Sorry but I always thinked that "tax feat" is a thing essential to any build and that requires a feat. But IMO none of theses feats are really required to play well with a Summoner.Are you also answering to me or only to HumbleGamer? Because Tandem Move is definitely a tax feat. Unless you mount your eidolon, which is a rather fringe build, you have to take it to achieve top efficiency. And Protective Bond removes one of the biggest pain point of the class so it also qualifies as a tax feat.
Thus, I agree that they are exceptionally important feats. But considering them as a "tax feat"... I don't think it's exactly mandatory.
I can see builds that forgo these talents and take the risks or deal with the added difficulty. Tax feats for me are talents that you don't necessary want to take, but you have to take it or you'll have no alternative.For example, at the moment I don't remember any Tax feat. But in actions we have the example of reloading weapons that if you don't use a talent to reload you can't use the weapon. For me this is a Tax, something you have no viable choice, you have to do it.
Perhaps requisite feat like dedications can be considered as Tax feats when the player doesn't really want that feat, but a feat of that archetype and that to have access he is obliged to take the dedication feat. Yet it's not like taking an archetype is mandatory so this definition of tax is still dubious to me.
Shrink down is indeed a tax feat, I do agree.
But expending 6 feats to just having a flying dragon doesn't really enhance you gameplay, as you end up doing the same things you were doing before.
Feats like weightful impact, eidolon's opportunity, magical understudy/adept, refocus x2, focus spells, etc... These are, feats that let you vary your gameplay.
Not saying investing all your feats towards the eidolon size is not worth it.
Having reach and flying by lvl 14 is strong, but it's like comparing gettin a +X bonus damage with a fear that gives a new ability.
While the former may be strong or more desiderable, it doesn't enhance your gameplay like the latter does.
I really see the ability to fly as a new ability and not a +X bonus to damage. And increased reach is also a gameplay modification.
Also, you could reduce your feat chain to 3 feats if you don't take the size increasing feats. You are actually describing 2 separated feat chains that don't have to interact with each other.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I myself often find this completely black and white, all or nothing thinking to grossly misrepresent a lot of aspects of this game. It's incredibly misleading.
"Don't ever play Witch, it's the worst class in the game, completely useless and ineffectual, literally just dead weight, like you might as well just show up with all 0's in your stats for all the good your character will be worth. literal unplayable garbage."
People straight up have this attitude about a lot of stuff in this game, or even strategies. "If you're a Magus and you're not spellstriking you might as well delete your character sheet. It's literally unfathomable of having a turn in which you're not doing OpTiMaL dAmAgE"
In a game with tight math where every +1 matters and that wants to emphasize strategy and tactics, then yes, starting from a deficit by picking a bad class or playing poorly is putting a burden on the rest of the party to pick up your slack. Will a well played/built witch outdo a really really badly played bard? Maybe, but if the bard is played equally well, it's not even a contest.
It's simple enough to see if you compare what a party of fighter, rogue, bow magus, bard can do vs a party of something like gymnast swashbuckler, investigator, gunslinger, occult witch.
I'm kind of late to the party and but I still want to give my 2 cents, sorry about butting in ^^.
Anyway, this is a massive oversimplification. Class A being weaker in combat than class B doesn't automatically mean that by playing class A you are a burden on your party. This system isn't balanced around the optimum but a moderately competent PC. Assuming a "mix of everything" (AP-style) game, most of your combat encounters will be moderate difficulty or lower. Any class can handle those well.
The differences only start to actually matter when you start getting into the severe encounter range and beyond. And even there, a player will be able to do a lot with most classes, so long as they play well.
No, I'd say the "real" issues are comparative in nature and somewhat more subjective. If class A is substantially worse than class B at combat, when I play class A and I know what class B could do instead, then I personally feel like I am worth less to the party. That is probably where most of the complaints come from. For me at least. Similarly, when class C has some issues that negatively impact the gameplay experience without necessarily impacting performance - Investigator being kinda clunky and GM-dependent, gunslinger gameplay encouraging being incredibly repetitive, or champions having too few active ability options,...etc. - that is a point of concern as well.
This doesn't make constructive criticism any less valid, but the two should never be confused. Both for our own sense of perspective and for those looking to join us.
You want a dragon raider? That's the way.
In my opinion, the game doesn't really support that fantasy. But it can easily be houseruled with a Flying AC with the Mount ability. It can definitely be an issue power wise, but it works if the GM is fine for that. Going the Summoner route and wait for level 14 and 6 feats seem just too much of a hassle.
Being huge or able to fly would always end up with the character striding/flying and striking twice.
Routines are written in the class and it's really hard to really get away from them. Martials will attack twice and do something else, spellcasters will cast a spell and do something else, some other characters have more complex routines but overall they are all a variation of the same thing. You can mix and match different abilities, but if you really decompose your routine it's just the same one from level 1 to 20, the rest is icing on the cake (and new uses for your third action).
You want a dragon raider? That's the way.In my opinion, the game doesn't really support that fantasy. But it can easily be houseruled with a Flying AC with the Mount ability. It can definitely be an issue power wise, but it works if the GM is fine for that. Going the Summoner route and wait for level 14 and 6 feats seem just too much of a hassle.
Champions can be such rider with Celestial Mount + Riding Drake but it's a end game feat so I understand that this don't meets well the dragon rider fantasy and also it locks to a divine concept.
Maybe someday the Paizo designers consider to do some feat that add mount to a flying companion or fly to a mount companion (ideally the both in same feat).
Paizo considers at will flying a high level ability. It's a fantasy they don't want to support at low level. I think it can be seen as an issue, but it's as it is (and I don't care much).
I have no problem with it. They could made a high level feat to do this (probably lvl 16) or begin with a limited flight (probably lvl 8). But since Kineticist playtest Wings of Air feat I see this even less problematic during lower levels (but this can change in final version).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite source of flight is still the Sprite ancestry, with 1 min of flight on an hour cooldown at level 9.
Not to contradict - just to note:
Summoner matches that (at least matches) with Boost Eidolon at level 9 (spell level 5) giving the Eidolon flight for a minute on a 10 minute refocus. You would also want Steed Form and might need Hulking Size if you want the Summoner to ride it while it flies though. But both of those are also available before level 9.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw that. So a couple levels behind on casting proficiency with far fewer slots and focus abilities for some classes.
I've nearly never seen Longbows used (outside of Point Blank Shot Fighters). 30 feet is the range of most fights, it's the range of Electric Arc, Heal, Slow and a lot of extremely common spells. So you will in general be in the 30-foot range with a caster and as such should use a Shortbow. Also, your caster may always have its third action to shoot but that's not my experience. Casters need to move, and some of them have very valid one-action Focus Spells. So the "bow caster" is a bit of a hyperbole. The Eidolon who moves for free anytime you move and who has an extra action all for itself is definitely a more solid supplemental damage dealer than a caster with a bow.
We use longbows all the time. Then again we are one of the few groups I've read about on these forums that purposefully starts battle well outside the 30 foot range most start in.
It's also why my group values the reach spell feat. It's a 1 action metamagic that acts as move without moving, so you can maintain position farther than 30 feet from a fight.
This may come down to a playstyle difference because we start well outside 30 feet. We often start from hundreds of feet away outside nuking and using ranged attacks from very, very far away destroying targets before they even get to us.
This is a luxury of a group that has been playing together for 30 years with players who play martials that don't mind standing there while the casters and ranged destroy the enemies while they relax and wait for engagement.
I encourage people to do this, but I understand many players that play mostly with new groups each time like to accommodate martial players by starting fights within the 30 foot range.
We do not do that unless we have to. It affects what we value more than others it seems.
You would see a lot of longbow use in our group.
Also, all your "double dipping" arguments consider always catastrophic situations. The Thrash ability from the Purple Worm has a small range, so outside a surprise ambush it should have hard time targeting both the Summoner and the Eidolon. Also, you don't get double dipping if you are targeted by the same effect. Constricting both the Summoner and the Eidolon is a single effect, same with auras, Swipe-like attacks and so on.
I don't agree on swipe like attacks. Constrict attacks that require a save I would allow. But multi-target attacks like Whirlwind Attack or a swipe attack that requires an attack roll against each target means each target takes damage separately.
If it requires a save for the same effect, then you do the single damage calculation.
Individual attack roll and you're getting double dipped.
That's how I run it.
70 to 80 percent of this game could be played in a group with any four classes built in a fairly standard manner with obvious tactics and survive.
It's the 20 to 30 percent of encounters and situations that matter when you're in these types of discussions. How does your class do against the Hard to Severe encounters? That's what I like to measure.
Also, it's not just a d4. It's a d4 that turns into a d6 at melee range. Your caster with a bow can be entirely disrupted by an AoO enemy that gets near them, and considering how you love reminding me of all the catastrophic events that can lead to double dipping you should also consider all the situations that shut a caster down but not a Summoner because the Eidolon is also a melee martial.
From my experience, my Eidolon acts as much at range as in melee. Range is the basic setup for the beginning of the fight, but depending on its evolution it very often goes to melee range (or gets forced to melee range, which is both common and delightful) and then its damage increases both because of the dice (and Strength bonus) and because of flanking.
Yes. My eidolon has been forced into melee many times. I can't avoid it. That is when I get ripped apart the most because of seeming ease of crits when fighting some creature or group of creatures getting 2 to 3 attacks each on your eidolon with its middling ACs and no shield.
Casters tend to stay far away from melee. I don't know how you build your casters, but one of favorite ways to build a caster is taking the high value Rogue Archetype and then picking up mobility to avoid this very thing from happening the few times it does. It's why I said the Rogue Archetype is the best bang for your buck Archetype in the game for almost any class.
I will provide more of an update on my summoner as I play into these higher levels. We'll see how it goes. I have some plans to make it shine, but we'll see how they work.
My group is the following dual classes:
1. Fighter/Cleric: You already know this is a power combo.
2. Fighter/Oracle with Eldritch Archer Archetype: Pretty brutal hammer as well.
3. Psychic Silent Whispher/Alchemist Bomber: Surprisingly effective combination.
4. Bully Rogue/Draconic Sorcerer
5. Universalist Wizard/Undead Summoner: I wanted to see what combining two classes I think of as weaker together to see how they do.
I have to admit outside of combat the wizard is more fun than other casters. He can do a lot of utility stuff for scouting, interrogation, and the like that less versatile casters cannot accomplish. In battle he's about as good as any damage or manipulate caster with no healing, but out of battle he shines pretty well for facilitating.
Summoner action economy works well with sustain spells. Damage is middling. Eidolon fairly weak damage combined with caster damage for a middling sort of damage compared to the other classes I'm with.
I'll give my update when we hit level 20. I do like the Energy Drain attack of the undead eidolon. It is fun and not a bad little hit point bump in mook fights where I don't feel like wasting spells.
The undead eidolon is unique in that you can heal using heal spells on the summoner and harm spells on the eidolon.
We'll discuss it again when I hit level 20. See what it looks like.
I don't agree on swipe like attacks. Constrict attacks that require a save I would allow. But multi-target attacks like Whirlwind Attack or a swipe attack that requires an attack roll against each target means each target takes damage separately.
If it requires a save for the same effect, then you do the single damage calculation.
Individual attack roll and you're getting double dipped.
I don't agree - but I acknowledge that the wording is ambiguous enough that it can't be proven in either way.
But my reading and interpretation of RAI is that 'the same effect' is something that is coming from a single spell, attack, action/activity, or other ability.
The rule doesn't mention saving throws. So that is definitely not the distinction point for what qualifies and what doesn't.
Like with your actions, if you and your eidolon are both subject to the same effect that affects your Hit Points, you apply those effects only once (applying the greater effect, if applicable).
The example is likely a saving throw spell (most area damage spells are). But that example is not exhaustive of the rule.
So having both a Summoner and Eidolon targeted by a single Swipe activity would be the same effect. Only the higher damage amount gets applied.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that abilities like Whirlwind or a Wood Golem's splinter often aren't singular effects, but abilities that give you multiple attacks, which makes it a bit harder to argue the summoner should have any protection against them.
Most GMs I've seen have ruled that the wood golem just butchers the summoner based on how the mechanics are written, though I've houseruled against it at my tables.
That is maybe why I see it differently than Superbidi.
At my table Whirlwind attack or anything that requires a separate attack roll that is a multitarget attack versus an AoE hits the summoner and eidolon for the double dip.
Fireball or a chain lightning where you make a save, I follow the each rolls a save and take the worse result which can still suck making Protective Bond a feat tax.
A swipe I might allow to follow the rule as it is a single attack roll hitting two adjacent targets. But Whirlwind attack or hydra head against separate targets are individual attacks on targets. You don't get the AoE damage rule because it has to roll an attack roll against each target. How would you do that if it missed one target and hit the other? Half damage?
Even without the double dip, the eidolon AC isn't good. It gets critical hit easy. Things tear through hit points quick in this game. Other players often spend their heals keeping up a higher value martial like a fighter than wanting to spend heals on a peashooting eidolon that is eating heals up because it's getting crit hammered.
Ranged makes this a little better. You're still a very light damage dealer as a summoner. Groups notice how weak you hit and will spend resources on the higher damage hitter first.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't get the AoE damage rule because it has to roll an attack roll against each target.
Again, it isn't an "AoE" damage rule. It is the "same effect" rule.
And again, nowhere does it mention any distinction between attack rolls and saving throws.
And looking at the Wood Golem's Wood Splinter ability, I would still rule that it is a single effect with multiple targets.
Effect is a defined game term.
Anything you do in the game has an effect.
Some effects require you to choose specific targets.
I note that a single effect can have multiple targets even if the effect is not an Area effect.
I've nearly never seen Longbows used (outside of Point Blank Shot Fighters). 30 feet is the range of most fights, it's the range of Electric Arc, Heal, Slow and a lot of extremely common spells. So you will in general be in the 30-foot range with a caster and as such should use a Shortbow. Also, your caster may always have its third action to shoot but that's not my experience. Casters need to move, and some of them have very valid one-action Focus Spells. So the "bow caster" is a bit of a hyperbole. The Eidolon who moves for free anytime you move and who has an extra action all for itself is definitely a more solid supplemental damage dealer than a caster with a bow.We use longbows all the time. Then again we are one of the few groups I've read about on these forums that purposefully starts battle well outside the 30 foot range most start in.
It's also why my group values the reach spell feat. It's a 1 action metamagic that acts as move without moving, so you can maintain position farther than 30 feet from a fight.
This may come down to a playstyle difference because we start well outside 30 feet. We often start from hundreds of feet away outside nuking and using ranged attacks from very, very far away destroying targets before they even get to us.
My party also starts combat from much more than 60 feet away, because the adventure path is mostly an outdoor campaign. Reach Spell was one of the first feats the druid learned.
Distances used to be limited by the size of our playmat. The usual one was 22 squares by 22 squares (110 feet) but I had a 30 square by 30 square (150 feet) playmat, too. But I went with bigger maps when we switched to Roll20. Two players display their maps on tablets, which froze up on Roll20 maps bigger than 300 feet by 300 feet, but nowadays I regularly make maps 200 feet wide.
The party did learn a lesson about combat range at 5th level. The party spotted an Ironfang Legion patrol 150 feet away in the forest. The ranger shot with his longbow, the druid cast her one and only Fireball spell, and the other three party members had nothing effective at that range. The patrol took cover and shot back with their longbows rather than closing in, so the party, except for the ranger, had to spend two turns Striding toward their enemy, some of it over difficult terrain and a 10-foot wide stream.
The three 3rd-level Ironfang Forest Prowlers and their 5th-level Ironfang Patrol Leader, on the other hand, realized from the ranger's accuracy and the early fireball that they were outmatched. They made some successful Hide checks and sneaked away. The party had to track them down, catching up after the patrol assumed that they had lost pursuit and stopped to Treat Wounds.
This was two game sessions before the playtest summoner Cirieo temporarily joined the party. That experience, and the party calling back Cirieo as an 8th-level published version of summoner to aid in the 10th-level defense of Longshadow, demonstrated that the versatility of the summoner made the class worthy of playing.
More recently at 18th level, an army of Ironfang Veterans (grouped together as ten 16th-level troops) invaded the town of Emberville and the party rushed over to stop the invasion (this is non-canon in the 6th module, which strangely assumed that the party would hear about the invasion and not rush over). I had a 400 foot by 400 foot map I used for the town, but had to split it into 4 separate maps due to the 300-foot limit. After the party defeated all the troops on their northwest corner of town, the druid high in the air via Stormwind Flight rained down a Meteor Swarm on troops on the other three maps. The melee PCs located the commander of the army, captured her, and persuaded her to order a surrender (the party had earned an honorable reputation with their enemies).
My players like being able to choose their range, once they mastered fighting at many ranges.
An eidolon has the same AC as any non champion martial in light or medium armor. It is crit the exact same amount as every class other than the monk, champion, or fighter. Its only disadvantages are its lack of a shield (lots of martials also lack a shield, and reinforce eidolon and protect companion can prevent this) and it can't take sentinel, which is a downside, but most builds are not taking sentinel anyways. If you are in a game where every single character takes sentinel, then I would just ban it at that point. But even then, thats 1 less ac, but 5 more speed, which should even out. Not only is its AC comparable to almost all other characters, but it has 10 hp, which makes it tied for the 2nd highest HP in the game. Its a 5 way tie, but still. Not only that, but you are in two places at once, which makes healing spells (including your own) and battle medicines (including your own) much easier to position. Plus, you count as two characters, so you can be targeted by battle medicine twice in a day, one for each character. All in all, the eidolon is way more durable then you are giving it credit for
Even without the double dip, the eidolon AC isn't good. It gets critical hit easy. Things tear through hit points quick in this game. Other players often spend their heals keeping up a higher value martial like a fighter than wanting to spend heals on a peashooting eidolon that is eating heals up because it's getting crit hammered.
You either have heavy armor or higher proficiency with a shield or you get wrecked. It's not unique to the summoner.
No, it isn't. It gets wrecked like a rogue or other martial class without a shield and heavy armor.
The double dipping alone is not the reason it gets wrecked, it just makes it worse when it happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would you do that if it missed one target and hit the other? Half damage?I mean, the same as AOEs, you take the highest damage
Not how I believe it works. Separate attack, separate attack and you get doubled dipped on the damage if you're in range. It's not an AoE effect. It's a multi-target attack.
You don't get the AoE damage rule because it has to roll an attack roll against each target.Again, it isn't an "AoE" damage rule. It is the "same effect" rule.
And again, nowhere does it mention any distinction between attack rolls and saving throws.
Agreed AoE is just the example. Effect is the rule.
I suspect many GMs will rule differently here.
Not how I believe it works. Separate attack, separate attack and you get doubled dipped on the damage if you're in range. It's not an AoE effect. It's a multi-target attack.How would you do that if it missed one target and hit the other? Half damage?I mean, the same as AOEs, you take the highest damage
That is the problem. AoE is a sideshow. The rule is Effects. Effects are everything. So you can read it as multiple Effects or just one.
You don't get the AoE damage rule because it has to roll an attack roll against each target.Again, it isn't an "AoE" damage rule. It is the "same effect" rule.
And again, nowhere does it mention any distinction between attack rolls and saving throws.
Not how I play it. Not how I think it should be played. Otherwise attacks like Flurry of Blows or Hunted Shot for the ranger would do less damage if targeted at an eidolon and the master separately because you would be implying only one attack would hit. Which would make them more effective firing at the same target and less effective firing at the eidolon and master separately. Flurry of Blows would be considered the same effect?
That's how I run it until I hear otherwise. The example used is for Area of Effect spells. It seems intended to cover area of effect spells or things like auras and such. Multitarget attacks I do not believe it covers. A multitarget effect is very different from an AoE effect or something that hits both of you automatically. Until this ambiguous language is cleared up, I plan to run it as multitarget affects requiring separate attack rolls hit the summoner and eidolon individually.
Something that uses the same attack roll I will probably run like an AoE effect. If it requires a separate hit roll, the double dip is occurring.
They should have made it more clear if they intended it to apply to other than AOE spells, otherwise it becomes a case by case basis handled differently at different tables.
Lastly, the connection between you and your eidolon means you both share a single pool of Hit Points. Damage taken by either you or the eidolon reduces your Hit Points, while healing either of you recovers your Hit Points. Like with your actions, if you and your eidolon are both subject to the same effect that affects your Hit Points, you apply those effects only once (applying the greater effect, if applicable). For instance, if you and your eidolon get caught in an area effect that would heal or damage you both, only the greater amount of healing or damage applies.
That is the problem. AoE is a sideshow. The rule is Effects. Effects are everything. So you can read it as multiple Effects or just one.Not how I believe it works. Separate attack, separate attack and you get doubled dipped on the damage if you're in range. It's not an AoE effect. It's a multi-target attack.How would you do that if it missed one target and hit the other? Half damage?I mean, the same as AOEs, you take the highest damage
What is an effect in this game?
This would lead me as a GM to have the monsters forego the eidolon and go after the summoner learning over time that it's easier to take the master since it makes it very clear any basic intelligence creature knows you are controlling the eidolon. So ignore the eidolon, kill the master would be the default for any creature of even basic animalistic intelligence. Which would create another issue with the class.
It is quite literally 1 extra side on the die where you are hit, and 1 extra side where you might be crit compared to heavy armor. You have a very weird...An eidolon has the same AC as any non champion martial in light or medium armor. It is crit the exact same amount as every class other than the monk, champion, or fighter. Its only disadvantages are its lack of a shield (lots of martials also lack a shield, and reinforce eidolon and protect companion can prevent this) and it can't take sentinel, which is a downside, but most builds are not taking sentinel anyways. If you are in a game where every single character takes sentinel, then I would just ban it at that point. But even then, thats 1 less ac, but 5 more speed, which should even out. Not only is its AC comparable to almost all other characters, but it has 10 hp, which makes it tied for the 2nd highest HP in the game. Its a 5 way tie, but still. Not only that, but you are in two places at once, which makes healing spells (including your own) and battle medicines (including your own) much easier to position. Plus, you count as two characters, so you can be targeted by battle medicine twice in a day, one for each character. All in all, the eidolon is way more durable then you are giving it credit for
Even without the double dip, the eidolon AC isn't good. It gets critical hit easy. Things tear through hit points quick in this game. Other players often spend their heals keeping up a higher value martial like a fighter than wanting to spend heals on a peashooting eidolon that is eating heals up because it's getting crit hammered.You either have heavy armor or higher proficiency with a shield or you get wrecked. It's not unique to the summoner.
No, it isn't. It gets wrecked like a rogue or other martial class without a shield and heavy armor.
The double dipping alone is not the reason it gets wrecked, it just makes it worse when it happens.
I've already stated on these forums any class not using heavy armor and a shield or with a higher proficiency and a shield gets wrecked in this game. The other day the fighter in Heavy Armor got wrecked with no shield.
The only classes I've seen avoid getting wrecked pretty easily are the heavy armor and shield users or a monk with a shield using their mobility to avoid attacks.
It's why I'm not high on the rogue. Why we like more than one combat healer. This is a game of 3 to 5 round combats of wreck or get wrecked. And the eidolon gets wrecked in just as fast and even faster if the enemies are double dipping hitting you and the eidolon.
It's not a great thing to have to roll two saves against AoE spells and the take the higher damage which can often be immense damage. Entire parties have been destroyed by AoE and you're rolling twice and taking he worse when the lich is dropping the 30 foot eclipse burst with the DC 40 reflex save. It's not fun anyone and especially not fun to roll twice and take the worst one.
Why is this so surprising to some of you? Have you never been hit like this? I've a red dragon breathe on a party and bring the group from near maximum hit points to near zero. I've had AOE casters hammer an entire group where they thought they were going to die after a few rounds of AoE. This is rolling once for a save, not twice and take the worst.
Why does it seem on these forums there is this group that acts like getting slammed hard is some kind of anomaly in PF2. I figure it was part of the game because it happens battle after battle after battle. It's hard and fast kill or be killed using your limited resources to stay standing.
It's not a great thing to have to roll two saves against AoE spells and the take the higher damage which can often be immense damage. Entire parties have been destroyed by AoE and you're rolling twice and taking he worse when the lich is dropping the 30 foot eclipse burst with the DC 40 reflex save. It's not fun anyone and especially not fun to roll twice and take the worst one.
Why is this so surprising to some of you?
Because by the time we are facing Eclipse Burst we have had Protective Bond for a few levels and we are actually rolling twice and taking the better, which is better.
Ok that is not really your point, but people play the game differently. The length of your experience matters less than the breath. Some games have wildly different assumptions. There is a large section of the public who mostly play published material, that almost always avoids long range encounters.
If the reason people take Fireball is its 500ft range, then you are facing different challenges.
Then there are more GM differences besides.
I mean, if your experiences seem to differ from almost everyone else's experiences, I would first think that my experiences are the outliers, not everyone else's. I've played and GMed for 2 years now. I've only had your levels of deadliness on some, but not even the majority, of sever encounters, and all of the extreme encounters. Crits are scarry, and can take a lot of health, but outside of those rare encounters, they are manageable, and having one less AC matters, but not nearly to the extent that you are describing. I am not saying that your experiences are invalid, I am just saying they are not applicable to most tables. But I would imagine that your insights would be useful to someone in the same situation as you.Why is this so surprising to some of you? Have you never been hit like this? I've a red dragon breathe on a party and bring the group from near maximum hit points to near zero. I've had AOE casters hammer an entire group where they thought they were going to die after a few rounds of AoE. This is rolling once for a save, not twice and take the worst.
Why does it seem on these forums there is this group that acts like getting slammed hard is some kind of anomaly in PF2. I figure it was part of the game because it happens battle after battle after battle. It's hard and fast kill or be killed using your limited resources to stay standing.
Are you not running APs?
I've fought so many creatures that are almost guaranteed to critical hit on the first attack that I can't even list them all. CR+2 to +4 creatures critical hit very easy.
I'm really trying to understand what you're doing in the game. When our group is fighting something like the Herald of Norgorbera and it's tearing someone to near death every round where two of our healers are occupied keeping up with the damage.
When the Troll King and his witch companion are teeing off on members of the party, they're getting their hit points destroyed.
We fought some CR10 Boggard Wardens against some level 11 characters, they ripped down the fighter's hit points very quickly teeing off on him.
Are you really wandering around not taking much damage? The default attack rolls are set very high for many creatures where hit 1 is almost guaranteed to hit and on bosses nearly a guaranteed crit, with hit 2 and 3 if they get full attacks bringing the hammer with large hit point pools and often special attacks and such.
The entire game paradigm near as I can tell is designed for short, high damage fights where both sides are getting wrecked. Only a handful of classes using shields or staying out of range seem able to deal with the damage without healing. This seems like intended design as well, so I'm surprised my experience is so narrow.
It's not a great thing to have to roll two saves against AoE spells and the take the higher damage which can often be immense damage. Entire parties have been destroyed by AoE and you're rolling twice and taking he worse when the lich is dropping the 30 foot eclipse burst with the DC 40 reflex save. It's not fun anyone and especially not fun to roll twice and take the worst one.
Why is this so surprising to some of you?
Because by the time we are facing Eclipse Burst we have had Protective Bond for a few levels and we are actually rolling twice and taking the better, which is better.
Ok that is not really your point, but people play the game differently. The length of your experience matters less than the breath. Some games have wildly different assumptions. There is a large section of the public who mostly play published material, that almost always avoids long range encounters.
If the reason people take Fireball is its 500ft range, then you are facing different challenges.
Then there are more GM differences besides.
I refuse to take Protective Bond. I hate feat taxes. They tossed that in to fix an issue that should have been fixed in the chassis. Once I see how bad things can get, I'll probably give it to Summoner's as a bonus feat.
I refuse to take Protective Bond.
Well that puts some perspective on your previous statements.
I hate feat taxes. They tossed that in to fix an issue that should have been fixed in the chassis. Once I see how bad things can get, I'll probably give it to Summoner's as a bonus feat.
That is the right approach. Accept the fix, make it a class feature.
Age of Ashes had some brutal encounters. If you hit level 14, you might have seen one of them. That encounter in the third or fourth module in some quarry was absolutely brutal. Boss Monster with six or so fairly strong mooks. Took everything we had to survive that one.
We modify up numbers for some encounters for larger parties.
Probably the main thing my group does differently from reading on these forums is we have entire areas descend on the party so fights become very long like one big encounter with waves and very little downtime. Those are tough on the resources.
As usual this seems a play-style issue and we're ruling differently on what constitutes an effect where the summoner and eidolon take the lesser damage. That will make encounter outcomes different if you're ruling as my table does versus what it seems to be a forum consensus? Hard to tell.
I'm still not sure how I would define "effect" since that is such a broad term in these types of games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We use longbows all the time.
I know you play a lot from very high range, and I can understand why the 30 feet of range of both the Summoner and the Eidolon may end up on the weak side because of that. But it's rather uncommon from both my experience and all I read in these forums.
I don't agree on swipe like attacks.
I wrote Swipe and not swipe. Swipe (the Fighter ability) is a single attack affecting 2 characters, there's no doubt about how it works on the Summoner. For multi-attack activities, this is in my opinion up to the GM, as the activity has an effect but all its subactions also have an effect, so you can end up on both sides of the coin.
Now, multi attacks are more common than Swipe like attacks. Still, they exist.Yes. My eidolon has been forced into melee many times. I can't avoid it. That is when I get ripped apart the most because of seeming ease of crits when fighting some creature or group of creatures getting 2 to 3 attacks each on your eidolon with its middling ACs and no shield.
The Eidolon is definitely not a tank, but I'm with everyone on this: having average AC and high hit point pool is enough to tank quite a few blows. I don't find tanking to really work in PF2. You can try to raise your AC as much as you want, you will get hit anyway. But increasing defense often comes at a cost in offense (Shield, defensive classes like Champion instead of offensive classes), so it affects the length of fights and puts your back line in jeopardy. I far prefer the approach of killing before being killed, and in that matter a Shield is not an improvement as its reduction of offensive potential is not compensated by its improvement of defensive potential (mostly because its defensive potential is personal so you need the whole party behind a Shield or the enemies will just focus on the weaker characters).
I refuse to take Protective Bond. I hate feat taxes.
I'd not say that I like tax feats, but in a Dual Class situation where you have so many feats you have hard time choosing what to take, tax feats are not as much of a burden than it is for single class characters without FA. And anyway, you have to take them into account when relating your experience. AoEs are, at high level, more of an advantage for the Summoner than an issue.
The default attack rolls are set very high for many creatures where hit 1 is almost guaranteed to hit and on bosses nearly a guaranteed crit
A level 8 character with average AC (26) is hit on an 8 by a level 7 monster with high attack rolls and a 6 if it has extreme attack roll. So far from a guaranteed hit by anything that is under your level.
The same character against a level +2 creature is hit on a 3 or on a 1. That definitely qualifies for an "almost guaranteed hit" but is very far from an almost guaranteed crit.Now, when luck is on the GM side (and it happens), you end up with a tough fight. But that's not that common.
It's the 20 to 30 percent of encounters and situations that matter when you're in these types of discussions. How does your class do against the Hard to Severe encounters? That's what I like to measure.
That's a point I agree on: A party is supposed to win all the fights, not just most of them, and as such the ability to survive through tough fights is important. And in that regard I find, again, the Summoner to be really good.
First, tough fights are not necessarily Severe encounters, they are also encounters where luck is not on your side. That's why classes with extreme variability in efficiency can drag a party down if the dice or situation is preventing them from contributing properly. The Summoner makes a lot of attacks, some being basic saves, with a lot of versatility (range, mobility, resistance to statuses, ability to ignore enemy resistances, etc...). It's an extremely reliable class, the only way to shut it down is to take it down, and even in that case it is quite tough so it's not that easy.Second, resource-constrained characters have a big asset for tough fights: They can choose to hype their game. Burning through resources is a very efficient way to turn the tide of an otherwise tough battle. And the Summoner has the best tool for that: 4 high level spell slots.
I consider the Summoner to be quite an efficient character when it comes to tough fights.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not sure how I would define "effect" since that is such a broad term in these types of games.
The game's official definition isn't sufficient for some reason? I already quoted it earlier.
Anything you do in the game has an effect.
So an effect is the result of something that you do.
Flurry of Blows is something that a Monk can do. It has a specified effect. A singular effect. It has either one or two targets, but it is still one effect.
Splinter Volley from the Wood Golem is something that it can do. It has a specified effect. It can have up to four targets.
Casting Fireball is something that a spellcaster can do. It has an effect. It affects as many targets as is in its area.
Casting Electric arc is something that a spellcaster can do. It has an effect. It can have up to two targets.
Casting Scorching Ray is something that a spellcaster can do. It can have 1, 2, or 3 targets depending on how many actions were used in the casting.
Swipe is something that some martial characters can do. It has two targets.
What part of this is confusing?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not sure how I would define "effect" since that is such a broad term in these types of games.The game's official definition isn't sufficient for some reason? I already quoted it earlier.
Anything you do in the game has an effect.
Sure, but that doesn't actually help here. For instance, Splinter Volley and Flurry of blows are effects but so too are the subordinate action Strikes within it. Hence saying one particular strike is different from another, as they are separate subordinate effects, is completely valid. Since there isn't any real guidance on where you draw the line, pointing out the definition of effect is pretty moot: we know that individual subordinate actions are treated differently from the whole, like when the effect Sudden Charge might not trigger an AoO but the Stride effect within it does so how can you prove which effect you look at as the "same effect" when looking at one that incorporates multiple discrete effects within it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think graystone's right, it's hard to qualify some of these abilities as discrete effects when they clearly do multiple things.
Furthermore, breithauptclan is taking a bunch of very different abilities with very different functions and lumping them all together, even though they clearly don't all work the same.
Flurry of Blows is something that a Monk can do. It has a specified effect. A singular effect. It has either one or two targets, but it is still one effect.
Flurry of Blows doesn't target anyone at all. The effect of the ability is to let you make two strikes, with some additional modifying text that alters those strikes. The Strike action is its own ability with only one target, so it's clearly not relevant for a discussion about effects with multiple targets.
Furthermore, breithauptclan is taking a bunch of very different abilities with very different functions and lumping them all together, even though they clearly don't all work the same.
So does the Summoner ability when it simply says "the same effect that affects your Hit Points" as the condition for applying the damage only once to the shared HP pool.
-----
And I did mention way back at the beginning of this tangent that I don't actually think that either side of this argument has a watertight logical proof.
Let's try a practical simulation here.
An opponent casts the attack spell Scorching Ray with 2-actions against Eidolon and Summoner. The both are same effect (a effect from Scorching Ray spell no matter how many actions you use to get more targets it's still one spell and one effect) but hits them both and in this case let's see the paragraph about eidolon hit points says:
Lastly, the connection between you and your eidolon means you both share a single pool of Hit Points. Damage taken by either you or the eidolon reduces your Hit Points, while healing either of you recovers your Hit Points. Like with your actions, if you and your eidolon are both subject to the same effect that affects your Hit Points, you apply those effects only once (applying the greater effect, if applicable). For instance, if you and your eidolon get caught in an area effect that would heal or damage you both, only the greater amount of healing or damage applies.
So even if you and your Eidolon was both target by same effect you won't sum it, instead you use only the worse result.
I agree with breithauptclan there's nothing pointing that the effect need to be an AoE or multi-target or if is a save or an attack. Any effect that affects your hit points will be applied only once.
So if this Scorching Ray hit both but crits the summoner causing 28 dmg but only hits Eidolon causing 14 dmg so the greatest will be applied (28 dmg).
Now about Protective Bond:
This feats allows to invert this condition allowing to apply the lower amount of damage if you use this reaction but it's explicitly restricted to area effect. So you can use it to basically "roll twice" a save (I say roll twice but are 2 different checks with different proficiencies, bonus and penalties but you will only consider only one that's gives the best total result) a keeps the better vs a fireball but it's cannot be used against a Scorching Ray once that this isn't a "area effect".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's try a practical simulation here.
An opponent casts the attack spell Scorching Ray with 2-actions against Eidolon and Summoner. The both are same effect (a effect from Scorching Ray spell no matter how many actions you use to get more targets it's still one spell and one effect) but hits them both and in this case let's see the paragraph about eidolon hit points says:
Lastly, the connection between you and your eidolon means you both share a single pool of Hit Points. Damage taken by either you or the eidolon reduces your Hit Points, while healing either of you recovers your Hit Points. Like with your actions, if you and your eidolon are both subject to the same effect that affects your Hit Points, you apply those effects only once (applying the greater effect, if applicable). For instance, if you and your eidolon get caught in an area effect that would heal or damage you both, only the greater amount of healing or damage applies.So even if you and your Eidolon was both target by same effect you won't sum it, instead you use only the worse result.
I agree with breithauptclan there's nothing pointing that the effect need to be an AoE or multi-target or if is a save or an attack. Any effect that affects your hit points will be applied only once.
So, if a magic missile spell is cast and 2 missiles are shot at the summoner, you'd deal more damage [2d4+2] than if you cast one at the summoner and one at the eidolon [1d4+1]? That doesn't make any sense to me. IMO, discrete effects count separately, even if it's a subordinate effect that is part of a bigger effect.
So, if a magic missile spell is cast and 2 missiles are shot at the summoner, you'd deal more damage [2d4+2] than if you cast one at the summoner and one at the eidolon [1d4+1]? That doesn't make any sense to me. IMO, discrete effects count separately, even if it's a subordinate effect that is part of a bigger effect.Let's try a practical simulation here.
An opponent casts the attack spell Scorching Ray with 2-actions against Eidolon and Summoner. The both are same effect (a effect from Scorching Ray spell no matter how many actions you use to get more targets it's still one spell and one effect) but hits them both and in this case let's see the paragraph about eidolon hit points says:
Lastly, the connection between you and your eidolon means you both share a single pool of Hit Points. Damage taken by either you or the eidolon reduces your Hit Points, while healing either of you recovers your Hit Points. Like with your actions, if you and your eidolon are both subject to the same effect that affects your Hit Points, you apply those effects only once (applying the greater effect, if applicable). For instance, if you and your eidolon get caught in an area effect that would heal or damage you both, only the greater amount of healing or damage applies.So even if you and your Eidolon was both target by same effect you won't sum it, instead you use only the worse result.
I agree with breithauptclan there's nothing pointing that the effect need to be an AoE or multi-target or if is a save or an attack. Any effect that affects your hit points will be applied only once.
Even if you disagree it's how the class was designed in order to prevent double damage in class that share the same hit points between two "chars". It's not made to make sense at all it's made to keep the ideia of shared HP pool working well and if I remember well Mark said that shared HP pool was made to make the game runs easier and faster and to make the Eidolon-Summoner link something more stronger than a different kind of companion.
This isn't the first or the only thing in PF2 that "doesn't make any sense". Many things was several abstracted. Shield Blocks for example are a reaction that you choose after you know you was hit and how much damage you will suffer. It's also doesn't make sense but let's be honest in the end it simply works.
So if someone someday will attack a Summoner or a Eidolon with Magic Missiles remember to focus you damage just in only one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you disagree it's how the class was designed in order to prevent double damage in class that share the same hit points between two "chars".
I think that is a good balance point to bring up.
A lot of multi-hit abilities are forced multi-target. You have to choose separate targets for each attack. The reason is because these multi-hit things would be too much to handle if it was allowed to pile onto one character.
If you think splinter volley is harsh to face with a party of Rogue, Fighter, Champion, Bard normally - imagine how much more it would suck if the Wood Golem was allowed to make all four attacks against just the Fighter. Or even just two attacks each on the Fighter and Bard. So why would it be appropriate to do that to the Summoner?
In other cases, the multi-hit ability is allowed to be targeted to the same character. Flurry of Blows, Double Slice, Magic Missile, and so on. In those cases I would note that the rules for the Summoner state that anyone who sees one notices that the two creatures are linked at a fundamental level. Deciding to attack only one of them instead of targeting both should not be considered metagaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you disagree it's how the class was designed
See, I disagree that that is how it was designed. IMO, each discrete effect is looked at, not each activity/action done: just because magic missile is an activity, doesn't mean it can't have multiple descrete effects it causes. As such, when presented with an option that feels right and one that doesn't, I'll pick the one that feels right.
This isn't the first or the only thing in PF2 that "doesn't make any sense".
There are plenty of things that are made for balance over making sense to be sure, but in this instance, you have to go out of your way to pick an option that doesn't make sense instead of picking one that does...
In other cases, the multi-hit ability is allowed to be targeted to the same character. Flurry of Blows, Double Slice, Magic Missile, and so on. In those cases I would note that the rules for the Summoner state that anyone who sees one notices that the two creatures are linked at a fundamental level. Deciding to attack only one of them instead of targeting both should not be considered metagaming.
"you are connected in some way": this doesn't equate to knowing you both share hp or have a special rule for damaging effects. IMO, it's pretty strong metagaming to make the leap from "connected in some way" to gain some targeting knowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not sure how I would define "effect" since that is such a broad term in these types of games.The game's official definition isn't sufficient for some reason? I already quoted it earlier.
Anything you do in the game has an effect.So an effect is the result of something that you do.
Flurry of Blows is something that a Monk can do. It has a specified effect. A singular effect. It has either one or two targets, but it is still one effect.
Splinter Volley from the Wood Golem is something that it can do. It has a specified effect. It can have up to four targets.
Casting Fireball is something that a spellcaster can do. It has an effect. It affects as many targets as is in its area.
Casting Electric arc is something that a spellcaster can do. It has an effect. It can have up to two targets.
Casting Scorching Ray is something that a spellcaster can do. It can have 1, 2, or 3 targets depending on how many actions were used in the casting.
Swipe is something that some martial characters can do. It has two targets.
What part of this is confusing?
The confusing part is that term is way too broad.
I'm not allowing Flurry of Blows to count as an "effect" for purposes of striking an eidolon and the summoner and taking only the higher damage. I in no way believe the summoner rule was written with that in mind.
So now they have used this excessively broad term which leaves me as a DM to figure what they actually intended and it's not everything in the game as you seem to be implying.
That's what confusing. It's a badly written rule that I have to interpret as a DM and figure out what it applies to since you are claiming the definition indicates it applies to everything in the game. That's ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's try a practical simulation here.
An opponent casts the attack spell Scorching Ray with 2-actions against Eidolon and Summoner. The both are same effect (a effect from Scorching Ray spell no matter how many actions you use to get more targets it's still one spell and one effect) but hits them both and in this case let's see the paragraph about eidolon hit points says:
Lastly, the connection between you and your eidolon means you both share a single pool of Hit Points. Damage taken by either you or the eidolon reduces your Hit Points, while healing either of you recovers your Hit Points. Like with your actions, if you and your eidolon are both subject to the same effect that affects your Hit Points, you apply those effects only once (applying the greater effect, if applicable). For instance, if you and your eidolon get caught in an area effect that would heal or damage you both, only the greater amount of healing or damage applies.So even if you and your Eidolon was both target by same effect you won't sum it, instead you use only the worse result.
I agree with breithauptclan there's nothing pointing that the effect need to be an AoE or multi-target or if is a save or an attack. Any effect that affects your hit points will be applied only once.
So if this Scorching Ray hit both but crits the summoner causing 28 dmg but only hits Eidolon causing 14 dmg so the greatest will be applied (28 dmg).
Now about Protective Bond:
This feats allows to invert this condition allowing to apply the lower amount of damage if you use this reaction but it's explicitly restricted to area effect. So you can use it to basically "roll twice" a save (I say roll twice but are 2 different checks with different proficiencies, bonus and penalties but you will only consider only one that's gives the best total result) a keeps the better vs a fireball but it's cannot be used against a Scorching Ray once that this isn't a "area effect".
Just making me dislike the class more now that I have to get in debates as to what effect applies to this as some appear willing to apply it way too broadly. Just another badly written rule that will cause arguments at a lot of tables.