areas making it unattractive to people who want to stand out for doing something very well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Summoner is not, unlike most CRB classes, a character that can just grab a Greatsword and work. You need to make it work. So you can't really compare the class as a whole because different builds will bear very different results.
But considering that the Summoner/Bard is nearly a better Bard than an actual Bard, I can safely say that some Summoner builds are among the best builds in the game.
Yeah, the summoner bard is pretty cool.good.
The only downside I can think of is that a bard hit inspire heroics by lvl 8, while a summoner gets it by lvl 16 ( the same level the summoner gets effortless concentration, which is imo a must regardless the summoner build ).
Not that just the basic inspire courage is not good alone, but being able to spike from +1 to +3 makes things even easier.
So I'd go early/mid game for a bard, and late game for a Summoner/Bard.
Early game, Bard struggles. You don't have a good attack cantrip and your spells are not incredible (especially because healing is the most desirable contribution for a low level caster). The Bard really starts to shine when you get access to Synesthesia. In my opinion, it's better to play a Summoner at that stage unless you really want to inspire.
Inspire Heroics is strong but before you get access to extra Focus Points at level 12 it's very hard to use as it prevents you from using Lingering Composition. So you spend one action every round to Inspire, it's annoying and not especially strong. Once you get access to more Focus Points you can use Lingering Composition at round 2 to cover the end of the fight.I'd personally go Summoner early/mid game but not during late game as the Summoner loses on the casting proficiency, which is super important at high level.
Anyway, the Summoner/Bard is really an interesting build and a nice alternative to a Bard (for those like me who dislike the PF2 Bard).
Early game, Bard struggles. You don't have a good attack cantrip and your spells are not incredible (especially because healing is the most desirable contribution for a low level caster).
Unless you pick one of the bazillion ways of getting Electric Arc as an innate cantrip.
Besides, I would say that the spell that contributes the most at low levels is Magic Weapon. it is relevant levels 1 to 3 most of the time, and once you get to level 5 you get Slow and Lvl 3 Fear, so Bards have 1 single bad level early on.
Back to Summoner, I think Summoner MC Bard is one of the better ways to build a martial Bard, but what a Bard and a Summoner MC Bard can add to a party are so different that discussing what is more effective is nonsense. Do you need a body in the frontlane? Get a Summoner MC Bard. You don't? Get a regular Bard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only downside I can think of is that a bard hit inspire heroics by lvl 8, while a summoner gets it by lvl 16 ( the same level the summoner gets effortless concentration, which is imo a must regardless the summoner build ).
Why do you imagine that Effortless Concentration is so critical? I mean, unless you dump feats into summoning spells you've got 4 spell slots total, plus, one more from your staff. There's a lot of builds that focus heavily on the eidolon (like... basically all of the ones that I personally am interested in) and for anything like that, a feat that only exists to make you more efficient at one particular way of using your limited spell slots seems... not so critical?
The only downside I can think of is that a bard hit inspire heroics by lvl 8, while a summoner gets it by lvl 16 ( the same level the summoner gets effortless concentration, which is imo a must regardless the summoner build ).Why do you imagine that Effortless Concentration is so critical? I mean, unless you dump feats into summoning spells you've got 4 spell slots total, plus, one more from your staff. There's a lot of builds that focus heavily on the eidolon (like... basically all of the ones that I personally am interested in) and for anything like that, a feat that only exists to make you more efficient at one particular way of using your limited spell slots seems... not so critical?
Agree with this, Effortless Concentration is critical for full casters, bounded casters, not so much.
does inspire courage affect summons? If so, bard would be great for a minionmancer summoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only downside I can think of is that a bard hit inspire heroics by lvl 8, while a summoner gets it by lvl 16 ( the same level the summoner gets effortless concentration, which is imo a must regardless the summoner build ).Why do you imagine that Effortless Concentration is so critical? I mean, unless you dump feats into summoning spells you've got 4 spell slots total, plus, one more from your staff. There's a lot of builds that focus heavily on the eidolon (like... basically all of the ones that I personally am interested in) and for anything like that, a feat that only exists to make you more efficient at one particular way of using your limited spell slots seems... not so critical?Because summoning stuff as well as focus spells are too convenient to have if you have effortless concentration.
For example, a summoner would go with Hymn of Healing rather than lifelink surge.
A summoner could go with a summon with a summon, which gets 2 actions for free. Summons can cast spells ( Fey and Celestial defensive ones, while fiends offensive ones, for example ).
And there are plenty spells which can benefit from a sustain action.
I mean, the more actions, the merrier.
But ofc, if you don't plan by lvl 16 to have a proper use of sustain spells ( Spells, Summon spells, focus spells and similar ), then you probably can opt not to take effortless concentration.
Hymn of healing locks you out of using other Composition cantrips. If you are getting a Bard MC, you want to use Inspire Courage, Inspire Defense or Dirge of Doom, not that.
Summons suck for combat, and out of them you will rarely need 2 of them at the same time. Illusory creature is good, but it uses a spell attack roll. During 3 of the 5 levels you will get to use the feat you will have to suffer a lower proficiency than a caster.
Most spells that make use of sustain are either out of combat centered or spells that use saves. same as above, by that level the lower proficiency already kicked in at full force.
Early game, Bard struggles. You don't have a good attack cantrip and your spells are not incredible (especially because healing is the most desirable contribution for a low level caster). The Bard really starts to shine when you get access to Synesthesia. In my opinion, it's better to play a Summoner at that stage unless you really want to inspire.
Inspire Heroics is strong but before you get access to extra Focus Points at level 12 it's very hard to use as it prevents you from using Lingering Composition. So you spend one action every round to Inspire, it's annoying and not especially strong. Once you get access to more Focus Points you can use Lingering Composition at round 2 to cover the end of the fight.I'd personally go Summoner early/mid game but not during late game as the Summoner loses on the casting proficiency, which is super important at high level.
Anyway, the Summoner/Bard is really an interesting build and a nice alternative to a Bard (for those like me who dislike the PF2 Bard).
I'm really not seeing how the bard struggles early at all. Unlike other casters they have access to a real ranged weapon in the shortbow instead of the mechanically useless crossbow. Thanks to inspire they even match base martial accuracy with a 16 starting dex. Inspire, shoot, [shoot/skill/stride/etc] is a fine routine that lasts a long time and will keep you from feeling like a total chump when all the early game mooks have high ref saves for electric arc.
I don't know what sustain spells are you talking about, but I have plenty I can make a good use during combat ( though being a summoner I'd prefer summoning stuff regardless the situation ).
Going by things I find useful by level 16+ that you can use as a Summoner: Control Sand, Ethereal Jaunt, Flame Vortex, Force Cage, Forceful Hand, Hideous Laughter/Roaring Applause, Illusory Creature, Implosion, Malicious Shadow, Maze, Mind Reading, Protective Ward, Prying Eye, Punishing Winds, Retrocognition, Scintillating Pattern, Spiritual Weapon (and derivatives), Summon spells, Telekinetic Haul and Whirlwind.
The amount of things that are not out of combat or attack roll/save spells there is small, and the amount of them you can use at the same time on a single build smaller. If you like summoning in combat I can see why you feel it is a must. If you exclude those, there is no reason to pick Effortless Concentration.
Having a summoner doesn't mean you don't have a proper bard in your party ( or any caster who took the bard dedication to make a better use of its third action ). It's not a real issue.
If you have a Bard and a Summoner MC Bard, you still want to use a combination of Inspire Courage, Inspire Defense and Dirge of Doom, not Hymn of Healing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Summoner is great. Definitely one of the strongest post-release classes. Flexible action economy and tons of variety. My player playing an Angel summoner is having a blast with it.
Also lmao at people acting like it doesn't 'deserve" the name Summoner because they seem to think that the selling point of the 1e summoner was the broken summon spells and not the eidolon. Get a grip, people. (Summon spells aren't even good in this game, and even then this class still has some feats for it.)
If you have a Bard and a Summoner MC Bard, you still want to use a combination of Inspire Courage, Inspire Defense and Dirge of Doom, not Hymn of Healing.Inspire courage would be heroics from the bard, and Inspire defense is not a great deal by lvl 16, unless you have 3+ melee characters not getting status bonus to AC ( for example, the 1 hour long circle of protection, any character could give throuh a wand ).
Protection Spells are uncommon though. I can see niche team compositions where Hymn of Healing is the best option (Not hard to imagine it being a really good option to pair with a Flame Oracle), but they are still niche.
Protection Spells are uncommon though. I can see niche team compositions where Hymn of Healing is the best option (I can see it being a really good option to pair with a Flame Oracle), but they are still niche.If you have a Bard and a Summoner MC Bard, you still want to use a combination of Inspire Courage, Inspire Defense and Dirge of Doom, not Hymn of Healing.Inspire courage would be heroics from the bard, and Inspire defense is not a great deal by lvl 16, unless you have 3+ melee characters not getting status bonus to AC ( for example, the 1 hour long circle of protection, any character could give throuh a wand ).
As for the fire oracle, since it requires the character to be within 30 feet from the enemies ( and because so he'd probably have to walk more than any other spellcaster ) having to expend an extra action to sustain could probably be a little action consuming ( the oracles doens't have effortless concentration, so he'd remain with 2 actions left ).
I meant getting the spell as a Summoner if you have a Flame Oracle in the team.
Early game, Bard struggles. You don't have a good attack cantrip and your spells are not incredible (especially because healing is the most desirable contribution for a low level caster).Unless you pick one of the bazillion ways of getting Electric Arc as an innate cantrip.
Agree, but I can't still consider it a base of the Bard class as only some ancestries get it.
Besides, I would say that the spell that contributes the most at low levels is Magic Weapon.
Hard disagree on that. There's a small level range where it's useful, it is quite weak on anything but two-handed weapons, which are not that common (Fighters and Barbarians use them, but many melee martials use one handed weapons). And you have to know beforehand that the fight will be tough to use one of your 2 spells per day, unlike healing that you can use when you know that the fight is tough. I take a Cleric over a Bard every day at low levels.
I'm really not seeing how the bard struggles early at all. Unlike other casters they have access to a real ranged weapon in the shortbow instead of the mechanically useless crossbow. Thanks to inspire they even match base martial accuracy with a 16 starting dex. Inspire, shoot, [shoot/skill/stride/etc] is a fine routine that lasts a long time and will keep you from feeling like a total chump when all the early game mooks have high ref saves for electric arc.
That's what I call "struggling". When you have to convince yourself that using a 1d6+1 damage weapon is a "fine routine". Clearly, Electric Arc is far superior to a Shorbow, it deals the same damage... on a successful save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply to chime in here that summons and sustain spells seem decent with summoners because they allow you to save spell slots, which are very important for the summoner. Using 1 spell slot only on a moderate to hard encounter is very useful.
As for summons, I've seen a lot of people trash them but they're very convenient if played properly and to their strengths.
Summons are useful in fights with level -4 to level +0 creatures agaisnt you (which will happen frequently in AP's or even homebrews) because they soak up damage and provide good positioning and can match up farily well if well picked.
In one of my games the group are all necromantically themed dhampirs and the Oracle cleric and wizard frequently summon an undead each. When the undead gets low HP, they final sacrifice it for max damage.
It's been very effective so far.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply to chime in here that summons and sustain spells seem decent with summoners because they allow you to save spell slots, which are very important for the summoner. Using 1 spell slot only on a moderate to hard encounter is very useful.
As for summons, I've seen a lot of people trash them but they're very convenient if played properly and to their strengths.
Summons are useful in fights with level -4 to level +0 creatures agaisnt you (which will happen frequently in AP's or even homebrews) because they soak up damage and provide good positioning and can match up farily well if well picked.
In one of my games the group are all necromantically themed dhampirs and the Oracle cleric and wizard frequently summon an undead each. When the undead gets low HP, they final sacrifice it for max damage.
It's been very effective so far.
I have been trying summons in lower level fights and they have been more helpful than I expected for flanking, taking up space, soaking some hits, and doing a little damage. They have more utility than expected if you don't rely on them solely for the boss fights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been trying summons in lower level fights and they have been more helpful than I expected for flanking, taking up space, soaking some hits, and doing a little damage. They have more utility than expected if you don't rely on them solely for the boss fights.Simply to chime in here that summons and sustain spells seem decent with summoners because they allow you to save spell slots, which are very important for the summoner. Using 1 spell slot only on a moderate to hard encounter is very useful.
As for summons, I've seen a lot of people trash them but they're very convenient if played properly and to their strengths.
Summons are useful in fights with level -4 to level +0 creatures agaisnt you (which will happen frequently in AP's or even homebrews) because they soak up damage and provide good positioning and can match up farily well if well picked.
In one of my games the group are all necromantically themed dhampirs and the Oracle cleric and wizard frequently summon an undead each. When the undead gets low HP, they final sacrifice it for max damage.
It's been very effective so far.
Good way to save your spell slots too !
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... a summons-based summoner is kind of like the opposite of a heavy nova character? Actually works better when focusing resources on the weaker fights?
Hard disagree on that. There's a small level range where it's useful, it is quite weak on anything but two-handed weapons, which are not that common (Fighters and Barbarians use them, but many melee martials use one handed weapons). And you have to know beforehand that the fight will be tough to use one of your 2 spells per day, unlike healing that you can use when you know that the fight is tough. I take a Cleric over a Bard every day at low levels.
I think everything that is d8+ is an okay target for Magic Weapon. The spell also multiplies really well with every aditional +1 you manage to squeeze (like Fear of Demoralize) so it is incredible good in single boss encounters early on (imo, by far the deadliest encounters by then). Heal has a wider use, but Magic Weapon helps the most in the harder encounters. Soothe isn't that bad too, most of the time you will be using the 2 action heal in combat and Soothe is 2 hp behind on average.
I think we also have a different view on what early levels are too. To make things clear, I consider them levels 1 to 4.
Actually soothe is at an average of 9.5 vs heal's 12.5.
Not a huge difference but over 10 levels that's up to 30 hp healed per spell
Actually soothe is at an average of 9.5 vs heal's 12.5.
Not a huge difference but over 10 levels that's up to 30 hp healed per spell
True, misscalculated that
So... a summons-based summoner is kind of like the opposite of a heavy nova character? Actually works better when focusing resources on the weaker fights?
I have not tested summons enough to say this with surety. I have noticed they are better in weaker fights. The hit easier. They don't die quite as quick. They tend to seem more useful than a fight where the boss rips them apart in one round or they can't even strike the boss without natural 19 and 20.
I think their AC is still low. I may increase their AC in my house rules like I did their attack roll, but I'll test it more first. I want summons not too good, but also not so bad they aren't useful.
Summoning is a very fun fantasy trope. I want it very viable, but not what it was in PF1/3E.
Hard disagree on that. There's a small level range where it's useful, it is quite weak on anything but two-handed weapons, which are not that common (Fighters and Barbarians use them, but many melee martials use one handed weapons). And you have to know beforehand that the fight will be tough to use one of your 2 spells per day, unlike healing that you can use when you know that the fight is tough. I take a Cleric over a Bard every day at low levels.I think everything that is d8+ is an okay target for Magic Weapon. The spell also multiplies really well with every aditional +1 you manage to squeeze (like Fear of Demoralize) so it is incredible good in single boss encounters early on (imo, by far the deadliest encounters by then). Heal has a wider use, but Magic Weapon helps the most in the harder encounters. Soothe isn't that bad too, most of the time you will be using the 2 action heal in combat and Soothe is 2 hp behind on average.
I think we also have a different view on what early levels are too. To make things clear, I consider them levels 1 to 4.
Well, we can have this conversation back and forth, I've found Heal to be a more important spell at low level than Magic Weapon.
Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that low level Bard is not incredible. If I want to create the most combat-optimized party for a level 1-4 adventure, I don't take a Bard. The Bard starts to shine at higher levels when it gives both nice buffs and crazy debuffs (Synesthesia, Slow 6 or reliable Demoralize).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Final Sacrifice is OP.Nah Its 1d6 more than a fireball.
It is also available 2 PC levels before.
And it can do Cold damage, and it can be cast by an Occult or Divine caster.
Knowing that Fireball is regarded as a top spell already, even though fire resistance is pretty common.
Final Sacrifice is OP.Nah Its 1d6 more than a fireball.It is also available 2 PC levels before.
And it can do Cold damage, and it can be cast by an Occult or Divine caster.
Knowing that Fireball is regarded as a top spell already, even though fire resistance is pretty common.
And AFAIK its 2d6 more than fireball.
Man i'm the nitpicky one in this thread!
Hard disagree on that. There's a small level range where it's useful, it is quite weak on anything but two-handed weapons, which are not that common (Fighters and Barbarians use them, but many melee martials use one handed weapons). And you have to know beforehand that the fight will be tough to use one of your 2 spells per day, unlike healing that you can use when you know that the fight is tough. I take a Cleric over a Bard every day at low levels.I think everything that is d8+ is an okay target for Magic Weapon. The spell also multiplies really well with every aditional +1 you manage to squeeze (like Fear of Demoralize) so it is incredible good in single boss encounters early on (imo, by far the deadliest encounters by then). Heal has a wider use, but Magic Weapon helps the most in the harder encounters. Soothe isn't that bad too, most of the time you will be using the 2 action heal in combat and Soothe is 2 hp behind on average.
I think we also have a different view on what early levels are too. To make things clear, I consider them levels 1 to 4.
Well, we can have this conversation back and forth, I've found Heal to be a more important spell at low level than Magic Weapon.
Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that low level Bard is not incredible. If I want to create the most combat-optimized party for a level 1-4 adventure, I don't take a Bard. The Bard starts to shine at higher levels when it gives both nice buffs and crazy debuffs (Synesthesia, Slow 6 or reliable Demoralize).
For sure it is not optimal by level 1 or 2. For sure I would take a Cleric with their unfair amount of slots early on over a Bard. Heck, I think I would take most sorcerers over a Bard by those levels. That doesn't mean Bard struggles early on, that's all.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bard can literally do whatever they want because no matter what it is they will buff the entire party or a significant portion of it.
That is not the case of Summoner that needs to spend literally every action just trying to catch up to everyone else. It's not even that good at RP given that you can literally do most of the same things with a random animal companion flavored to your needs. Oh so you can sacrifice it? That doesn't make the class good at what the name suggest or at being helpful in any real setting.
Does the class summon well? Not better or more than other casters.
Is it good at controlling summoned creatures? No.
Does it do skills better? No, it does not.
Is it good at countering enemy summons? Again no.
Does it get a way to avoid damage due to summons? Another no due to shared HP.The only good thing it does is cheese reach with Plant eidolon or be a backdrop to RP that requires no mechanics on the part of the class. If the only time where the class is "good" is when you are literally using none of the class mechanics, then it's a bad class.
This coming from a person who doesn't mind if a class deals less damage if they at least do something out of combat. And not think "oh but they can do 2 exploration activities" as being "relevant out of combat", not when it can be replaced by a skill feat.
Yeah but did you get a chance to play one? Or is this just white room theorycraft?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bard can literally do whatever they want because no matter what it is they will buff the entire party or a significant portion of it.
That is not the case of Summoner that needs to spend literally every action just trying to catch up to everyone else. It's not even that good at RP given that you can literally do most of the same things with a random animal companion flavored to your needs. Oh so you can sacrifice it? That doesn't make the class good at what the name suggest or at being helpful in any real setting.
Does the class summon well? Not better or more than other casters.
Is it good at controlling summoned creatures? No.
Does it do skills better? No, it does not.
Is it good at countering enemy summons? Again no.
Does it get a way to avoid damage due to summons? Another no due to shared HP.The only good thing it does is cheese reach with Plant eidolon or be a backdrop to RP that requires no mechanics on the part of the class. If the only time where the class is "good" is when you are literally using none of the class mechanics, then it's a bad class.
This coming from a person who doesn't mind if a class deals less damage if they at least do something out of combat. And not think "oh but they can do 2 exploration activities" as being "relevant out of combat", not when it can be replaced by a skill feat.
Setting aside your weird summoner blindness (you always say they aren't better at summoning than any other class and you're always wrong), the bard can't literally do whatever it wants and still buff the party. Inspire Courage requires spending actions, which prevent it from doing stuff like casting another spell and moving in the same round.
Not saying bards are bad, but you're misusing literally.