Sinistrad's page

Sinistrad wrote:

graystone wrote:

Sinistrad wrote:

Well, if this works the way you say it does, then this would be an ideal candidate for an FAQ. Wouldn't have to be errata.

There is no functional difference between FAQ's and errata anymore. We don't really get anything like the old PF1 FAQ's anymore.

Can you tell I am returning after a long absence? lol

So they won't clarify rules text at all unless there's a reprint?

They'll answer question on various podcasts and forums [which they do not collect or even let you know about] but here it's 99% reprint errata. Very, very rarely a dev might pop in and answer something but it's not something I'd wait for.

Ah yeah definitely wasn't expecting an answer here but my expectations for a potential FAQ were uh... outdated to say the least. Thank you for the info!

Sinistrad wrote:

Well, if this works the way you say it does, then this would be an ideal candidate for an FAQ. Wouldn't have to be errata.

There is no functional difference between FAQ's and errata anymore. We don't really get anything like the old PF1 FAQ's anymore.

Can you tell I am returning after a long absence? lol

So they won't clarify rules text at all unless there's a reprint?

Well, if this works the way you say it does, then this would be an ideal candidate for an FAQ. Wouldn't have to be errata. If this is working as intended it could be explained much better and a clarification seems warranted.

Anyway, sounds like posting here is the most visible way to bring this up. Since I did that I am just going to move on. Didn't come here expecting people to actually defend the wording of the ability, and I am not interested in spending any more effort than I already have convincing people who think it's fine.

The mental gymnastics. Some of y'all deserve a gold medal.

Is there a place I can report this to Paizo and not interact with the forums?

Those of you arguing that removing Doomed is not the same as being at Doomed 0 can start citing sources. Otherwise I won't even entertain the idea further.

It sounds like the intention there is for someone to arise as an unrisen--bit of a contradiction there--when they die with the Doomed condition. That's how I'd run it, anyway.

Except that they're pretty clear the "trap" springs when the slain target is revived with magic. And, that the curse is tied to the presence of the Doomed value which is explicitly removed when the target dies.

So, yes, there's definite intent here for there to be some lingering effect on the corpse that sets it up to become Unrisen, but it's clear the intent is not for the corpse to self-animate. It requires some kind of revival effect to trigger the transformation.

Dying removes the doomed condition, but does not reduce it to 0. The dead creature would still be cursed.

While living, you can remove the curse from someone with a level 4 restoration. If they die, you need a higher level remove curse before you can safely raise them.

I assume this is how you'd house rule it? This can't be the way it actually works.

While I am fully aware of how null values work in computer programming, this is a tabletop game. 'Doomed 0' and 'removing doomed' are logically and functionally identical.

As a shameless edgelord, I love the horror of a Resurrection ritual going awry thus creating a tortured and *very* angry undead abomination.

Unfortunately, its ability to potentially proliferate doesn't work as written.

Death Grip curses an unfortunate target with Doomed 1 and "while the curse lasts" any attempt to resurrect them will create another Unrisen. That's rad. Love it!

But, Death Grip also says:

"The curse ends automatically if the creature's doomed value is reduced to 0."

Okay that seems fine, until reviewing the rules for the Doomed condition:

"When you die, you're no longer doomed."

So the target dies, the curse immediately dissipates, and that nasty raise dead/resurrection/breath of life trigger can never happen.

It seems like this effect needs an actual curse effect on the target that doesn't automatically dissipate when the target dies.

I think that when they give us the Undead eidolon (Book of the Dead ?), it will have Negative Healing.

Think about the current plight of all those poor undead Summoners out there.

I have my fingers crossed big time for an actual undead eidolon with negative healing in Book of the Dead. Been doing a lot of character planning around a necromancer with Summoner dedication, but I think I'm just going to have to wait.

On the flip side, since the hit point pool is shared, it means RAW you can effectively heal with either energy type. Though it remains very annoying if I am casting a 3-action Harm to blast a bunch of enemies and my damned eidolon is in the mix. lol

I think that if they had meant that way, they would have said it with a specific example.

Because nothing ever gets overlooked when a book first comes out.

From Secrets of Magic, it states that Eidolons are manifested via the Summoner's life force.

SoM, Page 52

You have a connection with a powerful and usually

otherworldly entity called an eidolon, and you can use
your life force as a conduit to manifest this ephemeral
entity into the mortal world.

And in the Bestiary entry for Negative Healing

Bestiary, Page 305

A creature with negative healing draws health from negative energy rather than positive energy. It is damaged by positive damage and is not healed by positive healing effects. It does not take negative damage, and it is healed by negative effects that heal undead

Question: Does this imply that Eidolons share the affinity for healing via the energy type that the Summoner does or are all Eidolons always healed by Positive effects only?

To me it feels like they should heal via the same energy as the Summoner since they're manifested with the Summoner's life force. If I wanted to make a Necromancy themed Summoner and give my Eidolon a bunch of Negative attacks, it would be nice to also provide it thematic Negative Healing via my Ancestry choices instead of having a negative-themed character whose minion still has to be healed via positive energy.

I think "bolstered" is a new term. Anyone know what it means?

Based on the context, especially the part of "for 24 hours" I am going to guess it's their chosen word for immune to the effect. Seems to be part of Paizo's efforts to standardize the language a bit to reduce ambiguity.

So rather than saying "is immune to the effect" or "cannot by targeted by this ability for 24 hours" they just say "bolstered against X for Y duration."

...it makes it harder for an attacker to roll miss chance, for instance, at the same time as an attack roll, unless there's two different colors of d20 that have been previously, verbally differentiated.

Absolutely agree with this. A flat DC 5 check is literally just a 20% miss chance. I always felt rolling d100 was a bit wonky, since 99.9% of the time probabilities increment by 5%, but the other side of that coin is that the vast majority of d% rolls are miss chance rolls being rolled in conjunction with an attack roll.

I think the only mitigating factor is that it sounds like people will get fewer total attacks, so it's a bit less onerous to have to roll two d20s for all of your attacks.

My biggest concern here is that with the HP inflation we've seen in other blogs, the damage of wizard spells is less impressive.

With our CR3 ogre with 60HP, the fifth-level Cone of Cold (doing 11d6 damage) is very unlikely to take it out.

Even a ninth-level Magic Missile (doing 15d4+15 {average 52.5} damage) won't take it out half the time. And that's coming out of a seventeenth-level caster.

They've pretty clearly implied that classic metamagic is in the game and works in a similar fashion. We don't know if there will be ways of modifying their cost as of yet.

Things that can/might affect wizard damage:

* Metamagic
* School powers/spell points from specialized Evokers
* Items: They're getting away from boring stat boosting items and adding more interesting effects to gear
* Familiars: You can customize them each day now. Extra blasty boosts seem in-line with that theme
* Class feats

Frankly, unless a wizard heavily specializes in damage dealing, they shouldn't be a damage powerhouse. And to that end we just don't have much info, so jumping to the conclusion that blaster wizards are trash at this point is really hyperbolic. And, Magic Missile is probably not the best spell to compare high level damage on. Its utility is that it is force damage and always hits, which can be a lifesaver in certain situations.

And even if they can be decent blasters, their true potential will likely still lay in other roles like battlefield control and buffing/debuffing. Paizo has given no indication they have any intention of changing the role of the wizard. Which makes sense because a Barbarian that does 100 damage a turn is just that. A Wizard that does 100 damage a turn can still cast Gate, Wish, Plane Shift, Summon Monster, Black Tentacles, Teleport and so-on.

As a die-hard necromancer player (hah-hah, get it?) I am finding myself extremely surprised at my hype for Universalist.

It looks like the versatility is finally going to be worth the trade-off.

So cloak of resistance has been off loaded to magic armor? Not thrilled about that.

I do like the changes to shields very much though!

Too many items in First Edition were "must haves" that made choosing other gear for that slot a moot point. Saves were so vitally important that running around with anything but a Cloak of Resistance was a bad idea unless you could afford one of the late-game fabulously expensive alternatives. But, the vast majority of playtime happens before then so the slots were effectively locked, reducing customization options.

Now your armor, or bracers of armor, fill multiple roles leaving other equipment slots open for meaningful choices.

Here's to hoping they do the same for headbands and belts.

I really like the look, sound, and feel of this. There's been barely more than a glimpse of these three ancestries so far, and yet they already feel radically different, both from each other and from how they worked in PF1. I'm excited by the notion that your choice of ancestry continues to have meaningful impact throughout the life of your character. I will probably still never play a dwarf or an elf or a goblin given the choice, but for the first time it might actually be tempting. That's a huge step up in my book.

I primarily play wizards and other casters so I LOVE the extra 5ft to get into the best possible position before unleashing a volley of magic. Running away is a wonderful backup plan, though. ;)

Arguments so far:

1. It's always been a terrible spell, so it's not at all a problem that it should be more terrible when a wizard gets it.

2. Wizards have enough utility already, they shouldn't need this spell.

3. Not all spells are created equal, so there's no room for criticism of spell/class design no matter how screwed up a spell becomes.

Not only are these arguments flawed in that they are not addressing the primary criticism here (that Spiritual Weapon needs to be changed to not rely on Wisdom only), but they are based on flawed ideas about wizards. Yes wizards have a lot of utility. Spiritual Weapon doesn't really increase that utility in a way that upsets game balance. Yes, it's not a great spell, so what's wrong with suggesting it shouldn't be even worse when a wizard or oracle casts it? Yes, not every spell within a given spell level is created equal, but that fact doesn't make criticisms of a spell's effectiveness null and void. If it already isn't a great 2nd level spell for clerics, then it's not at all radical to suggest that the spell should be updated to not be even worse for oracles and wizards.

I'm being prickly, not hostile.

I am prickly because, again, your argument thus far has been that wizards can technically cast the spell.

I am not interested in what people like. My critique is about the design. Wizard players can like wearing full plate mail. Wizard players can like wielding a greatsword and engaging in melee with a Red Wyrm. Wizard players can like doing whatever they want, including casting Spiritual Weapon if they have access to it. That has literally no relevance to this discussion.

I appreciate that you FAQ'd my OP. And I'd also like the reassure you that if a wizard at my table uses this spell I am not going to ruin their enjoyment of it.

And, to address your comment about a "low Wisdom wizard" all the numbers I've provided so far are for a 14 Wisdom wizard. That's hardly low Wisdom for a wizard, and is more Wisdom than I usually run with.

So, can we please abandon this red herring about what players like or don't like? That's not what I am talking about here and I am not here to take anyone's enjoyment of the game away.

Are their better spells they could be casting depending on the situation? Of course, there always is.

Spiritual Weapon on a wizard is *always* going to be a terrible use of that spell slot no matter what. There's a BIG difference between that and a situational spell being used outside its realm of usefulness.

It's unclear to me whether you're being coy and actually understand this, or if you really do not understand why adding these spells to wizard without errata or school abilities to make them useful is a problem.

Newer spells in a similar vein all have the caveat that the caster uses their main-casting stat, and usually their caster level as their BAB. Spiritual Weapon/Ally have been around since the CRB, and inherited super old design from 3.5. This is a problem and needs to be updated, and this problem is exacerbated by the fact that designers writing archetypes, prestige classes, feats, and whatnot seem to be doing so under the assumption that these spells can be effectively used by non-WIS casters.

Your argument thus far has been only that the wizard can technically use the spell, which has never been in question. My point has always been, why are we adding these spells to the wizard when they're so awful for that class that using them is always a bad choice? If you cannot understand my critique of this design choice, or if you think that updating the spell to be more consistent with modern design paradigms in Pathfdinder is a bad idea, then I don't know what to tell you.

Wasting your standard action for a floating weapon with +7 to hit, one attack per round, that does 1d8 +3 damage is not "just fine."

That's an average of 7.5 damage on a round that it hits, with a roughly 15% chance of hitting AC 25.

Your definition of "fine" is questionable.

Spiritual Ally and Spiritual Weapon both still force the caster to use their WIS modifier on attack rolls. This has needed changing for years, and yet new ways of gaining access to these spells have continued to be added on non-WIS casters while the spells themselves have never been updated to the new reality that casters of every type have access to them.

This was bad enough for the Oracle but at least they still have a 3/4ths BAB. But now Aether Elementalists, an otherwise cool, flavorful arcane school, have access to these spells with *no* way to make them even remotely useful.

A 12th level wizard with 14 Wisdom will have a +8 to hit with Spiritual Weapon. That is absolutely abysmal and a clear waste of a spell slot, something this spell is supposed to be an efficient use of.

PLEASE consider updating this spell so that casters use their main stat on attack rolls. Further, since Aether Elementalists are supposed to be specialized in this kind of magic, why do they not have a school ability that improves their BAB for the purposes of these spells? Even adding INT to hit, the 1/2 BAB makes hitting anything of appropriate CR pretty unlikely. If using INT, a level 11 wizard with 28 INT is still only going to have a +14 to hit and still only get a single attack per round dealing 1d8 + 3 damage.

I don't understand why spells like this are added to class lists if those classes cannot make any use of them.

The AR update has only been out a few days, so yeah, I think Archives of Nethys has probably not gotten around to updating what is legal yet.

Ok that's what I was hoping. Thanks for the info all.

And (replying to other comments) I know which scenario the boon for the "real" Thassilonian magic comes from but obvs not stating it here to avoid spoilers. :) That boon also has other perks that makes it totally worth it. But, Runesage does kind of temper my desire to go nab that boon.

Now the question is do I combine it with Bonded Wizard or Scroll Scholar? Haha

Thassilonian Magic has been around for a while. This is just a reprint. Runesage is new and gives the vast majority of the benefits and some new perks that make it better than the original in some ways.

That's why I am surprised to see it made legal and wondering if there was an error somewhere. If not, I am going to be all over this archetype! :P

Additional Resources flat out says "All archetypes in this book are legal for play."

Well, the Runesage is "treated as" a Thassilonian specialist for which spells they can prepare and how many spells they get, but they are not actually Thassilonian specialists nor do they count as using Thassilonian magic. Technically. So it would seem that Runesages are legal.

But because Thassilonian magic/specialization is specifically called out as not legal further down in the AR entry, this creates some confusion. Archives of Nethys has flagged the archetype as not legal. I disagree with this interpretation of AR but am feeling doubtful anyway.

So before I get my hopes up, can anyone confirm if Runesage is legal or not in PFS? Did I miss something that the admin of Archives of Nethys noticed?

EDIT: It's also occurred to me that perhaps the admin on Archives has not re-updated the site since Adventurer's Guide was added to the AR. The book was out for a while and not on the AR so perhaps I am just worried over nothing?

It would probably be safest to treat them as banned until there is a clarification.

Yep. That's actually the way AR works, exactly because of situations like this (and for brevity). Imagine if something SUPER broken was overlooked and not mentioned at all? It's better that the overlooked item remain not legal until it's explicitly declared legal. This is just good policy.

Well the AR entry for the same book mentions things like Bloodline Mutations which are Sorc equivalent to Arcane Discoveries. So it is really strange for them to be inconsistent about the Arcane Discoveries and whether they're legal or not. They're from the same source.

Every single other thing in the book has an explicit reference making the decision clearly intentional, whether by page reference or being directly mentioned, except the two Arcane Discoveries at the beginning, whose existence isn't even acknowledged.

Because of this inconsistency it feels like an oversight even though I do understand that everything outside the CRB defaults to "not legal" unless mentioned otherwise.

It honestly seems like whoever was writing that AR entry or making the decisions mentally lumped them in with "feats." This is totally understandable because when I was making my character I made the same mistake. But, unfortunately for me, my one-and-only Aasimar has non-retrainable racial and trait decisions that lock him in to a build that I've now realized is not legal.

So, I am going to have to shelve him indefinitely until this gets cleared up or until some way is made available that would allow me to reset my Aasimar's racial options and traits. :(

The entry for Magic Tactics Toolbox mentions other feat-like class features like Bloodline Mutations but doesn't mention the Arcane Discoveries at all.

Can we please get these explicitly stated as either legal or not? I understand that AR is a "permissive" system and that omitted items default to not legal, but this really feels like an oversight given the other features that were explicitly mentioned.

Great, thanks for confirming!

Super quick question!

If a feat--for example--is legal in PFS but the source is one of the Player's Guides for an adventure path (e.g. Crimson Throne Player's Guide), do I need to buy the whole adventure path for me to legally use that feat, or is downloading the free player's guide (where the feat is located) acceptable?

I buy a LOT of PDFs and I enjoy supporting Paizo, but some of the APs can be a bit pricy. If I need to buy it that's totally fine, but I want to be sure it's actually required before doing so.

Thanks! :)

Huzzah! (Link!)

Oreads: all alternate racial traits, favored class options, racial archetypes, racial equipment, feats, magic items, and spells are legal for play. The shaitan binder archetype can be applied to an unchained summoner; however, the summoner must select elemental (earth) for his eidolon's subtype.

Thanks for the reply, John! I'm ecstatic to hear this is being looked at. I was so happy to get my Oread boon. But when I saw that Shaitan binder was very likely not a legal option I was a bit crestfallen. I had never played a Summoner before and I thought this might be a good time to try one. My Oread boon will be kept somewhere safe in the meantime while this all shakes out. :)

Thanks again!

And maybe for the inevitable-yet-distant Pathfinder 2, Paizo will adopt one-name, one-concept and some more comprehensive template language and we'll see fewer of these sorts of problems.

I would die and go to heaven if they had a much more robust style guide and naming conventions to cut down on the murk for "Pathfinder 2". Then you could all be rid of me. ;)

...Legal archetypes:
Counter-Summoner, unwavering conduit - doesn't touch the eidolon at all.
Pyroclast - debatable, as adding fire resistance is tampering with the eidolon. Table variation; based on this thread, I might not allow one at my table.

The completely literal crowd would argue the header does not say "Base Form" so it is legal. Those who think of the rules as actual objects/mechanics more like a computer program might argue that the fire resistance counts as the Energy Resistance evolution or is "close enough." The ability also starts with the "Eidolon begins with" clause, noting that the eidolon gets it out of the box (and it's not even a bonus like the +2 stat for Shaitan Binder, but an actual modification of the creature). So Pyroclast modifies the innate properties of the Eidolon and Shaitan Binder provides a conditional untyped buff. The former is an internal source; it becomes an inherent property of the eidolon. The latter is an external source, applied to the eidolon under a condition; the inherent properties of the eidolon do not change.

Another thing, pyroclast eventually gets the fire subtype which I think disqualifies it. I think type and subtype are both considered part of the creature's "type." Modifying either is probably going to make the archetype illegal per the same blog post. (Yay more ambiguity? lol)

Further, Paizo is not consistent when it comes to whether they favor the literal wording of something or the mechanics behind them. In some cases they argue the name of an ability does not matter as much as the precise mechanics behind it, such as the Oracle's "Channel" vs. the Cleric's "Channel Energy." Feat pre-reqs will cite "Channel Energy" but it has been publicly stated that if X does the same thing as Y, X qualifies for thing Z with pre-requisite Y. Sean K. Reynolds made a lengthy post about this. And to clarify, he was a Paizo employee at the time of that post.

Alternatively, the "Draconic Bloodline" for Sorcerers and Bloodragers has different effects. Yet a bloodrager with the Draconic Bloodline can still enter Dragon Disciple and have their bloodline powers progressed. This is a case of name trumping mechanics. They don't do quite the same thing, yet the name/thematics of the bloodline is qualifying the Bloodrager. I agree with this ruling, I am just saying that there's a lot of inconsistency and it's hard to predict which way Paizo will rule on the matter. Source

Things designed to work with the original summoner are legal for original summoners only.

Not true. That's never stated anywhere, and that's not how the unchained classes interact with options/effects. The blog post does not ban unchained summoners from all old archetypes, it incidentally bans them from most via the stated restrictions. Old archetypes interact with unchained classes exactly as they interact with the original versions. The problem arises when the unchained variant cannot give up or modify a feature it does not have, which is a rule that predates Pathfinder Unchained. An Unchained Summoner is just a "Summoner." Outside of the blog post and anything in the AR, that is the only thing preventing any unchained class from taking archetypes, feats, et cetera that the original class could also take.

Sinistrad wrote:

Oreads can use neither of their racial archetypes unless this is cleared up in favor of Shaitan Binder.

Oreads can't use the monk archetype?

I misspoke; race doesn't have anything to do with the Maneuver Master. I was still thinking of Summoners. Oreads can use Maneuver Master; Unchained Monks cannot. Oread chained Monks can use Student of Stone; Oread unchained Monks cannot. Just got my wires crossed, sorry.

Should the restriction on UC archetypes be on the AR? Sure, a small section under Unchained. AR is for legalities, and this is an issue of whether an archetype Is legal. Is it as big of a failure or problem as you're making it out to be? To put it simply, no, it isn't.

Quote:

I am just going to sit on my boon until I find out either way.

You'll probably be sitting on it forever then if you don't want to take the answers of people who've probably been around longer than most in this thread combined.

If AR gets updated as it should have been already, then I'll have my answer. AR still says Shaitan Binder is legal. The blog post mentioning Unchained Summoners is not clear because of Paizo's style guide. The style guide also causes confusion about whether a particular text is referencing a race or subtype in many cases. But that's beside the point; AR needs to be updated.

So because someone in 2012 didn't know how to write archetypes, one of the most cool and flavorful summoner archetypes is now ruined for Pathfinder Society. That's legitimately upsetting.

Thank you for understanding my frustration. :P Oreads can use neither of their racial archetypes unless this is cleared up in favor of Shaitan Binder. I am just going to sit on my boon until I find out either way.

And seeing as there is a Season 7 scenario which is granting the boon now... a lot of people are going to be sad, or worse, unknowning GMs and players might be leveling up and playing illegal characters. (Depending on which way this goes, if it goes anywhere.)

Andrew Christian wrote:

I'm also not sure how you can consider any change to the base for as not modifying it. If it is no longer the same as it was before, it has been modified.

Well that's the thing, whether or not it actually modifies the eidolon's base form is unclear.

You've more or less got three layers of ambiguity here:

1) Does Base Form refer to the entire Eidolon's starting package, or the Base Form entry written into each eidolon type? Or hell, just the eidolon's specific form.

i.e., an Agathion eidolon has "Biped (claws, limbs [arms], limbs [legs]) or quadruped (limbs [legs, 2], bite)" written under its base form entry and the Oread racial archetype changes none of those features.

In turn your eidolon's base statistics are 'determined' by your base form, which at best leaves it ambiguous if they're one and the same.

2) Does the class feature intrinsically modify the eidolon's statistics, or is it something separate because it's described as a bonus rather than an actual change?

Not only is it worded as a bonus rather than an alteration, but it's a bonus that only applies situationally at that. If this disqualifies the Shaitan binder it brings up the silly question of whether or not the archetype is okay if you're using a Serpentine eidolon instead of a bipedal one, because the archetype explicitly doesn't modify non-bipeds.

3) If the former is correct in 2, is modify being used to refer to the explicit game term or is it being used colloquially to refer to any change?

Notably the Shaitan Binder doesn't modify the eidolon for the purposes of archetype stacking. It's completely compatible with any archetype that changes your base eidolon.

Muser wrote:

"There's ambiguity in whether the reference is to the "base form" i.e. bipedal/quad/serpent OR "Base Form" capital B.F. the class feature. "

I just...can't. My canning is officially exhausted. Can is not what I feel canning inside my skin.

I hope you get a satisfactory

...

Finally someone getting the point I am trying to make. And yeah the +2 is provided as an untyped bonus, so technically if the base form grants 13 STR, the base form STILL grants 13 str and remains unchanged, but the *eidolon* gets a +2 untyped bonus to whatever stat (probably STR).

I know it's clear which one I want to be true. But, at the same time I completely agree either case could be true, which is why I was hoping for clarification. I will even cede that it is more likely that Shaitan Binder is not legal; I just don't think it is 100% clear. Nevermind the issues with the AR not clearly communicating the archetype's legality without the need to reference another external source (blog post).

But as usual people just want to argue and insinuate my intelligence score is below 10.

The reason some Summoner archetypes are still legal in the Additional Resources, even though they conflict with the Unchained blog post is probably purely for grandfathered Summoners. If they were to remove those entries then any grandfathered summoner using that archetype would have to be rebuilt according to the rebuild rules.

Just my 2 cents as why certain conflicting archetypes are still listed in the Additional Resources.

Another thing of note: I just went into Hero Lab and created a new Oread Summoner and the Archetype in question was listed as legal in Hero Lab. Of course that doesn't mean it is legal though - for instance, I used to have a Spinosaurus as an animal companion, and then they went and removed it from the Additional Resources, and that was some time ago that it got the ban hammer, but Hero Lab still lists it as valid.

Add a single clause to the APG that says any archetypes that were legal when the Summoner was made are legal for that character only. Done. Summoner isn't legal either, they just grandfathered it in. And that grandfathering can be done in the APG entry so they don't have to repeat that caveat all over the place.

I'm also not sure how you can consider any change to the base for as not modifying it. If it is no longer the same as it was before, it has been modified.

Already explained it. There's ambiguity in whether the reference is to the "base form" i.e. bipedal/quad/serpent OR "Base Form" capital B.F. the class feature.

And back to David's post, yes, AR needs to be updated regardless of the legality of Shaitan Binder. It's unclear. People looking to make a character who are looking only at AR do not have enough information to make a legal character. It would appear to them that Wild Caller and Shaitan Binder are actually legal (Wild Caller 100% definitely is not). So, I'm not sure how you can consider the AR failing its most basic purpose completely acceptable. Expecting players, and GMs to sift through every little blog post for legality-crumbs that are not included in the AR completely defeats the purpose of having it in the first place. How are people even capable of disagreeing with this concept?

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Sinistrad wrote:

TimD wrote:

Shaitan Binder modifies the base form and is therefore illegal.

** spoiler omitted **

Problem is the ambiguity in what base form means. Adding to a stat isn't changing the shape of the creature in any way (number of limbs, types of attacks, etc on the base form). The way it is worded it could either mean Base Form the class feature, or base form, the actual shape of the eidolon. It's unclear.

Also, it's explicitly allowed in additional resources still, which seems it would be a more authoritative source than a blog post. You may be totally right, and I accept that, but there's enough ambiguity here that I was hoping someone could help clear that up. :)

Did the previously legal archetypes that changed the base form get removed from the additional resources list once unchained came out?

If not, then the fact that it's listed as legal on that list doesn't do anything to override the rule that it's illegal for the unchained summoner.

I mean, looking at it, I'm not seeing that it modifies the base form. It gives it a bonus if it is a certain base form, but it's not like the First Worlder or Synthesist that actually modifies what the eidolon's base form is. So I'm inclined to agree that it is a legal archetype for the Unchained Summoner, but I'm obviously not the design team, so I'll await what they say rather than continuing to argue the point.

Yeah exactly. It has juuuuuust enough ambiguity that I am hoping we can get Additional Resources updated to be a bit clearer. Also Wild Caller should probably be called out. Haa!

Sinistrad wrote:

TimD wrote:

Shaitan Binder modifies the base form and is therefore illegal.

** spoiler omitted **

Problem is the ambiguity in what base form means. Adding to a stat isn't changing the shape of the creature in any way (number of limbs, types of attacks, etc on the base form). The way it is worded it could either mean Base Form the class feature, or base form, the actual shape of the eidolon. It's unclear.

Also, it's explicitly allowed in additional resources still, which seems it would be a more authoritative source than a blog post. You may be totally right, and I accept that, but there's enough ambiguity here that I was hoping someone could help clear that up. :)

Did the previously legal archetypes that changed the base form get removed from the additional resources list once unchained came out?

If not, then the fact that it's listed as legal on that list doesn't do anything to override the rule that it's illegal for the unchained summoner.

Additional Resources makes absolutely no mention of the legality of applying pre-unchained archetypes to unchained classes at all, anywhere. For all of this, players must reference other material outside Additional Resources. Further, the FAQ for Pathfinder Unchained is completely silent on the topic of archetypes. And, the post stating how Unchained interacts with non-Unchained archetypes reads more like a clarification than a rules-update.

Here's the entirety of the Pathfinder Unchained entry in Additional Resources for PFS:

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained

The following parts of Pathfinder Unchained are legal for play:

Classes: all classes on pages 8-39 are legal for play; Skill Unlocks: the skill unlocks and Signature Skill feat are only available through the rogue's edge class ability.

The blog post for Society Unchained has been live for months now, so at the very least Additional Resources needs to be updated. It's incomplete and misleading right now; people are going to be making illegal characters if they only reference Additional Resources. And at best, I am hoping we can get clarification on whether "base form" is referring to the Eidolon "class" feature as a whole, or the actual shape of the eidolon itself (limbs, attacks, etc).

I'm not planning on making my Oread anytime soon, but when I do, I would really love if Additional Resources was clear one way or the other.

Shaitan Binder modifies the base form and is therefore illegal.

** spoiler omitted **

Problem is the ambiguity in what base form means. Adding to a stat isn't changing the shape of the creature in any way (number of limbs, types of attacks, etc on the base form). The way it is worded it could either mean Base Form the class feature, or base form, the actual shape of the eidolon. It's unclear.

Also, it's explicitly allowed in additional resources still, which seems it would be a more authoritative source than a blog post. You may be totally right, and I accept that, but there's enough ambiguity here that I was hoping someone could help clear that up.

EDIT: Also, forgot to mention, having that blog post be the only reference stating that certain Unchained Summoner archetypes are not legal defeats the purpose of the Additional Resources document, which is to have a single go-to source for all questions of content legality. I noticed the Wild Caller is still included as legal in Races of The Wild (but that one is unquestionably modifying the base form, as it gives you entirely new base forms to choose from. And it modifies type, [plant, extraplanar]).

My guess is Oreads are uncommon enough in PFS that it just wasn't addressed when Unchained came out.

Also, since this is a question about what is a legal option to take in PFS, I've flagged it to be moved to the PFS forums. It's not a question about how the archetype works. It's a question about whether or not it's allowed to be taken in PFS. So John, Linda, or Tonya would be the ones to answer the question. They're much more likely to see it over there.

Thanks, sorry about that. I'll try to remember this in the future. :)

Oreads: all alternate racial traits, favored class options, racial archetypes, racial equipment, feats, magic items, and spells are legal for play.

The unchained summoner qualifies for all existing summoner archetypes, save those that modify the eidolon's type or base form.

The Oread boon gives me access to the race and thereby to Shaitan Summoner per Additional Resources for Advanced Race Guide, and it's clearly and explicitly stated as legal. The Society Unchained post is a blog post which says archetypes that modify the base form are not legal. So which is it? Which is more authoritative in this case? Because they are contradictory statements.

Also, if Shaitan Binder were just "grandfathered" for regular Summoners, it should be called out as not legal except when grandfathered in. That seems to be how it's usually done, but that is not the case with Shaitan Binder.

EDIT: It has also occurred to me there's a lot of ambiguity in what they mean by "base form." Is it the feature "Base Form" or base form as in bipedal/serpentine/quadruped? Because technically the Shaitan Binder does not *have* to pick bipedal, they just lose out on the +2 to a stat if they do not. So it is modifying the Base Form feature of the Eidolon, but not the actual base form selection (biped/quadruped/serpentine).

Yeah, just a weird coincidence that the two times I tried to download something two unrelated issues were messing with downloads.

I'm apparently rolling lots of 1's lately. :P

I just tried Internet Explorer.

I wait 10 seconds after it says it is personalizing my PDF and then when I click again the page loads and nothing happens (no download begins).

Google has revealed that a hard drive getting full has been a problem in the past. Is that happening again? How has no one noticed in three days?

I've been unable to download my PDFs for at least three days now.

I've tried in both Chrome and Firefox and I have tried from two different computers and networks, one running Windows 10 and the other running Windows 7. I've never had problems on either machine or network before.

I am unable to find any outage notifications, and I do not get any error messages. What the heck is going on?

(Yes, I have cleared my cache and restarted my browser in both Firefox and Chrome.)

I read this 2 spell and that was conclusion that i made.But its my opinion on this topic count it like RAI not RAW :)

I understand mr Vanykrye argument its possible that's he's right and i'm wrong

But in PFS if there is no hard rule about something GM can rule whatever he think is more RAW

I can see how people come to the conclusion. But some level of abstraction is necessary for the rules to work at all. If an effect gives you all the "parts" of a fly speed, you effectively have a fly speed. This has been supported by many FAQ rulings, official posts, and maybe even some errata.

Anyway, I was able to have a private discussion with my GM away from the table and after pointing out some of the weird consequences that ruling would have on other spells he agreed that the order of application does not matter. Haste buffs any new movement modes you gain, including those gained magically via Fly or Burrow spells, et cetera.

Haste wont work on Fly spell "The subject can fly at a speed of 60 feet "

Fly dont grant you natural mode of movement thats why Haste wont work cuz haste increase All of the hasted creature's modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim)

Fly gives you a fly speed. If you can fly at speed of 60 feet, you have the movement mode Fly: 60ft (Good maneuverability)

I am pretty sure that particular issue has been resolved elsewhere so I don't think we need to derail this thread with irrelevant side-discussions.

The Fly spell gives you a fly speed, a maneuverability rating, and an additional bonus to the fly skill equal to 1/2 caster level. If that isn't considered granting a movement mode then I don't know what else it could be.

Haste's extra movement speed should affect the fly spell. There's no real reason it shouldn't. However, this isn't the first time this question has come up. 2014 Thread I'm not seeing much changing since then. I'm not seeing a FAQ on it either.

I'd imagine there's no FAQ because the designers feel it's as self-evident as I do. :(

Thanks for linking that other thread, though. I'll go check it out!

So last week I was at a PFS table. The summoner cast Haste on the party, and on my turn I cast fly.

I proceeded to start moving 90 ft (60ft Fly + 30 haste) and the GM stopped me and said because I cast Fly after I received Haste, that Haste was not buffing my Fly speed.

I know this is just plain wrong. I argued that Haste has a duration and is a constant effect like a condition. *I am hasted.* I am moving faster, and as a result, just because I gained a movement mode after the effect doesn't mean I do not get the hasted movement for that new movement mode.

I feel this is such a basic and self-evident concept that I am not really sure how to argue my case when this comes up again (it most likely will).

Are there any bits of rules text I can cite that would help me argue my case? This ruling hurts my party because it means I'll be casting haste when I cannot effect them (because I have to do it after I polymorph/fly while inside a Time Stutter).

Any help or nudges in the right direction are greatly appreciated.