Summoning spells might not be as good as people think
Summoning spells might not be as good as people think
Granted, not everyone might see them as good, and a lot of people's opinion probably comes from other people talking about them rather than experimenting with them in a real game.
Without going into details, and save for the few early levels, during which you might have seen a few skunks being conjured to great effect, a top-level summoning slot brings up a creature between 4 and 5 levels below the party.
Due to how encounter math works, a creature of this level is counted as between 0 and 10 XP in the rules for building an encounter as its chances to hit are too low to matter against the player (-5 to hit against +5 to all defense at a minimum, often more from proficiency upgrades).
Of course, that's for abilities targeting defenses, surely I just have to pick things that don't target defenses or satisfy myself with spawning an annoying flanking/body blocking buddy? This is correct, some very select support-oriented monsters, like the Satyr or, in an undead campaign, the Deathless Acolyte can give an amazing boost for their level in a vacuum; but that's before considering what truly seals this pan of the game for me
It's woefully action intensive for the caster. A good way to see it is to say that you're spending 3 actions to slow 1 yourself in order to add a level -5, stunned 1 monster on your side of the board, and if the support action of a Satyr might feel pretty good, is it really compared to other uses of 1 action for the caster, like using a composition cantrip, an appropriate metamagic, or using a well-chosen skill action like bon mot or demoralize? and that's excluding the initial 3 action opportunity cost you could have spent on a more potent spell
In short, there is a reason why level -5 creatures don't count in the encounter budget, and while a well-chosen one might impact the fight positively, 2 of its actions are almost never going to be better than 1 action of a creature 5 levels higher;
Of course, that doesn't mean the spell is useless, out of combat in the blood lord adventure, for example, a single cast at 4th level of animate dead can be used by the Wizard to heal everyone for 20 + 3 x (2d8+16) to distribute on the most injured in a minute with a deathless acolyte; that's amazing, and notably way more than the 0 a wizard would be able to provide otherwise. Similarly, if you know something is booby-trapped and you don't want to risk your rogue, a Crawling Hand will happily eat and "disarm" it for the party for the cheap price of a 1st level spell.
Summoning was specifically defanged in combat, probably as a design concern about minion spam that was prevalent in previous editions, so just... don't use it in combat and demoralize/bon mot every turn instead, you'll be doing more good for your party
Summons depend a lot on the situation. If they have a good niche ability it can really swing a fight (such as blindsight, fire immunity, or a helpful spell). If they soak up 2 or so enemy attacks, that's a huge amount of damage mitigation for the party. If they do any damage it's a bonus.
Could be arguable on whether they're worth the action cost, but I would still say they're pretty good. Nothing is going to compare favorably to composition cantrips.
yeah, there might always be that summon in that case that has this ability doing the right thing, but you already have spells as a toolbox, and it's rare you can't do whatever you wanted your minion to do better yourself. It goes without saying that counting on anything with an accuracy is basically moot with the 10 points to hit vs defense differential, and very few summonable creature have good guaranteed support (a lot of them were either moved to uncommon or errata'd, like the Bone Croupier recently). To me it's rather clear that Paizo doesn't want us to use those strong accuracy-less effect through creatures and we're only left with a few non-disruptive scraps
I'm however completely unconvinced about soaking damage, for that to happen it needs to be threatening, and, excluding some specific situations as mentioned above, they aren't, and are as likely to hit as a player is to crit, which, on PL+1 and up, is probably only on nat 20s. If your GM sinks an attack into that, he's saving you from yourself by removing your sustain tax. In fact, Illusory Object is a better body block since it's way waaayyy larger, is a 2nd level spell at most, doesn't require sustain and also requires at least an action to disbelieve which uses your spell DC as a "AC" instead of the AC of a PL-5 creature.
I haven't yet actually had the pleasure of playing Pathfinder, but the main thing that your post makes me wonder is: why is it necessary? The broader consensus seems to really like summoning, but you've presented a very good case against it. What is it that makes people really like summoning in general?
If what you've seen comes from r/pathfinder2e on Reddit, it's likely because the place is a borderline echo chamber nowadays, and will happily swear that everything short of dumping your key stat is viable regardless of whether it actually is or not.
You'll have a hard time finding any mention of something in the system being "not as good as the rest", or, god forbid, the system having specific shortcomings (you might see "the game has shortcomings" but specific mentions will be absent).
I really invite you to check multiple posts and look intently for those less positive outlooks, you won't find many and those you will find are likely to be at the bottom, on the other hand, you'll see a ton of echoed opinions about the absolute superiority of pathfinder 2 math, game design, class balance, etc... either over other popular system or in absolute.
I don't think the moderation team there is complicit, but it absolutely has let it go to shit over the years
TL;DR: to answer more specifically to "What is it that makes people really like summoning in general?" pf2e Redditors like everything about the system whether it's good or not
I’ve definitely noticed that unrelenting positivity. Tbh I put that down largely to a defensiveness and a sort of inferiority complex against the 800-pound gorilla that is D&D. I’ve definitely faced the wrong side of that before, including but not limited to the response to my big bullet point review of the system from the POV of a 5e & 4e player who had only read the CRB.
But with summoning in particular, I’m fairly sure I’ve seen it presented not just as a viable option, but as a strong contender for the best strategy, so I put it down to something slightly different from the above.
points It's you! You are following me everywhere! conveniently ignores the fact that you were here first
Anyway, hello again my Australian doppelganger. :)
I've had decent experience in actual play with summons in exploration more than in combat, as you noted with the crawling hand as an example, but also with ferrying party members around or general roleplay opportunities to help with getting/gathering information once you can summon more talkative creatures.
In combat I'd have to echo the soaking hits being their primary use. Something makes it through the front line, I have small or narrow passageway or anything similar and no wall spells prepared or available I'd fall back on the creature to substitute.
I definitely agree that they're not powerful by any means, but I don't think they're without uses, especially with spells on their level for the diverse utility they can provide both in and out of combat. In combat I liked the whiptail centipede just for the reach, space it took up despite being able to squeeze well and poison being a nice deterrent if things got to close to my squishy self, but I think a number of other spells could have worked just as well or better.
I think the designers were worried about summoning becoming too good as the pool of available creatures expanded with every bestiary published. I feel like that was a real issue in 1st edition. Unfortunately, I think they went too far in trying to avoid that problem. I wish they had gone the same route as the various combat form spells and just provided a couple of base templates for summons, with easily applied modifiers as the spells were heightened. It would take some variety away, but it would hopefully allow summons to be a little more useful than "I'm here to absorb a single hit at -10 MAP, then die."
I don't want summons to be too good in combat -- they shouldn't take the spotlight from martial characters, or pet-based classes, after all. At the moment, though, I feel like they're tuned too far in the other direction.
Yup, summoning being, let's be real, a pretty bad combat option is likely by design, and probably not a bad design decision if anything, they did make a class centered around the concept if that's your thing (summoner), with a reskinned animal companion archetype for the "necromancer" trope, while ensuring people couldn't cast "conjure barbarian army" and make a single fight last 4h during which it's your turn for 80% of it.
I don't think Paizo wants summoning spells to be used, but a lot of people online will swear it's a good option. It really isn't and clearly wasn't meant to be, and that's OK. I usually consider that PL-2 to PL-3 is guaranteed to be weaker than a single character action for action (even including the 1 sustain for 2 actions) and would have been a relatively "safe" tuning point to use, PL-5 is almost doubling the safety margin, that plus the fact Paizo happily erratas outstanding summon options that would be viable despite the level disparity is a clear indication they wanted to make real sure this wouldn't be a strategy
Hello, first time commenting here. The thing with summon is the scaling is inverse to players scaling. At level 1 you are getting a lvl -1 monster and at lvl 4-5 you get to summon a lvl 1 monster. For those early levels summon can be quiet useful in combat. After that? I agree it doesn't offer much and you are better off playing the summoner class. To me the idea was/is that early level summoning can be done with an easy 3 action spell but if you want more powerful summons then you should be using rituals. From a designing point of view it's brilliant and it makes sense. But... Rituals are kind of hard, requiere multiple players or NPC, and I have yet to see it used.
You're right, PL-3 summons can be relevant in combat and worth the action tax if you pick correctly (skunks and giant skunks come to mind as powerful outliers). PL-4 and PL-5 aren't in most cases, that put the "summon cutoff" at around level 7, even if in my experience there aren't that many good options competing for the "haste" spell slot
If you're a high level caster spending an action to sustain a spell, you're either sustaining two effects that synergize together or you're doing something wrong. Effortless Concentration is so critically important that i think paizo was wrong to not make it a class feature akin to weapon or crit specializations for martials.
Honestly, given how they seem to drop off at higher levels I've been considering homebrewing different rules for summons.
My current idea is to keep the scaling consistent, so something like (spell level * 2) - 3. Level 1/2 would be the same (-1, 1 receptively), but then it'd keep incrementing by 2 every level up till a max of level 17 for a level 10 spell. Another option is (spell level * 2) - 2, but I think that might be too strong at the level you get the creature.
I'll have to actually play with this rule at a higher level to see if it unbalances it, but IMO it looks like summons just get worse and worse at high level.
Something ive noticed at high levels is that although the level gap gets wider, overall toughness and utility does actually keep rising. You're going to be hard pressed to hit anything, but ive anecdotally been able to summon monsters with key offenses that target key weaknesses to much greater effect at high level than at low level, and they often stuck around for much longer.