Pathfinder 2E Martials > Casters

[CapnZapp]

It isn't strictly necessary, but life is a lot easier if you have some kind of highly annoying melee combatant with strong defenses. Champions are a step ahead here, but certain flavors of fighter and monk will do just fine.

I would say:

It isn't strictly necessary, but life is a lot easier if you have some kind of highly annoying melee combatant with strong offenses.

In my opinion you can't "tank" in PF2. Monsters are simply too dangerous. This game is all about killing the monsters before they kill you, so while you need a modicum of defense, you should only strive for enough defense - enough to kill the monsters before your own hit points (including combat heals) run out. Once you have "enough" defense, you should focus on getting as much offense*, and that basically means having powerful melee warriors.
*) This is actually true in any game. The difference to 5E is that by ruthlessly maximizing offense there, you can easily break that game, while here you will want to do it just to cope...

In this game, spellcasters (other than the battle-medic) are a luxury (when playing at the default difficulty level, as exemplified both by the official encounter building guidelines as well as by official APs)

 

[CapnZapp]

Are the summon spells a good option for combat?

In our experience, they don't quite cut it. As pre-summoned scouts, diversions or sacrificial pawns, sure. But in pitched battle, having one character spend a spell slot and two actions just to summon something that often dies in a single blow, no.

(Note: I'm not saying they aren't fun. The question was if the option was good for combat, and my answer is that as the encounter's difficulty gets harder, there's less space for options that aren't top performers.)

Tldr: In 5E summons can be brokenly good. Not so here.

 

[CapnZapp]

Is there a level where you will typically get striking weapons?

Yes.

In general, you can expect to have found a particular item (or have enough cash to buy it) when you reach that item's level.

Since the Striking rune is level 4, the answer is "at about level 4". One member might have a Striking rune at level 3, and by level 5 every PC that wants one (or three) can have it.

And by the way, this is much less of a loose recommendation in PF2 than it is something of a hard rule. The price of items increase so exponentially that you almost never can afford to purchase an item even a single level above your level. At the same time, items below your level quickly become vendor trash. So you basically exist in a micro-cosmos where you find a single striking rune as loot when slightly above your own level and then more once you reach the item's level.

This is particularly consistent in official APs. My players find over and over again that if they had just held off til next level, they would have found exactly the item they just spent all their gold on!

 

[Kaodi]

So you do not think that a champion optimized to be survivable and make the party survivable too, like a dwarven redeemer champion, is the best use of the champion chassis, Zapp?

 

[CapnZapp]

I did not say that.

 

[Celtavian]

Since you mostly just continued your summary of your party's dynamics, I gotta ask: what do you say to my hypothesis? I'm not saying the Barbarian's AC is great. I'm suggesting you worry a lot about your individual but never mention the responsibility of your mates.

It seems your party has only one frontliner (=a character built to want to enter melee), which in my experience isn't enough when running a Paizo AP at default difficulty.

What I'm suggesting is that it's less about your character's particulars (AC and such) and more about you being too alone up front. No class will do well under those circumstances, not even the Champion (I know, I've had ghouls kill a Paladin in my first PF2 campaign)

So what is your thoughts on this?


PS. And where did the Champion go? (I trust you weren't comparing an actual Barbarian to a theoretical Champion)

The champion, archer, and rogue dynamic is part of another group.

I think that group damage soaking is necessary in these hard encounters. It has been in Age of Ashes as well even with a champion. If the swashbuckler was not there to absorb damage, we would have much more trouble. The witch and druid have no wish to enter combat and avoid it. So the swashbuckler and barbarian will have to share the damage. Hopefully they will be up to the task with the druid and witch both capable of healing.

I'm currently testing the druid healer who does more damage versus a cleric who has more abundant healing to see who adds more to the group. This is a four person group versus a six person group in Age of Ashes. So far the druid is proving her worth and on a round by round basis is doing more damage than a cleric. I'm going to start an excel sheet and measure the druid damage and healing contribution over time. It seems killing things faster would balance out versus healing, but we shall see.

 

[Celtavian]

Are the summon spells a good option for combat?

I have not tried a focused summoner yet. No, they do not appear to be a good option on paper. But summons often aren't great until more monster books are released. Even in the PF1 core rulebook, summons often weren't great. I think one of the best summons I've seen so far is the Lillend Azata which has some nifty party support abilities. It would take a fairly high level summon to keep one going.

I figure in PF2 the summoner class will eventually make summoning viable as a method of attack. But at the moment it is mostly subpar.

 

[Kaodi]

What is the actually set-up of the wizard in your EC group, @CapnZapp ?

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Are the summon spells a good option for combat?

They are not great for pure combat; they just don't do enough pure damage. But they have enough "utility reasons" in combat for me to keep them around on my cleric's spell list, and they get constant use. Generally they get used if my cleric cannot close easily to the opponent, as "true strike + weapon attack" is generally a better option.

Here are some cases I've used them:

• Against a flying invisible enemy. I had see invisible up so could see the enemy, and could direct my summon to attack it
• Against an enemy 500' feet away. My summons had dim door at-will, and the one mile heightened version once/day, so that closed the gap way better than I could
• Insta bard -- chorals get to inspire courage as a single action, and they have a dinky ranged attack to go with it, so summoning them to increase party damage 10% and add a minor attack isn't a bad option for one action a round (plus one in the first round). If the fight looks likely to be 3+ rounds, and you have a decent sized party it's value for actions, doing the math: Increasing damage by 10% for each person increases total damage by 50%, so inspire courage is about the same as half a person, so worth 1.5 actions. So the first turn it's not as good as other actions, and the second turn makes up, third turn it's definitely worth it.

Like a lot of cleric spells, it's situationally useful -- enough to keep on the list -- but I wouldn't build a character on it!

 

[dave2008]

Increasing damage by 10% for each person increases total damage by 50%, so inspire courage is about the same as half a person, so worth 1.5 actions.

It has been a while, but I don't think that is how math works. Increasing the damage of each person 10% will only increase the total damage by 10%, not 50%. Or are you suggesting it increases your damage by 50%?