Bearlock's page

Even since i played 3.5 ive always ruled that pc's proficient with martial weapons can use spears as one handed martial weapons and longspears as one handed exotic weapons. Both can still be used as simple weapons when used with two hands, but even in RL history the spear was a far more common weapon used in conjuntion with a shield than any other.

They can, but they take penalties to their attacks by doing so. If you don't mind the penalty, than swing it one handed all you want.

I've started a new thread under the Rules forum, the link is here.

@Azaelas, okay so the taiaha. It can be wielded as a martial weapon, one handed by RAW. This weapon I would accept being able to to paired with a shield. However, to be used as a double weapon, it would still require the use of two hands. You can't two-weapon fight with one weapon in one hand. To use it in one hand and TWF you would have to have either pair a shield to bash with or another weapon in your off-hand.

This is split off from a thread located here. The need for clarification comes from a little ways down in the thread.

Side one of the argument:
That a PC can use a double weapon one handed, and in doing so, only attack with one end without penalty, thus allowing them to switch from two handing one end of the weapon to TWFing with the weapon to pairing the weapon with a shield.

Side two:
While a PC can wield a double weapon in one hand, they run into the rule of wielding a two handed weapon in one hand, and the use in that fashion then incurs penalties.

---

Personally, I'm going with side two. It seems that the RAW is not very clear.

So, if you all could take a look at the linked thread and weigh in, I would greatly appreciate it on behalf of my sanity. Thanks.

Yeah, in case anyone was wondering I just realized I thought Azaelas was the OP. We did kind of go off from there, so kind of makes sense still... maybe. Its late.

Agreed, but the point that is trying to be made is that the rules do not actually say that. And they really don't, I checked. Now I could be wrong or blind, but I checked my CR and the SRD.

My point is that there is conflict between the rules of double weapons and two handed weapons. I have half a mind to start a new thread in Rules, it can't be this complicated.

I do wish it wasn't tied to a one-handed weapon and an empty hand (they could have declared that the somatic components were made with the weapon, perhaps, and given a Concentration check to casting without a weapon)

I would also enjoy this being a fact, maybe with an option to focus more on Spellstrike (ala Duskblade, with full attack channeling) instead of Spell Combat.

Both are awesome, and being able to do both is also awesome, but I agree that optimal (using the term loosely) builds with the options given become very cookie cutter. And that's a shame

By RAW, since shields as bashing weapons are listed under martial weapons if you are not prof with martial weapons, you cannot shield bash.

Myself, if you're burning a feat on Imp Shield Bash, I would allow it. Most cases if you have a 3/4 BAB class and are focusing on TWF or being in melee, you are dipping a level of a full BAB class that grants martial weapon prof. But even if you didn't dip anything, I would allow it.

my 2cp

It's not a two handed weapon

Show me a double weapon that is not listed on a weapons table under two handed, whether it be simple, martial or exotic.

And yes, it would not be that hard, even IRL to swing a double bladed sword one handed.

Effectively? No. You could maybe thrust with a double sword in RL, but its a slashing weapon by RAW. That means swinging the weapon, to slash with it. You could not be swinging it around, hewing enemies full force without hitting yourself with the opposite end. And the "oh, but I wear armor" defense? Not gonna fly.

(Also not to mention that a double sword in RL would be about the dumbest thing anybody came up with in combat. Maybe the dire flail would take #1 there.)

For reference on this watch the THOR movie. Syf uses a double bladed sword exclusively and uses it one handed, two handed and as a double weapon. she even uses it with one hand and a shield in the other.

Bringing a movie into this does not help your case. Its a movie. Rule of Cool wins above all else in movies. And while I do not have time to re-watch Thor right now, I don't recall her using it as a double weapon. Holding it in two hands maybe, but since she was only in two battle scenes it shouldn't be hard to figure out.

---

Look, you cannot go by the wording in the double weapon description without running into the description of two handed weapons. Thus, paradox. And I'm sure I may not be using paradox appropriately. In cases like this, it generally comes to a ruling between the PC and the DM. If that's how you want to play it, fine, more power to you. But it cannot be supported by RAW. A double weapon was intended to give you a one-handed weapon and light off-hand weapon, to minimize your TWF penalties, up your damage, and so you didn't have to take Weapon Focus with two different weapons. That is what makes it worth EWP.

---

@Azaelas, sorry we have derailed your post. If you have min WBL the staff is a good weapon for TWF, and the Quarterstaff Master feat works very well to maximize your options by RAW. I would talk to your DM, and if your DM interprets the rules as you can wield a double weapon in one hand whenever you want, sure re-train for EWP. You will have a boost in average damage, not to mention more options for materials for it to be made out of, and it will work just as well with the Two Weapon Warrior archetype.

There was a thread about this not too long ago somewhere, the general consensus for a house rule was that any weapon that could trip (which can also be used to reposition) could be used in an attempt to "trip"/unseat the rider.

In RL I'm pretty sure that's what the hook on a halberd was for.

Possibly the same could be allowed with weapons that have the "brace" ability, so long as you specifically target the rider.

How are you splitting up your first four levels then? Cav 2/Barb 2? Cav 3/Barb 1?

Cause taking one level of barbarian for one totem power that deals 1d4+cha damage and is only active when you are raging for 6 rounds a day? Probably not the best use of a level. I would either take all levels of cavalier or start in with bard before level 5.

As a small character planning on being on your mount most the time, I would take Mounted Combat ASAP.

It's more open to interpretation I think. Sensibly, aside from a staff, do you really think you could properly attack with one end of a double weapon? It's something designed to be used in two hands. It's big. Imagine swinging a sword, but with another sword attached at the pommel pointing back at you. Let alone another axe head or spiked ball on a chain.

If I remember correctly, in 3.5 the wording was that any creature "a size category larger" wielding it in one hand could only attack with one end.

Its kind of a paradox I guess, because

Any double weapon is classified at as a two handed weapon. So by that RAW, you cannot use a double weapon one handed without penalties.

While that is thematically appropriate and in keeping with how swords were actually used in RL, finding game mechanics to support it is iffy at best.

TWF requires two weapons. Your DM may allow it, but by RAW when you TWF you use two weapons to make a series of attacks. If you attacked with your longsword, that is one weapon. Continuing to attack with that weapon is no longer TWF'ing.

EDIT: Well, after thinking about this for a second, if you're wanting to do this just as a riposte of sorts you could look into the Crane Style series of feats, or the Duelist PrC, anything that gives you an actual ability to riposte after being targeted with a melee attack. You could flavor it as hitting them with the hilt or pommel and just use the same stats, in RL hitting somebody like that could do the same amount of damage as the blade in the right situation. HD is such an abstract concept anyway, I would allow it.

How high you want to take your wis depends on what you cast. If you are mostly buffing and healing and not worried about DC's, all you need is 19 wis total. A reach weapon on a cleric can be a good thing, you survive from maximizing your reach and not being hit in the first place. Also don't get hit, or take Toughness as a feat, you already only have a d8 hd and a small con bonus.

Simon Legrande wrote:

Pendagast wrote:

the thing I dont like is , technically, by reading a double weapon description, being able to use it one handed (and thereby by using only one end of the weapon) is a default ability of the weapon. so the feat technically doesnt do anything for you but let you specialize with out being a fighter....?

It's still a two-handed weapon, even if you only use one end. The feat lets you wield it like a one-handed weapon.

PRD wrote:

Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

Emphasis mine, and what I think you were trying to make a point of.

If that was the case, the feat would be worthless. Why take a feat to do something you can do already by RAW?

Using it 1-Handed makes it Improvised. It can only be a Double or 2-Handed Weapon.

That is why. (Technically I think it becomes "inappropriately sized", not improvised) It is still a two-handed weapon you're trying to use in one hand. Can you wield it in one hand and only use one end? Yes, but at a penalty. The feat takes the penalty away.

I see. All of that being in your previous post instead of just "more AC" would have made things much clearer, you're running a lot of specialty/different-than-normal campaign mods.

Point is, you're using a staff in spite of the more powerful options available to you, which means using a staff is probably integral to your characters flavor. So, moving forward with that, yes Quarterstaff Master would be a good way to maximize your choice, but that choice stems from the fact that you want to be using a staff.

Unless I'm totally off my rocker

Thanks Ssalarn, I will definitely pass this along to my friend, I really appreciate it.

I have a Fighter(TWW) who has gotten use out of it with his Quickdraw Shield...

You're a fighter using a quarterstaff. Think we can file that under flavor reasons to take this feat.

@Slimgauge, good point.

Up to two niches.

EDIT: To the OP, after re-reading your post, just want to make sure its clear that by taking the feat you do not gain Weapon Specialization, you have the option to bypass one of the pre-reqs (fighter levels) and spend one of your next feats on it.

Ninja'd

If you want a truly tankish/fighterish cleric I would suggest a Battle Oracle. You gain revelations that help in combat, not to mention heavy armor and martial weapon profs. You lose out on domains though.

If you stick with cleric, the other domain would normally be dependent on what your deity's domains are. Destruction wouldn't be too bad, you have two other melee fighters plus you in the mix, the aura ability at 8th level could be useful. Evil would also be appropriate.

If you can pick whatever weapon you want, from a metagaming standpoint pick something ridiculous since you get free proficiency, spiked chain could be thematically appropriate, not too sure on this one. Whatever you want, your god.

EDIT: I am also confused by your ability scores. What method or point buy did you use?

Fighter is a melee powerhouse and the Oracle is more on the blasty side

In that case I will would second the idea for being a cleric, while you may not have the blastiness available to an arcane class, you do have a ton of utility and buff spells, additional healing, and you can mix it up in melee if you have to. Another option could be an archer paladin, I would advise against Divine Hunter, at higher levels you'll want the regular paladin auras. Go with OoV and trade lay on hands for smites, full attack often.

It really depends on what you want to do, we know you don't want to play a wizard, and a sorcerer is close enough that it might be unpalatable as well. However, your group is seriously hurting in the spellcasting department, and I know that in general adventure paths are designed for "basic four" groups containing usually two full casters. If you did play a wizard or a sorcerer, your group will probably thank you. But! its your call. Do what you want to do, your DM should adjust accordingly.

Well if you're not planning on too many long range encounters, maybe encourage him to not focus on it so heavily and go with something like a switch-hitter build. If he does that you could have him take a look at the Freebooter archetype as well. It will give him a group buff to use instead of favored enemy, that can help him shine. Nobody complains about being buffed.

Other than that I will second the Guide as well. Flavor it as his training or skill or whatever in observing weaknesses of his enemies and exploiting them.

Think he was referring to the double sword or double axe.

I agree with Atarlost, it works best with a staff magus for Spell Combat. That archetype may even be what it was written for, I never saw the feat till I saw the link for it from the archetype on the SRD. As a martial melee character you have no reason to use it one handed at all. Maybe on a wizard or other caster for purely flavor reasons, but mechanically its very niche. Very niche. Like, one spot.

Well, as far as other arcane casters goes, there are:

Sorcerers, which can be a whole lot of fun with all the various bloodlines
--
Witches, which are kinda like 3.5 Warlocks, their hexes can be used unlimited times per day, and they get 9th level spells from a good list. overall good for buffing/debuffing
--
Summoners, who get the eidolon and a pretty great spell list even if it only goes to 6th level
--
The Magus, which is more combat focused, but still get 6th level spells that run off of Int
--
Bards. Could be your best choice between party buffs, some passable BC spells, and being able to help out with healing in a pinch.

Any other suggestions will depepnd on the party, what kind of Fighter is it, tank, TWF, archer? And is the Oracle more on the blasty side of things?

Yeah, I swear I remembered reading that magic armors re-size within one step each way... unless that was 3.5

Some good points made here.

As far as being MAD, I think the Arcane Duelist can be less so. Going TWF has already been pointed out as a sub-par choice between stats, 3/4 BAB and feat starvation, so that leaves you with str as you main attack stat. All you really need is str and cha with a slightly above average con. Buffing dex is pointless do to wearing heavy armor later on, you already have a ton of skill points per level, so int is whatever you want it to be, and wis is your dump stat.

A high str means a two handed weapon, and since many of your bonus feats do stuff with the area you threaten, you should go with a reach weapon. And Darksol brings up a clever point I had never thought of with using a gauntlet, its a weapon so arcane bond applies, can't be disarmed (unless you are literally (dis-armed"), and it allows you to threaten inside the range of your reach weapon.

As far as how viable the archetype is, "Arcane Duelist" may be a bit of a misnomer. Of course it won't out-perform a full BAB class, even at the same level with the same buffs, a fighter will out damage a bard. And while Arcane Strike may not be that great of a feat, you get it for free, I've never complained about free damage.

If you use the archetype for its strengths, which is pretty much an anti-mage character, I think it works pretty well.

... 1 level into the Dragoon fighter archetype (can't remember what it's called) is useful for the weapon and armour proficiency as well as two ride-related feats that's useful if you're using the Eidolon as a mount.

Seconded, but ONLY if you are using your eidolon in mounted combat. Otherwise as others have stated, do not multiclass, all your reasons for being a summoner are based off your summoner level.

By RAW no. But a lenient DM may let you take WF (natural weapons) if it was within reason. If you have tentacles, a tail, bite, slam, AND claws the answer would probably be no, but if you had just claws and a bite, with a 3/4 BAB I would possibly allow it.

I get it, like I said, he's an NPC, and the whole thing makes for a good story.

And I totally passed the whole point of the OP as well, not too familiar with the PF gods, but from what I've browsed I would go with Iomedae or Sarenrae.

Wow. Yeah. I think Vicon cleaned up pretty well here. I'm gonna use some of those.

Well the Inquisitor abilities and spells can help with most of the detective work, as far as your build goes it's generally best to focus on being as viable in your combat style as possible. Since you're going for archery, anything that boosts your to-hit would be advisable, your damage will come from bane, judgements and full attacks.

Unless your Cha score is that important, drop it to 10 and boost your str or con. You have the skill ranks to keep Diplomacy up, and with the stern gaze ability you will add half your level to Intimidate.

What are you using as a melee weapon? Make sure you stock up on different arrows as you level, and you also have three courtier's outfits in your equipment.

I was making a point, but I should have been accurate and said "anyone proficient with simple weapons, INCLUDING sorcerers and wizards, can fire a regular crossbow properly, even in combat."

IMHO, no paladin will ever do that. He will endanger innocent people just by arrogance. Why he think he can kill that undead god?

I agree with this. It would be hubris to bet everything on the fact that he can succeed without thinking of what could happen if he was to fail. And why would he be there in the first place, one he's working with evil and chaotic people who are trying to bring back an undead god. For those reasons alone, no matter what their purpose is for it, should be enough to set himself against their plans, not just try to minimize the damage. If he was forced to be there from higher up his chain of command, it could be interesting, but he should be trying to sabotage everything.

Unless... he is trying to become a blackguard/anti-paladin, and raising this god is the way to do it. He could technically be LG until that point I guess.

EDIT: As this is an NPC, you could cut him some slack for story purposes. I get that things could be difficult in that situation. Why not just smite everybody? Who knows what they will do without him being there. Why wait till so close to the ritual? Best chance to destroy everything so nobody can repeat it. All that aside though, I think that his goal should be to stop the resurrection from even taking place. That's the best way to ensure the safety of others. And he should still have to pay for whatever he was a part of while in the group.

EDIT 2: If he was LG cleric it would all be easier to swallow, rather than him being a paladin.

By the same argument, why is a bastard sword exotic to use in one hand? Because it does require more effort/training/know-how to use than a longsword, despite being functionally the same.

But you can use a bastard sword as two handed martial weapon by RAW. You can't use a repeating crossbow by RAW without EWP. Even if somebody handed it to you, bolt cocked, and all you had to do was squeeze the trigger like a regular crossbow, you would be non-proficient by RAW. Some people may not, and actually most people don't see a bastard sword as being to terribly useful, "just use a longsword, you only give up 1 point of average damage". And again, we are trying to match up RL to game mechanics, but here goes:

IMO, the bastard sword would be worth a feat because in real life sword fighting is much harder and training intensive than shooting a crossbow. Using a longer weapon in one hand means different foot-work, grips, ranges of attack, and mostly the skill to use a weapon comfortable in two hands to the average warrior in one hand.

----
It all boils down to game balance. You want more options/damage? Pay the cost. Heaven forbid if every commoner had proficiency with repeating crossbows, the whole game would be unbalanced and nobody could play. /sarcasm. Its a game. Everybody can do what they want, but if you stick to RAW you run into these little things that just bother some people, so we come on here to b@#&& about it and argue over it with strangers.

Bearlock wrote:

There was a 3.5 feat somewhere that let you make two attacks as a standard action, one attack with each weapon.

The Two-Weapon Warrior fighter archetype gets this ability at 9th level.

True, but that archetype kind of sucks. But if someone really wanted that and the ability to dual wield one handed weapons and didn't care about overall power it would be worth it. If I really wanted to get multiple attacks often I would go with Mobile Fighter. At level 11 you can move and full attack.

I actually should have recommended it in my first post.

@Ssalarn, so are all your eidolons consciously aware that they have some connection to the Prophecy? Or are they kind of like psycrystals where they are based off of one core concept/feeling? Or is it just general campaign knowledge that every so often a child is born connected to that particular fragment? I like the the bit with the runes.

@Olav, I had read about the kalshtar and the Quori spirits, it just seemed a little off to me personally. For the kalashtar, their Quori spirit is already what it is. Its a kind of genetic memory, spread across however many individual kalashtar. I don't see there really being a whole "spirit". And if there was, the thought of one being able to, for lack of a better word, mutate the spirit into whatever form they wanted/needed, just seems off. That's just me though, I get hung up on little stuff like that.

As far as a race that dreams pulling something to manifest from Dal Quor, I could see that. Also makes sense how it would shift and change evolutions. For a more disturbing angle, same with Xoriat. I'm thinking tentacles /shudder. Also random thought, a human that connected with Taratai, or fragments of, and has the potential to start a new line of kalashtar.

House Vadalis I had not thought of. Can tie into Sslaran's thing with eidolons being parts of the Prophecy, the dragonmarks are suppose to be a part as well.

Plenty of options

As a Rogue
Thug or Bandit, good for beating down bounties and keeping them down.
Spy, for a not so frontal approach, get some dex or str poisons.
Rake, as a more charming approach
Investigator, to catch people in lies about where the bounties may be hiding.

As a Bard, you have skills and some decent spells that work for social interactions/interrogations
Detective, good with a team and has some good bonus spells, like speak with dead
Archaeologist, for a more physical character, gets UD and evasion to help bringing in those magic wielding bounties

And of course Urban Ranger for obvious reasons.

Also, play in Eberron as a member of House Tharashk.

MyTThor wrote:

I'd rather have someone explain to me why a repeating crossbow is an exotic weapon. Harder to find? Sure. Harder to use? Well it consists of a lever and a trigger (fulcrum), call me crazy but those are two of the "simple" machines - and the exact same ones use to operate any other sort of crossbow.

Because not everybody will have trained with it. The box on top will throw off the balance. You would have to learn to pull the lever quickly and smoothly in combat, a quick uneven jerk might not set the strong properly. It's built differently from a normal crossbow, so things aren't quite the same.

I think the point that they are making is that, even though yes, training to use the weapon properly in combat would be essential, its hard to see how learning to manage a balance difference and proper lever/trigger pull would be that hard when EVERYBODY is already proficient with a regular crossbow, even in combat.

It's like learning how to shoot an M9 in combat, then somebody gave me a Glock. Yeah the ergonomics are different, but I already still know the basic concept of how to use my weapon in a combat situation. The basic principle and function remain the same. Would it take practice to be as good as I was before with the M9? Undoubtedly. But not as much as if somebody gave me a whole new weapon. They are both semi automatic handguns. A regular crossbow and the repeating crossbow, are both crossbows.

DESCRIPTION

This spell enables the subjects to stand watch or keep vigil throughout the night without any ill effects.

The subjects suffer no fatigue and gain all the usual benefits of a full night's rest.

The subjects gain hit points as though from resting, wizards may prepare their spells as though they had slept for 8 hours, and so on. Effects that rely on actual sleep or dreaming are ineffective, though the subjects are still susceptible to effects that would put them to sleep, such as sleep or deep slumber. Any vigorous activity, including fighting, immediately ends the effect, and the affected creatures must either have the spell cast on them again or sleep for the remaining hours to avoid fatigue and gain the benefits of a full night's rest.

Emphasis mine. As I'm reading it, yes, you gain that slot back when finished resting. You cast the spell before you began resting, and the spell gives you the benefits of 8 hours sleep, thus allowing you to prepare your full compliment of spells.

As far as the full armor goes, I'd say there would be no negative effects, because you aren't really sleeping. Some DM's may get a little snippy about the distinction, so clear that part first.

I am also not terribly familiar with giants, but I imagine it would come from more of an RP perspective. If there are giants around, try to convince the party to go after them, if you do come across some go at them hard, show no mercy. Otherwise like Alamdri said, look through the Bestiary, bone up on weaknesses of various giants and maximize whatever edge you can find against them. I don't think are to many witch feats or anything that are anti-giant

Magi are very tough. If you use a DEX based build (which is a "staple") then you have more than decent AC, and you can buff yourself with spells like displacement, mirror image, or shield, as a free action while attacking, thanks to spell combat.

I second that maji can be tough. They also put out good nova damage. I will have to disagree on taking the Dex magus route though in this particular case. Since you would be starting this character at level 11+, as a magus you would be able to start in medium armor with no ASF, and at level 13 you would gain prof and no ASF with heavy armor. Your group without proper buffs is probably all kind of on the low side of the AC curve, and its been my experience that having at least one rock on the team can be a very good thing.

From a pure metagaming standpoint, I would suggest a dwarf as a race, no speed reduction do to heavier armor, and prof with the waraxe, a nice d10 weapon, not to mention through racial traits some bonuses to combat maneuvers, which maji can also excel at through use of arcana.

While the Dex based magus can be useful, I personally feel that without taking an archetype like Kensai, you get the upgraded armor prof's for no reason. It's dead space as you level up.

Ah, I take it you are of the school that dislikes Rogues. Oh well.

I wouldn't say that anyone has expressed "dislike" for rogues, but rangers can do ranged combat better. (Range, Ranger? See its right there. Yeah I amuse myself.) While a Rogue will probably have a good Dex score, making him accurate at range, it's handicapped by a 3/4 BAB, and the majority of their damage output comes from SA. Which has been long been lamented as being very difficult to get on ranged attacks.

What is and where is it from, this Law Warden? Do you mean Lore Warden?

In any case, if it is a fighter archetype you are talking about, you can't suddenly decide to start taking an archetype. The archetype changes the base class from level one. Nor can you multiclass with the same class, for example take 2 levels of regular Rogue and then take a level of Rogue(Acrobat archetype)

There was a 3.5 feat somewhere that let you make two attacks as a standard action, one attack with each weapon.

What is the concept?

Freebooter makes some lame attempts at being pirate-y but is so flavor-neutral in mechanical execution you could fit to any character that has the slightest aspirations of leading or inspiring others.

I agree, just looked it over again, the swimming ability is really the only thing that applies to water. I actually was thinking about a gestalt cavalier//freebooter. Tactician is a standard action, freebooter's inspiration thing is a move action, you get banner boosts and depending on your order you buff the party with your challenge. Don't get me wrong, I would still prefer Guide myself, but if someone wanted to be more of a "leader", it could work.

To the OP

yes
yes, yes
by RAW yes
I have no idea, it's always been easier to just have my PC use a longbow

I really like the repeating crossbow/multi bolt concept. Waylander the Slayer, the crossbows from Underworld, they are just cool, and I wish they had more support. My only issue with them comes from DR. Its a lot easier to pick special material arrows out of a quiver than it is to start in with a clip of regular bolts, only to find that you need silver bolts. And by RAW, you are now screwed out of a full round action to load a new clip, more if you have to spend a move to unload the old one. And yeah, I SUPPOSE you could just rock silver/cold iron/whatever bolts ALL the time, but the point is, at some point you will get screwed needing something other than what you have loaded.

I would houserule Rapid Reload to make reloading a repeating crossbow a standard action

Dwarves have to be strictly back up. They don't have the grace to master the slide out of the line up

This is what I mean

Back to topic though, I would stay with ranger. Yeah rogue has more skills, bard would have the same amount of skills and spells, however what they do not have, and neither does anyone in your party, is a full BAB, d10 hd, AND the ability to perform well at range and in melee. All that and good hunk of skills? You'd be the all-star.

Vote ranger bro. You want to. Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

I'm just curious as to how anyone has worked the class into the Eberron setting. I haven't done much with the class personally, but a friend in an upcoming game was thinking about going with one using the Master Summmoner archetype. We had brainstormed for a bit, I brought up the Manifest Legion*, he brought up the gnomes in Zilargo and their elemental summonings and bindings. Not sure which way he will go, but I thought I could pick brains here, since now I'm thinking about it. So where do you fit summoners into Eberron?

* The Manifest Legion is lightly covered in FoW, they are a mercanary company that focuses on using summoned creatures to disrupt and confuse the enemy. In the book they are obviously portrayed mostly by conjurers and sorcerers. The Summoner class kind of calls to this, especially the Master Summoner. but my only reservation regards the eidolons themselves. Now like I said, I have no personal or game experience with the class, but after reading Faithful Servants by James L. Sutter, I figured that eidolons, while bound to their masters, are still rational thinking beings. Would they be happy with mercenary service?

So now as I'm typing this, lets add another question.

How do you play your eidolons? Are they just mindless forces/creatures you summon that exist only to do your bidding? Or is it a partnership? Do you have a personal bond with them, like your family has a history of being hitched to odd spirits, and you've known your eidolon since childhood? Started out as an imaginary friend? I'm just rambling here, I would love to here anyone else's opinions on the matter

Situational powers suck high five!