Skip Navigation
Pathfinder 2e General Discussion @pathfinder.social Tag365 @lemmy.world

Is the Summoner really considered a poor class?

A YouTube video I watched recently claimed that summoners might have been considered a bad class in second edition. However, it doesn't seem like that at a glance - there's opportunities for various creatures and beings to stand by your side, such as a plant monster kinda like Blossomon, a stegosaurus, dragons, and so on. Also they come with a nine level magic collection on top of the Eidolon - and the Eidolon can learn spells too with the correct feats. So you could make a druid like character with lots of magic but their main aspect being able to summon a giant sunflower, as a result of acquiring lots of Druid archetype feats for magic casting and feats related to the Eidolon casting magic themselves. Or you could make a stegosaurus man who summons a powerful stegosaurus that knows a lot about nature and fights for them. Sounds like a cool class to play, but I haven't tried the game much to see how any of this would work in gameplay.

22
22 comments

  • I don't think so, not sure what general concensus is though.

    They are something of a 'generalist' class though, so I can see them lacking in raw power.

    Magic in PF2e is lackluster in damage output, leading some to call casters weak. I don't think that's true, but casters do face challenges related to damage, and to needing to work around enemy saves types, and needing to deal with the fact that controlling the battlefield, and managing buffs/debuffs requires more thought than just dps.

    And, since they are casters, the eidolon can't be as strong as a pure martial.

    But since they're a bounded caster, the can struggle to actually have enough spells available to be able to bring ideal spells to bear each fight.

    Add to that splitting their gold between martial items and caster items, and they'll be lagging a level or two behind on one or the other.

    And just, their core class feature of getting 4 actions semi-split across 2 bodies that share a health pool, is complicated to manage.

    All of that adds up to a class that is high-complexity across multiple fronts, in a system that's well balanced if classes are played well. So you, the player, needs to spend more time and energy planning, shopping, making decisions, to end up being as powerful as the fighter. I can see that not sitting well with some people.

    For me, that's what I like about PF2e; the complicated classes aren't just OP if played to their fullest, so I, as the most invested player at the table, can go HAM without ruining other, less invested player's fun.

    • You just reminded me Summoners don't have many spell slots. So they're limited as martial characters, but more so as magical characters because they can't cast tenth level spells, and then on top of that they only have four slots for regular spells at most.

      • Yeah. In my experience (as a GM with a summoner player, going through Strength of Thousands, currently at level 12), Summoners spend the majority of their time in combat acting as a 'fighter', with the summoner spending their 'at least 1 of the 4 actions' casting Boost Eidolon. Which, on that front, makes them a 'worse fighter'.

        But, of course, they can throw out big spells when needed, since while they only have 4 spell slots, they don't lag behind a full caster at all in 'highest level spellslot' (aside from 10th level spells). They get fireball at the same time the Wizard does. So the real 'breaking point' between them an a full caster isn't 'burst power', but being able to lay out a constant barrage of lower level spells, meaning they lose out a lot on utility.

        But, staffs on them are very important, as that is huge in giving them those 'lower level utility spells'.

        And, unlike a fighter, they do have access to damage cantrips, for both when ranged combat is needed, and if elemental damage is needed. Sure, those damage cantrips are worse DPS in a white-room scenario most of the time, but they are nice to have when needed.

        So while they are spending 90% of their time in combat mostly being a 'worse fighter', 10% of the time they're throwing out spells as strong as a Wizard, and just generally bringing less DPS but more flexibility than a fighter would. In that regard, they're maybe more analogous to an Inventor.

        Which, on the proficiency front, the Eidolon shares martial proficiency progression with most martials, so they'll lag behind fighter and gunslinger on attacks, and monks/champions on defense, but keep pace with rangers and rogues and swashbucklers etc.

        Summoners as a caster though lag behind full casters a bit, getting expert and master spellcasting 2 level later (so, more levels than not, they'll actually have the same proficiency as a full caster). More painful though is they never get Legendary casting, since full casters get that at level 19. While I've not yet seen summoners at that level, having your DC/spell attack be 2 lower is painful, but able to be mitigated by focusing more on 'party buffs'.

  • Summoners are not bad. I have a Summoner in my current game and the character meaningfully contributes to damage, scouting, and utility. He tends to burn through his HP quickly with the larger attack exposure of two characters, but that's why they have 10HP per level.

    It's a complex class, and the Summoner will never top DPR calculations or out-cast a Sorcerer, but they can flex into martial and caster roles as needed. Wave casting still lets you use staves, so they are even more essential to a Summoner to get the most out of their limited spell slots. Eidolons can also roll their own skill checks, which expands the utility of the party.

    The main draw for Summoner is being the peak of all pet classes and it delivers on that fantasy very well. If you want to have a demon or dragon or whatever, this is the class. That the class works without making Summoner as OP as PF1 or completely useless is pretty amazing.

  • I would never call it a poor class, but if you want to be using magic regularly, the bill for all of the scrolls and wands you buy will make for a poor character, ehehe. That being said, all spellcasters should be buying more scrolls than they can physically carry on their person anyway, so that's hardly a feature unique to summoners.

    • I didn't know characters should commonly buy spell scrolls. What do they do?

      • They're how spellcasters get over the fact that they only have 2-4 spells per level and maybe 5 encounters per day. Each scroll is a consumable spell slot that you can use so long as you've got basic spellcasting ability, even if thats just cantrips and the trained proficiency in one tradition.

        Unlike in PF1e and D&D, scrolls actually use your spellcasting DC, which makes them viable in combat against enemies you'll face in your adventures.

        The lowest level ones are crazy cheap and can be applied to a wide variety of situations, so it makes sense to stock up on loads of them. When your budget for consumables is 500, why not buy a hundred lv 1 scrolls? fear, gust of wind, command, illusory object, etc. etc. can easily become as "at-will" as your cantrips.

  • I'm actually wondering if Summoner would be better if it got funneled 2 characters' worth of wealth per level, or if the people having a blast with it aren't unknowingly showered in gold and treasure by their GM. The general idea is, you're a mediocre (wave) caster doubled of a mediocre martial but with the full expense related to both roles. If both half aren't under-geared for their respective role to boot, it probably adds up to a full character without too many issues, except, you're always scrapping for gold, with no way to get your double skill item tax, the staff tax, the wand tax, the rune tax, etc... all at the same time

22 comments