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

RPG Superstar 2015

Can a Synthesist (Summoner) also be a Wild-Caller?


Rules Questions


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just wondering on people's opinion if these two 'archetypes' can be incorporated with one character? I'm not sure if "class feature" is supposed to be considered the same as "class's eidolon ability".

Thanks for any replies/help!!

(Wild-caller wording)

This ability alters the normal summoner’s eidolon
class feature, but is otherwise identical to that
class feature.

(Synthesist wording)

This ability replaces
the class’s eidolon ability, bond senses, and life bond.

Star Voter 2014

Can't see why not. I made a Synthesist/First-Worlder once, it's pretty the same thing.

Dark Archive

No, you cannot take an archetype that alters or replaces a class feature the other alters, or replaces.


While I'd definitely allow it at my gaming table (since I don't see it being anymore broken than the synthesist already is), it does seem to "replace" The Eidolon class feature. The thing that puzzles me is the "This ability alters the normal summoner’s eidolon class feature, but is otherwise identical to that class feature" part. Marking for FAQ, cuz I'd like to have absolute proof.


Ed Girallon Poe wrote:

While I'd definitely allow it at my gaming table (since I don't see it being anymore broken than the synthesist already is), it does seem to "replace" The Eidolon class feature. The thing that puzzles me is the "This ability alters the normal summoner’s eidolon class feature, but is otherwise identical to that class feature" part. Marking for FAQ, cuz I'd like to have absolute proof.

Quote:
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however, be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light, since none of their new class features replace the same core class feature.

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Ed Girallon Poe wrote:

While I'd definitely allow it at my gaming table (since I don't see it being anymore broken than the synthesist already is), it does seem to "replace" The Eidolon class feature. The thing that puzzles me is the "This ability alters the normal summoner’s eidolon class feature, but is otherwise identical to that class feature" part. Marking for FAQ, cuz I'd like to have absolute proof.

Quote:
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however, be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light, since none of their new class features replace the same core class feature.

This. But I think as a GM I would allow it in a home game if you gave a good reason why you wanted it for flavor purposes.


RAW, clearly no, as demonstrated by others. At my table? sure, you're not spending the same dollar twice so why not?

I predict that the FAQ tag does nothing. If a developer does pop by, he's going to say, "I don't see a problem with that", but it will never make it to the FAQ or errata, so it still won't be legal for society play.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Ed Girallon Poe wrote:

While I'd definitely allow it at my gaming table (since I don't see it being anymore broken than the synthesist already is), it does seem to "replace" The Eidolon class feature. The thing that puzzles me is the "This ability alters the normal summoner’s eidolon class feature, but is otherwise identical to that class feature" part. Marking for FAQ, cuz I'd like to have absolute proof.

Quote:
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however, be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light, since none of their new class features replace the same core class feature.

wraithstrike

where did that quote come from? Because this conversation has come up at a couple table I have played at. Would like to be able to print out official verbage. Thanks


Hakken wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ed Girallon Poe wrote:

While I'd definitely allow it at my gaming table (since I don't see it being anymore broken than the synthesist already is), it does seem to "replace" The Eidolon class feature. The thing that puzzles me is the "This ability alters the normal summoner’s eidolon class feature, but is otherwise identical to that class feature" part. Marking for FAQ, cuz I'd like to have absolute proof.

Quote:
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however, be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light, since none of their new class features replace the same core class feature.

wraithstrike

where did that quote come from? Because this conversation has come up at a couple table I have played at. Would like to be able to print out official verbage. Thanks

It is in the APG, page 72, under the heading alternate class features.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks Wraith


Honestly I don't see why anyone would allow wild caller with synthesis. There's already balance problems with synthesis having it stack a ton of extra evolutions would just make it worse I think. Though for a number of posters above this doesn't seem to be an issue.


That alters part is far too broad.

I've seen it be used to justify not letting archetypes stack where the only "alteration" was one archetype adding to the types of feats you could take as bonus feats, and otherwise not touching the feature at all.

That's ridiculous.


StreamOfTheSky wrote:

That alters part is far too broad.

I've seen it be used to justify not letting archetypes stack where the only "alteration" was one archetype adding to the types of feats you could take as bonus feats, and otherwise not touching the feature at all.

That's ridiculous.

But the rules about stacking archetypes cite two paladin archetypes that affect the same class feature in different, compatible ways. I guess this rule eliminates the need for judgment calls about whether any given combination is compatible with another.

Actually, that rule is not enough for eliminating invalid combinations. There is a ranger archetype whose primary feature replaces favored terrain with a selectable bonus based on favored enemy but does not affect favored enemy itself in any way. That archetype is implicitly incompatible with any ranger archetype that replaces favored enemy, since then the archetype feature has nothing to key off of.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 , Star Voter 2014

Attrition wrote:

Just wondering on people's opinion if these two 'archetypes' can be incorporated with one character? I'm not sure if "class feature" is supposed to be considered the same as "class's eidolon ability".

Thanks for any replies/help!!

(Wild-caller wording)

This ability alters the normal summoner’s eidolon
class feature, but is otherwise identical to that
class feature.

(Synthesist wording)

This ability replaces
the class’s eidolon ability, bond senses, and life bond.

No, but you CAN have a Synthesist/Blood God Disciple, which is pretty sweet :-D


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No, but you CAN have a Synthesist/Blood God Disciple, which is pretty sweet :-D

I geuss so huh? Fairly Potent combination.


will you get Evolutions for eating monsters

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Can a Synthesist (Summoner) also be a Wild-Caller? 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.