I made a thread on here earlier asking about an Eidolon and the "true outsider" behind it.
My DM is stating that there is no outsider behind the Eidolon a summoner has, instead, the Eidolon is the actual body and conciousness of the Outsider itself.
My understanding of Eidolons:
The Summoner bonds with an Outsider, able to summon an Eidolon to his side, which is an aspect/avatar of this creature. As the summoner levels up, he is able to draw more power from this outsider, shaping it's projection and using the borrowed power for the Eidolon or himself if he wanted.
His understanding of Eidolons:
The Summoner bonds with an outsider, and is able to summon the outsider itself to his side. The summoner is so proficient at his art that he is able to shape the outsider's form into what is referred as his Eidolon, becoming so powerful that he is even able to draw evolutions onto himself.
His reasoning includes:
1) You can't summon "aspects". You summon monsters, creatures and outsiders. The aspect is referring to your ability of manipulation.
2) If it were only an aspect, why do you have to wait 24 hours to summon it after it dies, and why does it have a con score?
3) They are dismissed when they reach 0 HP, and come back in 24 hours. That is a full day rest, and is the reason for the cooldown. Their physical form is injured, it needs to heal.
Which one of us is right?
(For the record, I know you guys hate player/DM fighting. If he rules it his way, I'll play the campaign that way. But I think there is a misunderstanding on ONE of the sides here.)
1. An aspect is just a weaker version of a monster. 3.5 did a good job of explaining that. Many demon lords as an example would send aspect to worshippers.
2. The 24 hour rule is a mechanical balance issue. Since when don't aspects have con scores. They did in 3.5. The class also calls it an aspect. He is free to rule otherwise as a GM, but if he is going by the book he is wrong.
3. He is wrong.
Why does it matter what it is called? The mechanics are not changing according to any of your questions. You two are really debating fluff not rules, unless he is trying to enforce a rule which you did not present.
You two are really debating fluff not rules
You are absolutely right. This entire topic is intentionally ambiguous and he as the DM makes the call on how it's played out.
Thank you!
3. He is wrong.
Can you explain why? Is there something in the books that says so?
The "actual" creature is not injured. The problem is that PF, unlike 3.5 did not define aspect, but since PF is just a continuation of 3.5 then the same concept applies unless other wise stated.
There is a spell that allows you to summon your eidolon. If the actual form was still hurt then the spell would not work.
You two are really debating fluff not rulesYou are absolutely right. This entire topic is intentionally ambiguous and he as the DM makes the call on how it's played out.
Thank you!
My point was that nothing you have stated is an actual rule or lack of a rule and therefore does not affect the game mechanically.
As an example saying my barbarian rage is/is not "focused anger" would be fluff.
Saying my barbarian rage means I can no longer use any skills is mechanical(rules issue) because it affects what I can or can not do in the game world.
We've reached an agreement. You've been really helpful in both topics. He was thinking I was trying to bend the rules of the game, which I'm not, which was the cause for a large discussion on the topic. Thank you for your help, again in both topics.
You are welcome. :)
Thanks Joriandrake.