Significance of the Mount evolution (Summoner / Eidolons)

[slingerbult]

From the summoner class description:

Quote:

The eidolon’s physical appearance is up to the summoner, but it always appears as some sort of fantastical creature. This control is not fine enough to make the eidolon appear like a specific creature.

So for example, I should be able to design a biped eidolon to something like this, as long as it's fantastical enough:

http://www.fanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Avatar-AMP-Suit.jpg

My point is that the physical appearance of a biped eidolon could be such that it accomodated a size small summoner inside an organic cockpit of sorts. It could even be made solid enough to provide cover, yet line of effect, for the summoner without even stretching the rules.

Then this, from the Mount (Ex) 1-point evolution description:

Quote:

An eidolon is properly skilled and formed to serve as a combat-trained mount. The eidolon must be at least one size category larger than its rider. This evolution is only available to eidolons of the quadruped and serpentine base forms.

Fair enough. So the "mech suit" eidolon above will never be "properly skilled and formed to serve as a combat-trained mount", but that doesn't mean it can't provide mobility for a summoner. Since he's not really riding it, the ride skill benefits and mounted feat tree probably don't apply, but apart from that, I can't find anything wrong with this.

But what about another scenario: Assume we're making a standard mounted summoner/eidolon build with, say, a quadruped. On the next level up, we remove the Mount evolution but keep the physical appearance (which is up to the summoner anyway) the same. Now, the eidolon is no longer "properly skilled" to serve as a combat-trained mount. What are the consequences?

The only thing I could find is this, which is hilarious:

Quote:

Mounted Combat

These rules cover being mounted on a horse in combat but can also be applied to more unusual steeds, such as a griffon or dragon.

Mounts in Combat

Horses, ponies, and riding dogs can serve readily as combat steeds. Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat. If you don't dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a mount. If you succeed, you can perform a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the move action becomes a full-round action, and you can't do anything else until your next turn.

So even an unusual steed such as a friggin' DRAGON (or, I must assume, an eidolon) is frightened by entering combat when straddled by a humanoid - even though it readily enters combat without one.

This makes me a bit torn... Either, I must accept this silly rule and conclude that the Mount evolution fills the counter-intuitive purpose of not making your eidolon frightened by combat while serving as a mount. Or, I must accept that Mount (Ex) has no practical function and is a waste of an evolution point, even if you do intend to use your eidolon as a mount (with appropriate skills/feats and all).

Thoughts?

[Starglim]

"If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a -5 penalty on your Ride checks."

An eidolon is an outsider and one of the smarter companions in the game, so I don't think it becomes frightened in combat or needs tricks to command it.

[Funky Badger]

Mounts that do not possess combat training...

Dragons do possess combat training.

Nothing silly with the rule, you're just misreading them.

[lantzkev]

Just look at all the things a mount can do, it should be worth 1 evolution point to get that wrapped up in your eidolon.

If you have this "master blaster" from mad max kind of idea, tell your GM I'm sure he'd be willing to let you.

[slingerbult]

Starglim: Fair enough. That's from the Ride skill, right? So the Mount evolution negates simply the -5 penalty - sounds good to me.

Funky: Being a combat trained mount is a specific set of tricks as per the Ride skill. The fact that a creature has natural attacks and can fight (even horses do) does not make it combat trained for riding purposes. Or am I missing something specific?

Iantzkev: If it's worth it or not is beside the point. If I can have it for free, I'd rather use the evo point on something else. It seems the Mount evolution is only relevant if you want to use the Ride skill.

[lantzkev]

Seems kind of against the spirit of having a mount evolution to just game the system to get to ride it for free.

I've always pictured the mount evolution as there actually being a place where it's easy to sit on it and hang on during combat, that otherwise you'd have to constantly worry about getting thrown (constant move actions to stay on with ride checks)

If I was a GM I would force these checks on you every round nearly.

I didn't realise this thread was about "how can I get my eidolon to be a mount without spending a point on the mount evolution" I probably wouldn't have replied because that's just cheesy munchkinism.

[gnomersy]

slingerbult wrote:

Starglim: Fair enough. That's from the Ride skill, right? So the Mount evolution negates simply the -5 penalty - sounds good to me.

Funky: Being a combat trained mount is a specific set of tricks as per the Ride skill. The fact that a creature has natural attacks and can fight (even horses do) does not make it combat trained for riding purposes. Or am I missing something specific?

Iantzkev: If it's worth it or not is beside the point. If I can have it for free, I'd rather use the evo point on something else. It seems the Mount evolution is only relevant if you want to use the Ride skill.

I'd say that it can't serve as a mount whatsoever unless it has the evo. You could however be carried by it but that would be being carried not mounted so no attacks or charges via the mount etc you'd be deadweight. If you want to get the benefit of something put in the points stop trying to cheese a freebie.

[cartmanbeck]

slingerbult wrote:

From the summoner class description:

Quote:

The eidolon’s physical appearance is up to the summoner, but it always appears as some sort of fantastical creature. This control is not fine enough to make the eidolon appear like a specific creature.

So for example, I should be able to design a biped eidolon to something like this, as long as it's fantastical enough:

http://www.fanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Avatar-AMP-Suit.jpg

My point is that the physical appearance of a biped eidolon could be such that it accomodated a size small summoner inside an organic cockpit of sorts. It could even be made solid enough to provide cover, yet line of effect, for the summoner without even stretching the rules.

Then this, from the Mount (Ex) 1-point evolution description:

Quote:

An eidolon is properly skilled and formed to serve as a combat-trained mount. The eidolon must be at least one size category larger than its rider. This evolution is only available to eidolons of the quadruped and serpentine base forms.

Fair enough. So the "mech suit" eidolon above will never be "properly skilled and formed to serve as a combat-trained mount", but that doesn't mean it can't provide mobility for a summoner. Since he's not really riding it, the ride skill benefits and mounted feat tree probably don't apply, but apart from that, I can't find anything wrong with this.

But what about another scenario: Assume we're making a standard mounted summoner/eidolon build with, say, a quadruped. On the next level up, we remove the Mount evolution but keep the physical appearance (which is up to the summoner anyway) the same. Now, the eidolon is no longer "properly skilled" to serve as a combat-trained mount. What are the consequences?

The only thing I could find is this, which is hilarious:

Quote:

Mounted Combat

These rules cover being mounted on a horse in combat but can also be applied to more unusual steeds, such as a griffon or dragon.

Mounts in Combat

Horses, ponies, and

...

If you want your eidolon to be a suit, you should be looking at the Synthesist archetype. That's the way to do it.

[slingerbult]

I'm not "trying" to get something for free - I'm trying to understand the rules. If it's free it's free, not because I'm trying to cheese anything but because the rules make it so. I'm fine with taking the Mount evolution, but I'd like to know what I'm paying for and what the alternatives are.

I come to pretty much the same conclusion as gnomersy: If you want to use it with the ride skill or mounted combat rules, you need the evolution. If you just want to make a compartment where, for instance, the summoner could fit (if small enough) that doesn't need the Mount evolution.

[Elbe-el]

The baseline Summoner gets that ability for free at 16th level, when he gets Merge Forms.

Edit

...that is, the ability to use his eidolon like a battlesuit/mech...

[cartmanbeck]

slingerbult wrote:

I'm not "trying" to get something for free - I'm trying to understand the rules. If it's free it's free, not because I'm trying to cheese anything but because the rules make it so. I'm fine with taking the Mount evolution, but I'd like to know what I'm paying for and what the alternatives are.

I come to pretty much the same conclusion as gnomersy: If you want to use it with the ride skill or mounted combat rules, you need the evolution. If you just want to make a compartment where, for instance, the summoner could fit (if small enough) that doesn't need the Mount evolution.

The problem I see with this is that you're essentially giving your summoner some extremely powerful armor that would protect him from all harm, for free. If you did put your summoner in a compartment, why would you think he could cast spells out of it? If the enemies can't hit him, he can't hit them.

The eidolon is modeled after druid animal companions. There are no animal companions you can make a compartment in and hang out, blasting spells out of. It just doesn't fit with the rules. IF you want to be a summoner inside a suit of armor, you MUST be a Synthesist. That archetype has rules specifically allowing for it.

[slingerbult]

cartmanbeck: I'm not giving him "extremely powerful armor", the compartment provides COVER as per a low wall (see the combat rules section for details). You can use a tower-shield, corner or even a living body as cover normally - this just provides it more readily when I have my eidolon out. You're exactly right that I will need line of effect to my enemies, hence total cover or a sealed compartment is impractical. Consider it more of a seat with a "fence" in front. Much like if you're in a howda on an elephant.

An animal companion is... an animal. Of course it doesn't come with compartments (except a digestive tract etc). An eidolon, much like an Astral Construct, can be designed freely using its base form as a starting point. It says so explicitly in the rules (see quote above) - you control the shape. If a summoner can make his eidolon have 8 friggin' arms, it can have a compartment. I know people who have designed their eidolons as boats!

A synthesist is COMPLETELY different. You meld with the eidolon completely and gain its physical attributes etc. My idea is basically a slightly more comfortable/practical variation on riding on the shoulders of a biped eidolon. It's really no big deal.

[Funky Badger]

slingerbult wrote:

It says so explicitly in the rules (see quote above) - you control the shape. If a summoner can make his eidolon have 8 friggin' arms, it can have a compartment.

You have to pay extra for the arms. As you have to pay extra for a swim speed (if its not part of the base creature).

[cartmanbeck]

Funky Badger wrote:

slingerbult wrote:

It says so explicitly in the rules (see quote above) - you control the shape. If a summoner can make his eidolon have 8 friggin' arms, it can have a compartment.

You have to pay extra for the arms. As you have to pay extra for a swim speed (if its not part of the base creature).

Yep, there's the issue. There's no evolution for "compartment", yet it gives mechanical benefits in-game (cover). So, you can't do it. Plain and simple. The only way you could is to come up with a house-ruled evolution that allows you to have a "compartment", which should cost probably at least 3 evolution points.

[slingerbult]

Maybe, maybe not - it's up to the DM of course. Some players use rules to the fullest potential, others don't care and get weaker characters as a result. I've read about two different players who used their Eidolons to be clones of themselves - even using the same weapons. Rules don't say you can't - in fact they say you can. It's free and it can be very beneficial (have a decoy to send on risky negotiations, confuse enemies in combat). A player who would just make his eidolon look like Joe the Eidolon wouldn't get this benefit. I read about another who had it take Profession (Harlot) and rented it out for shady services and steady income...

Truth to be told, if I was GM:ing a player who wanted to do this "organic mech suit" idea I'm tinkering with, I'd OK the freebee "seat" function and either decide that the eidolon was too fragile to provide effective cover with only a thin "compartment fence", or that it could grant cover but if an attacked missed only due to the cover AC bonus, it would hit the eidolon instead. I think player creativity should be encouraged, and I try to say "if you do that, this happens" rather than just say no when I'm on the opposite side of the d20.

Being clever pays off in games as well as in real life. That is all.

[Seranov]

You're firmly in the realm of homebrew at that point, though.

If it gives your eidolon a tangible benefit, it should cost evolution points. Even if that tangible benefit has drawbacks, you can't get something for nothing.

[cartmanbeck]

Seranov wrote:

You're firmly in the realm of homebrew at that point, though.

If it gives your eidolon a tangible benefit, it should cost evolution points. Even if that tangible benefit has drawbacks, you can't get something for nothing.

Agreed.

[mplindustries]

slingerbult wrote:

Maybe, maybe not - it's up to the DM of course. Some players use rules to the fullest potential, others don't care and get weaker characters as a result. I've read about two different players who used their Eidolons to be clones of themselves - even using the same weapons. Rules don't say you can't - in fact they say you can. It's free and it can be very beneficial (have a decoy to send on risky negotiations, confuse enemies in combat). A player who would just make his eidolon look like Joe the Eidolon wouldn't get this benefit. I read about another who had it take Profession (Harlot) and rented it out for shady services and steady income...

Truth to be told, if I was GM:ing a player who wanted to do this "organic mech suit" idea I'm tinkering with, I'd OK the freebee "seat" function and either decide that the eidolon was too fragile to provide effective cover with only a thin "compartment fence", or that it could grant cover but if an attacked missed only due to the cover AC bonus, it would hit the eidolon instead. I think player creativity should be encouraged, and I try to say "if you do that, this happens" rather than just say no when I'm on the opposite side of the d20.

Being clever pays off in games as well as in real life. That is all.

I don't understand how your concept isn't fulfilled perfectly by the Synthesist archetype. Every "I want to be an inappropriately flavored mech pilot in this fantasy game" character I've seen in Pathfinder was a Synthesist--and I've seen way too many.

[Diego Rossi]

You used a perfect example of breaking the rules as you example of clever play.

"I've read about two different players who used their Eidolons to be clones of themselves - even using the same weapons. Rules don't say you can't - in fact they say you can."

Eidolon rules:
"The eidolon's physical appearance is up to the summoner, but it always appears as some sort of fantastical creature. This control is not fine enough to make the eidolon appear like a specific creature."

Those two phrases completely disallow the "clone" option.

Your/your player line of thought follow the same line, bend or break the rules and then call the result RAW.

You want to houserule? Fine, but don't call that "using the rules to the fullest potential".

[Ravingdork]

The only penalty I know of for not having the mount evolution is a -5 to Ride checks.

And yes, the synthesist archetype is what the OP is looking for.

[Funky Badger]

Ravingdork wrote:

The only penalty I know of for not having the mount evolution is a -5 to Ride checks.

And yes, the synthesist archetype is what the OP is looking for.

You have to make DC 20 ride checks each round in combat or get thrown off (with the -5 on the checks)...

[slingerbult]

First off, I'm looking to play this character in PFS. This rules out Synthesist and of course "homebrew" too, if the GM would construe it as such. Even if I could take the Synthecist archetype, it's not what I'm looking for. The ability to use the eidolon for transportation is actually a minor, minor aspect of the character that this thread has blown completely out of proportion, but that's beside the point.

Ravingdork: Yes, that seems to be the case, unless we assume that an eidolon is frightened by entering combat mounted.

Funky Badger: Only if the DM is convinced that combat frightens an eidolon who is mounted without the proper evolution, which *might* be RAW but probably not RAI. It also assumes that you're actually using the mounted combat rules to begin with - a giant eagle simply carrying a humanoid with its claws would not be subject to such checks, for instance.

To step things down a notch, here's another idea for how to use a biped eidolon for transportation: a harness.
1) An eidolon can carry a backpack or other items/containers as per its carrying capacity (just not armor).
2) You can make a backpack or harness that would fit a small size character, which the eidolon could then wear - much like if you were its familiar
3) You're not using the eidolon as a mount anymore than a familiar in a wizard's backpack is using the wizard as a mount. Thus, mounted combat rules, ride checks etc. are moot. Nor could you use a feat such as Mounted Combat etc.
4) Since you'd probably share the eidolon's space (again, much like a familiar) chances are you'd be able to use it for cover as per the normal vanilla cover rules (up to DM of course).

Comments? Perhaps there are rules somewhere for carrying living creatures in mundane containers such as back-packs or harnesses, but otherwise, the GM will have to decide.

[Diego Rossi]

You don't make riding check because your mount is frightened (or at least not only for that), you make riding check because your untrained mount is using his front legs to attack while you are trying to cast a spell or because it swerve right when you want it to swerve left.

The difference between a trained mount and an untrained mount is that the former work with you, the latter works, even unwittingly, against you, especially when it is fighting and following its instincts and not your needs.

And in PFS the less questionable is your build the better it work. Stretch the rules and sooner or later you will find that will not allow your build.

[mplindustries]

slingerbult wrote:

Comments?

You're not going to get this to work in PFS.

[Artanthos]

You want to ride an eidolon in PFS, your going to need the mount evolution.

There is no point in arguing it, you show up to a game and get audited, you will be walking.

[Ravingdork]

Diego Rossi wrote:

You don't make riding check because your mount is frightened (or at least not only for that), you make riding check because your untrained mount is using his front legs to attack while you are trying to cast a spell or because it swerve right when you want it to swerve left.

The difference between a trained mount and an untrained mount is that the former work with you, the latter works, even unwittingly, against you, especially when it is fighting and following its instincts and not your needs.

And in PFS the less questionable is your build the better it work. Stretch the rules and sooner or later you will find that will not allow your build.

Either way, I don't see how it would apply to an eidolon mount. They are literally an extension of the summoner, sharing everythign from hit points to thoughts to senses.

[Funky Badger]

Ravingdork wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

You don't make riding check because your mount is frightened (or at least not only for that), you make riding check because your untrained mount is using his front legs to attack while you are trying to cast a spell or because it swerve right when you want it to swerve left.

The difference between a trained mount and an untrained mount is that the former work with you, the latter works, even unwittingly, against you, especially when it is fighting and following its instincts and not your needs.

And in PFS the less questionable is your build the better it work. Stretch the rules and sooner or later you will find that will not allow your build.

Either way, I don't see how it would apply to an eidolon mount. They are literally an extension of the summoner, sharing everythign from hit points to thoughts to senses.

A Summoner can Bond Sense with its Eidolon for 1 round per level (from second level onwards). They do not share thoughts,

So, you know...

[Funky Badger]

Oh yeah - this isn't going to work in PFS.

Options are:
-pay for Mount and use it as written.
-have the Eidolon carry you into battle which is going to be uncomfortable and awkward for all involved.
-err, that's it.

You can always get soft cover from the Eidolon by, err, standing behind it. Fairly low tech though...

[Ravingdork]

Funky Badger wrote:

They do not share thoughts...

Link (Ex): A summoner and his eidolon share a mental link [that] allows for communication across any distance (as long as they are on the same plane). This communication is a free action, allowing the summoner to give orders to his eidolon at any time.

I'm not really sure what else you would call having someone in your head (and vice versa) all the time.

[Funky Badger]

Communication is not mind melding.

If they did, as you infer, act in telepathic union at all times, there wouldn't be any need to give orders at all, would there?

Either way, you need to give the Eidolon the Mount evolution or make DC 20 ride checks to get it to do stuff in combat...

[Diego Rossi]

Look a well rehearsed ballet. The coordination between the dancers can be incredible.
Take people that has the same dexterity and live together all the time but hasn't trained for choreographed dance. The result will be very different.

The eidolon and the summoner can be in constant communication but that isn't the same thing of knowing how they should move to aid each other instead of hindering each other.

The 1 point evolution pay for the training and having the right form to work well together.

[Ravingdork]

Funky Badger wrote:

Either way, you need to give the Eidolon the Mount evolution or make DC 20 ride checks to get it to do stuff in combat...

I don't believe that for a moment.

[Funky Badger]

Ravingdork wrote:

Funky Badger wrote:

Either way, you need to give the Eidolon the Mount evolution or make DC 20 ride checks to get it to do stuff in combat...

I don't believe that for a moment.

Sorry, thought I'd stumbled onto the rules board.

TTFN.