Our D&D Meetup's current ruling for PFS:
"Note: according to the current rules the same player can have both player credit and multiple GM credits for the same module, so long as the credit is applied to different characters of different factions. So, if you've played #29: The Devil You Know Part 1, you can GM that same module up to four additional times for credit so long as all your registered characters are from different factions. This is great! It means that GM's have incentive to run modules they've played or GM'ed before (so they know it better and will GM it better) and more players will be exposed to that module. Let's take advantage of this system and get everyone playing all the modules and leveling up."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My proposed correction:
"I caught an error on your notation for GM rewards. A GM only gets credit for running a scenario to only one of his characters, no matter how many times he runs that scenario. It does however count as a session for tracking the GM Ranking System."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizer Response:
Nope. Not true. Got my info from the Paizo staff at Gen Con in person, so unless there's been a development since last week...Right now, you can get multiple credit for GM'ing a scenario more than once, as long as each credit is applied to a different character, a different faction, and that character doesn't...
You could never get GM credit more than once for running the same scenario. A GM can get a point towards his star rating every time a scenario is run, but only one GM character will ever get the XP, gold, PA and chronicle sheet from running a scenario.
|
You could never get GM credit more than once for running the same scenario. A GM can get a point towards his star rating every time a scenario is run, but only one GM character will ever get the XP, gold, PA and chronicle sheet from running a scenario.
I used to think it was the other way (that you could get up to 6 XP off one mod) but I just re-read the 3.0 rules and I think this pretty much nails it...
A GM may only apply a chronicle from a specific scenario to one of her PCs once—in other words, she may only receive character credit for GMing Scenario #29 once. Any additional sessions spent GMing that scenario earn no additional credit, but will of course apply to her GM Ranking.
So the most credit you could ever get from #29 would be 2 XP (once as a player and once as a GM to a 2nd character).
Right?
|
So the most credit you could ever get from #29 would be 2 XP (once as a player and once as a GM to a 2nd character). Right?Yes, that is my understanding
According to the replay rules and pre-gen characters, you'd only be able to pull that off, if you played as a player, THEN played it as a GM. Once you, "eat" a session you can't ever play it as a player unless you're filling a slot for PPP and are using a pregen.
Edit:
Further, as much as I agree with you guys. I don't think this is going to be resolved unless someone from Paizo confirms one or the other, presumably by our good friend, Mr. Frost, because someone from Paizo at GenCon 2010 told our Organizer they can get multiple GM character credits for running a scenario multiple times.
Though, my thoughts are if this is accurate, someone leaked some 3.1 guide info!
|
So the most credit you could ever get from #29 would be 2 XP (once as a player and once as a GM to a 2nd character). Right?Yes, that is my understandingAccording to the replay rules and pre-gen characters, you'd only be able to pull that off, if you played as a player, THEN played it as a GM. Once you, "eat" a session you can't ever play it as a player unless you're filling a slot for PPP and are using a pregen.
Edit:
Further, as much as I agree with you guys. I don't think this is going to be resolved unless someone from Paizo confirms one or the other, presumably by our good friend, Mr. Frost, because someone from Paizo at GenCon 2010 told our Organizer they can get multiple GM character credits for running a scenario multiple times.Though, my thoughts are if this is accurate, someone leaked some 3.1 guide info!
Couple of things.
1) I wouldn't expect an answer from Josh anytime soon. He's undergone shoulder surgery and has stated he'll be off the boards for a week (at least).
2) If Doug-Doug or Yoda8myhead shows up and gives an answer, you can consider those canon. Josh has stated so, as such those two might be sources you could try since Josh is out.
3) The Guide to OP is pretty clear. You can never apply GM XP to two charcters ever. I don't think this is in disagreement. Your comment is regarding to something they heard in passing at Gen Con.
4) If (and I say if since I don't believe it's true) your friends believe they've heard otherwise, as it stands today, a change in the ruling has never been posted in the FAQ thread or on the forums. As such, as of today, there is no such ruling because Josh has been adamant in the past - rules either appear on the forums, or in the OP Guide. Since they "heard" this at Gen Con, it is not a rule and as such, they cannot gain GM XP on multiple characters.
5) Do a little digging. There have been a good number of threads regarding GM rewards, and Josh has been adamant that he doesn't intend to loosen the GM rewards such as in this thread.
|
|
Yeah. The spot you pointed to does seem to be pretty clear, so I must have gotten bad/outdated info from two sources, which is weird, but possible I suppose. Doug should be able to say for sure, but I'll go by the guide.
All this means, though, is that fewer people in my area are going to have the opportunity to play modules I've already GM'ed. Until now I was pretty much the only person on the lower left side of the whole state running PFS, apart from when Doug came to town. I've had to eat a bunch of scenarios over past 15 months, getting just one GM credit (most at half gold at that) and never getting to play, which sucked. I thought this was a revelation of recognition for GM's who had been taking --let's say a beating-- in the service of the community. Some people like that kind of punishment (looking in Doug's direction) but you know, not everybody.
I thought allowing multiple GM credit on that limited basis (once per character of different factions) made sense from the player's point of view, too. It would mean I had incentive to repeat mods for people who couldn't make it to an earlier event or who were new to the game. Further, when the GM has run that module before - they know the material better the second and third time around, giving the players a better experience.
So, way to burst my bubble Dan. ;) Just kick me in the teeth next time why don't ya?
|
|
Yeah. The spot you pointed to does seem to be pretty clear, so I must have gotten bad/outdated info from two sources, which is weird, but possible I suppose. Doug should be able to say for sure, but I'll go by the guide.
All this means, though, is that fewer people in my area are going to have the opportunity to play modules I've already GM'ed. Until now I was pretty much the only person on the lower left side of the whole state running PFS, apart from when Doug came to town. I've had to eat a bunch of scenarios over past 15 months, getting just one GM credit (most at half gold at that) and never getting to play, which sucked. I thought this was a revelation of recognition for GM's who had been taking --let's say a beating-- in the service of the community. Some people like that kind of punishment (looking in Doug's direction) but you know, not everybody.
I thought allowing multiple GM credit on that limited basis (once per character of different factions) made sense from the player's point of view, too. It would mean I had incentive to repeat mods for people who couldn't make it to an earlier event or who were new to the game. Further, when the GM has run that module before - they know the material better the second and third time around, giving the players a better experience.
So, way to burst my bubble Dan. ;) Just kick me in the teeth next time why don't ya?
Sorry! I just wanted to be 100% sure. Didn't want to track something wrong for me or a player or whomever and then we go to a convention and get the "Incorrect info" Hammer brought down on us. I was hoping honestly you're right, and I was misinterpreting the rules somewhere, because you're right, if you run it multiple times, it would be nice to get credit for our characters that many times.
Also, you'll not need to eat scenarios going forward. As much as I want to run my characters. I LOVE GMing more.
|
If you want an official response, I did email Josh about this a ways back. Here is the email in full.
Your first assumption is correct.From the Guide:
A GM may only apply a chronicle from a specific scenario to one of his PCs one time—in other words, he may only receive character credit
for GMing scenario 29 once.---
Joshua J. Frost
Events Manager
Paizo Publishing®, LLC
7120 185th Ave NE Ste 120
Redmond, WA 98052-0577
425-250-0823
paizo.comOn Apr 14, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Blake Davis wrote:
Hey Josh. I think I understand this alright, but I’ve always been a little unsure about GMs running a scenario multiple times that might have multiple characters. As I understand it, even if a GM has, say, 5 characters in Society, he can only give a GM Reward for running a scenario to one of them one time. So even if he runs the scenario 5 times, he will only get credit for one of his guys the first time, and the other four times there is no reward.
Is this correct, or should he be able to apply rewards as many times as he wishes, so long as it’s never on the same character more than once? It hasn’t really come up in my games yet, but one of my players had a concern about it since he was starting to run some.
Thanks,
Blake Davis
Hope this helps Thorn! Also, do you know who the Staff member was at GenCon that your coordinator spoke with? There were four of us working HQ and a couple others running the Delve that weren't actually Paizo Staff (though many assumed we were) which may be part of the confusion.
|
|
Not honestly sure who it was, and I don't know even if I did know who they were, that I'd call them out publicly on it. I'd try to resolve this through private means, as far as letting them know. At least I'd attempt to.
Though, with Doug Doug's response. I'll take that as Canon. I do remember elsewhere that him and Yoda8myhead are supposed to be valid forms of validation on rulings.
|
|
Not honestly sure who it was, and I don't know even if I did know who they were, that I'd call them out publicly on it. I'd try to resolve this through private means, as far as letting them know. At least I'd attempt to.
Though, with Doug Doug's response. I'll take that as Canon. I do remember elsewhere that him and Yoda8myhead are supposed to be valid forms of validation on rulings.
You can trust Doug Doud and Yoda8myhead to guide you right.
|
|
You can trust Doug Doud and Yoda8myhead to guide you right.Not honestly sure who it was, and I don't know even if I did know who they were, that I'd call them out publicly on it. I'd try to resolve this through private means, as far as letting them know. At least I'd attempt to.
Though, with Doug Doug's response. I'll take that as Canon. I do remember elsewhere that him and Yoda8myhead are supposed to be valid forms of validation on rulings.
Except when they're wrong. Even robots make mistakes. :-)
I stand corrected (once again).
|
|
So here I am, being one of those nublets that brings up an old topic because its not explicitly stated one way or the other in the GtPSOP, so I am left to the mercy of a wide array of judges' personal opinions. I plan on starting a cleric of Pharasma with the Domains Death and Souls (sub-domain of repose). So the only 3rd level domain spell I will have access to is Animate Dead.
Pharasma abhors undead, I know death is one of her spells but I find it unlikely one of her clerics would cast animate dead.
From the Pathfinder Wiki Page
"Pharasma is also the goddess of birth and prophecy: from the moment a creature is born, she sees what its ultimate fate will be, but reserves final judgement until that soul finally stands before her. As the goddess of death and rebirth, she abhors the undead and considers them a perversion."
|
|
Well, as far as I know, Pharasma dislikes all forms of undead, as they sort of fly in the face of everything she stands for. Now, I'm not 100% certain, at the moment, but I'm still fairly sure she doesn't like that sort of thing.Hrmmm, I do see that in her dogma now, odd that she has two domains with that spell. Still, I would to hear if a ruling on animate dead and evil spells in general being legal if the character's god and the pc's alignment do not conflict.
There isn't a problem with casting evil spells.
|
I could use some clarification regarding GM rewards when the GM's character is of a higher level than the tier played by the players.
My apologies if this has already been answered elsewhere. I looked to see if it had already been discussed, but I didn't find any answers.
I have read and re-read the Organized Play Guide regarding GM rewards numerous times now, but none of the examples seem to apply to my specific situation. Specifically, I have run a Tier 5-9 (Sub-Tier 5-6 and Sub-Tier 8-9) adventure. My character is level 8. What tier should my reward be?
|
Dane and Ogre are both right.
There is nothing preventing a PC from using animate dead during a scenario. There is no defined list of evil acts in Pathfinder Society*. Spells that used to be taboo (in other campaigns) such as death knell, death watch and animate dead are no longer restricted. However, as the player of a cleric of Pharasma I would *never* use animate dead, and as a GM I'd probably deal harshly with a cleric of Pharasma who did. If you want to use this spell, pick another deity with the Death domain.
Dane is right about the GM Reward Chronicle.
If you claim the Reward, you apply it at the appropriate subtier. If you have a tier 5-9 Chronicle and an 8th level character, you get subtier 8-9 credit. Furthermore, if you have a tier 5-9 Chronicle and you have a 4th level character you must wait until that character is 5th level before applying subtier 5-6 credit. If you have a tier 1-5 Chronicle and an 8th level character, you must apply the Chronicle to a new character. Does that make sense?
* This doesn't mean you get to dispense with Alignment and go hog-wild with evil acts. Evil characters are not allowed in Society play. There is some latitude in the game when it comes to spells with the 'evil' descriptor and worshiping evil deities. The most important thing to remember is to be conscientious and polite at the table toward other players, and respect their enjoyment of the game as they would respect yours. This might mean asking the other players out-of-character if they would mind you doing something like animate dead, and not doing it if it was going to cause a conflict at the table.
|
Well, as far as I know, Pharasma dislikes all forms of undead, as they sort of fly in the face of everything she stands for. Now, I'm not 100% certain, at the moment, but I'm still fairly sure she doesn't like that sort of thing.Hrmmm, I do see that in her dogma now, odd that she has two domains with that spell. Still, I would like to hear a ruling on animate dead and evil spells in general being legal if the character's god and the pc's alignment do not conflict.
Sol Kurpt as one of your GMs I feel the same as Doug Doug and the others here, If you want to cast Animate Dead I have no problem with that, but you do need to pick a God that also has no problem with that. I would suggest one of the following.
Achaekek as a Lawful Neutral Cleric
Fandarra as a Neutral, Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Neutral Cleric.
Hanspur as a Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Cleric
Norgorber as a Neutral Cleric
Urgathoa as a Neutral Cleric
Zon-Kuthon as a Lawful Neutral Cleric
Zyphus as a Neutral Cleric
As a note, even though you may not be evil, some of the gods I listed are and NPCs and Players may have issue with that, though they can't physically harm you over it, does not mean they can't complain to your character about it ;)
Also Sol it is never bad to go to your GM before going to the Boards, especially one who thinks the same way as Doug Doug and Yoda...
If I were the GM, I would let a cleric of Pharasma use animate dead because this only deals with the low level mindless undead, your basic skeletons and zombies. You are literally only animating them and not calling a spirit into them. That is why Pharasma hates undead, because there are so many kinds that disturb the spirits in their afterlife, calling or forcing them back into becoming the various intelligent undead. This would greatly disrupt the "final judgement" reserved for those souls. I think it is because animate dead only makes mindless undead that there are no special rules in the book for clerics of Pharasma getting an alternate power in place of animate dead.
|
|
Can miscellaneous magic items be upgraded in a manner similar to weapons & armour?
eg. Can a belt (+2 STR) be made a belt (+4 STR, +4 DEX) by paying the difference?
I asked Josh about this at PaizoconUK and he said that it wasn't allowed. I'm not sure if it's explained in the guide or on the boards though.
|
|
If I were the GM, I would let a cleric of Pharasma use animate dead because this only deals with the low level mindless undead, your basic skeletons and zombies. You are literally only animating them and not calling a spirit into them. That is why Pharasma hates undead, because there are so many kinds that disturb the spirits in their afterlife, calling or forcing them back into becoming the various intelligent undead. This would greatly disrupt the "final judgement" reserved for those souls. I think it is because animate dead only makes mindless undead that there are no special rules in the book for clerics of Pharasma getting an alternate power in place of animate dead.
You of course have the right of your opinion, but...
If you have the Gods and Magic books look at the last line of the first paragraph of the Priests, Temples, and Church section on page 30 it says
The church despises the undead as abominations to the natural order, and all priests follow this belief without question; creating undead is forbidden, and controlling existing undead frowned upon.
That means all undead, not just intelligent ones, and if you read the full write up for her you can see that is what it means.
Edit: Though I do agree it kind of sucks for followers of Pharasma because the lose out on those Domain spells if they choose that Domain.
Well, if the options are either a TPK or the cleric of Pharasma using his domain power to animate a couple of dead enemies to help his group stay alive (and then probably need an atonement at the end of the scenario for doing so), I would hope GMs would let the cleric do it, rather than saying "no, your deity hates undead, so you can all die instead."
|
|
Well, if the options are either a TPK or the cleric of Pharasma using his domain power to animate a couple of dead enemies to help his group stay alive (and then probably need an atonement at the end of the scenario for doing so), I would hope GMs would let the cleric do it, rather than saying "no, your deity hates undead, so you can all die instead."
You can't stop the player from doing it of course, but the GM fully has the right of ruling you have gone against the Gods Believes..
If you want to continue this, can you bring it into a separate thread?
|
|
Well, if the options are either a TPK or the cleric of Pharasma using his domain power to animate a couple of dead enemies to help his group stay alive (and then probably need an atonement at the end of the scenario for doing so), I would hope GMs would let the cleric do it, rather than saying "no, your deity hates undead, so you can all die instead."
It would never be a do-or-die thing because the cleric of Pharasma would never prepare the spell in the morning.
You can't stop the player from doing it of course, but the GM fully has the right of ruling you have gone against the Gods Believes..
If you want to continue this, can you bring it into a separate thread?
I agree with you and but I don't know if it's really a PFS GM's role to enforce this sort of thing. :(
Well, if the options are either a TPK or the cleric of Pharasma using his domain power to animate a couple of dead enemies to help his group stay alive (and then probably need an atonement at the end of the scenario for doing so), I would hope GMs would let the cleric do it, rather than saying "no, your deity hates undead, so you can all die instead."You can't stop the player from doing it of course, but the GM fully has the right of ruling you have gone against the Gods Believes..
If you want to continue this, can you bring it into a separate thread?
I will be making another thread about this needing to be fixed in the revised Campaign Setting. But just remember that the Core Book gives no details about the dieties. They left that for other books that players are not required to own for PFS play. Because of this, the next version of the Guide really needs a section on these kinds of unusual conflicts, so that people do not find out at the table that their cool concept is screwed because of details from a book that is optional for PFS play.
|
|
I agree with you and but I don't know if it's really a PFS GM's role to enforce this sort of thing. :(
I disagree with you there Ogre, I fully feel that it is the right of the GM to enforce such a thing, though it should be done in a tactful way so all sides are in agreement.
That would make an interesting thread, I think I will start it.
|
|
I will be making another thread about this needing to be fixed in the revised Campaign Setting. But just remember that the Core Book gives no details about the dieties. They left that for other books that players are not required to own for PFS play. Because of this, the next version of the Guide really needs a section on these kinds of unusual conflicts, so that people do not find out at the table that their cool concept is screwed because of details from a book that is optional for PFS play.Well, if the options are either a TPK or the cleric of Pharasma using his domain power to animate a couple of dead enemies to help his group stay alive (and then probably need an atonement at the end of the scenario for doing so), I would hope GMs would let the cleric do it, rather than saying "no, your deity hates undead, so you can all die instead."You can't stop the player from doing it of course, but the GM fully has the right of ruling you have gone against the Gods Believes..
If you want to continue this, can you bring it into a separate thread?
Now you know so you have no excuse :) For future reference, you can always look this sort of thing up in the Pathfinder wiki
This is a good point and one of the reasons it is tough for a GM to enforce at a convention. In a recurring group a GM might let it slide once and give the player a chance to correct it. Or perhaps the GM doesn't know either, it's not a huge deal IMO.
What bugs me is the attitude that players should be able to ignore this sort of thing unless it's enforceable in the rules.
|
|
It would never be a do-or-die thing because the cleric of Pharasma would never prepare the spell in the morning.As it is my only option for a 3rd level domain spell when I select the Souls and Death Domains, it "may" be prepared. I went and read up on Pharasma and know her feelings on undead, so its not something I would be casting often if at all.
Its odd that Animate Dead is the third level spell for the Souls Subdomain as Pharasma is the only deity with access to it according to table 2-12 in the APG.
This was not a shot at any gm I have played under, the use of the search function spawned comments of persons saying it would not happen at their table. If the sentiment is present on the boards, there was a possibility of running into it in one of the two groups which I game with.
Yeah, it's a bit frustrating that several of Pharasma's domains/ subdomains have animate dead in their list.
|
|
Yeah, it's a bit frustrating that several of Pharasma's domains/ subdomains have animate dead in their list.If it's such an issue that the PC is not allowed to cast the spell then there should be an alternate spell given for those 3rd level domain slots.
-James
That I can agree to, but I doubt it will happen. It is a good thing they can add when they re attack the Gods in Golarion PFPRG book.
|
|
Yeah, it's a bit frustrating that several of Pharasma's domains/ subdomains have animate dead in their list.If it's such an issue that the PC is not allowed to cast the spell then there should be an alternate spell given for those 3rd level domain slots.
-James
I definitely think it's a weird place in the 'rules'. It's only really an issue because you can pick two domains with the same questionable spell for Pharasma. An easy workaround for a new player would be to avoid one or both of those domains. Not sure there is an easy way around it for an established character. It's an easy trap to fall into.
I definitely think it's a weird place in the 'rules'. It's only really an issue because you can pick two domains with the same questionable spell for Pharasma. An easy workaround for a new player would be to avoid one or both of those domains. Not sure there is an easy way around it for an established character. It's an easy trap to fall into.No, it's an issue even if there's just one spell on a domain that the deity grants that the deity wouldn't want you to cast..
Every cleric should be entitled to two domain spells of each level, if one is removed then it should be replaced.
-James
James, here is the thread I started about this topic. So if you want to add in your voice to the discussion, it can only help.
I have a rules question related to PFS specifically. I am curious to know how this situation would be handled:
A Gnomish Oracle with the Haunted Curse uses the Gnomish favored class option for Oracle 10 times - this would give them the 15th level curse benefit at level 10.
"Treat the gnome’s level as +1/2 higher for the purpose of determining the effects of the oracle’s curse ability."
This seems fine in most cases except for the haunted curse, which says
"At 15th level, add reverse gravity to your list of spells known."
This is a wiz/sorc 7th level spell, so...
Would this be allowed?
What spell level would it manifest at?
How many times could they cast it per day (probably determined on above two)?
|
|
I have a rules question related to PFS specifically. I am curious to know how this situation would be handled:
A Gnomish Oracle with the Haunted Curse uses the Gnomish favored class option for Oracle 10 times - this would give them the 15th level curse benefit at level 10.
"Treat the gnome’s level as +1/2 higher for the purpose of determining the effects of the oracle’s curse ability."
This seems fine in most cases except for the haunted curse, which says
"At 15th level, add reverse gravity to your list of spells known."
This is a wiz/sorc 7th level spell, so...
Would this be allowed?
What spell level would it manifest at?
How many times could they cast it per day (probably determined on above two)?
Though I could be wrong, This sounds more like a PFRPG rule question and would be better handled if you put it in that Forum.
I have a rules question related to PFS specifically. I am curious to know how this situation would be handled:
A Gnomish Oracle with the Haunted Curse uses the Gnomish favored class option for Oracle 10 times - this would give them the 15th level curse benefit at level 10.
"Treat the gnome’s level as +1/2 higher for the purpose of determining the effects of the oracle’s curse ability."
This seems fine in most cases except for the haunted curse, which says
"At 15th level, add reverse gravity to your list of spells known."
This is a wiz/sorc 7th level spell, so...
Would this be allowed?
What spell level would it manifest at?
How many times could they cast it per day (probably determined on above two)?
Like Chris said, it would be on your known spells list, but since an Oracle does not get 7th level spells til they reach 14th level, and the level cap for PFS play is 12, you would never get high enough level to cast it.
|
|
2) Will 3.1 include an entry incorporating "Eidolons get 5.5" to the section "Animals and Companions"? While it is something one can deduce from the 'average of the the hit die' rule, this will probably assure that the question does not surface on a regular basis on these boards.
I was just going to ask that. Is it true that a 1st level eidolon only gets floor(5.5)+CON = 6 HP? That's incredibly squishy! Even with the Toughness feat, which is mandatory in this case, my halfling summoner will be tougher than his interdimensional bodyguard... I realize that players of melee classes should not have to feel outclassed by their summoner colleagues' pets, but that's hardly the problem in the first 5 levels, where the eidolon's to-hit is going to be very low and the summoner will basically spend all his spells keeping it competitive with Mage Armor, Bull's Strength etc...
Also, shouldn't an eidolon at least be a bit tougher than the dogs you can summon with SMI?
Another question: We're not allowed to buy magic items with our starting funds of 150 gp. Does that also include potions? Should we assume we're given a potion at the beginning of the adventure?
|
|
I was just going to ask that. Is it true that a 1st level eidolon only gets floor(5.5)+CON = 6 HP? That's incredibly squishy! Even with the Toughness feat, which is mandatory in this case, my halfling summoner will be tougher than his interdimensional bodyguard...
How do I determine hit points for my animal companion? Animal companions receive average hit points per hit die. For d8, the average is 4.5. Multiply 4.5 times the number of hit dice your animal companion has and round down. Recalculate hit points for your companion each time it gains additional hit dice. After its hit points are calculated, add in appropriate bonuses from its Con modifier, feats, and so on.
Another question: We're not allowed to buy magic items with our starting funds of 150 gp. Does that also include potions? Should we assume we're given a potion at the beginning of the adventure?
This is a no, per step 10 of character creation.
You may not purchase any magic items during character creation.
Eidolons spend a good chunk of the early levels, in my experience, as glass canons.
|
|
Eidolons spend a good chunk of the early levels, in my experience, as glass canons.
Is that intentional? I've never liked the concept of the glass cannon, it tends to be almost impossible to balance due to bad statistics. Bodaks, for example, are just horrible game design IMHO.
Anyway, for the summoner, I would have expected the eidolon to be something like his constant companion, like the druid's animal companion, with the difference that the druid is a full caster and therefore less reliant on his pet. One could argue that the eidolon is expendable because it regenerates and can be substituted with the SM ability, but where is the flavor in that? "Ribbons, you're my bestest friend and soulmate, but I'm going to send you to be torn to pieces first thing every day and then replace you with no-name animals." Surely it's not intended that eidolons should be kept in the backpack like familiars until they grow Large?
|
|
Eidolons spend a good chunk of the early levels, in my experience, as glass canons.Is that intentional? I've never liked the concept of the glass cannon, it tends to be almost impossible to balance due to bad statistics. Bodaks, for example, are just horrible game design IMHO.
Anyway, for the summoner, I would have expected the eidolon to be something like his constant companion, like the druid's animal companion, with the difference that the druid is a full caster and therefore less reliant on his pet. One could argue that the eidolon is expendable because it regenerates and can be substituted with the SM ability, but where is the flavor in that? "Ribbons, you're my bestest friend and soulmate, but I'm going to send you to be torn to pieces first thing every day and then replace you with no-name animals." Surely it's not intended that eidolons should be kept in the backpack like familiars until they grow Large?
I'm not trying to snub you, but your issue is one with the APG, not with Pathfinder Society. The die has been cast and there's no changing what's been written in that book. There was an extensive playtest period where these types of concerns might have been raised. You'd also have learned 101 ways to build an eilodon that can crush a scenario on its own. I think if you play around with eilodon builds a bit more you'll discover that there's little not to like about them--unless you're the frustrated GM whose monsters are being annihilated ;)