| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does Eidolon Reach(Ex) Evolution work with manufactured weapons?
Below is how I came to the conclusion that it does. Any comments on how I came to this conclusion are appreciated.
This post is mostly to try and flesh out how Reach(ex) for Eidolons actually works. These assumptions and reasoning are based from Pathfinder Unchained and obviously related to Advanced Player guide to a smaller extent. My goal is to get this information onto the FAQ.
First, I'm going to supply information directly from the Pathfinder Unchained. Then I will draw conclusions from this information. Then I will go into how reach works given these conclusions.
limbs. These limbs can take one of two forms. They can
be made into legs, complete with feet. Each pair of legs
increases the eidolon’s base speed by 10 feet. Alternatively,
they can be made into arms, complete with hands. The
eidolon does not gain any additional natural attacks for
an additional pair of arms, but it can take other evolutions
that add additional attacks (such as claws or slam). Arms
that have hands can be used to wield weapons, if the
eidolon is prof icient. This evolution can be selected more
than once.
Conclusion: As we can see, Arms come come in pairs. These limbs don't grant natural attacks on their own. You must pick up the evolution claws or slam if they are not granted in the subtype or base form.
the ends of its limbs, giving it two claw attacks. These
attacks are primary attacks. The claws deal 1d4 points of
damage (1d6 if Large, 1d8 if Huge). The eidolon must have
the limbs evolution to take this evolution. This evolution
can be selected more than once, up to the number of limbs
evolutions the eidolon possesses. This evolution can be
applied to any number of limbs (arms) evolutions, but
no more than one limbs (legs) evolution.
Conclusion: You need the limbs evolution for this. You get two claws per limbs evolution you apply this to.
attack. This attack is a primary attack. The slam deals 1d8
points of damage (2d6 if Large, 2d8 if Huge). The eidolon
must have the limbs (arms) evolution to take this evolution.
Alternatively, the eidolon can replace the claws from its base
form with this slam attack (this still costs 1 evolution point).
This evolution can be selected more than once, up to the
number of the eidolon’s limbs (arms) evolutions.
Conclusion: Slam replaces both claw attacks and requires limbs evolution. Its agreed in general that unless a creature is using its body to slam, it is using both its limbs. It is implied in this evolution that Slam uses both limbs since it requires the limb evolution and replaces both claw attacks. If you also take a look at the Angel Subtype, it gets slam which would replace both it's claws.
Now lets take a look at evolutions and how specific they are when it comes to types of attacks.
charged with energy. Select one energy type: acid, cold,
electricity, or f ire. All of the eidolon’s natural attacks
deal 1d6 points of energy damage of the chosen type on a
successful hit.
the ground with its bite, granting it a trip attack. Whenever
the eidolon makes a successful bite attack, it can attempt
a free combat maneuver check.
allowing it to treat all of its natural attacks as if they were
magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
attacks is particularly deadly. Select one natural attack form
and increase the damage die by one step. This evolution
can be selected more than once. Its effects do not stack.
Each time the eidolon selects this evolution, it applies to
a different natural attack.
striking foes at a distance. Select one attack. The eidolon’s
reach with that attack increases by 5 feet.
Take a look at all of those evolutions. All of them are extremely specific on what they work with. There are many more that I didn't include but are just as specific, however I Included ones that specify Natural Attacks or a specific attack such or Bite. Keep note that Reach(Ex) has been printed in APG and Unchained. In the time between APG and Unchained the question of Reach working on manufactured has always been a question. It has neither been addressed in the FAQ and neither has it been changed between prints.
Conclusion: There is nothing that prevents the Reach(ex) evolution from working on your manufactured weapon attacks.
However there is one extremely glaring problem. In the APG FAQ there is this entry.
Summoner: If I choose the reach evolution for my eidolon, how many of its attacks gains increased reach?
The ability description says "pick one attack," not "pick one attack type." So if your eidolon has two claws and you pick "claw" for the reach evolution, only one claw gets increased reach. (The reach evolution is intended to let you emulate having a dragon-eidolon, as a dragon's bite attack has greater reach than its claws.)
You might try to argue given this FAQ that Reach(ex) will only work on one of your limbs, therefore you might be able to get reach with a one-handed weapon but not a two-handed weapon. However, please remember my entry on Slam above. Slam attack uses both of your limbs and there is nothing preventing you from applying Reach(ex) to a slam attack that uses two limbs.
Final Conclusion: Reach doesn't care if you use one limb or two limbs for the attack. It still gets reach. In all honesty I think, given the fact slam replaces both claws and still can have Reach(ex) added to it, that both claw attacks should also get reach.
In all honestly Reach(Ex) should be reworded. A few example I recommend are
striking foes at a distance. The eidolon’s
reach with attacks made by those limbs evolution or that extremity increases by 5 feet.
Because in reality reach is just making your limbs or extremity longer to make the attack.
Otherwise reword it to be more specific to what it affects. Exclude weapons if its not intended, but it needs to be as specific as every other evolution that is also listed.
You might argue that this makes the Reach(ex) not as good for natural attackers as it does for weapon users. This is true, however weapon users are almost completely excluded from any of the other attack altering evolutions.
Thanks for reading. Any comments are appreciated. As mentioned earlier I just want this issue addressed.
with the Reach Evolution, you still have your regular "natural reach", plus one natural attack with additional reach. The reach evolution applies to your claws (or slam attack), not the arms that those claws are on.
It's an old argument, so expect table variation. Common sense tells you those limbs would have reach in general, but the rules never explicitly state one way or the other. Game design would suggest that the reach evolution only apply to that one attack type, as otherwise things get weird.
I just don't understand why there has yet to be an FAQ for it. This has been an issue that's been around for a while.
Every single Evolution is extremely specific but Reach(Ex) is not. Its been printed in two different sources and yet the wording hasn't changed. If they didn't want it to work for manufactured weapons they only had to add 'Natural Attacks' just like they did for every single other evolution.
They clearly intend for Eidolons to use weapons. The Azata subtype gets the Weapon Training(Martial) Evolution for free.
I just don't understand why there has yet to be an FAQ for it. This has been an issue that's been around for a while.
Every single Evolution is extremely specific but Reach(Ex) is not. Its been printed in two different sources and yet the wording hasn't changed. If they didn't want it to work for manufactured weapons they only had to add 'Natural Attacks' just like they did for every single other evolution.
They clearly intend for Eidolons to use weapons. The Azata subtype gets the Weapon Training(Martial) Evolution for free.
Seriously, dude.
The ability description says "pick one attack," not "pick one attack type." So if your eidolon has two claws and you pick "claw" for the reach evolution, only one claw gets increased reach. (The reach evolution is intended to let you emulate having a dragon-eidolon, as a dragon's bite attack has greater reach than its claws.)
It gives you a clarification, one that even precludes general weapon use, and a clarification of intent for further interpretation you might need.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does "pick one attack" preclude weapon use? If they had said "pick one natural attack" then it would certainly preclude weapons.
So "pick one attack"? So that could be anything that is listed as an attack. Melee Attack, Unarmed Attack, and Natural Attack. They never specify the type of attack. In almost every other Eidolon ability they took great care to restrict the type of attack.
I get 2 claw attacks, I'm allowed to pick one of them.
I get 3 Melee attacks, which is defined as an attack with a melee weapon, so I can only pick one melee attack.
More than likely I won't be picking it up and trying to use it this way. It would be quite annoying having to remember which DMs would agree or disagree at the different PFS tables. I'm sure a few would agree, its about 50:50 on the answers I've seen to this question. Hell most of the big summoner guides think Reach(Ex) works with melee weapons. Of course this doesn't mean its right. It isn't like it unbalances anything either. Pounce Eidolons are already much better DPR than a weapon wielder would be even if Reach(Ex) worked for melee.
It's just annoying that they could have simply put "pick one natural attack" and this would be a non-issue.
there is no "manufactured weapon" attack. That is why.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there is no "manufactured weapon" attack. That is why.
Under Attack in the CBR pg 182
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can
strike any opponent within 5 feet.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches,
kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee
weapon
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons,
such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be
made against any creature within your reach (usually
5 feet).
And to compound it even more, bite, claws, etc are considered weapons, albeit natural. They aren't even considered attacks on their own. They are only considered attacks when you attack with them, and then they are classified as natural attacks.
I think a normal melee weapon is a manufactured weapon. Once again, another example of why if they had simply been more specific and said 'natural attack' this would be a non-issue. They had no problem identifying things to the letter in all other other evolutions. Like trip evolution can only be added to attacks made with Bite or Improved Damage(Ex) can only be added to one natural attack form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention it has been 5 years between the two iterations of Reach(Ex) in APG and Unchained.
In that 5 years they don't have anything in the FAQ about Reach(Ex) and manufactured weapons, and they still haven't change the wording of the evolution to clear up the matter.
The changes to Summoner, other than a few spell changes, were specifically targeted at balancing Eidolons in Unchained.
Not to mention it has been 5 years between the two iterations of Reach(Ex) in APG and Unchained.
In that 5 years they don't have anything in the FAQ about Reach(Ex) and manufactured weapons, and they still haven't change the wording of the evolution to clear up the matter.
The changes to Summoner, other than a few spell changes, were specifically targeted at balancing Eidolons in Unchained.
Because there's nothing to clear up. You are asserting ambivalence that isn't there, because you want it to go your way. Nobody else thinks you're even halfway right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody huh?
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ltoi?Eidolon-Reach-with-a-Weapon#2
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2npj0?Eidolon-Reach-with-Weapons-Question#1
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pyep?eidolon-Reach-evolution#1
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mwbh?Reach-Eidolon#1
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rmnd?Reach#1
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22076/can-an-eidolon-apply-a-reach-e volution-to-a-weapon-attack
Just a handful of threads I found in under 5 minutes that are talking about reach mechanics under the assumption Reach(Ex) works for weapons. Ultimately, it comes down to your DM. Hence why I'm out to get it cleared up. There have been FAQ posts for stuff that is even clearer than this issue.
There's plenty of people who think it works this way, and plenty more that actually use it in PF and PFS games like this. The entire things is extremely ambiguous, mostly because every other evolution clearly states what it works for. However, Reach(Ex) isn't nearly as explicit as all the other evolutions.
I just want a definite answer of yes or no. Right now from what I have read you have a few options; Yes it works, No it doesn't work, and by RAW you can but ask your DM first. I don't care which way it goes. I just want some real answers.
So, what do you exactly want?
1) Increase reach with a manufactured weapon.
2) Get a dev response and accept it.
3) Be right.
In case of 1), the Long Arm spell might be a better choice than the reach evolution. If it's about 2), just ask us directly to FAQ, without much additional text - a big starting post is likely to alienate many forumites, even if the content is well-thought. And finally, if it's about 3), you won't be able to convince everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, what do you exactly want?
1) Increase reach with a manufactured weapon.
2) Get a dev response and accept it.
3) Be right.In case of 1), the Long Arm spell might be a better choice than the reach evolution. If it's about 2), just ask us directly to FAQ, without much additional text - a big starting post is likely to alienate many forumites, even if the content is well-thought. And finally, if it's about 3), you won't be able to convince everyone.
Thanks for the constructive response.
I just want an answer. The long tangent isn't so much so people agree with me really. It's mostly just a long winded example of reasoning for it to work. I figured if it wasn't intended to work this way, by pointing out a logical reasoning for it to work, then maybe we might actually see an FAQ for it or something.
That means that if someone says 'no' and a reason, I look for a counter to it. If I can't find a counter I will concede it won't work. Otherwise, I will build my argument until it can't be simply ignored hoping it gets addressed by a Dev. I know this is wishful thinking, but its worth a try.
It mostly just annoys me that in every summoner guide, Reach(Ex) and Large(Ex) are the biggest staples and attraction to using a weapon wielder. If it doesn't actually work that way, I want to know for sure.
So in short, I just want it FAQ'd. Any FAQ clicks are greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Alright, FAQd.
Well, I happen to know the dev side - you have to work with limited time, limited energy, limited concentration. So extensive arguments can help the cause but sometimes they instead can be counterproductive ('Ugh, so much to read...').
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there is no "manufactured weapon" attack. That is why.Under Attack in the CBR pg 182
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can
strike any opponent within 5 feet.Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches,
kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee
weaponNatural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons,
such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be
made against any creature within your reach (usually
5 feet).And to compound it even more, bite, claws, etc are considered weapons, albeit natural. They aren't even considered attacks on their own. They are only considered attacks when you attack with them, and then they are classified as natural attacks.
I think a normal melee weapon is a manufactured weapon. Once again, another example of why if they had simply been more specific and said 'natural attack' this would be a non-issue. They had no problem identifying things to the letter in all other other evolutions. Like trip evolution can only be added to attacks made with Bite or Improved Damage(Ex) can only be added to one natural attack form.
You are conflating two different things. Yes there is an "attack" as in using some form of action to hurt to damage your opponent in the general sense of the word.
But you have to read in context. The Reach evolution is referring to an "attack" as defined by the eidolon rules. Each of the new attack evolutions say "eidolon gains a [type] attack."
Reach says "One of an eidolon's attacks]/b] is capable of striking at foes at a distance. Pick one [b]attack."emphasis added.
Now look at Weapon training. "Weapon Training (Ex): An eidolon learns to use a weapon, gaining Simple Weapon Proficiency as a bonus feat. If 2 additional evolution points are spent, it gains proficiency with all martial weapons as well." Eidolon does not gain a manufacture weapon "attack." Therefore reach doesn't apply to it. If you want reach with a manufactured weapon use a reach weapon like a spear or bardiche.
Alright, FAQd.
Well, I happen to know the dev side - you have to work with limited time, limited energy, limited concentration. So extensive arguments can help the cause but sometimes they instead can be counterproductive ('Ugh, so much to read...').
Really? If someone goes through all the source books to gather all the relevant material and combs the threads to collect every argument for or against, then pulls that all into a single place for a FAQ request, you think the devs are not going to read it?
That implies that when the devs respond to an FAQ, they don't review all the relevant materials or consider all the arguments for or against. That implies that the devs make every FAQ response off the cuff or by anal extrusion.
Please tell me that this is not true.
Really? If someone goes through all the source books to gather all the relevant material and combs the threads to collect every argument for or against, then pulls that all into a single place for a FAQ request, you think the devs are not going to read it?
That implies that when the devs respond to an FAQ, they don't review all the relevant materials or consider all the arguments for or against. That implies that the devs make every FAQ response off the cuff or by anal extrusion.
Please tell me that this is not true.
I never worked for Paizo and don't have any insider information about them. But I work as a game dev and if a player would come up with such a question, I'd only skim his statements first. A player's compilation of material can't be completely trusted - he could have left out something (on purpose or accidently) or changed something (again, on purpose or accidently). Carefire did a good job here, and others contributed valueable notes as well, but for best judgement, I'd dive into source material first, talk with fellow devs and make up my own mind. Then I'd read players' arguments and let them influence the decision.
Paizo might handle it differently, of course. But from what I see, they do much better than just gut decisions - luckily.
You are conflating two different things. Yes there is an "attack" as in using some form of action to hurt to damage your opponent in the general sense of the word.
But you have to read in context. The Reach evolution is referring to an "attack" as defined by the eidolon rules. Each of the new attack evolutions say "eidolon gains a [type] attack."
Reach says "One of an eidolon's attacks]/b] is capable of striking at foes at a distance. Pick one [b]attack."emphasis added.
Now look at Weapon training. "Weapon Training (Ex): An eidolon learns to use a weapon, gaining Simple Weapon Proficiency as a bonus feat. If 2 additional evolution points are spent, it gains proficiency with all martial weapons as well." Eidolon does not gain a manufacture weapon "attack." Therefore reach doesn't apply to it.[/b]...Being able to use a melee weapon grants you the ability to make a melee attack, which is defined as such. Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. They can't specify a weapon, because they have no idea what weapon you are going to use. The way you are making it look is, if they don't have an evolution that says they get it, they don't have that attack. With your reasoning my Eidolon couldn't do an unarmed attack to try and initiate a grapple. Take a look at monsters that use natural weapons and melee weapons together. The attacks are listed by the Natural or Manufactured weapon they are being made with. Unless manufactured weapons aren't actually melee attacks, which are classified as attacks, they just need to say natural attacks. All of the eidolons attacks other than weapon attacks are Natural Attacks.
I understand where you are coming from. I'm not saying you are wrong. However, as I have said countless times, Reach(Ex) isn't specific enough. If the assumption is that Evolutions only work for natural attacks or forms unless stated otherwise, they wouldn't have had to add "Natural Attacks" or attack forms to every other evolution. Read all the other evolutions if you haven't, they are extremely clear an how and what they work. I just want it clarified, because as its read it is ambiguous on what Reach(Ex) works for.
I can see it working and not working. I'm arguing it works, because if I argue it doesn't work I doubt it would get FAQ'd. If its FAQ'd as not working, I won't question it at all. But until it is, other people and myself can argue it works. Plenty of people play it as if it does work already.
Ultimately I just want it FAQ'd. Being right or wrong doesn't matter to me.
This is the kind of thing they will not FAQ, because the rule is not ambiguous. Of the 8 or so people who commented, you are the only person who thinks it should go the other way. That's not ambiguity, that is wishful thinking. The Devs have full time jobs writing new books, so they use their time wisely on even wading in on FAQ issues, let alone actually issuing one. This is not one of those times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the kind of thing they will not FAQ, because the rule is not ambiguous. Of the 8 or so people who commented, you are the only person who thinks it should go the other way. That's not ambiguity, that is wishful thinking. The Devs have full time jobs writing new books, so they use their time wisely on even wading in on FAQ issues, let alone actually issuing one. This is not one of those times.
Only 5 other people commented in this particular thread I believe. Two of them were hands down as much against it as I am for it. Another said that common sense dictates that reach would affect the limbs, in which case means it would translate to a weapon held in those limbs. They did mention though that it depends on the table and DM. One was constructive in giving me advice. Another recognized the effort and thought I put into this.
This may never get FAQ'd, but it's worth a try though. Thanks for your contribution.
Hasn't someone just asked the designer (whoever designed the summoner class) how they intended it to work?
Hasn't someone just asked the designer (whoever designed the summoner class) how they intended it to work?
Even assuming someone did, it would have almost no consequence in organized play, witch is the only place where asking this kind of FAQ have any reason to exist. Otherwise, the intent behind is quite clear.
|
This is the kind of thing they will not FAQ, because the rule is not ambiguous. Of the 8 or so people who commented, you are the only person who thinks it should go the other way. That's not ambiguity, that is wishful thinking. The Devs have full time jobs writing new books, so they use their time wisely on even wading in on FAQ issues, let alone actually issuing one. This is not one of those times.
I've been reading this and other related threads for some time, and I can assure you, plenty of other people are interested in this specific ambiguity, and wish it to be Faq'd. Me included. The assumptions you make to say it wouldn't work are the same assumptions I would use to say that it would, only in the opposite direction.
Saying an example excludes all other interpretations is fallicitous arguing. The dev's write the rules, and GM's and players interpret them to the best of their abilities, and when ambiguities occur or rules cross lines or something unforeseen shows up, they usually review it after some thought, and either adjust it or make a faq response. Case in point: The whole reason Unchained was released was to address some issues for certain classes, Summoner being among those classes. Yet they decided not to clarify one evolution with one small adjustment, simply stating that Reach does not apply to weapon attacks.
I agree with Carefire that a simple clarification would suffice. Yet here we are almost a year later, and I'm having to slog through hundreds of posts trying to find clarification for what would seemingly be a simple issue, and only getting arguments on both sides. Just because you believe your argument to be right does not preclude others from making arguments to the opposite that are just as valid.
Even when the dev pointed to a faq, the only thing I found was an example about bite. But perhaps I don't want bite. I mean, otherwise, why bother with a bipedal Azata who gets a martial weapon proficiency for free if I'm going to muck their attacks up with natural attacks? Why give the bipedal azata the proficiency? Are they not encouraging summoners to have eidolons with manufactured weapons?
All of this (in my opinion) leads back to having devs or playtesters who hunt for oddball interactions such as this one. I just started playing the summoner in pfs, and it came up the first day. Surely someone else has seen this as being potentially ambiguous and thought, "perhaps we should clarify." Note I am not saying that the rule should be "changed", merely clarified. One parenthetical, in fact. ...(applies to natural attacks only). Or better yet, add the word "natural" in front of the attack word in the description.
Still not convinced that Reach as written cannot apply to non-natural attacks.
|
|
This is the kind of thing they will not FAQ, because the rule is not ambiguous. Of the 8 or so people who commented, you are the only person who thinks it should go the other way. That's not ambiguity, that is wishful thinking. The Devs have full time jobs writing new books, so they use their time wisely on even wading in on FAQ issues, let alone actually issuing one. This is not one of those times.I've been reading this and other related threads for some time, and I can assure you, plenty of other people are interested in this specific ambiguity, and wish it to be Faq'd. Me included. The assumptions you make to say it wouldn't work are the same assumptions I would use to say that it would, only in the opposite direction.
Saying an example excludes all other interpretations is fallicitous arguing. The dev's write the rules, and GM's and players interpret them to the best of their abilities, and when ambiguities occur or rules cross lines or something unforeseen shows up, they usually review it after some thought, and either adjust it or make a faq response. Case in point: The whole reason Unchained was released was to address some issues for certain classes, Summoner being among those classes. Yet they decided not to clarify one evolution with one small adjustment, simply stating that Reach does not apply to weapon attacks.
I agree with Carefire that a simple clarification would suffice. Yet here we are almost a year later, and I'm having to slog through hundreds of posts trying to find clarification for what would seemingly be a simple issue, and only getting arguments on both sides. Just because you believe your argument to be right does not preclude others from making arguments to the opposite that are just as valid.
Even when the dev pointed to a faq, the only thing I found was an example about bite. But perhaps I don't want bite. I mean, otherwise, why bother with a bipedal Azata who gets a martial weapon proficiency for free if I'm going to muck...
Also, simply stating that the "Intent" is such and such doesn't validate the argument. The intent of PFS is for players to have a good time and enjoy themselves. I have been at many tables where this is not the case. Intent: : the thing that you plan to do or achieve : an aim or purpose. Doesn't always happen, unfortunately.