The other question is: Could you finish this entry?
Summoner: What happens when a synthesist (page 80) takes ability damage or drain while the eidolon is present?
The second paragraph is unfinished. It reads:
There is no "spillover" for extra ability damage or drain beyond what it takes to reduce the eidolon to 0; if an eidolon with Constitution 1 takes 3 points of Con damage and dies, the summoner doesn't take the "extra" 2 points of Con damage. However, ongoing effects (like continuing poisonAnd it stops there :p
There is no "spillover" for extra ability damage or drain beyond what it takes to reduce the eidolon to 0; if an eidolon with Constitution 1 takes 3 points of Con damage and dies, the summoner doesn't take the "extra" 2 points of Con damage. However, ongoing effects (like continuing poison damage) would affect the (non-fused) summoner after the eidolon disappeared.
I lucked out, and the FAQ clarifications conformed to how my group has been running my summoner for the last 4 levels, so looks like we made the right calls, there.
There is one exception, though, and I guess I don't understand the reasoning on the call you guys made. As a few others pointed out above, the Share Spells ability specifically says:
"A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider)."
So it seems to me that enlarge person, being a spell on the summoner's spell list, would qualify it for application on the fused eidolon, despite the targeting issue, because the specific rule of the share spells ability overrides the general one of that spell only affecting humanoids. It just seems that part was overlooked.
Was that aspect of the share spells ability considered today as well, and, if not, might we expect a correction on that FAQ ruling?
If not...well, I'll see you in Indy tomorrow...and woe unto you and your accursed rulings! Bwahahahaha!
Brandon
|
I guess I don't understand what the question is with enlarge person.
Share spells only works with Target: You
Enlarge isn't a Target: you spell.
Enlarge doesn't work with share spells.
So share spells' override feature doesn't matter, since enlarge doesn't work with it.
Your reading it like its one whole thing, Share spells allows you to 1) affect your (insert important class feature here) with spell even though it is not a creature of that type and 2) Affect (insert important class feature here) with a spell of Personal instead of you, thats how it worked and always did, which is why the FAQ makes little sense, or seems to make an exception for no reason?
That is how I read it as well, Endoralis. That period between the first and second sentence is a full stop. And the second sentence is not further refining the first, though I can see it being read both ways.
By my reading, with share spells a summoner can:
1. Cast target:you spells on his eidolon instead of himself.
2. Cast spells on the eidolon even if they can't normally be cast on outsiders (not just "touch spells" or even "these spells" or "such spells" to reflect back in the first sentence - it just says spells.)
3. These spells must come from summoner spell list, and can't be spell-like abilities.
Now, to be fair, that third sentence does say "spells cast in this way," which might join the first two sentences after all. Hmmm...this is still confusing, because I was under the impression that enlarge person worked for regular non-synthesized eidolons, and it should here as well by the same justifications.
After reading the FAQ, limit on attacks section just made me "eww" out loud. And the healing thing... well it isn't much better. Actually on second thought it's a lot worse. The creature that probably doubles my hit points and gives fast healing, can't heal its own wounds?
The armor ruling was as expected. The enlarge person ruling is annoying as a few of the evolutions require you to be bigger than your target (grab most importantly), so they are useless until after 6th level when you can sink half your evo points into large size... At which point it might be useful occasionally as things will be your new size or larger by then. Ability damage and persistent effects again were as expected. Though the con damage is a bit clunky as well.
Oh well, it was a nice concept but not worth losing the regular eidolon by a long shot after FAQ. Toss it on the pile of archetypes likely to see no use due to being subpar.
That is how I read it as well, Endoralis. That period between the first and second sentence is a full stop. And the second sentence is not further refining the first, though I can see it being read both ways.
Now that I've looked at this again, I see how you're interpreting it that way. This is no longer a synthesist question, as it has to do with share spells for *all* summoners. I'll talk to Jason about it.
|
|
That is how I read it as well, Endoralis. That period between the first and second sentence is a full stop. And the second sentence is not further refining the first, though I can see it being read both ways.Now that I've looked at this again, I see how you're interpreting it that way. This is no longer a synthesist question, as it has to do with share spells for *all* summoners. I'll talk to Jason about it.
Make sure to look back on Familiars and Animal Companions...cause they could do this too.
That is how I read it as well, Endoralis. That period between the first and second sentence is a full stop. And the second sentence is not further refining the first, though I can see it being read both ways.Now that I've looked at this again, I see how you're interpreting it that way. This is no longer a synthesist question, as it has to do with share spells for *all* summoners. I'll talk to Jason about it.
Yeah...not really liking where this is going. Share spells has ALWAYS functioned in that you could, as a wizard, shrink or enlarge your familiar because the second sentence never read like a subset of spells from the first sentence. Adding a "these" before "spells" would have made it clear from the inception of the ability. In fact, I don't believe there's a single spell in all of 3.5 that has a target of "you" that restricts by creature type, so it would have been redundant from day 1.
People have been talking about, and playing, summoners with the ability to enlarge their eidolons since the book hit stores. It's a full round spell to begin with, and a synthesist is hit even harder by it because they get half the actions a regular summoner gets.
It would make more sense to simply remove it from summoners outright, than to take an established class feature and retcon it's functionality.
But the comparison wasn't with the fighter
Hardly:
The feat should exist and is pretty much a requirement to keep the synth archtype on a field with the fighter or barbarian, the glut of hit points doesn't do much if you can't do anything besides swing at a mob with a medium BAB.
Further:
Basically you are a one trick pony, and unless your DM is taking pity on you, once that trick is figured out you are out of luck as you have none of the extra utility that a fighter does.
...it was with the druid who gets the feat. Better spell list and able to fully buff out the companion at full strength. Versus a synth who has a worse spell list and action economy.
While this might have made a much more solid discussion...it gets no attention as we're right back to the fighter...
To keep up with the fighter a synth will be tossing all of its points (8th level, 4 large, 6 for physical stats +4 each assuming 1st and 6th/7th) leaving 1 point. Or go the improved armor route as it isn't likely synths can wear armor and spend the cash on the attributes freeing up a few points for your "trick" but your won't have comparable stats as you can't afford them. Yes they can have good str and ac but that is all they are going to have by going this direction.
I'm curious to see what kind of arguments there are in favor of this "versatility" a fighter can maintain while still performing beyond the one "trick" of being a high HP, high AC, high damage output being with three good saves that can cast a single spell to benefit from a myriad of evolutions including +8 to ANY skill, and eventually completely reform itself once a day.
I'll agree that fighters can achieve a much higher to-hit bonus on their first and second iterative attacks, but a competitive bonus like that comes from being just such a one trick pony that is far from well rounded and further from being hard to kill. Any "utility" a fighter possesses that cannot be supplied by the very same synthesist, is at the expense of full strings of feats that end in a single combat trick, which will cost the fighter survivability or some of that hefty attack bonus.
That is how I read it as well, Endoralis. That period between the first and second sentence is a full stop. And the second sentence is not further refining the first, though I can see it being read both ways.Now that I've looked at this again, I see how you're interpreting it that way. This is no longer a synthesist question, as it has to do with share spells for *all* summoners. I'll talk to Jason about it.
There are many threads with the the same discussion about the functioning of the Share Spells ability (meanining as you said before that's not a Synthesist problem).
If the intention of Share Spells is to share spells with Target of 'You' only, then the wording of Share Spells should be changed to a less ambiguous definition: 'Target You' becomes 'Range Personal'.
Otherwise, the way I and many others read it gives a summoner the ability to share any spell that has a single Target (and 'You' have to be a valid legitimate target) AND ignoring the recipe's creature type while you cast on him that spell via Share Spells.
Disclaimer: I may appear rude and that's because of my bad english, sorry for that :P
That is how I read it as well, Endoralis. That period between the first and second sentence is a full stop. And the second sentence is not further refining the first, though I can see it being read both ways.Now that I've looked at this again, I see how you're interpreting it that way. This is no longer a synthesist question, as it has to do with share spells for *all* summoners. I'll talk to Jason about it.
As long as you're re-examining one of the FAQ issues:
Summoner: Can a synthesist (page 80) benefit from the [...] Ability Score Increase evolution applied to a mental ability score?
If the synthesist applies the Increased Ability Score evolution to the eidolon's mental ability score, it has no effect on the synthesist because he uses his own mental ability scores.
It's true that the Eidolon possessing the Increased Ability Score (INT) evolution isn't going to do anything for the synthesist, but synthesist also says "The synthesist also gains access to the eidolon’s special abilities and the eidolon’s evolutions." This means that it's not just the eidolon who can use the increased INT evolution (boosting that dormant INT), but it's also the synthesist herself who can use it.
The Eidolon itself does not have skill bonuses either (or if it does, they are dormant and inaccessible to the synthesist). Boosting the eidolon's perception skill is not going to help the synthesist at all, since the synthesist doesn't use the eidolon's skills. And yet - presumably based on the rules quote I provided just above - the Synthesist gains the benefit from the Skilled evolution just fine according to the FAQ.
For these same reasons, shouldn't the synthesist get the benefit from the Increased Ability Score evolution on a mental score? I fail to see the important difference between the Skilled evolution and the Increased Ability Score evolution for this purpose. Both modify attributes of the Eidolon that the synthesist cannot access, but the synthesist also gains access to these evolutions, so she essentially gets to modify her own attributes with them. Consistent ruling seems to imply that either both evolutions would have an effect or neither, and I think the rules support the former interpretation more solidly.
Anyway, thanks for the FAQ. It's very much appreciated.
Haven't found that issue with search.
Synthesist being Humanoid doesn't have any proficiencies with natural weapons, correct?
Common sense dictates that the ruling will be that yes, they're proficient.
However, the rules for natural weapon proficiency are silent on the issue. Creatures are "proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race." Does being part-eidolon grant the synthesist proficiency with the eidolon's natural attacks?
I think the FAQ issue here is wider than the Synthesist, though. Is a Draconic Sorcerer proficient with its claws? A witch with her nails and prehensile hair? A ranger with claws from Aspect of the Beast?
RAI seems to be an unmistakable yes, but an official ruling would certainly be nice. Given that the issue is larger than the synthesist, perhaps you should start a new thread about it.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have a '3 headed hydra' 5th level synthesist. I was thinking of future ideas as it grows, and ran into these problems:
1. Saves: Do you use the Summoner Base Saves or the Eidolon base saves? I couldn't find any information on that.
2. Swallow Whole Evolution: "..The amount of damage needed to cut free is equal to 1/10 the eidolon's total hit points." According to the rules, we are one creature. But, the evolution specifies eidolon.
3. Poison Evolution: Am I correct in assuming that I choose which head gains the poison bite attack per evolution point?
4. Breath Weapon Evolution: What action is the breath weapon (i assume standard, but nothing is mentioned)? Can i pay the extra points so that each head shoots out a breath at once, or is just 1 breath weapon per round?
Looks like no one's answered your questions yet so I'll go ahead.
1. This has been answered by one of the devs. Synthesist does not say you get the eidolon's base saves, so you don't. You use the summoner saves.
2. I can't say anything official here, but I'm almost certain the answer will be that it's the Eidolon's HP that matter. Evolutions that rely on eidolon HD still use eidolon HD rather than the synthesist's, so I would assume it's the same story for evolutions that rely on eidolon HP.
3. Well first off, poison is two evolution points. Secondly, though, it does say "pick one bite or sting attack," so yes, you pick which one it applies to. However, it does NOT say you get to take the poison evolution more than once, applying it to different attacks each time. So you're allowed to pay 2 evolution points to apply it to any one of your 3 bites, and after that you can't take it again.
4. It's a standard action, so there's no way to use it multiple times per round.
Where does it say that? It says "spells with a target of 'you."" Enlarge person isn't "you," it's "one humanoid creature," and thus doesn't qualify for the share spells ability at all, synthesist or regular summoner--not because of the "humanoid" part of the Target, but because of the not-"you" part of the Target.
Really.
The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself. A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider). Spells cast in this way must come from the summoner spell list.Is Paizo then changing the meaning of Share Spells to mean something other than what it says? If the synthesist becomes his Eidolon, Share Spells specifically says this works.
Share Spells is clearly worded to allow the Summoner to cast Personal and humanoid-only target spells on an Eidolon.
A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider).
Nowhere in that does it say the exception is limited to Personal spells. For the limit specified in sentence one to continue to sentence two, there needs to be a reference word therein. Like "may cast such spells" or "may cast these spells." However, that the second "spells" is plural instead of the singular "spell," the implication that that sentence applies to ALL spells and not just the limited spell referenced in the first sentence is further solidified.
repeated
Summoner: Can a synthesist (page 80) make attacks from his own body (such as manufactured weapons, unarmed strikes, or natural attacks) and attacks from the fused eidolon in the same round?
Yes, but the fused character is still subject to the Maximum Attacks entry in the table for an eidolon of his level (unlike a regular summoner, this limit does include attacks made with weapons). For example, a 1st-level synthesist is limited to 3 attacks per round, whether those three are dagger/off-hand dagger/bite, dagger/bite/claw, dagger/claw/claw, and so on.
Am I the only person who finds limiting a Synthesist summoner's attacks by the arbitrary Eidolon max attacks rules both confusing and otherwise asinine?
You are replacing this: Eidolon BAB + Eidolon natural attacks (to maximum) + Summoner BAB + any possible Summoner natural attacks
With this: (Eidolon BAB + Eidolon natural attacks + Summoner natural attacks [humanoid unarmed attacks are not natural]) (to maximum attack for Eidolon)
A Summoner loses three fourths of his combat capability in a round by being a synthesist, once you factor in Eidolon and Summoner being the same creature.
What? I mean really. What, exactly, was the purpose for this ruling? It couldn't POSSIBLY have been balancing because an Eidolon and Synthesist alone have literally identical attack capabilities and the Synthesist removes the Summoner's ability to attack additionally or cast spells in the same round. It's like saying the Druid loses the ability to wild shape because she didn't take an animal companion. It makes literally no sense.
That is how I read it as well, Endoralis. That period between the first and second sentence is a full stop. And the second sentence is not further refining the first, though I can see it being read both ways.Now that I've looked at this again, I see how you're interpreting it that way. This is no longer a synthesist question, as it has to do with share spells for *all* summoners. I'll talk to Jason about it.Yeah...not really liking where this is going. Share spells has ALWAYS functioned in that you could, as a wizard, shrink or enlarge your familiar because the second sentence never read like a subset of spells from the first sentence. Adding a "these" before "spells" would have made it clear from the inception of the ability. In fact, I don't believe there's a single spell in all of 3.5 that has a target of "you" that restricts by creature type, so it would have been redundant from day 1.
People have been talking about, and playing, summoners with the ability to enlarge their eidolons since the book hit stores. It's a full round spell to begin with, and a synthesist is hit even harder by it because they get half the actions a regular summoner gets.
Not only that, poeple have been enlarging their animal companions whenever there wasw the chance (most likely domain spells to animal companions via animal domain or eldritch heritage sylvan bloodline).
It would make more sense to simply remove it from summoners outright, than to take an established class feature and retcon it's functionality.
+1.
If you don't want summoners to be able to enlarge their eidolons then simply remove the ability from summoners.
Are there any 'range: personal' or 'target: you' spells that have a creature type restriction, in any publication?
Are there any 'range: personal' or 'target: you' spells that have a creature type restriction, in any publication?
No, there aren't. All personal range spells have a target of you. Period.
If the target is "you," the target is "you." There are no limits because the target limits are placed in the target section. No spell says "Target: you, outsider" or "Target: you, humanoid" or anything else. The limit for the spell is you. You are literally the spell's target limit.
Now that you point that out, if they want the second sentence to apply to the first, it has to be removed because it is a waste of print.
No, there aren't. All personal range spells have a target of you. Period.
If the target is "you," the target is "you." There are no limits because the target limits are placed in the target section. No spell says "Target: you, outsider" or "Target: you, humanoid" or anything else. The limit for the spell is you. You are literally the spell's target limit.
That's not the question I asked. I could conceive that there might be a 3rd party spell that only works if you are undead. Target: you; in the text somewhere: you must be undead to gain the following effects...
However, I can't remember ever seeing one.
That would work under share spells.
That's not the question I asked. I could conceive that there might be a 3rd party spell that only works if you are undead. Target: you; in the text somewhere: you must be undead to gain the following effects...No, there aren't. All personal range spells have a target of you. Period.
If the target is "you," the target is "you." There are no limits because the target limits are placed in the target section. No spell says "Target: you, outsider" or "Target: you, humanoid" or anything else. The limit for the spell is you. You are literally the spell's target limit.
The game should not be balanced around any absurdity that 3rd parties make up that don't adhere to the basic game design.
The game should not be balanced around any absurdity that 3rd parties make up that don't adhere to the basic game design.
I know. I am simply curious if there is any out there that anyone has heard of. Then that would make it the only case that this ruling makes any real effect.
I am agreeing with you that it's absurd that it's an ability that does not relate to any spells in the game as it stands.
The game should not be balanced around any absurdity that 3rd parties make up that don't adhere to the basic game design.
I know. I am simply curious if there is any out there that anyone has heard of. Then that would make it the only case that this ruling makes any real effect.
I am agreeing with you that it's absurd that it's an ability that does not relate to any spells in the game as it stands.
No, it's absurd that that is what people, including Sean K Reynolds, are claiming it means. What it currently clearly states is that the Share Spells allows a character to cast any creature-targeting spells on a companion creature whose target would normally exclude them, ie target: you or target: [non-creature-type] creature
No there aren't. I made a query on the d20pfsrd. No results found.
Quote me, please... i didn't see this, but I could have missed it.
This is just from UM but i think it's what you're talking about.
** spoiler omitted **
Nope. The part i'm quoting is the description of the actual Outsider type from Bestiary 1.
More specifically, i'm looking at the idea that the gear on the Summoner is still available. I'm not saying that the appearance on the Eidolon allows the armor to apply, following normal bonsu rules.
Of course the gear is available. It says that a summoner has access to all of his gear. This applies to everything but armor. When it comes to armor the summoner is still wearing it but does not get the armor bonus from it. In addition any other abilities that are note use activated are also not available because you don't get the armor bonus (aka Rhino hide extra damage on a charge would not work). However, I think you are getting at the idea that you imagine your eidolon with X gear and when he shows up he has X gear to use. I would say no. The eidolon can be anything you like but no where does it says that the gear you imagine him with is functional (It's all translucent anyway).
As far as the eidolon outsider in full plate idea: Although an outsider is proficient with any armor it is described as wearing, an eidolon specifically can not wear armor. As such he is not proficient with any armor. Relevant quote: "Outsiders not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor." If you make his skin look like armor thats fine but its just his skin. Also remember that the eidolon part of the synthesis is described as translucent.
-Matt
No, it's absurd that that is what people, including Sean K Reynolds, are claiming it means. What it currently clearly states is that the Share Spells allows a character to cast any creature-targeting spells on a companion creature whose target would normally exclude them, ie target: you or target: [non-creature-type] creature
You really try your hardest to make people hate to agree with you. The absurdity I was referring to was the FAQ. You're right. You should work on being right in a more amiable fashion.
No you are not. I think this is an overreaction, this one ruling more than any other makes the Synthesist a categorically worse choice then the normal summoner.Now the synthesist gains nothing, but loses action economy and number of attacks compared to the normal summoner.
It is balancing. The synthesis is no longer two creatures and as such should loose some action economy. Every other class that gives up a companion as part of an archtype also looses action economy. Why would the synthesis be any different. If the synthesis was always better than a summoner everyone would just play it and it wouldn't be an archtype anymore.
You can not give the synthesis summoner a whole bunch of goodies and not take something away in return. Remember that the synthesis solves the biggest problem of eidolons, a weak will save. You gain increased protection against banishment for a decrease in attacks.
You really try your hardest to make people hate to agree with you. The absurdity I was referring to was the FAQ. You're right. You should work on being right in a more amiable fashion.
+1
It is balancing. The synthesis is no longer two creatures and as such should loose some action economy.
No you are not. I think this is an overreaction, this one ruling more than any other makes the Synthesist a categorically worse choice then the normal summoner.Now the synthesist gains nothing, but loses action economy and number of attacks compared to the normal summoner.
It does - it loses the action economy of being two separate creatures. Now it's action economy is limited beyond that by applying the Eidolon's arbitrary natural attack limit to BAB granted attacks as well. That is foolish since, due to design, the Eidolon and synthesist have identical combat abilities [it is the reason a dip in Synthesist Summoner is impossible]. The Eidolon is being nerfed simultaneously with the class as a whole being nerfed. Saying it is nonsensical is being kind.
Every other class that gives up a companion as part of an archtype also looses action economy. Why would the synthesis be any different. If the synthesis was always better than a summoner everyone would just play it and it wouldn't be an archtype anymore.
Does the Druid lose the ability to Wild Shape when it replaces the Animal Companion with a Domain? No? Then it isn't remotely similar.
[QUOTE=]Summoner: Can a synthesist (page 80) make attacks from his own body (such as manufactured weapons, unarmed strikes, or natural attacks) and attacks from the fused eidolon in the same round?
Yes, but the fused character is still subject to the Maximum Attacks entry in the table for an eidolon of his level (unlike a regular summoner, this limit does include attacks made with weapons). For example, a 1st-level synthesist is limited to 3 attacks per round, whether those three are dagger/off-hand dagger/bite, dagger/bite/claw, dagger/claw/claw, and so on.
Remember also that the synthesist is still subject to the rules of combining manufactured weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks in the same round (in that the natural weapons are always considered secondary and therefore have a -5 attack penalty).
Just trying to envision this as a player. Correct me if I am wrong. The summoner sitting in his translucent eidolon fusion can attack someone through his translucent with a melee weapon using his own arms (not the fusions) The questions that follow:
1)How the hell can he treat the fusion as non-solid but his enemy can not?
2)Does he use his own reach or the fusions?
3)If the summoner is medium and the eidolon fusion is large can he treat any square occupied by the eidolon as the square he is attacking from with his own limbs?
More logistical questions are bound to come up but I am busy at the moment so I will just go with these three.
Remember, your eidolon isn't any bigger without evolutions, and you benefit from them, so YOU are the one who gains size...
It is balancing. The synthesis is no longer two creatures and as such should loose some action economy. Every other class that gives up a companion as part of an archtype also looses action economy. Why would the synthesis be any different. If the synthesis was always better than a summoner everyone would just play it and it wouldn't be an archtype anymore.
You can not give the synthesis summoner a whole bunch of goodies and not take something away in return. Remember that the synthesis solves the biggest problem of eidolons, a weak will save. You gain increased protection against banishment for a decrease in attacks.
They lose the ability to act independently from their eidolon. A synthesist can't cast a spell and still maintain good melee damage like a normal summoner can. They also effectively lose feats; you can't just load the eidolon up with the necessary combat related stuff and keep all of yours for extra evolutions and casting stuff. Will save is probably the most important, but you're losing a bit in at least one of the other saves compared to the eidolon.
Different questions:
1)How does the splitting work with a synthesist. Does the split eidolon keep your feats and skills or what? Mt initial thought was that the eidolon does have a normal set of feats and skills, they're just typically inactive, but the archetype directly states that they get no skills or feats.
2) As I understand the FAQ a synthesist can use his own arms to attack while fused.
a) If you want to have the eidolon, not the summoner, use a weapon do you need the weapons training evolution?
b) In the case of increased size eidolons, where are you attacking from?
c) I'm fairly certain of the actual rules on this, but if you're actually the one swinging wouldn't you logically use your base strength?
d) Does a biped eidolon synthesist effectively start with 4 arms, or are the eidolon's limbs assumed to overlap with your own if they can.
1. "For the duration of this effect, the eidolon functions as a normal eidolon of the summoner’s class level." - To me this looks like it would overrule the fused-eidolon-specific restriction of no feats.
It looks like RAW you'd probably assign it a set of feats in accordance with normal eidolon rules when you use split forms.
2a. The eidolon and the synthesist are not really two separate creatures. Essentially, the merging can be represented as the synthesist simply gaining all the eidolon's evolutions and its natural armor bonuses etc. Since that biped you're fusing with has Limbs (Arms), you gain access to that evolution when you fuse, and can thus use the new set of arms to wield a weapon (with any proficiency you have).
2b. If the eidolon increases size to large, then you are also large. The synthesist gains the use of all the eidolon's evolutions.
2c. The synthesist uses the eidolon's strength. Houserule differently if you wish.
2d. It seems that yes, you would have 4 arms. A strict reading of RAW suggests this (you gain an extra pair from limbs (arms), and it is never suggested that you lose your current limbs or the ability to use them) and the FAQ clarifies it. You would also have two pairs of legs. An aquatic or serpentine form synthesist would still be trippable, since even though he doesn't have the limbs (legs) evolution he still has the pair of legs he started with.
Admittedly, before the FAQ, I was assuming that you could no longer use your limbs while fused, but my reasoning was fluff-based rather than rules-based.
I think the intent of the max attacks FAQ might have been for iteratives to not count against this limit.
My reasoning:
1. The term "natural attack" is used synonymously with "natural weapon." For instance, when you pick up a bite, you're informed that it's a "primary attack." However, it's actually a primary natural weapon, one which you could potentially get multiple attacks with via haste or via being a level 9 eidolon with less than 3 primary attacks.
2. Let's look at the functionality of "multiattack" when an eidolon has only a pair of claws at level 9.
2a. "If it does not have the requisite 3 or more natural attacks (or it is reduced to less than 3 attacks), the eidolon instead gains a second attack with one of its natural weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty." That text is triggered, so now he has a third attack.
2b. "If the eidolon later gains 3 or more natural attacks, it loses this additional attack and instead gains Multiattack." Well shoot, since he gained a third attack, this text triggers and now he immediately loses his third attack and instead gains multiattack.
2c. "If it does not have the requisite 3 or more natural attacks (or it is reduced to less than 3 attacks), the eidolon instead gains a second attack with one of its natural weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty." It just lost its third attack, so this text (same text as 2a) now gets triggered. infinite loop time.
The only solution to this loop is that extra attacks with the same natural weapon do not count as the eidolon having more attacks. This same conclusion could be carried over to manufactured weapons with the new rules in the synthesist FAQ; iteratives with the same manufactured weapon don't count against the limit of # of attacks.
Likewise, by any interpretation it was already legal for a 10th level synthesist with 5 natural attacks to attack 6 times in a full attack while using haste, even though the table limits him to 5 natural attacks. Max attacks just limits what evolutions you can take, not which spell effects you can be affected by.
Clarification from SKR would be nice on this issue, but I think the new FAQ leaves room for iteratives to either count or not count against the limit, which would make synthesists using manufactured weapons either unattractive or still viable.
Clarification from SKR would be nice on this issue, but I think the new FAQ leaves room for iteratives to either count or not count against the limit, which would make synthesists using manufactured weapons either unattractive or still viable.
It would be great, but I think that it will be counting iterative attacks. Notice that in the examples of attacks SKR gives in the FAQ mentions two knives attacks in conjunction with claw...
It would be great, but I think that it will be counting iterative attacks. Notice that in the examples of attacks SKR gives in the FAQ mentions two knives attacks in conjunction with claw...
They're two separate weapons. He mentioned that one was an off-hand, so the jury is still unspoken on iteratives.
This was really the one thing the Synthesist archetype did better than the Eidolon and that is mix weapons and natural attacks without having to pay for the evolutions or a feat.
I'm going to have to disagree there. Mixing and matching weapons is suboptimal, since all your natural attacks become secondary (-1/+1 power attacks, 1/2 str bonus, -5 or -2 attack, etc). The best DPR builds generally use a bunch of primary attacks and no secondaries.
Finding a way to get constant pluses on damage rolls (dipping rogue/ninja, using precise strike with a flank buddy, etc) could make multiweapon fighting viable, but with single-classing and no precise strike it isn't a very good build. Not to mention it takes up a lot of time at the table with all those rolls.
The thing it actually does better than the Summoner/Eidolon combo is that you don't have a fragile little summoner that people can target, you're a single target for AoE's, and your AC is even higher than an Eidolon's. Oh, and you have all the magic items on one body, so instead of splitting your wealth and having two decent combatants you have one great combatant. There's no class more survivable than the synthesist.