Dryades's page

Regarding the action given by mature animal companion and independent familiar when not commanded, are those essentially the same ability (minus the stride/strike limit) but for different companion types? Or is the wording distinct enough (mature says “use 1 action” and independent says “gain 1 action”) that they’re supposed to work differently?

I initially thought "Alterations to a minion's actions" was being specific to only things that alter the default actions available (2 actions and 0 reactions) from the previous line, which also include examples of said things in slowed and quickened.

However, if I now read "Alterations" as encompassing the normal process of regaining of one's actions, then yes, that makes total sense. That's pretty clear, thanks!

Most of my 'minionmancy' experience has been with the eidolon so all these companion, pet and familiar rules are still pretty new to me. Pardon my ignorance.

I'm stuck between these two outcomes:

#1 Minions regain their actions at the same time as the creature they serve, which is at start of that creature's turn.

#2 Minions regain their actions when they are commanded.

The specific interaction I'm checking for is if I Haste my minion on my turn. If #1 is true, it is quickened but does not immediately gain that extra action since it already regained its actions for that turn, similar to Hasting myself. If #2 is true, it does gain that extra action the next time command it since it hasn't regained its actions until then.

I'm mostly on the #1 is true side, but these two instances give me pause. Animal Companion and Pet has these respective lines implying #2:

Animal Companion - "Your animal companion has the animal and minion traits, and it gains 2 actions during your turn if you use the Command an Animal action to command it"

Pet - "It has the minion trait, meaning it gains 2 actions during your turn if you use the Command an Animal action to command it"

They seem to both assert it works that way because the minion trait says so, but imo, the minion entry doesn't really assert the #2 scenario as strongly as they suggest. Tbf, I don't think the minion trait asserts the #1 scenario that strongly either.

Thoughts?

Spirit Familiar & Stitched Familiar

I just assumed they were magical since they used your spell DC but they actually don't have any trait that would indicate that.

Do effects that have multiple options count as separate effects for each different effect, as in they can exist together, or do they all count as duplicate effects, as in only one instance applies?

I have two examples relevant to my new sorcerer:

1. The imperial bloodline blood magic imperious defense can grant myself either an AC or saving throw bonus. Can I have both bonuses up at the same time provided I cast two spells that benefits from blood magic in one turn, or do they as duplicate ‘imperious defense’ effects so only one instance applies?

2. The resist energy spell has several energy damage resistance options it can grant to a target. Can I have two instances of resist energy on a target each for a different damage type resistance, or do they count as duplicate ‘resist energy’ effects so only one instance applies?

Thanks!

The only other consideration I had was the forced movement rule under immobilized ehich calls for a separate check, but there’s actually no one being forced out of their space in this scenario so likely not relevant.

If the Containment spell is cast and succeeds on a target that is physically grabbed or grabbing another, does that condition automatically end?

Thanks for clearing that up, everyone. Good reminder for Protective Bond too. I forgot about that feat.

Is it before or after you check which damage roll was greater?

For example, a level 5 summoner & eidolon get damaged with the same effect. The summoner saves for 18 damage and the eidolon saves for 17 damage (it has some resistance from reinforce eidolon). 18 damage is taken as the greater effect. Using Reactive Dismissal will reduce the damage by 10.

Would it reduce the specific 17 damage the eidolon saved to 7, but since the summoner still saved for 18 damage, they still take 18 damage? OR Would the reduction apply to the overall greater damage roll between the two, in this case 18, so they take 8 damage?

I have another question/scenario that will likely be answered by that already. I'll put it in spoilers just in case.

There is also the issue of you doing actions within actions in this case, since Act Together costs 1-3 actions, but then lets you do 1-3 actions worth of actions, with the other taking only one action; an argument could be made that, because you are doing Act Together to perform 1-3 actions, if your next action from those 1-3 actions is Boost Eidolon, you're still meeting requirements for Extend Boost. After all, just because the activity says you perform 1-3 actions doesn't mean that you can't take Free Actions before or after them. (Otherwise, then you couldn't Release an Object mid-Act Together, which just seems absurd, and that is just one of many options.)

Hmmm, so you suspect Act Together works more like how the Command an Animal or Sustain a Spell actions make a minion? As if the act of Act Together simply functions as the permission for the Summoner and Eidolon to take a set of regulated actions, just like how commanding or sustaining gives the minion permission to take its 2 actions? I never thought of it that way, but it makes it a lot simpler to visualize for me actually.

Also now I'm thinking, is Act Together technically an action/activity that the individually Summoner takes or is it, by virtue of being a Tandem action, taken by both the Summoner and Eidolon at the same time? Like, did we both "Act Together" or did I, as the Summoner, "Act Together" but the Eidolon simply did whatever action/activity they took. It's probably irrelevant as I don't think Eidolon's can get metamagic atm, but I'd probably ask the same original post question for them if they can in the future.

If I Boost Eidolon for my Act Together action, can I squeeze in that Extend Boost?

I assume no because I think, as per simultaneous actions rules, you can only squeeze in a free action in the middle of another action if it has a trigger, which Extend Boost doesn't have.

Additionally, to rule out as much as possible, I couldn't just Extend Boost outside of the Act Together either, huh? Because Extend Boost wouldn't recognize the Boost Eidolon inside Act Together as the next action?

gesalt wrote:

For blasting? Parallel breakthrough feat at 6 for TK rend is probably your best bet. For support? Well, bard's right there. Lingering inspire/dirge will never not be good. Amp Message is also great for giving ranged martials a reaction strike.

Amp Guidance allows you to support like a Bard. And it doesn't need you to use some RAW shenanigans to use Lingering Performance without being bared from other Amp Cantrips.

Amped Guidance was what I spent most of my focus points on as Infinite Eye. It was pretty fun! The other support cantrip I was considering was Shield. I like that even unamped, its regular benefit of casting it on others seems really good.

Right now, I think if I'm going for a more blasty subclass like Oscillating Wave or Distant Grasp, picking up a support cantrip with the feat is best. Doing the opposite felt decent on my Infinite Eye, although of all the subclasses, I think that one also needed Electric Arc the most. Silent Whisper seems pretty balanced between blasting and support so I'm not sure what I'd pick for that one.

For focus point blasting, the usual choice is silent whisper conscious mind for shatter mind at level 6. As stated, electric arc is your bread and butter before 6 and when you run out of focus points (which you really shouldn't between the recharge exploit [there's a thread on that somewhere] and strain mind).

Do you have any advice on how I should cover running into creatures immune to mental damage as Silent Whisper? Shatter mind is totally the go to if it works but when it doesn't, what's a good way to spend those focus points? I guess I could play an extra support role in those situations and amp Message or Contagious Idea instead.

Also this whole time, I thought Psychics still followed the 'spend 2 to refocus 2' rule. Reading it again, I guess not. Cool but weird. Is that something that was missed from the playtest or something that was changed?

Thank you! That Fey-Touched info is really cool. I'm keeping that in mind should I ever get the chance to play a Gnome in the future because I guess I never read past it giving you a primal cantrip. It's great to be aware of that guide now too.

I think I'm going the Adopted Ancestry route if I do end up getting Electric Arc so that should dodge the Ancestral Mind issue. I'm planning to try out Psychic Rapport and Psi Burst this time around, so I think I'd have an easier time squeezing in an ancestry feat over a class feat.

Has anyone played Distant Grasp? With Electric Arc in mind, Telekinetic Rend feels redundant and underwhelming. The improved and amped Telekinetic Projectile feels really good to pair with EA though.

For Tangible Dream, how practical is it to regularly use Imaginary Weapon as a very squishy Psychic? Seems scary.

Ancestral Mind is a feat I didn't pay much mind to but that's a really good use for it.

Anyway, having my Parallel Breakthrough choice be open does sound nice, especially with so many choices.

I'm looking for some direction on what conscious mind to pick for a new game. I'm not really tied to a particular one at the moment.

The only exclusion I'd say is Infinite Eye just because I was able to play one in a one-shot recently. I like playing support so it seemed up my alley but my Unleash Psyche turns weren't too exciting with the lack of innate offensive cantrips. I did use Parallel Breakthrough to take Telekinetic Projectile which was great and did help. All of the support cantrips are great, but my limited offense felt wasteful of the Psychic's blasting potential.

So now I want to try a more aggressive conscious mind. I'm pretty settled on Emotional Acceptance though. It's what I used with that previous Psychic and it worked really well, and I'm probably going to be the main face of the party so the charisma casting will be for the best. I think Oscillating Wave and Silent Whisper interest me a tad more than the others in terms of style. My concern for Oscillating Wave is if what you get from the energy gimmick is worth the effort. For Silent Whisper, I'm concerned with how limiting the exclusively mental damage cantrips actually are. The other ones seem cool too but could probably use a second reading from me.

Does anyone have any positive experiences with the other conscious minds? Even with Infinite Eye, honestly, since a one-shot didn't exactly make me an expert.

TL;DR - Sell me on a conscious mind!

Thanks! That had exactly what I was looking for, specifically the page Guntermench linked, and just so other can see it here too...

Step 1: Start Your Turn

It taught me something completely new in that regaining your actions is always the last step of starting your turn. Since Violent Unleash is happens at the start of your turn, falling under one of the steps that always happen before regaining your actions, it causing stunned 1 is the most efficient way of saying you lose an action on that round. That's a cool rules-coming-together moment.

Violent Unleash is a feat that makes you stunned 1 on your own turn. I am not so sure how that should play out. Either...

1. You lose the 1 action on your next turn.
2. You lose your entire current turn since you can't act and 1 action on your next turn.
3. You lose 1 action this current turn.

Maybe it's something else entirely? 1. sounds awkward. 2. sounds too bad to be true. 3. I'm sure is how it's actually supposed to work but since you already regained your actions, does stunned miss the opportunity to reduce your actions?

Amped Forbidden Thought on a failed save is similar so it has me asking the same questions. The one difference is that stunned isn't applied at the start of the creature's turn. So stunned surely can't reduce your actions anymore but since you can't act after the fact, you're unable to use your remaining actions?

Interesting. The first scenario that came to mind was delaying an affliction until the party could find a cure, but the cost of having no Eidolon by your side surely isn't risk free. I also never considered the RP implications of manifesting/manifesting but this surely has me thinking. I shall be asking my GM about this.

Would the Eidolon Home Plane have any bearing on these mechanics? It says where eidolons go when unmanifested, but I never really considered if the eidolon just goes poof or it retains its form there. If it does retain its form in whatever plane, I can see how the effects would continue.

I guess persistent damage as a singular example to give was bad. I was thinking about long term effects too like curses, diseases and other afflictions that affect the eidolon.

Do they keep going if it's something that can still affect the Summoner like persistent damage, since you share HP, or do they pause and resume when the eidolon is manifested again?

Seems right to me. It is similar to another question asked recently about Monk and Shadow Grasp.

I totally had similar questions and scenarios in mind discussed there. I always appreciate as many examples and visualizations I can get to make things as clear as possible.

Not sure if the Eidolon can get some of the feats that let you both Strike and grapple in the same action or not. If they are skill feats, then probably eventually. If they are class feats, then probably not.

I think the most they can get is access to Grab, but no action savers afaik. I almost brought this one up as a way to re-grab every grabbed creature at once for one action. However, it can only do that to those you've grabbed with Grab, not any you've grappled manually.

Thanks a bunch! It really helped trim the fat from what I have to explain to my GM and I incidentally learned several new things as a bonus.

I think my GM and I will see eye-to-eye on the free hands part. Just like you said, 2 hands is the PC standard so following that should be the most natural direction to take.

2) They mechanically only have two hands no matter how many appendages they are described with. So they could only grapple up to 2 creatures. There is also an action limit to the number of creatures that can be grappled since a grapple has to be maintained on future rounds or the target escapes automatically.

Right. See, I know nothing about grappling. The maintenance is grappling again as an action, right? And for each hand too, huh? It's also a repeat roll so it's not even guaranteed like sustaining spells.

3) I also think that if you are using one of the unarmed attacks to grapple with, that you can't also use that unarmed attack to Strike with. No matter how many limbs could be used for that attack. So having multiple heads with a bite attack with the grapple trait you could mechanically still only grab one creature with it. But you could grab with one of the free hands afterwards and use the bite attack after that. From a narrative and description point of view, that could be described as grabbing with one head and attacking with another (the grabbing head being one of the 'hands' that the Eidolon has).

So putting it altogether from this perspective, my eidolon could theoretically grab two things with its 2 free "hands" and an additional with its unarmed attack with the grapple trait. At this point, the unarmed attack that it didn't grab with is still available to strike with. Do I have that correct?

If that's the case, it's actually a relevant choice on which attack I put the grapple trait on. There are many considerations here that'll depend on what attack pattern I develop and/or how often I'll actually end up grabbing things.

Are their number of limbs and free hands simply determined and/or limited by the eidolon's form or is there something else?

I didn't think this was going to be relevant to my eidolon until I started considering grappling. My construct eidolon is a mechanical hydra with two arms, no legs, one big tail, and a head for each evolution feat it has. Other than shaping its unarmed attacks (bite and tail), these were all purely aesthetic choices. Fortunately, I'm only level 4 so it's pretty far off from being too relevant but probably a good idea to ask this now.

Here are some scenarios I ran into that got me thinking about this:

1. Luckily, I gave my eidolon arms, but if I didn't, I wouldn't have been able to grapple with it since grapple requires at least one free hand? Although, I would think if I could get some of its many heads designated as 'free hands' instead, with GM assist, I could grapple with those?

2. Is there an actual limit to how many limbs and free hands an eidolon could have then? Could I have just created a hand hydra with more than enough free hands that could make it grapple as many things it wants? That seems super cheeky and I don't even know how comfortable I am with that. I think my GM would give it two functional free hands at most no matter how many limbs it has. I probably would too.

3. How about limbs in relation to its unarmed attacks? I gave my eidolon's secondary tail attack grapple through advanced weaponry. It has one tail, so when it grapples with that, it loses the ability to strike with the tail, right? Would it have been better to give grapple to the bite attack then since it has multiple heads? In this configuration, if only one head is grappling, it would still has access to both attacks. Additionally, those heads are also free to grapple more targets since the grapple trait nixes the free hand requirement. This smells similarly cheeky as the free hands situation.

I don't think I realized how much the eidolon's aesthetic form could affect a gameplay mechanic this much, at least with my current understanding of things. I'm pretty happy with my eidolon though so it's now more being more conscious about its attacks and how I configure their traits with feats I decide on in the future. However, I do think I'm missing a key ruling or two with either grappling or eidolons here, both of which I'm not the most well-acquainted with, so anything helps.

I just wanted to say thanks and update that it ended up working out. Re-emphasizing this line really did help and made it go over smoothly with my GM.

Each eidolon entry suggests some forms the eidolon's attacks might take, but since eidolons can have a variety of body shapes, you decide the specific form of the unarmed attacks (claw, jaws, horn, fist, and so on) when you choose your eidolon.

I just had to further establish and lock-in the image of my eidolon. Then, I reassured him that he didn't really have to handwave or homebrew any rules in the process.

I don't think he limited the form of attacks I could pick, fists in the construct's case. Or at least, god, I hope not. I'm pretty sure it was just the damage type, so I think that's a good angle for me to take. Thanks for pointing out that line.

I think this is only a construct eidolon problem, oddly enough. I'm pretty sure all the others have multiple suggested attacks.

I settled on a Construct Eidolon for a game. In short, the GM isn't allowing me to veer away from the suggested attack damage types and for the construct, it's sadly just bludgeoning. I at least want two different damage types, you know?

He feels like it's an intentional balance decision with the construct's inherent customizability, so he just doesn't want to break away from that mold right now. He does admit his it's his first time GMing for a Summoner so I can see why he's particularly cautious. It's also our first time in a game together (friend of a friend) so I'm minimizing crazy requests. Just going through all the other rule 0 housekeeping, it does seem like a huge RAW type of guy for and I want to respect that.

All that considered, are there any other appropriate approaches I could try to convince him to change his mind? I tried using the rules but it hysterically backfired because it puts the onus on the GM for this exact situation.

Chill Touch would do both effects, per RAW. But really, this "it's undead but not really" statement is just jank and doesn't work out correctly.

It actually took me quite a while to fully get how the Dhampir worked (living with negative healing). I think it took a video that literally had to say the intent of the devs to settle it in my head.

I was truly expecting the undead book to clear things up, but in a cruel twist, it gave me another even more confusing combination.

I think I'm just going to scrap the undead eidolon for now and lock-in construct. Thanks everyone.

Your undead eidolon has a link directly to your life force, which grants it a twilight state between living and undead. This renders it a living creature and therefore susceptible to many ailments that bother only the living, though it does possess some resistances to these effects.

This with the Undead Eidolon having the Undead trait, AFAIK, makes it the only instance we've gained access to this unique combination of a living creature with the Undead trait. This is unlike Dhampirs which are just living. Both have negative healing though.

Harm most emphatically does heal the Undead Eidolon.

Interestingly, negative healing allows this to work out neatly no matter if you rule the Undead Eidolon as living, undead or both; same for Heal but the other way around (Heal ends up net damaging it like undead). Just looking at Harm's targets, the Undead Eidolon qualifies for both; it is living and a willing undead.

Let's say Harm does treat the Undead Eidolon as living and undead so both healing and damage apply:

- It heals because it's undead, but negative healing will make it heal either way
- It is dealt negative damage because it's living, but negative healing makes take no negative damage
- It net heals from Harm similar to undead

That said, I think the sheer fact it has negative healing means it should absolutely be treated as undead as far as healing and positive/negative damage goes, completely ignoring the thought exercise above.

However, what about effects that negative healing wouldn't address AKA not healing or positive/negative damage related? Should it be treated as both undead and living at the same time, instead of one or the other? Should that even be possible? It's a rather new and unique occurrence if so.

Honestly if nothing else, I'm just curious about this now: How would you all make a spell like Chill Touch interact with an Undead Eidolon?

The skeleton PC bleed thread got me rereading the Undead Eidolon entry and made me realize Construct and Undead Eidolons are both classified as living creatures through their initial abilities despite their traits. These eidolons are the two I'm considering for a Summoner I'm making, so I'm invested. Does this have any significant interaction consequences I should be aware of?

For construct eidolons, I think it's mostly a non-issue. I don't think there are many things that specifically target constructs that would muddle anything that targets it as a living creature. It just gives it another avenue to be targeted, for better or worse. However, undead eidolons are simultaneously undead through its trait and living through its initial ability, and there are many things that have different effects based on the target being undead vs living.

The eidolon having negative healing solves spells like Harm and Heal that only deals damage and cause healing. How does a spell like Chill Touch work though? It wouldn't deal damage because of negative healing, but would it cause the undead eidolon to make both fortitude saves, one for being a living creature and the other for being undead?

The downside of bludgeoning is you don't get Bloodletting Claws or Blood Frenzy. If those appeal to you. I went with bludgeoning myself - as while Bloodletting Claws is good - it didn't fit my concept and there were too many other things I wanted as well.

I was considering those along with Envenom Companion, but I agree that it depends if it's even appropriate to my character concept. I do enjoy the nature of Summoner feat choice, at least, and I think I'll be able to settle that easier when I decide the eidolon type.

If I do end up with those, do you think it'd make more sense to make the primary attack piercing/slashing and the secondary bludgeoning instead?

Thanks a bunch. I only vaguely knew bludgeoning is pretty good as a generalist type but was unfamiliar with the other two.

Construct is on the top of my list atm, but I'm not set on a particular eidolon yet. I just know for sure I don't plan on taking any feats to add or change damage types so I'm sticking with the basic ones. I think I'm taking bludgeoning for the 1d8 primary attack, but I'm stumped for the 1d6 secondary attack.

Piercing or slashing? Is there a typical ideal physical damage type combo? As a spellcaster main, I'm uncomfortable with this much physical damage choice.

The existence of triggers that say “you are about to roll initiative” in contrast to “you roll initiative” makes me inclined to think Battle Cry wouldn’t affect initiative. Most of those triggers alter initiative rolls or results so it would make sense why they would clearly need to happen before the initiative roll instead of after. It seems like a deliberate difference.

It also means Stitch Flesh is less relevant.You only need it with real undead.

You still need Stitch Flesh to Treat Wounds any undead since it still only targets living creatures by default. Everything else that doesn’t exclusively target the living checks out.

I wish they would just remove the "healing effects" restriction from the Undead trait, because with it in place Undead PCs can not benefit from spells like Remove Curse.

Thinking it over, I’m sure it clarifies more than it complicates the persistent confusion on healing undead. Without the healing effect restriction, we only have to look out for the positive trait and if said effect targets undead or living creatures. For me, that’s a lot easier to remember.

It wouldn’t even demand a change in the new “Healing Undead” sidebar at all. In fact, it brings Soothe in line one step closer it, requiring only it’s targeting changed.

I have a thing for lightning, thunder, tempest ish magic and I currently feel I can only get that vibe from the storm druid, and then I'm 'forced' to play a druid.

Wow, this is me. The druid being the only real choice has always felt constricting. I had some hope with the tempest oracle but I’m also not into giving up the primal spell list.

I wonder how much trouble it would truly cause if the healing immunity from the undead trait was removed. A lot of conventional healing would still remain gated from undead either through the positive trait or the very nature of most of them specifying living targets. For instance, Stitch Flesh would still be a relevant feat since you can only Treat Wounds on the living in the first place, with or without the healing trait.

Speaking of adjacency, looks like the Mount action has that same exact requirement as Quick Mount. If that doesn’t disallow the dismounting option, is there a reason the Quick Mount requirement would?

So basically you want to dismount and get a free Command an Animal out of it? That would depend on how your GM feels about the requirements

Heh, yeah pretty much. I will definitely ask my GM about it but I wanted to see what rulings I may have missed. Mounts are new to me.

Like Castilliano said, it’s a little counterintuitive. I’m pretty sure I assumed dismounting would be it’s own action before fully reading the Mount action.

Quick Mount says

You and your mount can spring into action at a moment's notice. You Mount the creature and Command an Animal to issue it an order of your choice.

Using the Mount action while mounted is used to dismount while mounted. Would using Quick Mount while mounted allow me to do the same?

Just for the sole fact it would make battle medicine functional on undead PCs, I like this notion that the undead trait only prevents positive healing.

Interesting. I even rechecked the undead hunger entry under basic undead benefits and it gives example cravings but none for mummies.

Well, good to know I’m not overlooking something in plain sight.

Is it me or are mummies the only undead option that doesn’f specify or allude to their undead hunger? It’s easy to spot for the others but I can’t for the life of me find where it’s mentioned for the mummy archetype.

In my opinion, Paizo came with a pretty nice rule in 2nd Edition which is the negative/positive healing one. But then, they messed it up getting back to mentioning Undead/Living.

It really does make the targeting aspect unnecessarily wonky. Technically, Harm should not heal any living negative healers since it specifically deals damage to the living and heals undead, which living negative healers are not. It clearly isn’t intended that work that way, but it’s confused many people even up to this day.

It makes the negative healing entry feel like it should also address targeting undead vs living when it really shouldn’t have to.

Soothe always stood out to me as one of the few ways to heal PCs with negative healing. It seemed by design as occult's alternative to Harm so I didn't think twice reading that sidebar. Of course, this was all before we had full undead PCs as opposed to just living PCs w/ negative healing. So today I'm suprised to learn Soothe only targets living creatures.