Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

"The synthesist wears the eidolon like translucent, living armor."


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

51 to 100 of 171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Personally, the translucent bit has always annoyed me a bit. In order to look normal, just add clothes. Can anyone give me a solid reason to make them translucent other than "Because the book said so?"

In your own game, go nuts. But in PFS play, "because the book said so" is the rule.

*

Vic Wertz wrote:
Alex Draconis wrote:
The translucent bit limits options, it doesn't create them.
And what makes you think that's not deliberate?

I'm curious then about the mechanical and other game considerations that went into this choice then, if it is specifically intended to disallow character options and concepts. Because the way that I see it, when played responsibly (not with the intention to break the game) the synthesist is a wonderfully versatile archetype that enables lots of great concepts that cannot be mechanically built any other way.

For me this is an obvious bit of fluff to ignore in a home game. Obviously in PFS I will play by the fluff the Paizo dictates.

EDIT: Just to clarify, it is only synthesist eidolons that are translucent, right? Or are they all just colorless ectoplasmic blobs?

Silver Crusade **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Personally, the translucent bit has always annoyed me a bit. In order to look normal, just add clothes. Can anyone give me a solid reason to make them translucent other than "Because the book said so?"
In your own game, go nuts. But in PFS play, "because the book said so" is the rule.

Yes, but I would like to know the reasoning behind the rule. I disagree with the rule, but if I understood why it was in place, I might be fine with it. I'm not trying to be confrontational, it seems that a lot of players don't understand the purpose of this rule. It makes as much sense as saying "All goblins must be turquoise" and never providing a reason. And rules without a visible purpose tend to be bucked against.

Andoran

Saint Caleth wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Alex Draconis wrote:
The translucent bit limits options, it doesn't create them.
And what makes you think that's not deliberate?
I'm curious then about the mechanical and other game considerations that went into this choice then, if it is specifically intended to disallow character options and concepts.

I'd love to hear about this as well.

Osirion *

Joseph Caubo wrote:

Even if we were to agree it is fluff text, you are at the whims of the GM and random table variation of rulings. If you sit at my table, it is translucent - end of story. You can disagree with it all you want, but it isn't going to sway the way I interpret how an archetype is designed for play. But as it stands, it's pretty RAW that it is translucent.

/I sure hope that summoners don't make Pathfinder 2.0
//At least get rid of synthesist summoners
///Personal opinion

I'll go with Translucent.

Mine is also skin tight (I get to define shape and appearance).

Translucent + skin tight = very difficult to see, especially when it is beneath my clothing.

Andoran

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Personally, the translucent bit has always annoyed me a bit. In order to look normal, just add clothes. Can anyone give me a solid reason to make them translucent other than "Because the book said so?"
In your own game, go nuts. But in PFS play, "because the book said so" is the rule.
Yes, but I would like to know the reasoning behind the rule. I disagree with the rule, but if I understood why it was in place, I might be fine with it. I'm not trying to be confrontational, it seems that a lot of players don't understand the purpose of this rule. It makes as much sense as saying "All goblins must be turquoise" and never providing a reason. And rules without a visible purpose tend to be bucked against.

When you sign up for PFS you agree not to buck against rules rather you understand them or not. And Vic's not likely the person who wrote Synthesist (correct me if I'm wrong) he's just pointing out that the rules are the rules.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't actually even know who wrote that particular bit, but I strongly suspect that the intent is specifically to make it *not* equal to a free disguise, which, as many people have pointed out, there are other ways to get.

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
And rules without a visible purpose tend to be bucked against.

If we explained the reasoning behind every rule that anyone could possibly think may be arbitrary, the Core Rulebook would be a couple thousand pages, and actually far less helpful to people who assume that the designers usually have a reason for saying things in a particular way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Because the book said so" is pretty much why we have every rule in the game.

Normal Eidolon have to look fantastical and can't resemble any living creature.

Synth Summoners have to wear a transluscent body.

Why for either? Because it says you do. You don't get to play the "that rule is stupid so it shouldn't exist" card.

Why does it exist imo? So that you can always tell that there is someone in the suit. They don't get to pretend they are some other creature entirely- in essence an alter self or free disguise.

They get a boat load of benefits for being a Synthesist. One small penalty is that the suit is transluscent. Why? Because the guy(s) who created it thought that it was appropriate.

Its the same reason we have any of our rules that apply to things that don't exist in the real world (and even some things that do exist in the real world.. like how far you can jump with an acrobatics check.)

If it being transluscent ruins your character concept, change your character concept. Fit your concept to what is actually possible under the rules. Don't change rules to fit your character concept.

or.. yanno.. cast a spell to change it or something. Like alter self, polymorph, get a hat if disguise for it to wear or something.

-S

Cheliax *

Vic Wertz wrote:
Alex Draconis wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Whether you think it's "fluff" or not, it is what it is. Fireballs begin as glowing, pea-sized beads, and detonate with a low roar. Fused eidolons are translucent. Just because those things are descriptive doesn't mean you get to change them at your whim.

And what do Magic Missiles look like Vic? Oh that's right they can look like whatever you want. Blue, green, mauve, balls, arrows, glowing mugs of ale. It doesn't modify the spellcraft (mechanical) check to identify but they can look however you like.

The difference there is those interpretations don't actually contradict with what's written in the rulebook, so long as they still fit the description of "missiles of magical energy." Saying the synthesist's eidolon is *not* translucent *does* actually contradict what's written in the rulebook, and in PFS play, you don't get to make that call.

Perhaps what's written in the rulebook should be changed then to be inclusive of what people want to play rather than exclusionary.

Incorporating people's ideas rather than telling us what we have to make and look like. Because really how long until your view of society, you telling us how it IS can no longer can incorporate my concepts and I can no longer participate?

When did this authoritarian streak start?

Osirion *

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Kerney wrote:
That pretty much makes the 'fool proof alter self' a strawman argument.
I disagree. If the summoner is hidden inside and the eidolon simply looks like a lone creature, and you do not have a skill to identify the significance of the glowing symbol, then...

I could probably come up with several other very plausable in-game reasons to have the symbol of my god on my forehead. (The symbol is undefined in RAW, I get to choose.)

Osirion *

Dragnmoon wrote:
This control is not fine enough to make the eidolon appear like a specific creature.

That means I cannot make myself look like Fred the town blacksmith.

It does not mean I cannot take a human appearance.

Cheliax *

ShadowcatX wrote:
When you sign up for PFS you agree not to buck against rules rather you understand them or not. And Vic's not likely the person who wrote Synthesist (correct me if I'm wrong) he's just pointing out that the rules are the rules.

I know who wrote the synthesist. I asked Jason Bulmahn at KublaCon 2011. I wanted him to thank them personally for writing my favorite class, scratch that my formerly favorite class, the one class where you get to customize your appearance to match your concept.

Seriously.
Wow you know this just made up my mind. I'm being honest here I was thinking about going to PaizoCon this year because PainLord always seems to have a good time. But ya no way, I had a feeling this would come up, I'm not going to get into rules err fluff arguments over a game.
Not even kidding.

Shadow Lodge ***

Vic Wertz wrote:
Kerney wrote:
Defining it as only translucent was a mistake.

Because... you don't like it?

No, because translucent doesn't match anything in history, mythology, anthropology or even much in comic books and anime (and I gave some specifics in my earlier post).

But in my case, I take pride in making my witch a hedge witch rural naturey type, or making a swashbuckler (ninja/fighter multiclass)resemble something out of Alexander Dumas novel or a Douglas Fairbanks movie. I made an 'oriental' paladin class character before there was rules for naginatas and katanas. But basically I usually find a way to make the mechanics fit the fluff I'm creating. It is something I take great pride in.

In the Non PFS Carrion Crown Game I currently play a synthesist who was experimented on by her mother in vitro so she wouldn't be born a siamese twin. The problem is when she's in Eidolon form its that suppressed twin part coming out, in the form of an extra head, the strength of two, sharp claws etc.
This concept, and a 100 others I could think of work well within the mechanical framework of the synthesist. But the translucent fluff gets in the way of most of those concepts for PFS. But unlike most things, which I can adjust to my liking through traits, alternate racial abilities and feats or templates, the translucent form is written in stone, in such a way that is limiting but for no logical or mechanically sound reason. It's basically fluff that gets in the way of interesting, player created fluff.

I don't think this was the intention of the authors. But it is, based off some of the reactions of 'it's translucent because the book says so, now shut up' reactions, it's shutting people down simply because many GMs are suspicious of or dislike this archetype or suspect the player in question of being a power gamer cheesemeister simply because they are playing this archetype, getting in the way of good roleplaying and exacerbating the suspicion around this archetype for no good reason.

That is why I dislike this bit of fluff.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alex Draconis wrote:
Perhaps what's written in the rulebook should be changed then to be inclusive of what people want to play rather than exclusionary.

So if people want to sneak attack without being a rogue, we should include that? If people don't want to wait until they have second level spells to cast alter self, we should allow that?

Rules, pretty much by definition, are determinate, and thus generally exclusionary. If you want a game where anybody can do anything they want, may I suggest Calvinball?

Alex Draconis wrote:
When did this authoritarian streak start?

In organized play, we all need to be playing by a common ruleset, and that needs to be the words printed in the books and PDFs. Call it authoritarian if you like, but it doesn't really *work* any other way.

Andoran *****

Alex Draconis wrote:
When did this authoritarian streak start?

There isnt an authoritarian streak going on. The rule has been this way since the synthesist was introduced. Some people thought it was ok to 're-flavor' this bit of fluff. Vic is telling you otherwise.

Also, threatening to quit isnt a good way to get your point across.

Andoran ****

Alex Draconis wrote:


When did this authoritarian streak start?

When you started playing Pathfinder Society and agreed to follow the rules?

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Would people be open to spending an evolution point to make their eidolon look more real if that was an option released in a future book?

Qadira ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alex Draconis wrote:

Wow you know this just made up my mind. I'm being honest here I was thinking about going to PaizoCon this year because PainLord always seems to have a good time. But ya no way, I had a feeling this would come up, I'm not going to get into rules err fluff arguments over a game.

Not even kidding.

A thread on a forum is enough to make you not want to enjoy an awesome time at Paizo Con? Does this not sound even slightly ludicrous to you because it is based around a discussion of game fluff vs. rules about one particular archetype?

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

Alex Draconis wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
When you sign up for PFS you agree not to buck against rules rather you understand them or not. And Vic's not likely the person who wrote Synthesist (correct me if I'm wrong) he's just pointing out that the rules are the rules.

I know who wrote the synthesist. I asked Jason Bulmahn at KublaCon 2011. I wanted him to thank them personally for writing my favorite class, scratch that my formerly favorite class, the one class where you get to customize your appearance to match your concept.

Seriously.
Wow you know this just made up my mind. I'm being honest here I was thinking about going to PaizoCon this year because PainLord always seems to have a good time. But ya no way, I had a feeling this would come up, I'm not going to get into rules err fluff arguments over a game.
Not even kidding.

I'd ask you to reconsider. I'm sure that the people who share differing view points from yours agree with you on other Pathfinder issues that you, too, take qualms with. It's through discussion and debate that we can get to the core of things and really strive to make them better. I think it's a shame that the discussion thus far has led to this.

Personally, regarding synthesists, I'm fine with people having a customizable creature, as long as everyone knows what's going on. I'm sure your gaming group would agree (provided they all act mature). However, in PFS, or any kind of conglomerated role-playing event, you need some pretty stringent rules to keep things from getting to far out of hand. While somewhat heavy-handed, one could say, the transparency/translucency thing serves the function of preventing the cheese / alter-self exploitation. Is it the best solution? Perhaps not. If we have a respectful discussion perhaps we can find a better one.

Stick around for a bit and help us out, Alex. I'm interested in your opinions.

EDIT: late to the party, as usual -- see Vic's post above for what I was trying to stammer out :P

*

Vic Wertz wrote:
Alex Draconis wrote:
When did this authoritarian streak start?

In organized play, we all need to be playing by a common ruleset, and that needs to be the words printed in the books and PDFs. Call it authoritarian if you like, but it doesn't really *work* any other way.

It is pretty clear that there are certain concepts that Paizo doesn't seem to want, at least in PFSOP. Things like the synthesist being used to simulate a "monstrous" character race , two-handed weapon monks, and multiclassed builds that requite Magical Knack to be viable are among these concepts. I am fine with just playing concepts like this in home play, since PSFOP is Paizo's "Home Campaign" and thus their canonical world with its own feel and home rules.

Silver Crusade **

ShadowcatX wrote:
Would people be open to spending an evolution point to make their eidolon look more real if that was an option released in a future book?

That sounds like a brilliant option to resolve this issue. As long as it is available at level 1, it should be good. Of course, there is always the skilled evolution for a +8 to disguise, which sounds like it would do something similar. Should we instead come up with something on how disguise works for an eidolan?

Shadow Lodge ***

Vic Wertz wrote:


Alexander_Damocles wrote:
And rules without a visible purpose tend to be bucked against.
If we explained the reasoning behind every rule that anyone could possibly think may be arbitrary, the Core Rulebook would be a couple thousand pages, and actually far less helpful to people who assume that the designers usually have a reason for saying things in a particular way.

The thing is, most of the choices in the core rulebook or the APG or whatever are pretty self explainitory or have enough to them that, even if you disagree, you disagree mildly and go 'I'm not sure I like this but I can go along with it'. Most attempts to limit things seem logical in a way that doesn't get in the way of your suspension of disbelief. Very little seems arbitrary in over 98% of the material.

This seems like, at least to many, part of the 2% that does seem arbitrary and gets in the way of ones sense of disbelief. Unlike most of that 2%, it also comes across as arbitrary in a way that matters, in the sense that players shy away from playing a class because they don't want to end up is stupid little fluff wars. That is a pretty good argument for it being part of maybe the .25% that probably should be explained or revised.

Respectfully,

Kerney

Shadow Lodge ***

Joseph Caubo wrote:
Alex Draconis wrote:

Wow you know this just made up my mind. I'm being honest here I was thinking about going to PaizoCon this year because PainLord always seems to have a good time. But ya no way, I had a feeling this would come up, I'm not going to get into rules err fluff arguments over a game.

Not even kidding.
A thread on a forum is enough to make you not want to enjoy an awesome time at Paizo Con? Does this not sound even slightly ludicrous to you because it is based around a discussion of game fluff vs. rules about one particular archetype?

Remember the very long 'pig' thread we had about 6 month ago. Imagine going through that much of headache at every table you sat down at. That is what the Synthesist seems like an invitation to every time you sit down with an unknown GM. That is why it is a 'not even kidding'.

Lantern Lodge

because i honestly want to see the translucent bull removed from the synthesist.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Luminiere Solas wrote:
because i honestly want to see the translucent bull removed from the synthesist.

Well since you don't play PFS, why does it matter to you? You can do whatever you want in your home campaign.

Lantern Lodge

sometimes, i like to push concepts that while not mechanically different from a similar PC, have exotic fluff or backgrounds that OP can't touch. and sometimes, i like to genre bend to a point. concept is a very important thing to me. sometimes i might want to play something like a luchador (reflavored tetori) in the middle of ustalav or a "bard" who is really not a wandering poet but an earls errant yet highly educated neice/nephew. i might want to play a rogue that is actually a "Detective" and not a guttersnipe or a "Concept Cleric" who is reskinned as a divinely imbued "samurai" who draws his/her mystical power from thier devotion to the ideals of bushido and fights with a katana in the name of thier lord.

Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Luminiere Solas, let me ask you an honest question:

Right now, it appears that there's some character concept that you could realize with an opaque synthesist eidolon, but not with a translucent synthesist eidolon. Okay.

How would you have realized this concept last year, when there weren't any synthesists? Or the year before that, when there weren't any summoners? Or the year before that, when e were still working in the D&D 3.5 core rules? Have you really been waiting three years, in order to play the only character concept that will satisfy you?

I say this, as the guy who wouldn't let Kevin Wixson's wife reskin her pony as a pig. Sometimes, if it's you against a river, go with the flow.

Lantern Lodge

Chris Mortika wrote:

Luminiere Solas, let me ask you an honest question:

Right now, it appears that there's some character concept that you could realize with an opaque synthesist eidolon, but not with a translucent synthesist eidolon. Okay.

How would you have realized this concept last year, when there weren't any synthesists? Or the year before that, when there weren't any summoners? Or the year before that, when e were still working in the D&D 3.5 core rules? Have you really been waiting three years, in order to play the only character concept that will satisfy you?

I say this, as the guy who wouldn't let Kevin Wixson's wife reskin her pony as a pig. Sometimes, if it's you against a river, go with the flow.

i haven't been waiting three years to play a synthesist. i just had bad experiences with the 4e RPGA 5 years ago when the players there seemed like robots who didn't allow improvisation. there were so many oppurtunities to improvise something out of the box, and both the players and the DM said "no" and then proceeded to degrade me on my first day. i stopped playing it immediately after they had insulted me the whole session.

if i do play a synthesist in the future, it won't be in PFS. but yes, i have a few concept ideas that would work best with an opaque synthesist eidolon.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Luminiere Solas wrote:
sometimes, i like to push concepts that while not mechanically different from a similar PC, have exotic fluff or backgrounds that OP can't touch. and sometimes, i like to genre bend to a point. concept is a very important thing to me. sometimes i might want to play something like a luchador (reflavored tetori) in the middle of ustalav or a "bard" who is really not a wandering poet but an earls errant yet highly educated neice/nephew. i might want to play a rogue that is actually a "Detective" and not a guttersnipe or a "Concept Cleric" who is reskinned as a divinely imbued "samurai" who draws his/her mystical power from thier devotion to the ideals of bushido and fights with a katana in the name of thier lord.

I don't see why any of those concepts can't be done in PFS to be honest. Well except for the cleric that doesn't worship a deity bit. A Battle Oracle would seem to fit your "samurai" though.

As long as you follow the archetype or class as written, you can fluff it up all you want. As long as your wrestler is a wrestler and not a monkey king or something. I don't care where your wrestler learned his wrestling.

Not all rogues are guttersnipes, and not all bards are wandering poets.

Seems you are stereotyping a bit.

Shadow Lodge ***

Luminiere Solas wrote:
sometimes, i like to push concepts that while not mechanically different from a similar PC, have exotic fluff or backgrounds that OP can't touch. and sometimes, i like to genre bend to a point. concept is a very important thing to me. sometimes i might want to play something like a luchador (reflavored tetori) in the middle of ustalav or a "bard" who is really not a wandering poet but an earls errant yet highly educated neice/nephew. i might want to play a rogue that is actually a "Detective" and not a guttersnipe or a "Concept Cleric" who is reskinned as a divinely imbued "samurai" who draws his/her mystical power from thier devotion to the ideals of bushido and fights with a katana in the name of thier lord.

Most of that is possible in PFS. In fact my paladin came from Minkai and used a 'naginata' (glaive reskinned), worshiped her ancestress the sun who the barb--inhabitants of Avistian called Sarenrae.

My half orc alchemist grew up in a loving home, in a match made with love philters, and learned the art of Orcish barbacue from his father and definately didn't fit the 'savage' stereotype. He is concerned in game about marrying off his little sisters (one is a bard, therefore Charisma is not dump stat, he proudly says when breaking the fourth wall).

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Luminiere Solas wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

Luminiere Solas, let me ask you an honest question:

Right now, it appears that there's some character concept that you could realize with an opaque synthesist eidolon, but not with a translucent synthesist eidolon. Okay.

How would you have realized this concept last year, when there weren't any synthesists? Or the year before that, when there weren't any summoners? Or the year before that, when e were still working in the D&D 3.5 core rules? Have you really been waiting three years, in order to play the only character concept that will satisfy you?

I say this, as the guy who wouldn't let Kevin Wixson's wife reskin her pony as a pig. Sometimes, if it's you against a river, go with the flow.

i haven't been waiting three years to play a synthesist. i just had bad experiences with the 4e RPGA 5 years ago when the players there seemed like robots who didn't allow improvisation. there were so many oppurtunities to improvise something out of the box, and both the players and the DM said "no" and then proceeded to degrade me on my first day. i stopped playing it immediately after they had insulted me the whole session.

if i do play a synthesist in the future, it won't be in PFS. but yes, i have a few concept ideas that would work best with an opaque synthesist eidolon.

So you are going to paint every organized play with the same brush based on one bad experience with 4E OP? Really?

I have played and GM'd Living Greyhawk, Living City, Living Dragonstar (which I helped coordinate and develop for 3 years), Living Arcanis, Living L5R (forget what it was actually called), Living Ravenloft (was actually rewritten as a victorian age detective / sorta cthulu-esque and went by a different name but forget what it was), and a couple others. I have also been playing PFS for over a year now.

I have run into jerks and great people in all of them. But by and far, the great people outweighed the jerks.

As for painting an organized play the same as LARP, I think you don't know what LARPing actually is. I have also played IFGS and some Vampire Minds Eye. IFGS does have a rulebook for the world that every chapter is expected to follow, and yet, there were tons of options in the rule book that allowed for customization. Minds Eye Theater is not organized play necessarily. There may be organizations that have ongoing MET games that work similarly to organized play, but I don't believe White Wolf runs it.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I just have a problem with people viewing this as "fluff that has an unintended mechanical consequence." I would never have come up with that interpretation, as it seems completely obvious to me that the mechanical distinction *is* intentional, that the goal of the phrase is to eliminate the idea that the eidolon can be used to disguise the synthesist as anything he wants, and that it's not actually fluff at all.

It's one thing to argue that that it could be developed in a way that allows for more flexibility (like Kerney's conjoined twin idea) while still preventing the eidolon from being a "disguise myself as any monster" kit, but trying to argue that it's only a mechanical element by accident is actually pretty insulting in my view. Our writers—and Jason more than many—understand how to write description that doesn't include unintended mechanical elements.

Taldor ***

I think that we should look at it this way. We're playing in the Goalrion setting and there are certain things you can and can't do in this setting because of how things are.

You can't have a Cleric or Paladin of Aroden even if you want to run that concept, because Aroden is dead. You can't just run a Cleric of Law and Travel and honor his teaching because you need a divine patron in this setting to cast magic as a cleric.

While Pathfinders might be able to summon and command monstrous creatures, outsiders and fey, they cannot be one. Suddenly a class appears that enables you to play essentially what is not allowed, the caveat is that you are unable to look exactly like the creatures you are emulating and it's quite obvious that it's only a translucent suit. Why? Because this is Golarion and that's just how things are regardless of what your concept is.

Imagine a game in Middle Earth and having a player who want to play an orc on the side of the Rider of Rohan by playing an elf inside an eidelon. To him it's a tragic personal story of racial redemption of his fallen brethren, the anyone else who's familiar setting it's a blatant disregard of the established canon.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a couple posts (and the replies to those posts).

Telling people they're having badwrongfun isn't cool.

Osirion *

Vic Wertz wrote:

I just have a problem with people viewing this as "fluff that has an unintended mechanical consequence." I would never have come up with that interpretation, as it seems completely obvious to me that the mechanical distinction *is* intentional, that the goal of the phrase is to eliminate the idea that the eidolon can be used to disguise the synthesist as anything he wants, and that it's not actually fluff at all.

It's one thing to argue that that it could be developed in a way that allows for more flexibility (like Kerney's conjoined twin idea) while still preventing the eidolon from being a "disguise myself as any monster" kit, but trying to argue that it's only a mechanical element by accident is actually pretty insulting in my view. Our writers—and Jason more than many—understand how to write description that doesn't include unintended mechanical elements.

And yet eidolons are explicitly able to do just this when not attached to a synthesist. To the point of having an entire section of Ultimate magic dedicated to the subject.

The whole point of playing a synthesist is the ability to build concepts not otherwise supported by the rules, and your destroying that unlimited roleplay potential over fluff.

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
Living Dragonstar (which I helped coordinate and develop for 3 years)

I knew I recognized your name. :-)

Cheliax *

Vic Wertz wrote:

I just have a problem with people viewing this as "fluff that has an unintended mechanical consequence." I would never have come up with that interpretation, as it seems completely obvious to me that the mechanical distinction *is* intentional, that the goal of the phrase is to eliminate the idea that the eidolon can be used to disguise the synthesist as anything he wants, and that it's not actually fluff at all.

It's one thing to argue that that it could be developed in a way that allows for more flexibility (like Kerney's conjoined twin idea) while still preventing the eidolon from being a "disguise myself as any monster" kit, but trying to argue that it's only a mechanical element by accident is actually pretty insulting in my view. Our writers—and Jason more than many—understand how to write description that doesn't include unintended mechanical elements.

Bravo, see there's a reasonable point of view. Although probably could have been brought up months ago in the other thread addressing this same issue. See we don't all hide under your desk. But that's neither here nor there, I can roll with that premise.

Now that being said let's elucidate the points. You guys are concerned that it can be used as some kind of disguise. Cute notion as it's an outlandish possibility and there's a hell of a lot easier ways to get magic disguises than take an entire class but ok ok that's good let's go with that. No judgements.

We, hi, ya me and others. You know the guys who are your ardent supporters, have all your products, have a very very low 4 digit (18XX) Society number been there from day one, well we want to play what we want. I don't want a cheap monster disguise I want to play.... brace yourself for this...a horse. Ok ya a flaming, flying, scary as hell horse but you get the idea. This class allows me to do that. Well except for the 2 hours a day they have to sleep but let's not go there at the moment.

You basically said you're in a cheap transparent monster suit. Hmmm that sort of makes things difficult for oh I don't know the people who want to be angels or at least look like it.

See now here's the deal. I don't see why the two points are mutually exclusive. There is cake and we can eat it. Simply add a bit more where you're satisfied that it can't be used as a disguise but not transparent and leave it open to interpretation. The interpretations I outlined in yon earlier thread. Actually I thought that what the whole sigil thing was for but I guess not.

See then the mechanically inclined and us fluffy types can get along once more and be one big uh happy..anatagonistic family again.

Oh and nobody is knocking Jason(nice guy, I will say hi at Kubla next month) or anyone else. In this case it falls under the rarer unintended nonmechanical element.

Taldor *** Venture-Lieutenant, North Carolina—Asheville aka zylphryx

Alex Draconis wrote:
I don't want a cheap monster disguise I want to play.... brace yourself for this...a horse. Ok ya a flaming, flying, scary as hell horse but you get the idea.

soooo ... a nightmare? ;)

The basic point is, you are still using it as a means to disguise your <insert actual character race here> as something else. Hence it becomes a "cheap monster disguise". I can't see any way that it would not be if the limitation was not in place (aside from the conjoined twin concept previously mentioned).

Cheliax *

zylphryx wrote:
Alex Draconis wrote:
I don't want a cheap monster disguise I want to play.... brace yourself for this...a horse. Ok ya a flaming, flying, scary as hell horse but you get the idea.

soooo ... a nightmare? ;)

The basic point is, you are still using it as a means to disguise your <insert actual character race here> as something else. Hence it becomes a "cheap monster disguise". I can't see any way that it would not be if the limitation was not in place (aside from the conjoined twin concept previously mentioned).

Indeed. But see that's the thing. I've never even heard of people using or intending to use the class like that and I get around let me tell ya. I think it perhaps might be an overanalysis, but still it's within the realm of possibility I will concede. Still I think it's fringe. If anything Synths are MORE distinctive and prone to attention.

Ok so here's an example of the versatility of the class. Werewolves, Werecats, hamsters, whatever. I say my character was bitten by said hamster err wolf and now he sometimes wolfs out (taking a minute to change. The ritual duration as written.)

"Nay, or neigh ;), dear sir. See page XX you my friend are a guy in a transparent muppet suit. Have fun with that."

Shadow Lodge ***

Vic Wertz wrote:
I just have a problem with people viewing this as "fluff that has an unintended mechanical consequence." I would never have come up with that interpretation, as it seems completely obvious to me that the mechanical distinction *is* intentional, that the goal of the phrase is to eliminate the idea that the eidolon can be used to disguise the synthesist as anything he wants, and that it's not actually fluff at all.

It equally never occured to me until reading this thread that there would be the idea 'that the eidolon can be used to disguise the synthesist as anything he wants'. To me the rules about eidolon in the apg not looking 'quite right' would have covered that, if it had ever came up.

I then looked around and could find no reason. To me, it was the very first glitch I'd seen in the system. Compared to the dozens of glitches I'd seen in 3.5, I simply thought, even the best make a mistake once in a very long while.

Vic Wertz wrote:
It's one thing to argue that that it could be developed in a way that allows for more flexibility (like Kerney's conjoined twin idea) while still preventing the eidolon from being a "disguise myself as any monster" kit, but trying to argue that it's only a mechanical element by accident is actually pretty insulting in my view. Our writers—and Jason more than many—understand how to write description that doesn't include unintended mechanical elements.

I know that my intent was not to insult and I appologize for any anger this has caused.

Andoran *****

Lady Nocturne wrote:
Indeed. But see that's the thing. I've never even heard of people using or intending to use the class like that and I get around let me tell ya. I think it perhaps might be an overanalysis, but still it's within the realm of possibility I will concede. Still I think it's fringe. If anything Synths are MORE distinctive and prone to attention.

If you cannot see the actual character (race, features, gender, etc), such as you seem to want to do with your 'nightmare' idea, then YOU are using it as a disguise.

Also, not to argue the form you choose, but just so you know, it's been ruled that if the eidolon doesnt have arms, then the summoner inside cannot cast spells that require movement.

**

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If it isn't translucent then how do I see out? :p

"HELP ITS DARK IN HERE!"

51 to 100 of 171 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / "The synthesist wears the eidolon like translucent, living armor." All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.