People who attempt to take control tend not to last long at our tables. Nobody likes being told how to have fun.
I'm pretty sure no one on this forum uses your strategies.
My old Agents of Edgewatch table certainly did, though that may have been part of the "swat team" fantasy we all had for ourselves.
I've seen it in other groups as well, though not quite to the same level.
Timber Sentinel annoys me so much as a GM. In fights with things like mindless creatures that can't reasonably deal with it, it can effectively trivialize entire encounters because it stops absurd amounts of damage and unlike Protector Tree the spell, is infinitely renewable.
Maybe the feat (not the spell) should get the sure strike treatment. Would that balance it somewhat?
If you want to get into the psychology of groups and RP games, we could talk on that.Well, it'd certainly be an interesting discussion.
What is sure is "I very much take control of tables and require DMs to react to my tactics, not me to theirs." is not my gaming philosophy, neither one I'd advocate for.
So I'm not sure we can get much further as party formation is very much impacted by how the party coordinates. Which leads to "agreeing to disagree".
It's a small variable overall. One of many.
We agree on other aspects like the summoner does good damage if you do the save cantrip combined with a physical attack without boosting. Boosting is a small bonus the more you stack striking and property runes. A second agile attack with a 1d6 strike stacked with runes with a 1d8 main attack combined with a save cantrip can be very effective damage.
The boost becomes a better option if you are hasted and you can use the extra attack from haste for the eidolon with the secondary agile attack where boosting becomes a better option than a third attack.
But that's also based on variables like the targets AC and if they are debuffed or you are buffed to attack.
A lot of variables in this game. Some small, some bigger. Many you learn intuitively.
I'm pretty sure no one on this forum uses your strategies.My old Agents of Edgewatch table certainly did, though that may have been part of the "swat team" fantasy we all had for ourselves.
I've seen it in other groups as well, though not quite to the same level.
I think more tables than myself use good small unit tactics. Mathmuse's group sounds like they coordinate a lot. I'd be surprised if Gortle, Bluefrog and Unicore didn't coordinate in the group.
But I also understand Superbidi's viewpoint. When I played at game stores, conventions, and school groups when that was more of a thing, most players played as individual units only loosely coordinating often by happenstance.
Sounds like you also coordinate in your group.
Long time players tend to learn that group coordination regardless of edition works better. So someone has to take the lead on getting everyone on the same page and concocting a plan.
Made some addendums to my post above.
I believe most groups coordinate to an extend, but the amount of coordination very much depends on:
- How knowledgeable people are with the game
- How tactic-savvy people are
- How strategic people want to be
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm conservative but I've never relied on "my PC's attributes are optimized...so long as I don't get attacked" build strategies.
That's not that at all. Increasing Constitution also increase the Summoner survivability.
The question is more akin to: Is a +15% survivability on the Eidolon worth a -10% survivability on the Summoner. And the answer is rather obviously yes as the Eidolon is attacked much more often than the Summoner.
Timber Sentinel stronk ...
I admit I used Multitalented at L9 to get Kin, and the impulse at L10 on my Stolen Fate Chirurgeon. It's kept mostly as a "just in case" type of ability, and would honestly be balanced if it was down-ranked a spell rank (or maaaybe 2).
One unexpected issue that in my experience greatly responsible for the impulse being OP is that of GM hesitancy.
Even when I know the GMs heard my pokes about how the tree has static AC and that smart foes would attack the tree, neither has done so.
I have found both GMs super reluctant to use foe tactics against the PCs, especially in a way that can seem "anti-player" such as "countering" the tree deliberately via something like Trip/Grab a PC, then attack the tree with actions 2 & 3.
This GM play has a *massive* swing on how effective the impulse can be.
(Also, I think the spell definitely was written for the "tree's ally" ruling, and find it frustrating that the "caster's ally" claims clearly come from a community desire to (rightfully) nerf the impulse)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As GM I find the tree annoying but not unbeatable.
After a few fights you learn that it is possible to surround it, either by attacking it directly with MAP attacks, or by pushing or repositioning characters close to it.
Even when I play animals I consider that they are intelligent enough to recognize that the tree is in their way after the first attack and make them try to move their prey or attack the tree directly.
At higher levels when AoE becomes more common the tree has a much reduced efficiency and even the wood kineticists doesn't like to create a new tree over and over again.
"Survivability" is not a game stat and those numbers are made up.
Not at all. +2 Con is +2 hp per level which is roughly 15% extra hp on a 10hp class. -2 Dex is 25% extra damage from AC based attacks. Considering that there are other types of attacks, you end up actually with a lower difference but AC based attacks are the most common ones.
So we are speaking of +15% survivability on the Eidolon and (at most) -10% on the Summoner. I hardly see how you can still consider Dex as better than Con on a Summoner considering that the Eidolon takes damage much more often than the Summoner.
Now, I agree that having a character with extremely low AC can create a "damage sponge" issue with the enemies hitting it repeatedly because it's easy. But considering that the Summoner is a backline character, it's already the case: When you get access to a backline character you focus on them. The main question being: Will the backline character survive long enough to run away?
Side note, your calculations are weird and seem wrong. The number of attacks you take don't have any impact on your "survivability". It's just a question of having higher chances to evade blows vs having a higher hp pool, none of that is affected by number of attacks.
To refocus on the summoner thread, action economy makes protector tree more of a menace than most other classes.
You can move (both if you took the mandatory feat), strike with martial accuracy, and cast protector tree.
Unless you plan on casting a spell from a slot, its almost always the better play and that makes it boring both for the DM and the player. I was sctually relieved when he asked me to change my archetype.
|
"Survivability" is not a game stat and those numbers are made up.Not at all. +2 Con is +2 hp per level which is roughly 15% extra hp on a 10hp class. -2 Dex is 25% extra damage from AC based attacks. Considering that there are other types of attacks, you end up actually with a lower difference but AC based attacks are the most common ones.
So we are speaking of +15% survivability on the Eidolon and (at most) -10% on the Summoner. I hardly see how you can still consider Dex as better than Con on a Summoner considering that the Eidolon takes damage much more often than the Summoner.
Now, I agree that having a character with extremely low AC can create a "damage sponge" issue with the enemies hitting it repeatedly because it's easy. But considering that the Summoner is a backline character, it's already the case: When you get access to a backline character you focus on them. The main question being: Will the backline character survive long enough to run away?
Side note, your calculations are weird and seem wrong. The number of attacks you take don't have any impact on your "survivability". It's just a question of having higher chances to evade blows vs having a higher hp pool, none of that is affected by number of attacks.
So...what would be the "survivability quotient" of +2 Dex/+2 Con as opposed to either of the +3/+1 or +3/+0 options? I have yet to play a Summoner, but my instinct is to go +2/+2.
On the issue of SMN and high-tactics vs low-tactics:
I do think it is correct to say that "high tactics is objectively superior" in that combat performance is something with numeric values.
I also greatly agree with the main core of S.Bidi's point that when talking in forums like this, we do need to presume a reasonable, layman-adjacent default.
And the type of play that "is too tactical to be supported by a VTT" is certainly not the default.
(and that sounds rather incredulous / hurts one's credibility, considering that VTTs, including Forge, very much support and are still quite useful when acting as little more than interactive maps).
.
I have been slowly trying to suggest / coach my tables into being more tactical, and while I still try to "play smart" as I find that fun, I have had to accept that for most players, they **actively** do not wish to play with swat-style tactics. I want to just double-emphasize this, as I'm talking set the table with a quick plan, and the response is effectively "That sounds like it would work, but let's just open the door instead."
I have gotten responses of three main flavors:
* "but that would slow down the game/story speed" (and we don't need to)
* "playing like that is not fun"
* "ok wow, even though my PC could do that, my PC is way too impatient / ___ to agree to that"
.
What has been most interesting for me is that this seems super player-specific, and none of them have really changed at all in these modes / opinions. There is one other guy who does like/want some tactical play, but shuts himself down with the "but would slow down the game too much" reason, while another has always used a combo of the RP & "not fun to me."
So while there are multiple reasons not to "go tactical," in a campaign where no one has died, it seems very alien to many players for there be reason *to* "go tactical."
Once the party is "powerful enough" to not die and keep going, there is really only "but wouldn't it be fun/cool?" as the single reason to go for "high tactics" play.
.
The point for going into that much detail is that a table kinda needs to get lucky with a "quad 7s" slot roll where *all* players at the table *enjoy* high-tactics play. If one or two players finds it to be a chore, it's not going to happen.
To bring this back to the SMN class, I think it's important to remember to throw out contextual flags and state your table's own type of play when possible.
And as a class with unique tactical considerations, SMN *does* reward high / punish low tactics a bit more than most others. That said, I do not find SMN to be a class that can perform "problematically" poor even with the most "head empty" style of play in ways that some other classes can.
In my opinion, SMN actually has a much higher "performance floor" than regular casters do. The sacrifice of wave casting means that the "need" to use each spell optimally is greatly reduced, so long as the Eidolon is throwing Strikes. If a Witch/Wiz preps poorly, and throws the wrong opening spell, that's a much bigger deal than if a SMN did so.
Even a martial like Investigator "playing wrong" is another example of a class that can be *very* painful to run in combat if the PC does not think about their toolkit.
So while I do think there is real merit to talking about "Summoner maxxing" in terms of fun, etc, I do think it can give the untrue impression that players interested in the class "need" to be high-tactics savvy if they want to play SMN.
IMO, they really don't. So long as they prioritize invoking MAP every turn, and Boost becomes a sometimes thing, any SMN PC is in a very good place to be a reliable contributor to the team. I really do place SMN a full rung or two below pure casters on the ~"suggested tactics level" ladder. And while I don't think that's a rare take, I do think it's super easy for readers to misinterpret this discussion.
So...what would be the "survivability quotient" of +2 Dex/+2 Con as opposed to either of the +3/+1 or +3/+0 options? I have yet to play a Summoner, but my instinct is to go +2/+2.
In between. Eidolon 7.5% tougher than +3 Dex/+1 Con (or 7.5% weaker than +3 Con/+1 Dex) for 5% reduced survivability on the Summoner side compared to +3 Dex/+1 Con (or 5% extra survivability compared to +3 Con/+1 Dex).
Also, another factor to take into account is that AC maxes out at some value. Grabbing Light Armor proficiency is trivial in PF2, so with +3 Dex you have max AC at level 1 (or 3 once you get Armor Proficiency), with +2 at level 5 and with +1 at level 10 (and once AC is maxed out, extra Dexterity no more increases survivability).
Maxing AC is a very good advice for a frontliner. But on a backliner, maxing HPs is more interesting. I honestly don't understand why players are so focused on maxing AC on backliners. It's certainly some kind of bia where people dislike to be hit even if they have a sizable hp pool to soak damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And as a class with unique tactical considerations, SMN *does* reward high / punish low tactics a bit more than most others.
The Summoner is extremely versatile. It's really a class that doesn't care about the environment. So in my opinion, you can play it in low or high tactics and it'll work fine.
I actually think that the ideal is to play it in low tactics with the Summoner player being tactically savvy, it's really the kind of environments where the Summoner will shine.
Maxing AC is a very good advice for a frontliner. But on a backliner, maxing HPs is more interesting. I honestly don't understand why players are so focused on maxing AC on backliners.
It is a lot easier to "improve HP" in non-build ways, and much harder to up AC.
While most methods of gaining max HP, or pseduo-max [t]HP, or refilling lost HP, involve spending a spare combat action, there are still some passive means.
HP is also a weird number due to "overkill damage" being irrelevant due to negative HP not being a concept in pf2. Having "more HP" can and is often genuinely making 0 difference whatsoever, *even when that PC drops Dying*.
The trick there is that you need enough more HP to endure that downing damage with 1 HP left over. Especially with how the AP books do not like many-foe fights, it's actually the norm for HP to be lost in big chunks most of the time.
.
There's also the "soft positioning" game issue where it's super easy to reach the backline if foes want to. And even at range, it's probably around 50%ish of your damage is coming from ranged AC targeted stuff instead of saves (which are split across 3 other stats).
AC is kinda (sorta) the "only" defense you know that *every* foe will be able to target, while strange creatures add unique quirks to introduce the possibility of targeting other saves *in addition* to AC. (Not many GMs will have creatures use things like Trip/Grapple w/o an ability to encourage them)
.
The issues combo together when you consider that AC-targeting hits still very frequently include nasty side effects and debilitations, from poisons & improved grab, to other weird debuffs. This is a part of PC/creature asymmetry, where foes get way more of those toys than PCs do.
If you can avoid the AC hit entirely, you are often avoiding more than just 100% the HP damage of the attack.
Meaning that the entire comparison of AC vs HP is kinda a flawed/misleading metric.
Max HP can only *begin* to matter if a PC could drop dying at 0, meanwhile AC can prevent a lot of nasty complications that affect fights on the first poisoned hit.
.
In my opinion, there are *so* many incentives / motivations behind having a high AC, that yes, most players absolutely will prioritize it before their HP or other saves.
HP is also a weird number due to "overkill damage" being irrelevant. Having "more HP" can and is often genuinely making 0 difference whatsoever, *even when that PC drops Dying*.
It's like saying that +1 in AC is pointless for 90% of attacks so AC is often making no difference. If you have 10% more hps you'll survive 10% more attacks, period.
There's also the "soft positioning" game issue where it's super easy to reach the backline if foes want to.
Which is not a point in favor of AC or hps, because both are there to ensure your survival.
AC is kinda (sorta) the "only" defense you know that *every* foe will be able to target
And HPs is the pool that *every* attack will deplete. Moot point again. Actually, effects removing HPs are more frequent than effects targetting AC so it's a point for high Con.
The issues combo together when you consider that AC-targeting hits still very frequently include nasty side effects and debilitations, from poisons & improved grab, to other weird debuffs.
Most of these effects target Fortitude and as such high Con is as useful than high Dex to avoid them (you have more chances to be hit but also more chances to succeed at the save). Dex is as useful as Con against Poison and Improved Grab.
In my opinion, there are *so* many incentives / motivations behind having a high AC, that yes, most players absolutely will prioritize it before their HP or other saves.
Well, I'm still waiting for *one*. As I said, people overvalue Dex compared to Con on casters for no valid reason.
Now, what can you do against my massive incentive to go high Con: Every five levels, you'll gain +1 in AC unlike the character with maxed AC at level 1. Roughly, once level 5, high Con blows high Dex out the water.
You seem to be trying to square peg the round hole here and value AC in terms of "eHP" it grants.
I'll be more direct/blunt this time: AC vs HP is apples to oranges. Some amount of personal prioritization has to be involved, no matter how common/uncommon the preference is.
.
HP is a (binary state) resource pool, not a defense stat like AC.
Every time AC is invoked, a higher AC provides a chance of benefit.
In any fight where HP is not in range of hitting 0, all of the build budget spent gaining excess HP has *zero* influence on the fight. This may be around 50% of my fights, and I'm *attempting to take damage* as a Chir.
Even when +1 AC provides a small % shift in outcome, this chance of change is relevant every time AC is invoked.
.
Because HP is a pool that needs be fully depleted to matter, this means that spending combat actions for dynamic/reactive healing can have 100% effectiveness.
A PC can use Battle Medicine and other 1A heals upon themselves for a rather significant chunk of HP.
Meanwhile, combat AC is usually a temporary buff and comparatively more expensive. Casting Shield is +1 for a turn, and Raise requires a dedicated hand. These buffs only benefit the few rolls before they expire, while restored HP is there to stay. Apples, oranges.
.
HP is a binary state resource pool, there are no base system rules where [incap]'s degree of success penalty is disabled on creatures with low HP, etc. (and the special abilities that do care about HP are super rare)
Because HP is a binary: [fighting fit] | [Dying on the floor], the main benefit to a higher max is that the party has "more time" where it is partially full and can refilled via healing.
Even the nature of chip damage and "waste" HP over-healing does not really benefit from max HP. The foe's damage delt is the same; while it may be more risky to have less HP left in the tank, you will still potentially waste the exact same amount to over-healing.
.
I've intentionally avoided the more complicated issue of DEX vs CON, and am not going to split hairs about Fort vs Reflex.
How much a higher HP pool matters varies a huge amount based on how often players drop Dying at one's table. In my experience, even at my Amb Vlts table with 4 PC deaths, the number of times max HP was relevant was surprisingly small. Even in that most dangerous AP I've played, the change of investment between +1HP p Lvl and +1AC was wildly in the favor of AC.
.
Moreover, I'm not actually trying to shout my opinion here.
I'm trying to explain the observed reality; to explain why there is such a clear and obvious trend among players to prioritize AC over max HP.
This meta trend is so overwhelmingly in AC's favor, that have only ever seen 1 person play a PC knowing they were not at DEX cap AC, and even when I could offer him infinite Drakeheart mutagen, the literal best case scenario for that build, that Oracle player still changed his mind and altered the PC to hit DEX cap.
[
No amount of HPs makes up for being crit. In play I've seen Barbarian as having the worst survivability of any class I've seen people try for this very reason. Especially pre-remaster.Also, Summoner doesn't even have light armor proficiency.
And a few extra HP is not going to help when you become a crit sponge.
But your Eidolon already has max AC - you're reducing crit chance on someone who shouldn't be targeted at all, in exchange for HP on the actually punched target ideally.
If your cloth caster with 30ft range is getting punched, run away and use Boost Eidolon, you're still hitting standard martial numbers. If your GM is still chasing your cloth caster, grapple and trip exists. If none of that work, take Sentinel dedication, IDK.
That's not what I see though.
In my current game the GM is ignoring the caster, so the caster is not using his spells and just attacking with a melee weapon.
But in the other examples I have seen it has always been enemies will try everything to ignore the eidolon and go for the caster because they are visibly linked and one is easy to hit.
The mere presence of a summoner can make enemies start to pressure the backline even more than if the backline has a wizard, cleric, alchemist, etc - because now the backline is also "melee flanking" them.
So once there is a summoner, people need to start body blocking that backline, and I see enemies mostly pass on attacking the eidolon if they can either gap close, range, or hit a different target.
In a comp like:
S.C.W
......
B.E.R
..[X]..
[Y]
[X] will work on the Barbarian or Rogue, [Y] will shoot the summoner or run around and melee the summoner, or try to flank the Barbarian or Rogue.
Eidolon is always the absolute last thing anyone targets. Only if they have no way to get S at all, and need to deal with S and E more than any other targets, do they bother with E.
My current GM is the first time I've seen an exception and I suspect he's just trying to be nice to a new player.
I'm not going to restate my whole post but I do need to say that your scenario is still making erroneous assumptions that affect your outcome.
You are also making a critical error, and assuming that a higher % HP remaining has intrinsic value. It does not. There is no benefit nor penalty around your current HP%, there is only risk of swapping the binary state from fighting fit and into Dying.
If you really want to consider max HP as a % chance to avoid reaching 0:Dying, then you need to think of every combat heal as increasing the "eHP of that fight," because that affects the perception on how much HP benefit you are actually getting from the starting max HP value.
(every heal reduces the % benefit of the starting max HP number.)
(+20 HP is +20% when 100-->120 max HP. But if you heal up and down, that +20 is a much smaller % when you "go through" ??? HP in the fight, because only "did you hit 0 HP?" matters)
This AC vs max HP relationship is genuinely too complicated to express mathematically in a forum post, and personal prioritization / table play variance makes that meaningless to do anyways.
.
Again, HP is a binary state resource pool, while AC is a defense stat.
They synergize with each other, but any attempt at a direct value comparison will be arbitrary due to their difference in kind requiring an (arbitrarily) constructed scenario.
It *is* helpful to think of max HP as one-shot protection, which makes it ironic that the levels where that would be most relevant is when pf2's math is so Fed that CON will not help prevent the wee Lvl 2 PC from exploding. Even at those lowest levels, the incoming damage is so big that imo AC is still clearly the better choice.
(again, there is no -HP in pf2. If a hit sends a PC Dying, the "overkill damage number" has to be so small that the greater max HP changed that -X into a >=1. Hitting Dying only triggers a *chance* for max HP to matter, because that extra damage is nullified)
.
This is not like another game with an Armor stat that reduces incoming damage, that *can* be put into an equation and directly compared in terms of eHP. Even then, that *still* is apples to oranges because higher armor means you get better returns on the same healing numbers, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoner ...
It's also oddly a class much easier to play in person than on a VTT because the VTTs just get all the permissions and automation wrong for it, and I play online so I keep seeing how messy that can get when the player is also trying to learn the controls in a new VTT.One of the things holding me back from using a more advanced VTT is we I don't play the conventional way. Never have, never will since it is a tactically poor way to engage.
Most of the time over the years, I've seen groups kind of let the DM go, "Door is open, there are some orcs there or monster, roll initiative."
I don't enjoy this type of play in a game with this much variation and ability. Why wouldn't I use stealth to scout ahead if I can build a really strong stealth character? Why wouldn't I decide where to engage the enemy? Why wouldn't I want to hit them at a distance first forcing them to use move actions while I'm using damaging attack actions at range to leave them already hurt with lower hit points once they hit the frontline?
Most VTTs cannot handle this type of play yet. Hopefully it will get better because I'm not changing how I play for some visual bells and whistles.
Your playstyle in a post just prior to this describes how I like to handle things as a player, being a veteran. But I've never get the chance to play with others who have even a single tactical brain cell in them. ;)
Check doors, have heavies open, try to draw things out, etc.
You only rush in when doing so has you at an advantage - you've created chaos in their ranks and reduced their visibility but not your own, or something like that.
VTTs can work just great for this. The deciding factor on a tactical playstyle if groups coordinating and ensuring you didn't invite Leeroy Jenkins to the table.
In fact I find a VTT helps more tuned in players better see the tactical choices and coordinate what they do.
But in the other examples I have seen it has always been enemies will try everything to ignore the eidolon and go for the caster because they are visibly linked and one is easy to hit.
Well, that's a GM issue. Enemies are not supposed to know the PCs abilities unless they roll an RK check. Even if Summoners are not specifically rare, the average guy doesn't know that attacking the Summoner will drop the Eidolon. And non-humanoid creatures that are not Trained in Society have no way to know that.
I think more tables than myself use good small unit tactics.I'm pretty sure no one on this forum uses your strategies.My old Agents of Edgewatch table certainly did, though that may have been part of the "swat team" fantasy we all had for ourselves.
I agree with small unit tactics. But I also have to remind myself that I'm not playing with a group of RL soldiers who 'get it' and don't take offense at leadership at that level.
At the end of the day, I'm gaming with civilians who all want to be 'free to be you and me' and so on. Mindsets that get people killed in real life.
But it's a game, not real life. So I hold my piece while that one eyebrow is twitching behind my screen.
I get used to offering light suggestions where I see an opening to, but I'm not going to order someone to 'go left, swap with that guy, while you flank so and so and then this and that.'
At my own table, I've lost players because other players with into 'game-splain' mode and tried dictating action choices to the table. Even telling 'Officer Splainer' to stop, the player getting yelled at still walks out half the time.
Its kind of the luck of the draw if a table all approach play the same way or not. You can't force it.
Guilty, lol. Though most of the time that's because whoever is expected to be up front opening the door isn't paying attention and people get tired of sitting around waiting for them to wake up. Especially if it's not the first time and you've already prompted them that session.Fully agree. At the end of the day, this is a game. The player's fun is the point, the PC's tactics merely contribute to it, they don't override it. If fun for your group is the impatient player kicks down the door while the other players get coffee, well I have no problem with that. My suggestion in that case would not be "GM beats them to a pulp until they are forced to adopt good tactics," it would be "GM reduces encounter difficulty so the players can enjoy the game their way." Or maybe a simple solution that requires neither GM nor players to change their ways: "group does two encounters every in-game day."
Timber Sentinel annoys me so much as a GM. In fights with things like mindless creatures that can't reasonably deal with it, it can effectively trivialize entire encounters because it stops absurd amounts of damage and unlike Protector Tree the spell, is infinitely renewable.Yeah, it's probably a contender for "best impulse." We have a wood kineticist. It has not trivialized encounters but . . .
Timber sentinel is notably better at mitigation than a Champion's Reaction, and then it's a debate at to whether or not the other side of the Champion Reaction (their strike, debuff, or whatever) is enough to offset that.
And I think that at best it makes them a match.
But that's still an issue because now you have an optional class feat from one class being on-par or often better for the same situation than the iconic class ability of another class.
If Timber Sentinel was "kineticist's main thing" then we could say it's fair: the game has two ways to be the 'damage mitigator' that are different but about matched. However for one it's the whole point of bringing that class (Champion Reaction), and for the other it's... Oh hey, I have a spare class feat, lets grab this random ability.
|
This kinda got to a weird front. Obviously both hp and AC/saves are important.
I mean, if I were to build a summoner to be the best at its job, I'd just go +2 dex and con and pick up armor proficiency at level 3 and call it a day. I'd want to be in demoralize range at least. You've got more versatility with your skills/act together the closer you are. If you want just your eidolon to be tanky, you can be farther away and have more con. There's a tradeoff. Seems fine to me too.
HP is a (binary state) resource pool, not a defense stat like AC.
I'm open to weird modelization but you get to no useful conclusion. You trip yourself on your own model. AC and HP are very much linked and not apples to oranges.
Look this general concept is not hard: Dex matters more in games where your Summoner is attacked more often, and less in games where they are attacked less. Thus the "Con is always better" claim is wrong, because it's asserting something which is only conditionally true to be always true.
But if the conditions are impossible to meet, then it's always true.
For Dex to matter more than Constitution the Summoner needs to be nearly the only one attacked. Sure, if you put your Summoner on the frontline and the Eidolon on the backline it will happen, but I prefer to dismiss this case as just crazy. The end result is Con is always better than Dex.I can't believe I even need to say this, but I guess I do; a higher chance to evade blows is more valuable in sessions where you must try to evade 10 of them than it is in sessions where you must try to evade 1 of them.
No, that's a wrong modelization of the game.
If you take 10 attacks dealing 5 damage or 1 attack dealing 50 damage your chance to evade blows is as important. Overall, the number of attacks is irrelevant to survival calculations. And because we are speaking of survival calculations we always consider you took enough attacks dealing enough damage for your survival to be at stake.Now, what is important is the ratio of attacks the Summoner takes compared to the Eidolon. It may be what you are trying to convey when you speak of "number of attacks", if it's the case it was unclear.
Maxing AC is a very good advice for a frontliner. But on a backliner, maxing HPs is more interesting. I honestly don't understand why players are so focused on maxing AC on backliners. It's certainly some kind of bia where people dislike to be hit even if they have a sizable hp pool to soak damage.
You're playing with a different kind of GM than some of us have faced.
I keep seeing one or both of two things:
1. Every NPC tries as hard as possible to ignore the frontline go for the backline. It's why all my own frontline PCs have gotten obsessed with maxing out athletics and going weaponless or sheildless so I can grapple... And why my Backline PCs focus on their AC. This has been almost every table I've been at save for a few that were example 2 below.
2. The Frontline stands around like fools or spreads out, leaving the backline standing on the German Autobahn in the oncoming traffic lane and the GM has to start making excuses for why nobody just drives forward through that galaxy-wide gap of foolishness. When you're sitting in a session and the GM has the NPCs turn around and run away while still at full HP - only to realize it's because they went for one of the frontlines that ran past them to do WTFery over there... you know your GM is coddling you when he's earned his TPK fair and square thanks to Leeroy way over there. And this... is a regular thing at some tables I've been at.
So invariably, the backline ends up taking half or more of all the attacks.
There's a third situation that makes it even worse for the backline:
Fighting indoors.
Throw 4 PCs and an elder dragon into a 5 foot by 5 foot room and where is that backline. This a comic example of a rather common situation for fantasy tRPGs that so love 'dungeons'. When you're on a battle map that starts looking like that puzzle game with a bunch of letters in a grid that has only one single open spot and you have to figure out how to get them all in the right order.
- In some games we spend a whole pile of actions on 'Reposition' and absolutely nobody is out of melee range of anyone else.
I should specify I was speaking to the relation of max HP to AC, and nothing else. SMN in specific is a very odd edge case in regard to how the stat points affect them.
Trying to guesstimate how often the SMN (& not the eidolon) is going to get that build-variable AC invoked, while also considering the extra incoming HP damage via the eidolon seems well into the "too variable to claim objectivity" realm.
That said, I do very much agree that SMN presents perhaps a "best case possible" for putting more value into CON HP over DEX AC.
I still honestly am rather skeptical about prioritizing CON HP before hitting the caster's AC DEX cap, especially if they are a "uses 30ft spells" type caster.
To provide my own weird edge case, it's as an L16 Alch sip-sustaining a Combine stone body + quicksilver mutagen, so I've got -32 HP at all times, and lowered Fort & Reflex saves while attempting to soak as much damage as possible. I've not hit 0:Dying once during the campaign, nor during Gatewalkers before that.
Max HP really is only "burst damage assurance" in pf2, and once you scale beyond the realm of BS oneshots / 100 --> 0 combos, then the value of that stat is very questionable.
TBH, the "surprisingly low value" of max HP is kinda why it's at all possible for pf2 to have HP/L 6 classes exist alongside the HP/L 12 Barb and the system doesn't explode.
(to be clear, I still think this 2x Class HP disparity is absurdly over the top and bad for the game's health. The more maxHP mathematically matters, then the more impossible/improbable it is to have the classes be balanced in a system with an outright double HP/L disparity.)
So invariably, the backline ends up taking half or more of all the attacks.
We are back to the same kind of discussion I'm having with Easl: The number of attacks you take doesn't make AC more important than Con. If you survive longer by having higher Con then you survive longer if you are rarely attacked and you survive longer if you are regularly attacked. You just survive longer.
We are back to the same kind of discussion I'm having with Easl: The number of attacks you take doesn't make AC more important than Con. If you survive longer by having higher Con then you survive longer if you are rarely attacked and you survive longer if you are regularly attacked. You just survive longer.So invariably, the backline ends up taking half or more of all the attacks.
That's still an if though.
The "leftover damage" that sent someone Dying is nullified in pf2, so that event only triggers a chance for the max HP difference to matter by keeping them up at >=1 HP based on that gap.
It's not true to claim that a higher HP guarantees you survive longer. You may not endure a single extra hit. Given how often Dying happens due to things like crit damage, this is actually a pretty significant wrinkle in the considerations.
We are back to the same kind of discussion I'm having with Easl: The number of attacks you take doesn't make AC more important than Con. If you survive longer by having higher Con then you survive longer if you are rarely attacked and you survive longer if you are regularly attacked. You just survive longer.So invariably, the backline ends up taking half or more of all the attacks.
Even a Barbarian will often go down from full to 0 from a single crit.
Last session my players came up against a monster with a 'tentacle spam' attack. Took me several rounds to get him positioned into melee with 3 or the 4 PCs, and once I did I hit that attack and took the 2 frontliners from max to dying 2 from one hit each that were crits, and the one caster I got I somehow rolled low and only got a hit on him, so he was just 'mostly dead' and hearing Billy Crystal in the background. Fortunately for them the monster in question was equally mostly dead by that point and the next PC got a crit of his on him. PCs in this are level 7, enemy was a level+2 mini-boss.
And unusual number of crits all at once. But its something I see often: a high HP character instant faceplanting from a crit.
Pre-remaster every Barbarian I saw in play would get 'one-shot' to dying 2 at least once a session. Often twice, a few times three times a session. That low AC just meant half the hits they took did double damage, and they don't get 2.1x as many HP as a fighter, they just get a little bit more. It's less common now, but it still happens regularly to see a Barbarian get one-shot from max to dying-2.
Its been a little over 2 years now but I think my first Witch PC had maybe 14 AC and I assumed I was safe in the back, but after the third time our Barbarian got one-shot and the enemy had nowhere to go but me, I started re-evaluating things. That was BEFORE the GM started trying for backliners. Once he changed to that mindset things would just run around the front.
Even a Barbarian will often go down from full to 0 from a single crit.
Last session my players came up against a monster with a 'tentacle spam' attack. Took me several rounds to get him positioned into melee with 3 or the 4 PCs, and once I did I hit that attack and took the 2 frontliners from max to dying 2 from one hit each that were crits, and the one caster I got I somehow rolled low and only got a hit on him, so he was just 'mostly dead' and hearing Billy Crystal in the background. Fortunately for them the monster in question was equally mostly dead by that point and the next PC got a crit of his on him.
And unusual number of crits all at once. But its something I see often: a high HP character instant faceplanting from a crit.
Pre-remaster every Barbarian I saw in play would get 'one-shot' to dying 2 at least once a session. Often twice, a few times three times a session. That low AC just meant half the hits they took did double damage, and they don't get 2.1x as many HP as a fighter, they just get a little bit more. It's less common now, but it still happens regularly to see a Barbarian get one-shot from max to dying-2.
To be honest, this is why I think I'll kinda pass on playing future APs that start at level 1. The damage / HP math is so absurdly bad that it's just not fun once you learn that your are one zero-agency 5% chance roll away from Dying 2 at all times.
The "leftover damage" that sent someone Dying is nullified in pf2, so that event only triggers a chance for the max HP difference to matter by keeping them up at >=1 HP based on that gap.
Yes, it's statistics. Statistically, it will sometimes matter and sometimes not. Same goes with AC, if the enemy only rolls nat 20 then your AC is pointless. But statistically, it will not always happen.
If you have 10% extra hit points, over the course of a long number of fights you'll take 10% more attacks before dropping.
If you have 10% extra hit points, over the course of a long number of fights you'll take 10% more attacks before dropping.
aaaarg
This is exactly the kind of number that I'm super objecting to due to it seeming intuitive but being very very wrong.
This is exactly the kind of number that I'm super objecting to due to it seeming intuitive but being very very wrong.
Honestly, at that stage, I can't help you.
This is exactly the kind of number that I'm super objecting to due to it seeming intuitive but being very very wrong.Honestly, at that stage, I can't help you.
Holy crap, the arrogant irony of that statement is an invigorating slap to the face, that's for sure.
Holy crap, the arrogant irony of that statement is an invigorating slap to the face, that's for sure.
It wasn't irony. But I agree it wasn't nice.
Unfortunately, if we can't agree on a basic concept such as the relationship between the size of your HP pool and the number of attacks you can take before dropping, the conversation is doomed to fail.
|
|
Intuitively, because of the crit system, AC is of greater import than extra hit points. You should be boosting both regardless, but having maxed AC by level 5 at least is probably safer than focusing only on con and cloth armor since you can't easily guarantee your summoner will not be targeted.
A lot of useful tactics are within 30 feet anyways like demoralize or electric arc. That's plenty close to think about having decent AC. If you have some particularly sticky frontliners with you, it might not be a big deal but that's on a case by case basis.
The core issue is that AC is a stat that affects incoming attack via % chance manipulation.
HP doesn't interact like that, as it's a resource pool where only that last 1 HP matters (swapping to Dying state).
The "chance" of it making a difference is anchored to the foe damage numbers, not hit chances. (and only triggers that chance once per ?Dying? event)
.
To even begin looking at max HP in terms "can take X % more hits" (which imo is just an unhelpful angle to approach it from) the single first step is to evaluate what that "average foe damage" is, and yes, how much of an absurdly variable number that is, is kinda the whole issue at play.
And every bit of "expected healing" (and how much one expects the healing to vary by the "avg foe dmg") is another layer of complexity which reduces the value of investing in maxHP.
.
IMO, it's most helpful to think of max HP as the "burst damage survival" statistic, summed up in a quote like: ~"as a number, maxHP most greatly affects combat by allowing for the safer *delay* of a heal by a turn."
Any attempt to conceptualize maxHP as a "take X% more hits" number is imo a fool's errand due to it being so context & foe-dependent.
4 PCs vs 1 foe? Max HP is going to have a much lower chance to matter. 4 PCs vs 8 critters? Much better.
(presuming that ?Dying? events are triggered at all, which is yet another problem-factor that varies hugely by table)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As GM I find the tree annoying but not unbeatable.
After a few fights you learn that it is possible to surround it, either by attacking it directly with MAP attacks, or by pushing or repositioning characters close to it.
Even when I play animals I consider that they are intelligent enough to recognize that the tree is in their way after the first attack and make them try to move their prey or attack the tree directly.
At higher levels when AoE becomes more common the tree has a much reduced efficiency and even the wood kineticists doesn't like to create a new tree over and over again.
Yeah, for me Protector Tree falls into the "most overrated impulse" category.
It's an AoE magnet, and it encourages poor battlefield positioning. It also doesn't scale well with damage outputs.
Even levels where it is good, I usually find the kineticist places it poorly. Who needs protector tree more -- the champion on the front line, or the Rogue who has moved into flanking? It's the Rogue, who is going to be a target, but most people I play with place it by the front line where there are more people, even though they are already protected by the champion.
ETA: Although I haven't seen it on a Summoner before. A Summoner's action economy does make it more spammable.
|
|
My experience with casters is that they will end a combat in one of two situations: having taken zero/incidental damage or being unconscious. This has led me to believe that hp are near irrelevant for them.
So I have been experimenting with running casters with -1 CON. And they have been fine in combat. (Now, dealing with Fortitude saves is a different matter, but not what we are talking about.)
In my experience, incremental AC is far more valuable than incremental hp for non-front line characters. If you get focused, you will be dropped in 1-2 turns, and an extra 30hp at 15th level isn't going to change that.
BUT, if any part of your Summoner/Eidolon team is going to engage in melee, that is a different situation, because hp is an important resource for a front-liner. It is probably more important to increase the hp pool of the one that will take damage then to increase the AC of the one that won't be targeted often.
I haven't played a Summoner, so I don't have a feel, but it does seem like a more balanced approach would be adviseable.
But the point that hp is overrated for casters is very true in my experience -- it just isn't directly relevant to desiging a Summoner.
The number of attacks it takes to kill you looks more like a step function of your HP than a line. That's the issue with trying to say 10% HP = 10% more attacks. You never go down part of an attack, after all, so there's more fuzzy thresholds depending on what's hitting you where your survivability jumps a lot, then it goes up very slowly, etc.
I agree it's not perfectly linear, but it's so close to linear that a human being won't tell the difference. Saying "10% HP = 9.8-10.2% more attacks" may be more accurate but not really helpful.
HP is also a weird number due to "overkill damage" being irrelevant. Having "more HP" can and is often genuinely making 0 difference whatsoever, *even when that PC drops Dying*.It's like saying that +1 in AC is pointless for 90% of attacks so AC is often making no difference. If you have 10% more hps you'll survive 10% more attacks, period.
There's also the "soft positioning" game issue where it's super easy to reach the backline if foes want to.Which is not a point in favor of AC or hps, because both are there to ensure your survival.
AC is kinda (sorta) the "only" defense you know that *every* foe will be able to targetAnd HPs is the pool that *every* attack will deplete. Moot point again. Actually, effects removing HPs are more frequent than effects targetting AC so it's a point for high Con.
The issues combo together when you consider that AC-targeting hits still very frequently include nasty side effects and debilitations, from poisons & improved grab, to other weird debuffs.Most of these effects target Fortitude and as such high Con is as useful than high Dex to avoid them (you have more chances to be hit but also more chances to succeed at the save). Dex is as useful as Con against Poison and Improved Grab.
In my opinion, there are *so* many incentives / motivations behind having a high AC, that yes, most players absolutely will prioritize it before their HP or other saves.Well, I'm still waiting for *one*. As I said, people overvalue Dex compared to Con on casters for no valid reason.
Now, what can you do against my massive incentive to go high Con: Every five levels, you'll gain +1 in AC unlike the character with maxed AC at level 1. Roughly, once level 5, high Con blows high Dex out the water.
I started to value Dex more when dealing with high level AOEs. You know that damage casters do that we all love so much. It also gets used on the PCs and it is super painful to get hit by chain lightning or eclipse burst with a low reflex save.
If I were playing in your usual level range, I think I would push CON more than Dex. But as those saves are built on Master and Legendary save DCs with a high stat, that low dex save can be real painful when getting hit by a high damage AOE against your reflex save.
I learned this the hard way getting hit by an eclipse burst on my bard at around level 13 or so. I took double damage and was blinded. It was after that I started to focus more Dex as I was focusing more on Con because poison, disease, and other Con saves were more dangerous as well as more hit points.
But they made high levels AOE reflex spells brutal in PF2.
I never quite get the Con over Dex discussion. It only matters at the start of the game. After that you can stack your ability bonuses to Dex, Con, Wis, Cha mixing it up a bit if you don't mind slightly lower saves or perception.
I tend to prioritize Con and Dex over Wisdom for a summoner. I build them both up with my ability boosts.
Timber Sentinel annoys me so much as a GM. In fights with things like mindless creatures that can't reasonably deal with it, it can effectively trivialize entire encounters because it stops absurd amounts of damage and unlike Protector Tree the spell, is infinitely renewable.Maybe the feat (not the spell) should get the sure strike treatment. Would that balance it somewhat?
That would probably push it too far in the other direction. A 1/fight Protector Tree as an Impulse is not going to feel great, especially since in a number of encounter situations it's not really useful at all. It just happens to have some other ones where it's exceptionally good.
It's kind of a hard one to rebalance well because it's annoyingly powerful but not at the "this is way out of line" level, so it's easy for a nerf to overcorrect and make it feel weak.
Adding Overflow to it might work, or reducing the scaling speed of the Impulse so it's not just a max rank spell all the time.
Yeah, it's probably a contender for "best impulse." We have a wood kineticist. It has not trivialized encounters but it has definitely prevented us from TPKing in hard encounters we took on when not fully healed and with max rank slots gone. IMO the thing that trivializes encounters more is when the whole party rolls well on initiative, and brings massive beat down on the enemy before they even get to act. When everyone rolls high, our kineticist doesn't even bother dropping a tree, he attacks. So it's not the "I win" button, it's more the "oooh, shirt" button. :)
I told my player when he took it that I reserved the right to house rule nerf it if it became too much of a problem. I haven't done that, and the fact that it's effectively saving the lives of other characters is a lot of the reason why.
Another player in that game is relatively inexperienced and is playing a Monk as basically the party frontline (along with the Kineticist, the other two characters are a Cloistered Cleric and a ranged Medic Investigator). When things go sideways, the Monk tends to get beaten up, and the tree is making a huge difference in terms of the Monk still being alive.
This is much more fun for the Monk player than the alternative. So yeah, "oh shirt" indeed! If something is going to be on the "might be too powerful side", support abilities are the best things to have it on since they ultimately help the rest of the group do stuff. I definitely wouldn't want to over-nerf that.
Timber sentinel is notably better at mitigation than a Champion's Reaction, and then it's a debate at to whether or not the other side of the Champion Reaction (their strike, debuff, or whatever) is enough to offset that.
And I think that at best it makes them a match.
But that's still an issue because now you have an optional class feat from one class being on-par or often better for the same situation than the iconic class ability of another class.
If Timber Sentinel was "kineticist's main thing" then we could say it's fair: the game has two ways to be the 'damage mitigator' that are different but about matched. However for one it's the whole point of bringing that class (Champion Reaction), and for the other it's... Oh hey, I have a spare class feat, lets grab this random ability.
I don't know. Timber Sentinel is two actions. That's a sizable investment in action economy and removes a lot of other impulses as options on that turn. Players need to stay near it for it to work. It's definitely good, especially on a Summoner who still has two actions for their Eidolon to do stuff, but I really don't feel like it makes Champion obsolete.
Champions only needing a reaction means they can have their full turn. At low level with only one reaction it can feel somewhat lopsided, but Champions can stack this way up at higher level. Champions that lean fully into it can block absurd amounts of damage. I had one in Extinction Curse that at high level had 3 reactions and was doing combinations of Retributive Strike/Shield of Reckoning. With a Sturdy Shield and a Mending Lattice the sheer amounts of damage mitigated got wild.