|
To gain all the benefits of being small, the small Eidolon receives a -4 to Strength and a -2 to Constitution, and their attacks are reduced one dice step, amongst other things.
I get the reduction in natural attack damage, but not the -4 to Strength and a -2 to Constitution. Why?
This feels to me like a hearkening back to the old days of the Half-Orc's weird, debilitating -2 to two scores, with only a +2 to Strength.
Why not just a -2 to Strength? Or a plus +4 to dex, forget the -2 to Con.
Unlike the Large-size, which has some annoying drawbacks but nothing uber debilitating, this really hammers the lover of the small Eidolon.
To gain all the benefits of being small, the small Eidolon receives a -4 to Strength and a -2 to Constitution, and their attacks are reduced one dice step, amongst other things.
I get the reduction in natural attack damage, but not the -4 to Strength and a -2 to Constitution. Why?
This feels to me like a hearkening back to the old days of the Half-Orc's weird, debilitating -2 to two scores, with only a +2 to Strength.
Why not just a -2 to Strength? Or a plus +4 to dex, forget the -2 to Con.
Unlike the Large-size, which has some annoying drawbacks but nothing uber debilitating, this really hammers the lover of the small Eidolon.
+2 bonus to its Dexterity score. It also takes a –4 penalty to its Strength and a –2 penalty to its Constitution. It also gains a +1 size bonus to its AC and attack rolls, a –1 penalty to its CMB and CMD scores, a +2 bonus on its Fly skill checks, and a +4 bonus on its Stealth skill checks.
Smaller things in D&D are normally not as tough or strong. That is why size advancements of a particular creature give it a strength, and constitution bonus.
When you combine the dex bonus with the +4 stealth check you get a +5 to stealth before anything is added in. This leads me to beleive the small one was intend more for spying. You can also take the evolution that gives then a natural attack as if they were one size category larger. As of now, but don't quote me on this, I think it stacks with Improved Natural Attack. I won't be allowing that combo in my game however.
A plus +1 to AC, Reflex and dex skill checks does not balance out a -2 to Melee Attacks and Damage, -2 to climb checks, -1 Fortitude, -1 HP at every level.
Not if you concentrate on pure combat, but smaller creatures never(90%+) balance out with larger creatures in terms of combat. That is why I stated the smaller one was most likely intended for stealth operations, and if you wanted to make it a harder hitter give it the evolution that improved that size of its natural attacks, and the INA feat. That way you have a small creature that whose base damage is about the same as a large creature.
I find it interesting that a lot of people seem to define thing's usefulness by how much damage they can do and how well they hit
|
|
I find it interesting that a lot of people seem to define thing's usefulness by how much damage they can do and how well they hit
It is true. However, if the Eidolon that is small is made for the purpose of stealth, I'd like to see some of the following:
A Trapfinding Evolution
A Sneak attack evolution
+2 to Intelligence and/or Wisdom for a small Eidolon.
Yes, now you can make the Eidolon take the rogue's spot as well!
I like the idea of how an Eidolon can replace any role in a party (No sarcasm, I really do). We have seen that it could replace a warrior-type, and the case has been made for a replacement for a mage and healer-type. Now, if they added Evolutions for trapfinding, and possibly sneak attack, it could replace a rogue!
I just think, as it is set-up now, they really penalize the Eidolon for being small, because, yes, they want it to be just for combat, and by not having your Eidolon made for combat by being small, I feel the developers are going: "Well, if you aren't going to make your Eidolon for combat, we'll make sure it is useless there, and that the benefits for a non-combat Eidolon are almost nill"
I would love to see the Eidolon that isn't combat based. How cool would it be if your Eidolon was the speaker for the group?
I find it interesting that a lot of people seem to define thing's usefulness by how much damage they can do and how well they hitIt is true. However, if the Eidolon that is small is made for the purpose of stealth, I'd like to see some of the following:
A Trapfinding Evolution
A Sneak attack evolution
+2 to Intelligence and/or Wisdom for a small Eidolon.Yes, now you can make the Eidolon take the rogue's spot as well!
I like the idea of how an Eidolon can replace any role in a party (No sarcasm, I really do). We have seen that it could replace a warrior-type, and the case has been made for a replacement for a mage and healer-type. Now, if they added Evolutions for trapfinding, and possibly sneak attack, it could replace a rogue!
I just think, as it is set-up now, they really penalize the Eidolon for being small, because, yes, they want it to be just for combat, and by not having your Eidolon made for combat by being small, I feel the developers are going: "Well, if you aren't going to make your Eidolon for combat, we'll make sure it is useless there, and that the benefits for a non-combat Eidolon are almost nill"
I would love to see the Eidolon that isn't combat based. How cool would it be if your Eidolon was the speaker for the group?
I don't think people would it doing everyone's job. That was part of the complaints against the codzilla, and batman. Even if they could not do a another class's job full time they could be better at it if they focused on it.
The ability to replace the rogue depends on the campaign. This was discussed on another thread though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it interesting that a lot of people seem to define thing's usefulness by how much damage they can do and how well they hit
If by "interesting" you mean "sad."
To gain all the benefits of being small, the small Eidolon receives a -4 to Strength and a -2 to Constitution, and their attacks are reduced one dice step, amongst other things.
I get the reduction in natural attack damage, but not the -4 to Strength and a -2 to Constitution. Why?
This feels to me like a hearkening back to the old days of the Half-Orc's weird, debilitating -2 to two scores, with only a +2 to Strength.
Why not just a -2 to Strength? Or a plus +4 to dex, forget the -2 to Con.
Unlike the Large-size, which has some annoying drawbacks but nothing uber debilitating, this really hammers the lover of the small Eidolon.
Because that's what the rules dictate for a size change from Medium to Small, just as +8 strength, -2 dexterity, +2 constitution is what the rules dictate for a size change from Medium to Large and from Large to Huge. Eidolons use the rules for monster size changes.
I find it interesting that a lot of people seem to define thing's usefulness by how much damage they can do and how well they hitIf by "interesting" you mean "sad."
I do in fact
I do in factI find it interesting that a lot of people seem to define thing's usefulness by how much damage they can do and how well they hitIf by "interesting" you mean "sad."
Hear hear!!
A plus +1 to AC, Reflex and dex skill checks does not balance out a -2 to Melee Attacks and Damage, -2 to climb checks, -1 Fortitude, -1 HP at every level.
Not quite. Net changes from Medium to Small:
Attack: -1 (-2 STR, +1 size)
CMB: -3 (-2 STR, -1 size)
Damage: -3 (average/approximate due to die size reduction & -2 STR)
AC: +2 (+1 size, +1 DEX)
CMD: -2 (-2 STR, +1 DEX, -1 size)
Saves: +1 Reflex (DEX), -1 Fortitude (CON)
HP: -1/HD (CON)
Skills: +1 to Acrobatics (DEX) & Escape Artist (DEX), +3 Fly (+1 dex, +2 size), +5 Stealth (+1 dex, +4 size). -2 to Climb & Swim.
Please note I deliberately omitted Trained-Only skills and the Ride skill, since I figured they wouldn't be used much.
So basically you have exactly what you'd expect from a small creature. Harder to hit and deal damage to, but overall a little less threatening and tough. Note that the net penalty to attack disappears entirely with Weapon Finesse, and the -1 to Climb & Swim can be overcome with the appropriate movement types.
If you want a heavy hitting pet, go with Medium size (or larger). If you want a stealthy, manuverable pet then a small sized one is definitely a viable option. Why is this a surprise?
EDIT: added CMB/D, made correction
A Trapfinding Evolution
A Sneak attack evolution
+2 to Intelligence and/or Wisdom for a small Eidolon.Yes, now you can make the Eidolon take the rogue's spot as well!
The first two are good ideas, but I don't think the 3rd is necessary.
Note that you don't need the Trapfinding class feature to find mundane traps of DC20+ anymore. The only special thing it gives the Rogues now is a +1 per 2 levels, and the ability to find/disarm magic traps. With Detect Magic now an at-will cantrip, that latter ability is less valuable too (though beware the Magic Aura spell :P). Since you can designate 4 class skills, Disable Device could definitely be among them. Ditto for Slight of Hand and Use Magic Device.
I just think, as it is set-up now, they really penalize the Eidolon for being small, because, yes, they want it to be just for combat, and by not having your Eidolon made for combat by being small, I feel the developers are going: "Well, if you aren't going to make your Eidolon for combat, we'll make sure it is useless there, and that the benefits for a non-combat Eidolon are almost nill"
I disagree completely. The skilled evolution alone combined with some Rogue class skills and a small size could make for a fantastic addition to a party lacking a Rogue (or whose Rogue has focused elsewhere). Add in flight, maybe climb and/or swim speeds, a carefully chosen spell-like ability or three, poison, web, blindsense/sight, etc, and you've got a great little utility player. Also note there's no size restriction on breath weapons. Who would expect that?
The issue is that being large and huge have their disadvantages. Small spaces for one, finding a place for it to sleep for then night when you go into a tavern, for another. Not all of their "penalties" are evident in every circumstance but when you take into account the number of adventures that take place in part or in whole underground and/or inside you have a serious issue.
If smaller E's are just as mechanically advantageous as their larger cousins but with the only "disadvantage" being -1AC then you would see /all/ of them going small with huge combat numbers.
Myself- I'm all for small/tiny/whatever ones being good skill monkeys at the expense of pure combat effectiveness. I am pretty much against them getting sneak attack. if they get it at all it needs to be severely reduced and weakened to maybe 1d6 every 4th or 5th level and only usable on one attack per evolution spent. Don't forget that in addition to the critter you still have the summoner. If you give them full SA with the number of attack they get with little to no penalty for being small with the SA, plus the Summoner added ontop.. well, to me that just sounds over powered.
I could be wrong- but it does sound that way to me.
-S
|
|
I am pretty much against them getting sneak attack. if they get it at all it needs to be severely reduced and weakened to maybe 1d6 every 4th or 5th level and only usable on one attack per evolution spent.
-S
Oh good lord, I'd never give them an advancing sneak attack. Maybe 'maybe' a +2d6 per evolution, with (defiantly) a summoner level prerequisite each time it is taken. (2nd level the first time, 6th level the second time, etc...)
So, from everyone's comments, you think that a +2 to Dex is worth a -4 to Strength and a -2 to Constitution? This is what you are saying, right?
I am pretty much against them getting sneak attack. if they get it at all it needs to be severely reduced and weakened to maybe 1d6 every 4th or 5th level and only usable on one attack per evolution spent.
-S
Oh good lord, I'd never give them an advancing sneak attack. Maybe 'maybe' a +2d6 per evolution, with (defiantly) a summoner level prerequisite each time it is taken. (2nd level the first time, 6th level the second time, etc...)
So, from everyone's comments, you think that a +2 to Dex is worth a -4 to Strength and a -2 to Constitution? This is what you are saying, right?
Yep.
Ok, so let me get this straight: You're complaining about a rule that's been defined since the Core (and before, really, with 3.5), and isn't forced upon anyone?
While I agree that there SHOULD be options for smaller eidolons, it makes no sense to b~~&% about the changes that size brings about, in either direction. Evolutions should be available to reduce the size of the eidolon, and further evolutions should be available to eidolons of smaller sizes. Mind you, there should also be ones available to eidolons of larger sizes only, as well (and I do not mean ones that are only generally USEFUL to larger eidolons, like swallow whole).
So, from everyone's comments, you think that a +2 to Dex is worth a -4 to Strength and a -2 to Constitution? This is what you are saying, right?
Nope. What we're saying is that the benefits and penalties of being Small vs Medium mostly balance out, as long as you realize that there will be some things more difficult and others easier in either size. It's not just about the straight ability modifiers.
I very much enjoy the idea of having a small eidolon, but I do feel the options presented for such are somewhat limited. The eidolon evolutions seem mainly geared for combat, and I would be delighted if some utility ones were added in.
Perhaps something to give it additional feats, cheap utility powers, or maybe even longer range away from the summoner. Telepathy with the summoner would be a nice option, as well. A evolution to give Darkvision 120' wouldn't seem terribly out of place.
I think the biggest problem would be the space. Summoner already takes up a good deal of room, and more abilities would make it more voluminous. Maybe a sidebar with a few tips on costing new evolutions would be warranted.
I am pretty much against them getting sneak attack. if they get it at all it needs to be severely reduced and weakened to maybe 1d6 every 4th or 5th level and only usable on one attack per evolution spent.
-S
Oh good lord, I'd never give them an advancing sneak attack. Maybe 'maybe' a +2d6 per evolution, with (defiantly) a summoner level prerequisite each time it is taken. (2nd level the first time, 6th level the second time, etc...)
So, from everyone's comments, you think that a +2 to Dex is worth a -4 to Strength and a -2 to Constitution? This is what you are saying, right?
I think what everyone is essentially saying is that when picking a small eidolon, they go into it realizing the creature will be less effective at combat (just as someone who choses to be a gnome instead of a human realizes they're less effective at combat). That said, there are a lot of reasons to make a small eidolon (scout being the first and foremost reason I can think of, but I could see someone making a "caster" eidolon) and once small its not like they're worthless in combat, just not as good damage wise.
All that said, it'd be neat to give some small-specific evolutions. Allowing a small eidolon to diffuse traps as a rogue would (including magic) would be neat, I could understand it from a flavor POV---they're nimble as their small, and they're outsiders so maybe they'd have some advanced understanding of "magic traps." Just as an idea as it adds some versatility to the Eidolon so that combat-beast isn't the only focus summoners take.
A plus +1 to AC, Reflex and dex skill checks does not balance out a -2 to Melee Attacks and Damage, -2 to climb checks, -1 Fortitude, -1 HP at every level.Not quite. Net changes from Medium to Small:
Attack: -1 (-2 STR, +1 size)
CMB: -3 (-2 STR, -1 size)
Damage: -3 (average/approximate due to die size reduction & -2 STR)
AC: +2 (+1 size, +1 DEX)
CMD: -2 (-2 STR, +1 DEX, -1 size)
Saves: +1 Reflex (DEX), -1 Fortitude (CON)
HP: -1/HD (CON)
Skills: +1 to Acrobatics (DEX) & Escape Artist (DEX), +3 Fly (+1 dex, +2 size), +5 Stealth (+1 dex, +4 size). -2 to Climb & Swim.Please note I deliberately omitted Trained-Only skills and the Ride skill, since I figured they wouldn't be used much.
So basically you have exactly what you'd expect from a small creature. Harder to hit and deal damage to, but overall a little less threatening and tough. Note that the net penalty to attack disappears entirely with Weapon Finesse, and the -1 to Climb & Swim can be overcome with the appropriate movement types.
If you want a heavy hitting pet, go with Medium size (or larger). If you want a stealthy, manuverable pet then a small sized one is definitely a viable option. Why is this a surprise?
Because some people want their cake and then some more cake with hundreds and thousands [sprinkles] on top...
Aren't the existing adjustments based entirely off of the monster size chart in the back of the Bestiary?
Aren't the existing adjustments based entirely off of the monster size chart in the back of the Bestiary?
yeah
Aren't the existing adjustments based entirely off of the monster size chart in the back of the Bestiary?yeah
So then why are people complaining? Nearly all small creatures have to deal with those adjustments.
So then why are people complaining? Nearly all small creatures have to deal with those adjustments.Aren't the existing adjustments based entirely off of the monster size chart in the back of the Bestiary?yeah
The OP wants(ed) them to have special privileges since they are a class feature.
He may have changed his mind, or he may just alter game so they do as he pleases.
So then why are people complaining? Nearly all small creatures have to deal with those adjustments.Aren't the existing adjustments based entirely off of the monster size chart in the back of the Bestiary?yeahThe OP wants(ed) them to have special privileges since they are a class feature.
He may have changed his mind, or he may just alter game so they do as he pleases.
If he's the DM. My players will just have to live with their choices, which don't btw look all that bad anyway.
I'm not against having "small only" abilities. I just think that those abilities should not make the small ones mathematically identical combat wise to the large ones.
Let them be skill monkeys, disarm traps, heck let the master look through their eyes directly and give them a longer range to be apart from their masters.
Give them fun, interesting, and effective things to do for being small.. but that shouldn't include being just as strong in combat as the larger ones or all you have done is made every single eidolon small with the only next to no disability.
What rule isn't enforced on anyone?
You said that rather broadly without defining it.
-S
he can already experience the eidolon's senses as of 1st level as a standard action
|
|
I'm not against having "small only" abilities. I just think that those abilities should not make the small ones mathematically identical combat wise to the large ones.
-S
I don't want them to be equal in combat, but was thinking that maybe they could benefit from a higher intelligence score so they could get more skill points or something else in a similar vein.
I see taking the small Eidolon as an almost Non-combative option, which I love the idea of, but think that for the things they lose, they do not receive an equal compensation. A theoretical compensation doesn't have to be combat-based however, and I would hope it wouldn't be, because, again, I enjoy the idea of the non-combative Eidolon.
As for the some other stuff mentioned, yes, I know that the stat changes for size decrease existed for previous editions (and this one), but that doesn't mean this has to hold true for the Eidolon.
And this isn't about getting my cake and eating it to. I'm a GM, so if I don't like something, I house rule it out. I was hoping for some serious discussion about why the small Eidolon gets so many negatives to stats, something a little beyond "because that is what the rules say" I am not saying that I disagree, but let us look a little deeper. I think we all agree that a small Eidolon isn't chosen for it's combat prowess (though it could be), but it's potential to fulfill other party roles, like the stealthy guy. So, I ponder, what would be the harm in allowing it a bonus to Intelligence, or another mental stat? I ask this not to prove someone wrong, but to really ask: would it be game breaking? or not?
And this isn't about getting my cake and eating it to. I'm a GM, so if I don't like something, I house rule it out. I was hoping for some serious discussion about why the small Eidolon gets so many negatives to stats, something a little beyond "because that is what the rules say" I am not saying that I disagree, but let us look a little deeper. I think we all agree that a small Eidolon isn't chosen for it's combat prowess (though it could be), but it's potential to fulfill other party roles, like the stealthy guy. So, I ponder, what would be the harm in allowing it a bonus to Intelligence, or another mental stat? I ask this not to prove someone wrong, but to really ask: would it be game breaking? or not?
I would really like an "unassuming disguise" option meant for small eidolons so that it would look like a small dog, large chicken or some other mundane creature. Anyone remember the demon chicken from the Sword of Truth novel series? THAT was scary! A weaker hidden threat could be far more dangerous than an overt and powerful one.
Raving:
Doesn't the E look like whatever you want it to look like?
Quote:
The eidolon takes a form shaped by the summoner’s
desires.
(page 3)
I can't find and don't rrecall any limitation that says it can't look like a dog or sheep or panther or whatever.
Just make sure you don't take any evolutions that break the idea of what you want. (tentacle dog, eh?)
Feel free to correct me though if I'm wrong.
-S
Raving:
Doesn't the E look like whatever you want it to look like?
Quote:
The eidolon takes a form shaped by the summoner’s
desires.
(page 3)I can't find and don't rrecall any limitation that says it can't look like a dog or sheep or panther or whatever.
Just make sure you don't take any evolutions that break the idea of what you want. (tentacle dog, eh?)
Feel free to correct me though if I'm wrong.
-S
I think you are right, but there is no mechanical advantage to doing so. Maybe the disguise option could grant a +10 or +20 to Disguise checks?
Also, it could look like a normal dog until it sticks out its grotesquely long tongue in battle (like a tentacle). :D
Raving:
Doesn't the E look like whatever you want it to look like?
Quote:
The eidolon takes a form shaped by the summoner’s
desires.
(page 3)I can't find and don't rrecall any limitation that says it can't look like a dog or sheep or panther or whatever.
Just make sure you don't take any evolutions that break the idea of what you want. (tentacle dog, eh?)
Feel free to correct me though if I'm wrong.
-S
I think you are right, but there is no mechanical advantage to doing so. Maybe the disguise option could grant a +10 or +20 to Disguise checks?
Also, it could look like a normal dog until it sticks out its grotesquely long tongue in battle (like a tentacle). :D
Keep reading and youll see that:
"The eidolon’s physical appearance is up to the summoner, but it always appears as some sort of fantastical creature. This control is not f ine enough to make the eidolon appear like a specific creature."So, it may look like dog or chicken, but it will be glowing bright orange, or have wisping flames floating from hits eyes, or something else fantastic, meaning your Eidolon cannot naturally look like your pet beagle :P
Yes, but I think that becomes locked in.
Doesn't the E look like whatever you want it to look like?
Technically, you can change what it looks like at any time you can changes its evolutions around (either through leveling up or the mysterious transmorgify spell).
You can change what he looks like to some extend but a quad is still a quad, and so on.
And i took that text to mean you can't become a specific creature, not any general creature.
i.e. you can't make a bipdeal look like King George of Jeoland but you can make one look like a generic human, elf..
or a quad into any generally quadropedic animal, and so on.
-S
You can change what he looks like to some extend but a quad is still a quad, and so on.
And i took that text to mean you can't become a specific creature, not any general creature.
i.e. you can't make a bipdeal look like King George of Jeoland but you can make one look like a generic human, elf..
or a quad into any generally quadropedic animal, and so on.
-S
A fantastic elf or human, perhaps (as a DM I'd say humanoid would be about as far as I'd let it go, but thats me). The creature is still going to be obviously out of place in Golarion will not blend in as another normal person.
How is a fantastical creature going to be obviously out of place in a high fantasy world? Blink Dogs are fantastical creatures and wouldn't be notably out of place -- most people wouldn't even realize that a Blink Dog is more than just a strange breed of domesticated canine they hadn't seen before.
As for the "cannot appear like a specific creature", that means you cannot use an Eidolon to attempt to duplicate a specific creature, as in Fluffy, Mrs Rumple's pet Basilisk. They can look like a Basilisk, but you can't make them look exactly like a specific Basilisk. This is the exact same language used with the various low-level disguising/polymorphing spells.
How is a fantastical creature going to be obviously out of place in a high fantasy world? Blink Dogs are fantastical creatures and wouldn't be notably out of place -- most people wouldn't even realize that a Blink Dog is more than just a strange breed of domesticated canine they hadn't seen before.
As for the "cannot appear like a specific creature", that means you cannot use an Eidolon to attempt to duplicate a specific creature, as in Fluffy, Mrs Rumple's pet Basilisk. They can look like a Basilisk, but you can't make them look exactly like a specific Basilisk. This is the exact same language used with the various low-level disguising/polymorphing spells.
I'd say they mean different from the "normal" creature of that type in some obvious way. The "devil dog" with glowing red eyes, the small blue cat with wings, etc. Something which distinguishes them from the norm for that creature. Someone unfamiliar with the creature type might not know it but anyone familiar with it would.
They should probably get more specific / detailed on this. It would head off any number of arguements, etc. on what that fairly vague phrasing means.
Define "fantastic" please.
And no, I'm not being a smartass.
Player:
"i design a quadroped catlike furry Eidolon with black skin/fur and a tentacle coming off each forward shoulder".
easy to design under the rules. Completely fantastic.
Also, near perfect description of a displacer beast (when coupled with extra limbs, depending on the DP version you choose to emulate).
How about a worg?
a goblin dog?
A moon dog?
Elves are fantastic creatures as well. So are dwarves.
Halflings, gnomes, orcs.
As unfortunate as it may be "fantastic" is entirely arbitrary and subjective. EVery creature in the MM is a fantastic creature. They all also happen to fit into very nearly every game world.
If you choose to interpret it as shiny and weird, odd and peculiar looking, so weird that anyone who sees it knows it can't possibly be anything but an Eidolon then that's your business. But don't act like the rules require it. Because they don't.
-S
Except that the eidolon also bears a glowing rune somwhere on its body that matches the one on the summoner's forehead. Kind of a dead giveaway that it's not a normal creature by any stretch.
I'd say they mean different from the "normal" creature of that type in some obvious way. The "devil dog" with glowing red eyes, the small blue cat with wings, etc. Something which distinguishes them from the norm for that creature. Someone unfamiliar with the creature type might not know it but anyone familiar with it would.
I'd say that if they meant the creature had to be obviously an Eidolon, 1) they would have said so, 2) they wouldn't have included the text about not being able to appear like a specific creature, and 3) they wouldn't have including the glowing "I'm an Eidolon!" rune.
I think it's pretty clear that an Eidolon is intended to be able to emulate any generic fantasy creature. It still has room for the creatures you describe, but it does not require them.
The rune is obvious, yes.. but not everyone will know glowing rune = eidolon.
Sure the PC's will be onto it, especially if there is a PC summoner around.. but expecting every tom dick and harry in the game world to instantly know it is somewhat of a stretch.
They'd be curious about it, for sure.
That being said, a displacer beast with a rune on its head.. most folks aren't worried about the rune.
-S
The rune is obvious, yes.. but not everyone will know glowing rune = eidolon.
Sure the PC's will be onto it, especially if there is a PC summoner around.. but expecting every tom dick and harry in the game world to instantly know it is somewhat of a stretch.
They'd be curious about it, for sure.
That being said, a displacer beast with a rune on its head.. most folks aren't worried about the rune.
-S
In novels and published adventures, the classes are recognizable by class quiet easily. Sometimes your class determines how you get treated in certain parts of the adventure. Age of Worms has such a chapter.
However I would have to agree with the displacer beast quote. I would probably go out of my way to make sure it is not mistaken for a displacer beast.
How is a fantastical creature going to be obviously out of place in a high fantasy world? Blink Dogs are fantastical creatures and wouldn't be notably out of place -- most people wouldn't even realize that a Blink Dog is more than just a strange breed of domesticated canine they hadn't seen before.
As for the "cannot appear like a specific creature", that means you cannot use an Eidolon to attempt to duplicate a specific creature, as in Fluffy, Mrs Rumple's pet Basilisk. They can look like a Basilisk, but you can't make them look exactly like a specific Basilisk. This is the exact same language used with the various low-level disguising/polymorphing spells.
Id call a blink dog a fantastic creature. My post was in response to someone who wanted it to look like a regular dog or other small animal. I'd have less problem with someone wanting their eidolon to look like a blink dog than it looking like an elf or a regular riding dog. Personally I think the wording about making it look like a specific creature to be ambiguous. Someone could make their eidolon look similar to a basilisk but anyone who knows anything about basilisks would know something was off...and anyone with knowledge planes would know that it was an outsider.
As to the people's reaction to a blink dog, you're right, not everyone is going to be offput by the presence of eidolon, in a high fantasy adventure, this stuff is relatively common place. Still, they're going to know that the eidolon is something special (if they have knowledge planes, otherwise I'd expect them to have no clue what it was, shrug their shoulders, and go "Oi, more of dem crazy adventurer's").If you want to make the eidolon look mundane, thats why we have alter self and spells in a similar vein.
I think the point of the rune is just so your normal person (who wouldn't have a bestiary's worth of extraplanar knowledge) to know that the (N)PC and Eidolon are linked.
I agree with it needing much clarification.. However I fear it won't ever be.
And I don't really mind that. I have no issue with asking my DM what he interprets "fantastic" to be.
The problem would be at organized events. One DM interprets it to mean neon orange with lil bits of floating light off of it and the other says that 'looking like a displacer beast" is fantastic enough.
It needs to be explained if only for organized play.
My fear though is that it won't be, much like the old druid wildshape line about "being familiar" was much ranted about but never really given any formal explanation.
-S
Id call a blink dog a fantastic creature. My post was in response to someone who wanted it to look like a regular dog or other small animal. I'd have less problem with someone wanting their eidolon to look like a blink dog than it looking like an elf or a regular riding dog.
You're missing my point. Blink Dogs look exactly like medium-sized dogs (ie, riding dogs) except that they have larger ears, which isn't exactly a smoking gun.
|
[Sarcasm]Note that it did not say "fantastic" but rather "fantastical". [/sarcasm]
Fantastic is normally described as being odd or bizarre, very imaginative, not being based on reality... Which I think we can agree, most of the creatures in the monster manual fall under that definition. Dogs, however, are not in any way, shape, or form fantastic. They are almost the definition of mundane. That is why people have said that if it resembles a type of creature that already exists, it has to have some defining features that make it "fantastical" if it is not already.
I don't know about you folks, but I would rather my Eidolon not resemble anything that is even near common knowledge in the game world. Through his sheer force of personality (and with a little knowledge of the fantastical), a summoner gains the service of a being shaped entirely by his desires. As long as summoners aren't regarded as the bringers of the coming apocalypse, wherever I go I'd be showing off my awesome Eidolon, battling with other summoners' Eidolons... And eventually becoming the Eidolon Master! (forgive me for that last part, but in my defense it is getting rather late here and my mind tends to wander when I get tired..)
But back on topic; By the dictionary definition of "Fantastic", combined with the text from the summoner class "it always appears as some fantastical creature", we can conclude that it was intended to not be able to appear like a mundane creature, seeing as mundane is anathema to fantastic, unless said mundane creature has some fantastic changes.
You know, I should get a medal of some sort for using the word "fantastic" so fantastically. Consider this thread fantasticated
EDIT: Like I said, it's late. Forgive me