|
Armor Bonus: The number noted here is the eidolon's base total armor bonus. This bonus may be split between an armor bonus and a natural armor bonus, as decided by the summoner. This number is modified by the eidolon's base form and some options available through its evolution pool. An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind, as the armor interferes with the summoner's connection to the eidolon.
From the description of Eidolon on the PRD....on the question of shields I believe that they could but they are not proficient in them and seem to have no way to become proficient.
|
|
Actually there is an argument to be made that a shield is a type of armor and thus cannot be used by an Eidolon. Shields are listed as a type of armor in the Equipment section and such so....
I would guess that a shield would interfere with the Eidolon's connection to it's master, and not allow their usage.
|
This isn't really a Pathfinder Society related question.
No feat or ability will allow an eidolon to wear armour, and I would apply the same restriction to shields. You can, however, cast mage armour on them, or have them just LOOK like they wear armour. You may also allocate as much of their free AC bonus from leveling as armour or natural armour.
Eidolons certainly don't need to wear armour though.
|
A summoner can also cast Shield on his eidolon. Normally Shield has range personal, but the summoner's Share Spells ability enables him to cast the spell on his eidolon.
Despite it's name, Mage Armor is not worn armor, it's an applied spell effect, like Barkskin. That's why it's on the Summoner class list, it's a legal buff for an eidolon.An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind.Hmm. I knew eidolons couldn't wear armor, but does "of any kind" include mage armor? That phrase seems more restrictive to me than just "is not proficient with any armor".
mage armor provides an armor bonus... there for it could be argued that it is indeed armor of a kind... bracers of armor could be considered the same, as could a robe of the archmagi (which provides an armor bonus).
barkskin provides an enhancement bonus to a natural armor bonus (ie functions completely differently than mage armor), and thus is not pertinent to the discussion at hand.
I think the key word here is 'wear'. It says the eidolon can't wear armor, not that he can't use armor. You don't wear a mage armor spell or a shield spell. Also, technically speaking, even though Bracers of Armor gives you an armor bonus, the bracers themselves aren't armor.
Whether or not an eidolon can use a normal shield depends on whether or not having a shield strapped to its arm counts as it 'wearing' the shield.
Bracers of Armor however aren't standard armor, they aren't worn as standard armor. Monks, and Wizards can wear them just fine despite being unable to wear standard armor, they pretty much operate just like Mage Armor, they produce a magical effect that gives an armor bonus. As you've just illustrated, not everything that gives an armor bonus is armor.Despite it's name, Mage Armor is not worn armor, it's an applied spell effect, like Barkskin. That's why it's on the Summoner class list, it's a legal buff for an eidolon.An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind.Hmm. I knew eidolons couldn't wear armor, but does "of any kind" include mage armor? That phrase seems more restrictive to me than just "is not proficient with any armor".mage armor provides an armor bonus... there for it could be argued that it is indeed armor of a kind... bracers of armor could be considered the same, as could a robe of the archmagi (which provides an armor bonus).
barkskin provides an enhancement bonus to a natural armor bonus (ie functions completely differently than mage armor), and thus is not pertinent to the discussion at hand.
continuing to play devil's advocate here....
"standard armor" has nothing to do with it... the eidolon ability says "armor of any kind"... armor of any kind would also include non standard forms of armor would it not?
Well, Mage Armor and Shield spells aren't "worn".
You might argue Bracers of Armor count, but they aren't really armor, they generate a magical effect that protects you. You aren't deflecting blows with the actual bracers.
-j
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will conclude no such thing. Arguing that the spell mage armor counts as "armor of any kind" is preposterous. The same logic would apply to a Monk's AC bonus, because the words "unarmored" and "any armor" apply.
Since we can (hopefully) agree that Monks are allowed to benefit from the spell, eidolons should be able to as well.
I dont know why but I really like the idea that neither monks nor eidolons can benefit from the spells.
Arent monks supposed to be honing their temple to the point of not needing it.
Hard to hone that temple if you're letting magic do what your spirit and physical training should be working on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
mage armor provides an armor bonus... there for it could be argued that it is indeed armor of a kind... bracers of armor could be considered the same, as could a robe of the archmagi (which provides an armor bonus).
It could be argued, but it would be argued wrong. Armor of any kind refers to armor, meaning light, medium, and heavy armor. Bracers of Armor, the Shield spell, and Robes of the Archmagi are none of those things.
Qinggong Monks reproduce magical effects with their Ki. They're supposed to be 'honing their temple' to the point of LOOK AN AMAZING FLYING DISTRACTION! Don't get pedantic. Bonus types are not equipment. Creating stumbling blocks is like trolling yourself. Pointless and silly.
I was under the impression that an armor bonus from the mage armor spell didnt stack with armor you already wore. You simply picked the higher of the two. I'm just saying theres a possible implication there that they are treated as the same thing, which, if they are, speaks to both monks and eidolons not being able to use them. Your view doesnt become legitimate because you know how to spell the word 'wrong' and can point it at anyone but yourself. Do I get to say you're wrong because your toon wears too much mascara? Maybe I should say you're wrong because unlike some of us you've provided no foundation upon which your beliefs could be interpreted as legitimate.
I'm not going to do either since I respect the fact that other opinions are valid.
By the same token we are not 'wrong' just because your fingers are long enough to reach the keyboard.
Welcome to the forums. Other real people have other real ideas. Get used to it.
Who knew communicating with your own species as equals had such a learning curve?
I want to say that you have to realize that every post on every thread on these forums truncates in another meatbrain thats been floating around on this little spacerock for just as long as you have.
That would be wrong though. You don't have to realize it. Its not essential.
All of these posts on all of these forums could just be one giant turing test attempting to fool you into thinking that theres more songs worth singing than the one you play for yourself inside your own head.
As a cog of this great turing test its probably my responsibility to say I don't think that's true.
True or not the rules of the forum stand. Keep it civil.
You don't "wear" the Mage Armor spell, so that certainly shouldn't be a problem. Bracers of Armor also don't count as wearing armor. If they did I'd expect to find information on maximum dexterity bonus, arcane spell failure chance, etc.
Of course the DM can change any rule, but DMs intent on nerfing PCs often like an outside ruling to lean on so they can say, "It's not my fault, the official rule is your AC sucks!" or maybe, "Lots of folks on the message boards say your AC should suck!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few weeks back, I made a thread talking about whether or not the mage armor spell should be cut in half when utilized by a tiny creature. I thought it should be at first, but I was wrong. And the reason is the same as the reason that an eidolon can benefit from mage armor.
Mage armor isn't actually an armor - It's a spell effect that gives an Armor Bonus, nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't stack with any other armor bonuses, such as those obtained from regular worn armor, as most other bonuses of the same type do not stack. The "armor bonus" is itself defined totally, better than armors themselves, actually. The rules that I'm familiar with for "armors" are mostly actually armor bonus rules, such as which types or armor bonuses go to flat footed AC and which types of bonuses go to your touch AC.
tl;dr - Mage armor is not an armor, it's a spell that gives an "Armor Bonus".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bracers of Armor however aren't standard armor, they aren't worn as standard armor. Monks, and Wizards can wear them just fine despite being unable to wear standard armor, they pretty much operate just like Mage Armor, they produce a magical effect that gives an armor bonus. As you've just illustrated, not everything that gives an armor bonus is armor.Despite it's name, Mage Armor is not worn armor, it's an applied spell effect, like Barkskin. That's why it's on the Summoner class list, it's a legal buff for an eidolon.An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind.Hmm. I knew eidolons couldn't wear armor, but does "of any kind" include mage armor? That phrase seems more restrictive to me than just "is not proficient with any armor".mage armor provides an armor bonus... there for it could be argued that it is indeed armor of a kind... bracers of armor could be considered the same, as could a robe of the archmagi (which provides an armor bonus).
barkskin provides an enhancement bonus to a natural armor bonus (ie functions completely differently than mage armor), and thus is not pertinent to the discussion at hand.
Actually monks and wizards can wear any type of armor just fine, they just have to doeal with the fact that it will remove their monk class features, and potentially cause to-hit penalties and arcane spell failure chance. (silken ceremonial armour or haramaki causes neither of the latter two and make for a nice addition to any arcane spell caster without armoured casting abilities)
|
I'm amazed this lasted this many posts...
it's clear, they cannot wear armor.
Regardless of what type of bonus is given, be it armor, natural armor, dodge bonus to AC, etc, the only thing that's relevant is if it's wearing it or not.
Armor
For most, armor is the simplest way to protect oneself in a world of rampant threats and dangers. Many characters can wear only the simplest of armors, and only some can use shields. To wear heavier armor effectively, a character can select the Armor Proficiency feats, but most classes are automatically proficient with the armors that work best for them.Here is the format for armor entries (given as column headings on Table: Armor and Shields).
Cost: The cost in gold pieces of the armor for Small or Medium humanoid creatures. See Table: Armor for Unusual Creatures for armor prices for other creatures.
Armor/Shield Bonus: Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. 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.
I'm pretty sure that regardless of having to wield it a shield counts as armor as well.
Nothing else is classified as armor except the above, regardless of if it gives a bonus to armor class or not, or if it's giving a armor bonus. The type of bonus is purely to keep things from stacking like crazy. (imagine your plate mail guys wearing bracers of armor as well!)
No, it does not remove that restriction. The spell says that it breaks the Life Link, between the Summoner and Eidolon. The Life Link ability is the ability that makes the Eidolon lose HP if it goes a certain distance away from its summoner.
Life Link (Su): Starting at 1st level, a summoner forms a close bond with his eidolon. Whenever the eidolon takes enough damage to send it back to its home plane, the summoner can, as a free action, sacrifice any number of hit points. Each hit point sacrificed in this way prevents 1 point of damage done to the eidolon. This can prevent the eidolon from being sent back to its home plane.
In addition, the eidolon and the summoner must remain within 100 feet of one another for the eidolon to remain at full strength. If the eidolon is beyond 100 feet but closer than 1,000 feet, its current and maximum hit point totals are reduced by 50%. If the eidolon is more than 1,000 feet away but closer than 10,000 feet, its current and maximum hit point totals are reduced by 75%. If the eidolon is more than 10,000 feet away, it is immediately returned to its home plane. Current hit points lost in this way are not restored when the eidolon gets closer to its summoner, but its maximum hit point total does return to normal.
When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.
Given that the monk specifically differentiates wearing armor from using a shield, it seems to me that the eidolon lacking such text should be able to use a shield.
Does an item occupy the ARMOR equipment slot?
If the answer is no, the item is not a worn piece of armor, regardless of the bonuses granted.
THIS. I fail to see any ambiguity whatsoever about this "issue".
An eidolon cannot wear armor (anything occupying the armor equipment slot). A physical shield, Mage Armor, the Shield spell, Bracers of Armor, a Robe of the Archmagi, etc. do not occupy the armor slot as they are NOT armor. An eidolon can use any of those without issue.
I'd be willing to roll with it if a GM wanted to call a physical shield armor. IMO, they'd be wrong, but I could see where they were coming from (besides, I've seen very few eidolons even want to use a shield). Restricting the rest of that stuff? That's crazy talk.
|
I disagree, but regardless ... you still don't wear a shield.
Well....actually, depends on the shield.
I guess the typical Goblin shield is just a plate with a handle on the back, so you hold it rather than wear it.
However, if you take a look at many metal shields, you slide your arm into a pre-formed sleeve attached to the shield and grip a handle. Some even have a built in gauntlet that you slide your arm into. So saying you don't wear that type of shield is kinda like saying you don't wear bracers or gloves.
Does an item occupy the ARMOR equipment slot?
If the answer is no, the item is not a worn piece of armor, regardless of the bonuses granted.
Above is the answer to what armor is in the simplest terms possible. An eidolon could potentially wear body slot items or arm slot items that give it a bonus to AC but not one that specifically fills the armor equipment slot.