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.
*shrug* And I think "fantastical" indicates something identifiable as "not normal" for a fantasy setting. Otherwise why describe it as such? If it's going to look like any other creature of the world "fantastical" would not be, imo, a good description. I would think, however "mundane" (in the terms of that world) it appears that it must have other characteristics which brand it not normal / fantastical and thus identifiable as something different.
In any event, given the Eidolon's central importance to this class I think a little more information (and examples) on the creatures possible form / appearances / identifiers would be desirable -- if nothing else to head off the discussions over what constitutes "fantastical in a fantasy setting". Which just sounds... vaguely absurd, doesn't it?
Hi Goblins Eighty-Five, I'm here to address your original issue instead of this tangential debate over eidolon disguises.
There is a simple answer to your query: There is no reason for small eidolons to be handicapped, save design choices made by Paizo. The creation rules of the creature simply read: "You are free to make whatever kind of creature you can imagine, even if your ideas suck, because plainly some options are better than others."
No two ways around that one. Small eidolons are shafted with the current rules, and it's evident they're only an option at all because some people want to make pikachu instead of charizard, despite the rules *really* wanting to focus on charizard.
The way to fix that isn't to start adding abilities that allow eidolons to replace classes other than fighters (trapfinding, really? Next people will be clamoring for channel energy and bardic music). It's to tweak the size alterations such that going to small doesn't net such a loss in power, and that going to large and huge don't net such ridiculous gains. There are already adequate tools to make a useful small eidolon - it just isn't as good as the big ones, because going that route costs it nearly 30 evolution points worth of ability score increases, natural armor, and weapon damage.
Of course, maybe Paizo doesn't actually see it as an issue to be fixed. Could just be they mean for summoners to run around with enormous beasties, and we should get used to it or plan to break out the houserule stick.
... It's to tweak the size alterations such that going to small doesn't net such a loss in power, and that going to large and huge don't net such ridiculous gains. ...
So you're saying that the rules for monster advancement, in particular with regard to size changes, should be rewritten JUST because of the eidolon ruleset? That seems like an awful lot to redo, especially considering that the bestiary, which contains said rules, has already been printed and released.
The evolution point cost, perhaps, should be higher, but rewriting a ruleset which has been established for at least 6 years seems like a bit of a stretch.
So you're saying that the rules for monster advancement, in particular with regard to size changes, should be rewritten JUST because of the eidolon ruleset? That seems like an awful lot to redo, especially considering that the bestiary, which contains said rules, has already been printed and released.
The evolution point cost, perhaps, should be higher, but rewriting a ruleset which has been established for at least 6 years seems like a bit of a stretch.
Oh, don't be absurd. The basic rules for size change are fine; of course I'm talking about the eidolon's evolutions. Just because there are good background/baseline rules for GMs to use for monsters doesn't mean it's at all balanced to let players have access to them. You'll notice Enlarge Person only gives +2 strength, not +8, and even Righteous Might only supplies +4 to the caster's strength.
If the eidolon size evolutions were formatted as feats, the net utility would look something like this:
Big Eidolon: The eidolon gains four bonus feats, chosen from this list: <many useful feats>.
Bigger Eidolon: The eidolon gains four more bonus feats, chosen from this list: <more useful feats>.
Little Eidolon: The eidolon loses the benefits of one feat (other than this one).
If that's how Paizo wants to encourage big creatures, that's their choice, but at least grant me that this is essentially what it amounts to.
Except that Enlarge person wears off and is usable as needed. (subject to casts per day, of course)
Both of which are very important. Its been said over and over again that the size increases have penalties as well. Once your critter is large or huge it is /large or huge/. It doesn't shrink when it wants to get through a door or when it wants to talk to the Queen. Its a big ole critter 24/7.
Yes, the caster can 1) use a spell known and 2) use his casts per day to remedy that but its precious resources just to be able to navigate safely through the game world. And thats not even counting what happens when your 10x10 critter (or worse) needs to bed for the night and you have to stay within 100 feet of it.
The answer to the OP isn't to neuter the larger evolutions, its for us to find the niche(s) we want smaller ones to fill and create evolutions to help 'em do that.
Added dexterity, movement speeds, increased range away from the summoner, better trap finding, better stealth. These help alot with a scout role.
Lets try not to "make small better" by stepping on the larger ones to make them useless. Then all we have are small and medium combat ineffective Eidolons running around.
-S
Except that Enlarge person wears off and is usable as needed. (subject to casts per day, of course)
Both of which are very important. Its been said over and over again that the size increases have penalties as well. Once your critter is large or huge it is /large or huge/. It doesn't shrink when it wants to get through a door or when it wants to talk to the Queen. Its a big ole critter 24/7.
Yes, the caster can 1) use a spell known and 2) use his casts per day to remedy that but its precious resources just to be able to navigate safely through the game world. And thats not even counting what happens when your 10x10 critter (or worse) needs to bed for the night and you have to stay within 100 feet of it.
The answer to the OP isn't to neuter the larger evolutions, its for us to find the niche(s) we want smaller ones to fill and create evolutions to help 'em do that.
Added dexterity, movement speeds, increased range away from the summoner, better trap finding, better stealth. These help alot with a scout role.
Lets try not to "make small better" by stepping on the larger ones to make them useless. Then all we have are small and medium combat ineffective Eidolons running around.
-S
I'm hardly saying we should completely nerf the big ones, but Goblins Eighty-Five is wholly justified in wondering about the imbalance. I've gone through this math elsewhere, but:
Large size
Cost: -3 ep
Yield: 8 str (+8 ep), 4 con (+4 ep), -2 dex (-2 ep), +2 nat (1 ep)
Net: +8 ep
Huge size
Cost: -4 ep
Yield: 8 str (+8 ep), 4 con (+4 ep), -2 dex (-2 ep), +3 nat (1.5 ep)
Net: +7.5 ep
Small size
Cost: free
Yield: -4 str (-4 ep), -2 con (-2 ep), +2 dex (2 ep)
Net: -4 ep
I disregard the straight size bonuses because they're somewhat balanced - lose damage, gain AC, lose CMD, gain stealth.
I don't buy for a minute that the larger sizes are so hard to work around that they deserve that impressive of a differential compared to the little guys. 5-foot corridors? They squeeze. It's not like a small- and medium-sized party can fight well in that situation either. Too huge for that? Summoner takes reduce person (himself or a wand - come on, its level 1!) or the eidolon learns gaseous form 3x/day (6 ep, or 4 if you're smart). Or, you know, it just smashes through walls. Stone only has hardness 8, after all. By the time you can get one, a huge eidolon's attacks deal d8+11 damage minimum, with a dozen ways to deal more.
I'm not saying these scenarios are optimal, because they're not, but there's way too many workarounds to be had for the complaint "Huge eidolons make huge sacrifices" to hold water.
What is it with people ignoring the incidental benefits of being large, anyway? A big eidolon can block a 10' doorway against all comers while the party makes an escape or fights big bad. A summoner riding his eidolon can easily negate hits on it with the Mounted Combat feat. A huge eidolon can carry an entire party cross-country at no inconvenience to itself. A clever party can come up with no end of good uses for 4-8 tons of dead weight that can move itself around.
There is special utility to be had for creatures of every size. Rules as they are, the utility of being small comes for a loss in ability scores, while being large comes with a bonus.
Which is why I've been saying they need to add more utility and useful things for the smaller sizes. (things that only the smaller sizes can use).
But if the summoner is blowing his money or his spells known and cast per day, or blowing *evolution points* just to moderate the size of his Eidolon is that really over powered?
And thats not even taking into account an economy of actions issue where you actually have to stop what you are doing to shrink him to do something or go somewhere. Obviously I don't mean it to sound like "its completely worthless to be huge because you can't go anywhere" but its not "you can be huge and do whatever you want" either.
There is a balance to it and that balance is the cost of the summoner in gold (wands) spells known and per day and possibly (though not necessarily) the Big E himself learning the spell to shrink himself a couple times a day.
Again, I agree that as it rests now there is a problem between large and small. All I've advocated is not making them mathematically identical in combat. Both should be useful but they don't need to be useful for the same exact things.
A bow is useful. A greatsword is useful. They are both useful for very different things however and don't work very well when trying to do the other's job.
-S
Alright, then we're essentially agreeing.
My vote for smallness-fixing would be to adjust the bonuses to -2 str, +2 dex, making it power-neutral and align with the small PC racial tradeoffs.
If you're set on leaving the large and huge evolutions where they are, then there ought to be a similarly profitable evolution for smaller eidolons, like
Elite (3 pts): The eidolon gains a +2 bonus to each ability score. This evolution may only be selected for small and medium eidolons. The summoner must be level 6 before selecting this evolution
Master (4 pts): The eidolon gains a +2 bonus to each ability score. The eidolon must already have the elite evolution and be medium or small sized. The summoner must be level 11 before selecting this evolution.
which net +9 and +8 ep, respectively, at the expense of increasing both vital (dex, cha) and nonvital (str, int) ability scores.
One trouble you'll run into is that there are very few smallness-based monster abilities to provide as potential evolutions. Big creatures have exciting things like Grab and Trample and Swallow Whole, but little monsters are usually defined by class features, skills, and spells.
I already know that overly-class-specific abilities (trapfinding, bardic music, channel energy) would probably be treading a bit too heavily on those classes' toes; its bad enough eidolons are prone to outshining melee classes.
Moreover, what sensible justification would there be for opening up abilities like those, or even just increased exploration range, to small and medium eidolons only? Seems like making the distinction arbitrary would bother players too much.
The size evolutions are out of control. The Str bonuses and penalties should be cut in half for small and large.
If we only have a -2 Str -2 Con +2 Dex for small it would be in line with the reduce person spell.
The Large evolution with a +8 Str is far to much for it's cost. This should be reduced to a +4.
Leave the Huge scores alone since you have to buy the large and a huge creature has very few options when it is time to go into a building or a cave.
Large size
Cost: -3 ep
Yield: 8 str (+8 ep), 4 con (+4 ep), -2 dex (-2 ep), +2 nat (1 ep)
Net: +8 ep
-1 for large to hit and AC penalties
-1 Must squeeze to enter a 5' hallNet +6
Huge size
Cost: -4 ep
Yield: 8 str (+8 ep), 4 con (+4 ep), -2 dex (-2 ep), +3 nat (1.5 ep)
Net: +7.5 ep
-2 for large to hit and AC penalties
-2 Can not enter buildingsNet +3.5
Small size
Cost: free
Yield: -4 str (-4 ep), -2 con (-2 ep), +2 dex (2 ep)
Net: -4 ep
+1 To hit and AC bonuses
Net: -3There is a definite disadvantage between small and large but you are ignoring all the best parts of being small and all the worst parts of being large or huge.
The size evolutions are out of control. The Str bonuses and penalties should be cut in half for small and large.
If we only have a -2 Str -2 Con +2 Dex for small it would be in line with the reduce person spell.
The Large evolution with a +8 Str is far to much for it's cost. This should be reduced to a +4.
Leave the Huge scores alone since you have to buy the large and a huge creature has very few options when it is time to go into a building or a cave.
I agree there needs to be an adjustment to smaller eidelons, but, altering the size progressions is not the way to do it. That breaks the internal logic of the game with regards to size progressions.
Instead, I think there needs to be some 'small only' evolutions added, and then if you make your eidelon small, give it an extra 1-3 evolution points that can only be spent on small evolutions. That would balance it out without breaking the game logic of size progressions. Basically, by concentrating the eidelon's energy into a smaller form, you enhance it's potential energy and it get's a few extra boosts. Maybe 1 extra evolution point (small only) every 4 levels past 1st.
don't forget the stealth modifiers small eidolon can hide and large and huge find that much much hader
I agree there needs to be an adjustment to smaller eidelons, but, altering the size progressions is not the way to do it. That breaks the internal logic of the game with regards to size progressions.
Instead, I think there needs to be some 'small only' evolutions added, and then if you make your eidelon small, give it an extra 1-3 evolution points that can only be spent on small evolutions. That would balance it out without breaking the game logic of size progressions. Basically, by concentrating the eidelon's energy into a smaller form, you enhance it's potential energy and it get's a few extra boosts. Maybe 1 extra evolution point (small only) every 4 levels past 1st.
In the rules are two places that give us examples of creatures growing or shrinking. The wizard spell list and the druid animal companions.
In the enlarge spell description:
The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a –1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased sizeIn the reduce person spell description:
The target gains a +2 size bonus to Dexterity, a –2 size penalty to Strength (to a minimum of 1), and a +1 bonus on attack rolls and AC due to its reduced size.
No change to con and the strength change in both cases are +-2 not 4 not 8.
When you look at the druid animal wolf he grows to large size at level 7 and gains:
7th-Level Advancement: Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d8 plus trip); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4.This seems to support the evolution description but all druid companions gain a bonus at or near level 7. When the horse or camel grow at level 4 they only gain:
4th-Level Advancement: Ability Scores Str +2, Con +2; Special Qualities combat trained.Also when the small companions like the raptor reach medium size their bonuses:
7th-Level Advancement: Size Medium; AC +2 natural armor; Attack 2 talons (1d8), bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d4) Ability Scores Str +4, Dex –2, Con +2; Special Attacks pounce.
So compared to the wolf a horse gets 6 less points of strength but only 2 less than the raptor that grew from small to large. Also a wolf has a base strength 5 less than the start for a camel and 3 less than a horse.
Since all Eidolon's have the same base stats it would be in line with druid companions to only give a +4 Str and +2 con -2 dex for growing.
There is a definite disadvantage between small and large but you are ignoring all the best parts of being small and all the worst parts of being large or huge.
But now you're ignoring some of the best features of being large like reach, combat maneuver advantages (like bullrushing as a large creature), and opening up a whole slew of combat feats that aren't available otherwise.
Which is probably why...
I disregard the straight size bonuses because they're somewhat balanced
Eidolon's get the same stat bonus from going from small to medium that animal companions do. They also get the same bonus going from medium to large that animal companions do. They don't have a method of growing from large to large like a horse or camel, so they don't have a way to gain half the bonus while remaining the same size. I don't think it would a be a bad thing to have an elite form evolution granting stat bonus with no change in size. However that would be noticibly different from changes that come with size changes.Since all Eidolon's have the same base stats it would be in line with druid companions to only give a +4 Str and +2 con -2 dex for growing.
All druid companions gain a stat bonus as the druid levels even if they don't grow.
The animals that go from small to medium gain a +4 Str +2 Con and the creatures that start large gain a +2 Str +2 Con -2 dex. For a net gain of +2 str and -2 dex.
Animals that go from medium to large get a +8 Str +4 Con and -2 Dex. When you take into acount the +2 +2 that a horse poney or camel would gain leveling that don't change size you have a net change of +6 +2 -2.
The eidolon should get something between +2 -2 and +6 +2 -2 for changing in size. Which is why I suggest +4 +2 -2.
Between the stat bonuses, increased base damage, natural armor bump and longer reach it would still be a good buy for 3 points.
Eidolons do not get reach for size increases. They get reach for taking the reach evolution.
The size increases for the eidolon specify exactly what they get. For both large and huge, expanded reach is Not on the list. ergo, they do not receive it.
Again the point isn't to nerf the large/huge ones, its to try and bring the smaller ones up into line with them in their niche.
To me, that niche is a scout. Thats why the examples I use are things like expanded speed and range, and vision ability, and higher dex and such.
It need not be excluded to that however. There can also be small sized evolution chains for them to be casters or whatnot.
I do not think that the answer though is to just nerf the large and huge size. All you get then is an ineffective small(er) size and a less effective large and huge size. That doesn't really accomplish anything but a weaker class overall.
-S
But now you're ignoring some of the best features of being large like reach, combat maneuver advantages (like bullrushing as a large creature), and opening up a whole slew of combat feats that aren't available otherwise.
Which is probably why...
I disregard the straight size bonuses because they're somewhat balanced
Thank you, Demosthenes, I was wondering if I'd have to call this out myself.
Large size
Cost: -3 ep
Yield: 8 str (+8 ep), 4 con (+4 ep), -2 dex (-2 ep), +2 nat (1 ep)
Net: +8 ep-1 for large to hit and AC penalties
-1 Must squeeze to enter a 5' hall
-1 for penalty to fly, stealth, and diminished flight maneuverability
-1/2 for increased expense of item crafting+1-6 for increased weapon damage (1 for each type of attack improved)
+1/2 for bonus to combat maneuver checks
+1 may serve as a mount
+1 for access to more evolutions
+1/2 for increased threat/battlefield control area (12-16 squares for large creatures, even without reach)
+1/2 for increased carrying capacity
Expanded for your benefit. If you're going to insist on quantifying the full utility of size changes, please be thorough.
Small size nets bonuses to AC, to hit, stealth, and fly. It penalizes weapon damage, combat maneuver checks, carrying capacity, mount utility, and access to the greater number of monster combat abilities an eidolon could take (both feats and abilities like grab).
Large size does exactly the opposite. From a hard rules perspective, it's daft to try and split hairs over whether one is more powerful than the other; they just have different functionality.
As far as more abstractly situational stuff goes, I've already pointed out that both small and large creatures still have their particular uses. I believe you're the one who hasn't bothered to read my earlier post on the matter completely.
One particular complaint: In the event a summoner needs his huge eidolon indoors (which is hardly a given), and if the walls and ceiling are at least as resilient as reinforced stone (which is hardly universal), and the eidolon has no magical abilities to permit it entry (which an intelligent summoner wouldn't design), all it takes the <level 11+> caster is a single 1st level spell. That is not debilitating. It's inconvenient.
All druid companions gain a stat bonus as the druid levels even if they don't grow.
The animals that go from small to medium gain a +4 Str +2 Con and the creatures that start large gain a +2 Str +2 Con -2 dex. For a net gain of +2 str and -2 dex.
Animals that go from medium to large get a +8 Str +4 Con and -2 Dex. When you take into acount the +2 +2 that a horse poney or camel would gain leveling that don't change size you have a net change of +6 +2 -2.
The eidolon should get something between +2 -2 and +6 +2 -2 for changing in size. Which is why I suggest +4 +2 -2.
Between the stat bonuses, increased base damage, natural armor bump and longer reach it would still be a good buy for 3 points.
This argument is a bit fallacious, since animal companions don't need to have their abilities selected and purchased by the druid/cavalier/whatever, but it's definitely more solid ground than your other tack (although I notice it strikes in the opposite direction of your previous one, too).
Still, check your numbers. Small -> medium companions usually gain +4 str, +2 con, -2 dex ('cept monitor lizards and goblin dogs get +4 con, for being gross), and anywhere from +0 to +2 natural armor. Medium -> large companions usually gain +8 str, +4 con, and -2 dex (rhinos get -4 dex, clumsy buggers), plus from +1 to +3 natural armor.
Staying the same size usually nets +2 str and +2 con, but occasionally +2 str and +2 dex (giant frogs). Dolphins score +2 to all three, for being so darn charming.
At any rate, there is no math one can do to average +2 str, -2 dex for animal companion size change at large - there's only +8/+4/-2, reducing to +6/+2/-2 if you want to account for typical same-size improvements.
I can see the sensible ground your proposal comes from, but really, Selgard has the right of this. Nerfing the big guys isn't as good of a solution as buffing the small ones.
I can see the sensible ground your proposal comes from, but really, Selgard has the right of this. Nerfing the big guys isn't as good of a solution as buffing the small ones.
I think both are needed. The large evolutions are grossly over powered for the cost and the small evolution is far too underpowered.