"Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon."
Oh in that case the rules dont say you can wield a shield at all.
While watching and laughing at Some Like It Hot, I statted up this first draft summoner villain (sans equipment). Errors are quite likely since it's hard to watch Marilyn Monroe and create NPCs at the same time.
Odds are good the PCs in my current campaign will eventually journey south into the swamps on the other side of the mountains. Perhaps they can meet Saltar then?
Saltar Anura
CR 6; XP 2,400
CE Medium humanoid (boggard)
Init +0; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; Perception +3
DEFENSE
AC 13, touch 10, flat-footed 13 (+3 natural)
hp 66 (7d8+35)
Fort +8, Ref +2, Will +4
Defensive Abilities shield ally
OFFENSE
Speed 20 ft., swim 30 ft.
Melee morningstar +8 (1d8+3), tongue +3 touch (sticky tongue)
Special Attacks terrifying croak
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 4th):
5/day - summon monster II
Summoner Spells Known (CL 6th):
2nd (2/day)- cat's grace, invisibility
1st (4/day)- daze monster (Will 13), enlarge person, protection from good, shield
0 - acid splash, detect magic, guidance, message, read magic, resistance
STATISTICS
Str 15, Dex 11, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 15
Base Atk +5; CMB +7; CMD 17
Feats Ability Focus (terrifying croak), Additional Traits, Toughness, Weapon Focus (morningstar)
Traits Dirty Fighter, Magical Knack
Skills Acrobatics +5 (+21 jumping), Knowledge (nature) +7, Perception +3, Spellcraft +7, Stealth +4 (+12 in swamps), Swim +7 (+15 to perform a special action or avoid a hazard); Racial Modifiers +16 Acrobatics when jumping, +4 Perception, +8 Swim to perform a special action or avoid a hazard, +8 Stealth in swamps
Languages Boggard
SQ bond senses, hold breath, life link, swamp stride
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Hold Breath (Ex): Saltar can hold his breath for a number of rounds equal to four times its Constitution score before he risks drowning or suffocating.
Shield Ally (Ex): Whenever Saltar is within his eidolon’s reach, he receives a +2 shield bonus to his Armor Class and a +2 circumstance bonus on his saving throws. This bonus does not apply if the eidolon is grappled, helpless, paralyzed, stunned, or unconscious.
Sticky Tongue (Ex): A creature hit Saltar's tongue attack cannot move more than 10 feet away from the boggard and takes a -2 penalty to AC as long as the tongue is attached (this penalty does not stack if multiple tongues are attached). The tongue can be removed by making an opposed Strength check as a standard action or by dealing 2 points of slashing damage to the tongue (AC 11, damage does not deplete Saltar's actual hit points). Saltar cannot move more than 10 feet away from the target, but Saltar can release its tongue as a free action. Saltar cannot pull targets toward him with his tongue.
Swamp Stride (Ex): Saltar moves through any sort of natural difficult terrain at its normal speed while within a swamp. Magically altered terrain affects Saltar normally.
Terrifying Croak (Su): Once per hour, Saltar, as a standard action, emit a loud and horrifying croak. Any non-boggard creature within 30 feet of the Saltar must make a DC 17 Will save or become shaken for 1d4 rounds. Creatures that succeed at this save cannot be affected again by Saltar's croak for 24 hours. Creatures that are already shaken become frightened for 1d4 rounds instead. The save DC is Charisma-based and includes a +2 racial bonus.
Batpaxos
CE Medium outsider
Init +2; Senses darkvision 60 ft., scent; Perception +7
DEFENSE
AC 16, touch 12, flat-footed 14 (+2 Dex, +4 natural)
hp 22 (3d10+6)
Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +1
Defensive Abilities evasion
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft., swim 40 ft.
Melee bite +5 (1d6+2), 2 claws (1d4+2), or
Melee bite +4 (1d6+4), 2 claws (1d4+4) (Power Attack)
Special Attacks pounce
STATISTICS
Str 15, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 11
Base Atk +3; CMB +5 (+7 with drag); CMD 17 (19 vs. drag, 21 vs. trip)
Feats Improved Drag, Power Attack
Skills Acrobatics +17 (+21 jumping), Perception +7, Stealth +9, Swim +9 (+17 to perform a special action or avoid a hazard); Racial +8 Acrobatics (+12 when jumping), +8 Swim to perform a special action or avoid a hazard
Languages Boggard
Evolutions ability increase (Con), bite, claws x2, limbs (legs) x2, pounce, skilled (Acrobatics), swim
SQ link, share spells
|
You are grasping now. The rule is clear.Who's grasping? You are using a rule meant for weapons to rule out the use of a shield, as a shield.
The rule doesn't say you can hold a shield and says you need to be proficient to use a weapon.
A shield isn't armor you just put on, it's a wielded item you move around to, you know, shield yourself from attacks.
You seem to be the only person who thinks your position is reasonable. Doesn't that tell you something about your position?
|
|
The rule doesn't say you can hold a shieldThe rule doesn't say I can hold a pig either.
and says you need to be proficient to use a weapon.Yes, this is where you went hyper literalistic ... which I repaid in kind by pointing out that it literally is only a weapon when used as one by the rules.
A shield isn't armor you just put on, it's a wielded item you move around to, you know, shield yourself from attacks.Yes, you use it ... as a shield.
You seem to be the only person who thinks your position is reasonable. Doesn't that tell you something about your position?Coming partly from people quite ready to all pile on the ACP penalty to attacks before I pointed out the shield has none you can guess I'm not wholly impressed.
If you can find a DM to run your Master Blaster, feel free. There is no point in arguing with you at this point as the narrative is more important than the rules as written, or even the intent of the rules.
The shield is only one of many problems in the build people have pointed out, so at this point...
Myth busted :)
Pigs are good. Everybody likes a meatshield.
VOMIT INDUCING PUN ALERT!
TOO LATE!
*BLURGH*
Always default to the normal rules when an exception isn't specifically listed. The default rule is that a creature with an arm/hand can wield a shield whether or not they are proficient.
I disagree with Ciretose on this one. I see no reason why an eidolon can't wield a shield as a shield, rather than as a weapon.
You are grasping now. The rule is clear.Who's grasping? You are using a rule meant for weapons to rule out the use of a shield, as a shield.The rule doesn't say you can hold a shield and says you need to be proficient to use a weapon.
A shield isn't armor you just put on, it's a wielded item you move around to, you know, shield yourself from attacks.
You seem to be the only person who thinks your position is reasonable. Doesn't that tell you something about your position?
Actually I'll support him on this.
You certainly don't need to be proficient in shields as martial weapons in order to use them as defensive shields.
Now that said, I do have issue with him using a shield as the silly restrictions on Eidolons imho forbids it. Do the restrictions and special rules with eidolons make any sense? Not really, but there it is.
-James
I'd add my support as well. The eidolon wielding a shield defensively without proficiency is NO different than a wizard doing the same: accept the penalties to your attacks, but in this case, his shield has no penalties.
As for the poorly written rules for the eidolon on this... They're too poor to take seriously. They were trying to say "if the eidolon has arms and weapon proficiency, it can use weapons without penalty" but they messed up the wording. RAI not RAW.
As for a shield counting as armor which eidolons cannot wear... I don't think they're the same. Armor proficiency does not automatically allow you to use shields, they're part of completely different feat/proficiency chains.
As a DM, I would allow an eidolon to wield a shield if it had a free arm, but it is cheap. Then again, the entire wording of the class is cheap and poorly written.
Argh, actually it's a little more complicated than I thought:
Armor/Shield Bonus
Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn't stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus. Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn't stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus.
So it lists a shield as a type of "armor" but states it gives a "shield" bonus, so the question is, did the developers wish to prohibit both armor bonus and shield bonus for the eidolon or just armor bonus?
Much as i hate to i have to side with the "Eidolons can use a shield group". My reasoning is that every time a shield is not allowed it is seperatly mentioned for instance a bard can cast spells with a shield but a summoner can't. Also duelist and monk both exclude shields and armor which i would say unless the eidolon also has both listed then it is allowed to use one.
|
|
Much as i hate to i have to side with the "Eidolons can use a shield group". My reasoning is that every time a shield is not allowed it is seperatly mentioned for instance a bard can cast spells with a shield but a summoner can't. Also duelist and monk both exclude shields and armor which i would say unless the eidolon also has both listed then it is allowed to use one.
Of course, no other class says you must be proficient with a weapon to wield it.
Would you allow a bear animal companion to wield a shield? It has hands, technically?
Also, I don't let bears wield weapons, as I do not support the right to arm bears. I do on the other hand, with the proper proficiencies taken, support the right to bear armors.
Of course, no other class says you must be proficient with a weapon to wield it.
Exactly. That's why there are penalties associated with non-proficiency. If there's a flaw in this particular bit, it's in the Shield Proficiency feat. Using a shield correctly requires training. Without that training, the shield is less effective for protection. The feat does not reflect that. Perhaps it should, but that's another thread.
Would you allow a bear animal companion to wield a shield? It has hands, technically?
Technically, bears do not have hands. One could perhaps claim that metaphorically or analogously they have hands, but that lack of an opposable thumb is hard to ignore.
|
|
Of course, no other class says you must be proficient with a weapon to wield it.Exactly. That's why there are penalties associated with non-proficiency. If there's a flaw in this particular bit, it's in the Shield Proficiency feat. Using a shield correctly requires training. Without that training, the shield is less effective for protection. The feat does not reflect that. Perhaps it should, but that's another thread.
Would you allow a bear animal companion to wield a shield? It has hands, technically?Technically, bears do not have hands. One could perhaps claim that metaphorically or analogously they have hands, but that lack of an opposable thumb is hard to ignore.
Based on the limb description, it says it can wield a weapon only if proficient. Not "it suffers normal penalties" but actually saying only if proficient.
All of this is moot, because as someone pointed out up thread.
"An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind, as the armor interferes with the summoner’s connection to the eidolon."
So either the shield is a weapon, or it is armor. And either way, doesn't work.
Based on the limb description, it says it can wield a weapon only if proficient. Not "it suffers normal penalties" but actually saying only if proficient.
All of this is moot, because as someone pointed out up thread.
"An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind, as the armor interferes with the summoner’s connection to the eidolon."
So either the shield is a weapon, or it is armor. And either way, doesn't work.
See, here I think you're on the right track. For an eidolon, it seems reasonable to me that the relevant rules are, first and foremost, the eidolon rules, which, as written, do argue against an eidolon normally being able to use a shield. I think shields count as armor, but I also recognize that this is RAI(nterpreted) rather than clearly RAW. Shields do have all of the characteristics of armor except for reducing base speed, but the RAW do constantly distinguish between the two.
Not to be argumentative but there is a flaw in the its armor or a weapon argument.
You wear armor but not a shield therefore it can't be considered armor.
Many of the shield "wielding" classes don't possess martial weapon proficiency therefore according to you can't use them either as they count as martial weapons.
As i stated above shields are always noted separately from armor in class descriptions so if the eidolon can't use one it should say so specifically in its restrictions which it doesn't
Finally if a shield can break the eidolon's connection to its master so would a door, person or weapon as most of these are bigger than the shield.
If it was up to me i would rewrite the eidolon to say the maximum attacks is for manufactured and natural weapons and shields cannot be used and would strongly urge paizo to do the same but sadly it's not.
|
|
Not to be argumentative but there is a flaw in the its armor or a weapon argument.
You wear armor but not a shield therefore it can't be considered armor.
Many of the shield "wielding" classes don't possess martial weapon proficiency therefore according to you can't use them either as they count as martial weapons.
As i stated above shields are always noted separately from armor in class descriptions so if the eidolon can't use one it should say so specifically in its restrictions which it doesn't
Finally if a shield can break the eidolon's connection to its master so would a door, person or weapon as most of these are bigger than the shield.
If it was up to me i would rewrite the eidolon to say the maximum attacks is for manufactured and natural weapons and shields cannot be used and would strongly urge paizo to do the same but sadly it's not.
They aren't martial weapons. martial weapons are a specific class of weapons, and the martial weapon feat applies to only one weapon.. Eidilons can't use any weapon without proficiency.
They need
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/simple-weapon-proficiency---fina l
just to wield a club.
The point i'm trying to make is the game always differentiates between shield and armor and specifically says when they cannot be used sadly it doesn't say an eidolon can't use one
As to the bear true a bear does not have "hands" however an ape could carry a darkwood shield and wear masterwork studded leather without the feats and take no penalties by RAW
As to the bear true a bear does not have "hands" however an ape could carry a darkwood shield and wear masterwork studded leather without the feats and take no penalties by RAW
An ape is armor smashing heads with a shield!? How awesome is that!?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The point i'm trying to make is the game always differentiates between shield and armor and specifically says when they cannot be used sadly it doesn't say an eidolon can't use one
As to the bear true a bear does not have "hands" however an ape could carry a darkwood shield and wear masterwork studded leather without the feats and take no penalties by RAW
It specfically says you can't use the extra arm to wield a weapon if you aren't proficient.
A shield is something you wield, moving it to block things. It isn't a static thing. It may also be armor, which eidelons can't wear.
You can FAQ it, but it seem like an obvious attempt to get around rules to me.
|
As to the bear true a bear does not have "hands" however an ape could carry a darkwood shield and wear masterwork studded leather without the feats and take no penalties by RAWAn ape is armor smashing heads with a shield!? How awesome is that!?
Don't even get me started on just why Monkey is the best Familiar...Ah, Thumbs.Good for more than just flinging Poo!
|
|
Save that an ape doesn't have the brains to use a shield. or for that matter wear leather armor unless someone dresses it up.The point i'm trying to make is the game always differentiates between shield and armor and specifically says when they cannot be used sadly it doesn't say an eidolon can't use one
As to the bear true a bear does not have "hands" however an ape could carry a darkwood shield and wear masterwork studded leather without the feats and take no penalties by RAW
So,get a Druid to Awaken it..Then, Awesome-Time!
-Uriel
|
Just wanted to recap what was discovered from Pinky's build (fed it into Hero Lab):
- Eidolon can't wear armor so no shield
- Dex is 13 - you say +3 bonus but from where?
- Attacks are: Greatsword +13/+8 2d6+16, Claws (x4) +14, d6+6 and rend is +14, d6+16
As you can see there is far less +attack meaning your eidolon will miss like crazy.
|
|
where's the -4 to hit come from?
He didn't take Martial Weapon training, only simple, so it doesn't apply to great swords. He would have to drop 2 evolution points and purchase Martial Weapon Training (in addition to Simple) to avoid the -4.
FYI I have been trolling these forums for a while and have yet to see a single legal >1 level summoner build where the poster did not use Hero Lab. And coincidentally 100% of those illegal builds were far more powerful than the legal version, hence 'OP Summoner' posts like these.
Technically, bears do not have hands. One could perhaps claim that metaphorically or analogously they have hands, but that lack of an opposable thumb is hard to ignore.
Pandas are bears. Pandas have pseudo thumbs. Thus there are bears with hands.
Pandas are bears. Pandas have pseudo thumbs. Thus there are bears with hands.
Rather, thus there are bears with pseudo-thumbs. Unless one demonstrates that having pseudo-thumbs equals having hands, the syllogism doesn't work. :)
Pandas are bears. Pandas have pseudo thumbs. Thus there are bears with hands.Rather, thus there are bears with pseudo-thumbs. Unless one demonstrates that having pseudo-thumbs equals having hands, the syllogism doesn't work. :)
Quoted above because it bears repeating.
Greg
I hope a player never ask to play one of these things. They have way to many special rules. I might try to make one just to see if I can do it correctly. It won't be until after the holidays(Xmas at least) though.
where's the -4 to hit come from?He didn't take Martial Weapon training, only simple, so it doesn't apply to great swords. He would have to drop 2 evolution points and purchase Martial Weapon Training (in addition to Simple) to avoid the -4.
FYI I have been trolling these forums for a while and have yet to see a single legal >1 level summoner build where the poster did not use Hero Lab. And coincidentally 100% of those illegal builds were far more powerful than the legal version, hence 'OP Summoner' posts like these.
I'm sure he took Great-sword proficiency via one of the eidolon's feats, not evolutions.
The Summoner/Eidolon package was written to balance two characters as one. Either take it as it is or just use Conjurers.
As a DM, I would allow an eidolon to wield a shield if it had a free arm, but it is cheap. Then again, the entire wording of the class is cheap and poorly written.
I'll leave it thank you. This thread is about the Eidolon being broken, which isn't exactly true, but the Summoner/Eidolon class is broken imo.
For one, too many issues with the rules. Two, like you said, it's two characters in one, that already breaks the action economy. Yes, yes, wizards can do it too, but wizards are quite broken as well. Part of the CoDzilla/Wiz's strength is the advantages they have in the action economy: standard/quickened spells + mobility vs full-attack + 5ft step.
Like a druid, the summoner doesn't even have to try and break the action economy, it's built into the class.
Thanks but no thanks. There is a lot of great stuff in the APG, but the summoner should have been left out for a future publication after a rewrite.
No, he didn't take the feat, or at least it's not listed.
And the Summoner as a class is not broken. It's breakable, but there are very few classes in the entire 3.0-Pathfinder heritage that aren't breakable. Hell, Pun-Pun was a Commoner. Even Truenamer can be broken-overpowered, and it's the most ludicrously underpowered class I've ever seen.
No, he didn't take the feat, or at least it's not listed.
And the Summoner as a class is not broken. It's breakable, but there are very few classes in the entire 3.0-Pathfinder heritage that aren't breakable. Hell, Pun-Pun was a Commoner. Even Truenamer can be broken-overpowered, and it's the most ludicrously underpowered class I've ever seen.
+1 all the classes can be broken if you try hard enough the key thing is don't take the Mickey (not the wording my group uses but hey this is a public forum) if you ever look at your character and think "I'd never let anyone play this in my game." Then Don't Play IT!!!
P.S. If you would let someone play it then
a/Shame on you :P &
b/Can i join i have a level 20 great wyrm gold dragon paladin I'm dying to play :D
Let me rephrase; the Summoner is not broken, but it is made of the thinnest glass. It is so fragile that if it were an object, you'd be afraid of touching it for it might break. So no, it is not broken, but it is nearly impossible to play with it without breaking it, so one should just avoid playing with it altogether.
I'm not biased against the concept. I love conjurers (may favorite specialization) and I love monster summoning, but the build-an-eidolon workshop has failed (excuse me, is too difficult to use so that it shouldn't be attempted).
P.S. I'm not meaning to insult anyone's intelligence or insinuate they don't understand well enough to play the class, it is just that easy to make a little mistake that has big consequences. Almost every time one of these threads pops up someone posts how they've learned something new or have been doing it wrong all along.
As a player, I wouldn't play a summoner because I wouldn't want to risk getting it wrong and throwing off the game. And as a DM, I could have the most competent player in the world (like many of you fine people), but I still wouldn't allow it because it wouldn't be worth the hassle of constantly referencing obscure wording and auditing the damn thing every level.
So no, it is not broken, but it is nearly impossible to play with it without breaking it, so one should just avoid playing with it altogether.
When we use the word "broken" we mean within the rules.
I disagree that the class is strong enough so that it is almost always broken.
I do agree that it has a high level of complication and no DM should allow it unless he is sure he understands and the player using it understands, but that goes for any class I guess.
When we use the word "broken" we mean within the rules.
And so do I. A rule doesn't have to be "overpowered" or "underpowered" to be broken. Vague, overly complicated rules can be broken as well. Nearly every single paragraph in the summoner description contains some manner of contradiction or exception to the the standard rules. And the rules are also very vague and open to interpretation. For example, the shield issue (is it armor? Many say yes, but it should have been clearly stated) or the what a hand/limb can wield if it is not "proficient".
It is "broken" within the rules because the rules are what make the class too complicated.
It is not nearly impossible to play without breaking it. In fact, you have to actually try to break it, same as with most other classes. The class really isn't that fragile. You're dramatically overstating your case, Cibulan.
When we use the word "broken" we mean within the rules.And so do I. A rule doesn't have to be "overpowered" or "underpowered" to be broken. Vague, overly complicated rules can be broken as well. Nearly every single paragraph in the summoner description contains some manner of contradiction or exception to the the standard rules. And the rules are also very vague and open to interpretation. For example, the shield issue (is it armor? Many say yes, but it should have been clearly stated) or the what a hand/limb can wield if it is not "proficient".
It is "broken" within the rules because the rules are what make the class too complicated.
Broken normally means OP , but it can also mean "X does not work" so you have a point, but when using a word out of its normal means of use it is often better to state your intentions.
I do agree that the class is too complicated. I think the intent of having such a versatile companion was a good idea, but it is hard to do so, and keep it reasonable. I think giving it less choices would have worked better, but it is what it is.
I think shields are armor*, but not a suit of armor which is what the armor proficiency feats are for. Being proficient with armor does not give shield proficiency for example. I don't think the armor restriction applies to shields used only as a defensive device, but the battery in the backpack would not work in many people's games, and if the class was a strong as Pinky thought it was it would be good with a variety of ideas, not just one many of us considered to be cheesed out.
*The game is full of situation where a word, level is a good example, can have a variety of meanings.
I think the eidolon is fine. A lot of the problem seems to be reading comprehension. Read each evolution over carefully. Secondly attempts to optimize the eidolon for damage combined with the reading comprehension.
In our current game the eidolon I just made has two attacks and flies and both attacks are T the base damage. I don't appear to make any mistakes on it but if I had it likely might not show up because I wasn't aiming nor 9 billion attacks at 32 str which a lot of these level 8 builds seem to be trying for.
No, he didn't take the feat, or at least it's not listed.
If this is referring to the original eidolon build posted, it listed only 2 feats when the eidolon gets 3.
One was Power Attack, the other was Martial Weapon Focus - Great Sword. Since there is no "Martial Weapon Focus" it has been proposed by myself (and I believe others agree) that this was meant to be 2 different feats, Martial Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Focus.
No, it's referring to Pinky's build.