Nitpick's page

HERE is a rules discussion from just a couple weeks ago.

(the topic was Elixirs, but the conversation covers everything)

For Society, it's pretty much an "ask your GM" sort of situation.

Totally agree.

Thanks for the discussion, everyone!

I was already planning on having this conversation with my Society GMs beforehand. Now I have a handy thread link I can just share with them in advance, and they can come to their own conclusions.

I don't see how potions or elixirs are different.

The difference is that potions are magic items; elixirs are not.

On the spectrum of interpretations, you have:

CONSERVATIVE
• no items at all, unless they have the Eidolon trait (too restrictive)
• non-magical items are okay, magic items need the Eidolon trait (middle ground)
• only worn magic items need to have the Eidolon trait (too exploitive)
LIBERAL

Feeding a potion to an eidolon breaks no RAW AFAIK.

Hard disagree. You might be feeding the Eidolon a potion, but it's the one "using" the benefits.

"Your eidolon can't wear or use magic items", after all. You can perform the physical act of feeding it to them. But nothing would happen.

Just one of the many possible interpretations, of course. Until there's an Errata or some new sourcebook to offer further insight, that's all anyone can do.

Anyone have links to these discussions with Mark? Even though he's no longer around. I didn't partake in the Playtest. But I appreciate having all available evidence when I'm making a case to my GMs.

Personally, I wouldn't allow feeding a potion to an Eidolon, because it's a magic item without the Eidolon trait. That, to me, feels like keeping with the spirit of the rules, and is solidly supported by them.

But I'd allow them to use Crowbars and open Treasure Chests and drink Elixirs, because not allowing them to do so breaks my verisimilitude ;-)

an Eidolon cannot use items without Eidolon trait no matter if it's magical or not.

Eidolons can't activate items because they can't use items

I addressed that in my first post. The rules contradict themselves, and there is ample table variation on whether the restriction is "all items" or just "magic items". Reading the threads I linked earlier, it does seem rather silly that an Eidolon comes with options to use tools, if there is an overriding ban on using all items.

Either way, I acknowledge the existence of table variation. My question assumes I encounter a GM that believes only magic items are restricted. In that case, I am asking whether or not there are any additional restrictions in using Elixirs (which aren't magical).

SuperBidi mentioned such an additional restriction, but I cannot find that explained anywhere.

SuperBidi wrote:

One important things to note is that Eidolons can't activate an item.

Okay, good to know, that's exactly the sort of thing I thought I might be missing.

I'm not having luck finding this restriction. I've searched for both "activate" and "interact", and nothing comes up.

Was it part of the playtest that maybe got cut?

One important things to note is that Eidolons can't activate an item.

Okay, good to know, that's exactly the sort of thing I thought I might be missing.

Can Eidolons benefit from Elixirs?

I'm aware of the discrepancy between the Eidolon Trait telling us "an eidolon can't use items that don't have this trait" and the Eidolon Rules telling us "Your eidolon can't wear or use magic items". THIS thread and THIS thread showcase the potential for table variation there.

But, barring a conservative GM, if I want to give my Eidolon something like a Drakeheart Mutagen for a couple points of AC... That seems like it'll work?

A small-statured, blue-scaled kobold scribe records the introductions.

"Psst.. It's 'Chief Yiddlepode'... And the city is pronounced 'Absalom'.. And..." he continues to make minor corrections every time somebody speaks.

He bears myriad lumps, scars and bruises on his head, but nobody wonders why.

Pardon me while I create new characters to reserve names...

Nitpick already taken.

I encountered some of our kin in the first book of Kingmaker!

I had heard some years ago that it would be sanctioned for PFS, but sadly I'm no longer sure if that will happen.

Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail. This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. Furthermore, you can augment your tail slap attack with a kobold tail attachment. For the purpose of weapon feats, you are considered proficient with all kobold tail attachments.

This feat does two things: 1) it gives you a secondary natural attack with your tail, and 2) grants you proficiency with all kobold tail attachments.

I don't believe the phrase "augment your tail slap" means "improve the efficacy of your natural attack"; I believe it is simply a "fluff" statement implying the ability to increase your options for damage potential.

Furthermore, this phrase is repeated in the actual entry for Kobold Tail Attachments.

While I can certainly understand the ambiguity, it all comes down to how you interpret the word "augment". Tail attachments are very clearly referred to as manufactured weapons in terms of statblocks, proficiency, and feat requirements. I find it a hard argument to make that they would be considered natural weapons.