Eidolon Shield + Slam, not shield slam.


Rules Questions


So, in another thread we were talking about how an Eidolon can use a masterwork small shield without penalty. This got me to thinking. What happens when an Eidolon slams while using a shield with one of his slam arms? Does he lose the shield bonus? Does he take the -1 penalty as if using a two handed weapon with a buckler?


RAW there's no penalty for making unarmed or natural attacks with a buckler.

RAI I think it's pretty obvious that the loss of shield bonus to
AC and the -1 penalty to hit was meant to apply any time that arm is used to make an attack.


I guess part of the question is do you need to use both arms to slam. I know the evolution takes up both arms but it doesn't say if both are required to perform the attack. What if you are grappled and only have one arm? Could you slam then?


Complicating the matter further, can an Eidolon wear a shield by RAW?

prd wrote:


Armor Bonus: The number noted here is the eidolon's base total armor bonus. This bonus may be split between an armor bonus and a natural armor bonus, as decided by the summoner. This number is modified by the eidolon's base form and some options available through its evolution pool. An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind, as the armor interferes with the summoner's connection to the eidolon.

Is a shield an "armor of any kind"? I would say that for some value of the word shield that a shield would be armor, but being that the rules are based on keywords and not grammar, I'm just not sure.


Melkiador wrote:

Complicating the matter further, can an Eidolon wear a shield by RAW?

prd wrote:


Armor Bonus: The number noted here is the eidolon's base total armor bonus. This bonus may be split between an armor bonus and a natural armor bonus, as decided by the summoner. This number is modified by the eidolon's base form and some options available through its evolution pool. An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind, as the armor interferes with the summoner's connection to the eidolon.
Is a shield an "armor of any kind"? I would say that for some value of the word shield that a shield would be armor, but being that the rules are based on keywords and not grammar, I'm just not sure.

Hmm, *looks at Equipment section, goes down to Armor heading, sees shields listed in the Armor table* Yeah, I'd say Shields are a type of armor.


Kazaan wrote:
Hmm, *looks at Equipment section, goes down to Armor heading, sees shields listed in the Armor table* Yeah, I'd say Shields are a type of armor.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/armsAndArmor/armor.htm l

Do you mean the section titled "Armor and Shields" with 3 tables titled "[Type] Armor" and another titled "Shields"?

Seems pretty clear to me that shields are not a type of armor.

Dark Archive

Nothing wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Hmm, *looks at Equipment section, goes down to Armor heading, sees shields listed in the Armor table* Yeah, I'd say Shields are a type of armor.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/armsAndArmor/armor.htm l

Do you mean the section titled "Armor and Shields" with 3 tables titled "[Type] Armor" and another titled "Shields"?

Seems pretty clear to me that shields are not a type of armor.

It seems pretty clear that the RAI is that eidolons can't wear armor or use shields as they'd interfere with the connection. Not like it really needs the extra AC, anyway.


Seranov wrote:
It seems pretty clear that the RAI is that eidolons can't wear armor or use shields as they'd interfere with the connection. Not like it really needs the extra AC, anyway.

Is it clear though? Why say "armor of any kind" when "armor or shields" uses one less letter and is much clearer? The whole "interfering with the connection" thing is pretty silly anyway, since the eidolon can wear a body slot that covers the same area. And I've never heard anyone complain about having too much AC. Alternatively, people usually complain of how AC doesn't scale very well in the first place.

I think the best argument for shield not being a type of armor is the "Magic Items on the Body" section that declares:
Armor: suits of armor.
Shield: shields.

So, as far as magic items are concerned, shields are not armor.


Armor of any kind.

Armor or shields of any kind.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they're not saving any space by redundantly specifying shields when that would still be covered under "armor of any kind".


The "any kind" is what's questionable. Simply "armor and shield" would cover it if that's what's meant. And I'm not really seeing a good example of shields being an armor in the raw. They are in the same table but as armor AND shields. If armor included shields the "and shields" would be unnecessary.


More interestingly, the prohibition against armor doesn't say what happens if you put armor on one anyway. There is no penalty assessed to ignoring it. It's not like a Druid wearing metal where it clearly states the penalty for ignoring the restriction.

What happens if an eidolon drinks a potion of instant armor?


You can't make potions of Personal range spells. There's no such thing as a potion of instant armor (at least, not within the standard rules).


Wow. That is one of the most arcane rules I've seen. I had to google around for it. How is that not listed under potions as magic items or under the feat.


So ignoring potions then, what happens if my umd focused eidolon uses a scroll or wand of instant armor?


No benefit the spell says it acts in all ways like armor. You would also get all the penalties.


What do you mean by "no benefit"? The rules don't say that an eidolon doesn't benefit from armor?


Well you can come to two con lusions either is valid.ban eidolon cannot wear armour of any kind.

Either a) the spell fails or b)bit works andvhe recieves no benefit.

The key part is instant armour is explicitly armour. Any conclusion that results in an eidolon receiving benefit from armour is not the correct one.

Just to be clear. If instant armor gives a full plate it applies all normal penalties to the wearer arcane spell failure acp movement.vital is armour which eidolon explicitly cannot wear.

In all honesty reading it mate armour raw has similar issues because it is also expressly armour (we are then told none of the normal penaltiescapply) however the accepted play paradigm is no one treats mate armour as armour.


I can see a good argument for A, but B is contradictory.

You are stating that there is a rule where eidolons cannot benefit from armor. This is false. The rule is they cannot wear armor, because of a valueless penalty.

But assuming that they are receiving the penalties of the armor, would be assuming that they are indeed "wearing" the armor, and thus receiving at least the non-magical benefit of the armor.

The whole thing is a bit illogical though, because you can't simply say someone can't do something as passive as wear armor. It's not like saying you can't wield a weapon, because the weapon requires an action to use. Wearing armor is passive. Being put into armor is something that can be done to you.

Liberty's Edge

Melkiador wrote:
The "any kind" is what's questionable. Simply "armor and shield" would cover it if that's what's meant. And I'm not really seeing a good example of shields being an armor in the raw. They are in the same table but as armor AND shields. If armor included shields the "and shields" would be unnecessary.

"Armor of any kind" includes barding. "Armor and shield" don't.

So "armor of any kind" is simpler than using "armor and shield".

As you see your argument can be easily used to support an opinion that is the exact opposite of yours.


Barding is described as a "type of armor" in the first line of its description. Shields are never described as a type of armor. Shields don't even provide an armor bonus. It's a "shield" bonus, otherwise it wouldn't stack with armor.

prd wrote:
Barding can be made of any of the armor types found on Table: Armor and Shields.

So by your logic, if shields are armor, then I should be able to make a light shield barding for a horse.


Melkiador wrote:

More interestingly, the prohibition against armor doesn't say what happens if you put armor on one anyway. There is no penalty assessed to ignoring it. It's not like a Druid wearing metal where it clearly states the penalty for ignoring the restriction.

What happens if an eidolon drinks a potion of instant armor?

Armor interferes with the connection between a eidolon and it's summoner so I would say the eidolon is dismissed.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Armor interferes with the connection between a eidolon and it's summoner so I would say the eidolon is dismissed.

I had considered that, but it begs other questions, like what if you have Unfetter cast on your eidolon? And does this allow your Eidolon to quickly and easily dismiss itself?

Also, is this now a major weakness of Eidolons. Can you wrap a haramaki around an eidolon to dismiss it.


Melkiador wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Armor interferes with the connection between a eidolon and it's summoner so I would say the eidolon is dismissed.

I had considered that, but it begs other questions, like what if you have Unfetter cast on your eidolon? And does this allow your Eidolon to quickly and easily dismiss itself?

Also, is this now a major weakness of Eidolons. Can you wrap a haramaki around an eidolon to dismiss it.

I would say Unfetter doesn't affect their ability to wear armor (because the spell makes no mention of armor). It's only a standard action to dismiss the eidolon. There are not too many ways to get armor on a creature faster than that and I'm not sure what the benefit would be in dismissing it quicker. (I guess if you wanted to dismiss it and use your Summon Monster ability in the same round...)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Eidolon Shield + Slam, not shield slam. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.