| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I didn't see a FAQ for this already extant, if I missed it I apologize.
Basically, the way it's worded the Eidolon's Rend has the potential to be used multiple times per round, contrary to the monster ability Rend which specifically has a "Once per round only" clause.
While I can see the arguments for it RAW-wise (i.e. "It lacks said text, therefore it allows it" or "If it was intended to work the same as Rend, it would just say 'The Eidolon gains the Rend special ability' and leave it at that") I get this nagging feeling that it was not intended to work this way.
So, succinct question to sum up:
Is the Rend Evolution intended to work exactly the same way as the Rend monster special ability, or not?
I personally think it's FAQ worthy, if only to clarify the RAI here, if anyone else agrees I'd appreciate a quick button press too.
Hm. Think I found what I was looking for elsewhere actually.
Post #9 (I believe) in this thread.
Still, poorly worded ability I think.
Bumping because reasons.
Not that is really important since no one in his right mind whould allow eidolon to rend more than once per turn, but anyway faqed for great justice.
Not that is really important since no one in his right mind whould allow eidolon to rend more than once per turn, but anyway faqed for great justice.
And yet my player's other GM allowed it. =/
An eidolon learns to rip and tear the flesh of those it attacks with its claws, gaining the rend ability. Whenever the eidolon makes two successful claw attacks against the same target in 1 round, its claws latch onto the flesh and deal extra damage. This damage is equal to the damage dealt by one claw attack plus 1-1/2 times the eidolon’s Strength modifier. The eidolon must possess the claws evolution to select this evolution. The summoner must be at least 6th level before selecting this evolution. Source: Advanced Player's Guide
umm... other than perhaps requiring it 1 per set of claws... >.> and RAI aside, it seems... *cough* cut and dry...o.O though *agrees with dekalinder* 2pt 6th level...
RAW i see it fairly clear...
my RAI sense is... well... i think it's over there on the floor as it kersploded.
Yeah, that was my impression, and that's what pissed off my player (now former...though I suppose if this is how he reacts to my rulings...) when I decided to go by RAI, which seems to be the opposite (as shown by that quote I put in the second post).
I'm just curious now, because this ability IS sending kinda mixed signals, especially when taking into account what seems to be the general rule on Eidolons seems to be "Works exactly as the UMR monster ability, or is weaker in some way".
o.O
o.O
agreed.
I have a synth in my game that is playing with it as written without the one rend per round dev ruling I'd never seen before this thread (and now I need to decide whether to implement). He is truly an unholy whirlwind of destruction.
Basically I made the call that I was either going to accept a combat god into the party or ban summoners. Otherwise it was just going to be a cascading series of nerfs as new eidolon power-tricks kept showing up each level.
I figured my group could make it work with a point-man as an engine of melee madness. So far, results are middling. I don't think I'd do it again, but I don't regret doing it this time.
synth are not that hard, all things considered...
I'm bringing this up because your player made arguments based on the semantics of the rule, and that such were easily understood to mean that an eidolon should be capable of rending more than one time a round. Your "ruling" was to dismiss this as "narrative"
Incorrect. I said that the wording of this ability was likely in error. My source for this was the above quote, from a developer, stating that it was intended to work only once per round. I dismissed nothing as "narrative" though I did say at a few points that just because something can be explained to make logical sense for working, does not mean I am going to allow it to work that way contrary to what is seemingly the RAI and my own sense of game balance.
He disagreed, saying that the Eidolon works on his own ruleset and therefore everything should be taken by RAW at face value regardless of what other evidence from other places in the rules might hint at.
My secondary argument was, as well, that his character was already a powerhouse (being a Gestalted Bard/Summoner), and I did not feel the need to rule in favor of making said powerhouse even more powerful with an ambiguously written ability which does not seem intended to work the way it is written, much like a large number of Summoner/Eidolon abilities that have been FAQed, changed, and complained about repeatedly.
He was unhappy with this statement.
make up a bunch of unrelated and condescending counterarguments
My arguments are as above, though I'll admit somewhere in the nearly TWO HOURS he pestered me about it (between a real-time Steam chat some time after 2 AM, and on the forum the next afternoon), argued with me, and steadfastly REFUSED to just accept a ruling and move on, that I got a bit peeved.
state that the opinions of multiple people with decades of tabletop experience (seriously, some of us have been playing tabletop games since before you were verbal) were irrelevant because they're all wrong as far as you're concerned
I said that simply because multiple people held the same opinion, does not make that opinion correct, yes.
then say he was having a "fit" when both he and I decided that we're tired of your "I'm right at all costs" attitude and didn't want to play with you any longer.
First off, I'm not sure why it's your business in the first place. You are not part of the game in question. You do not have to deal with me where I am in any sort of position of authority.
And yes, he is throwing a fit. I could, perhaps, understand removing me from the Serpent's Skull group if you two no longer could tolerate my opinion on some things (though I believe it was you who said you "enjoyed our rules roundtable" some time ago, despite our disagreements).
However, what I cannot condone as anything more than a childish hissy fit is the complete canceling of said game for the foreseeable future, effectively punishing 3 other players (excluding you and myself) for my "mistake".
This isn't even the first time you've intentionally misrepresented the circumstances of your disagreement with that player on these forums to make it sound like it's rational you versus insane him.
Considering this is the first I've made mention of said argument, ever, besides the forums where said argument took place, DURING said argument, I'm not certain where you're getting this info from.
Generally, the only time I've made mention of this player on these forums is to say he's been a very accommodating GM, and that he was a good player to have around (especially since he's the one that gets the other players moving during the games).
But, all of this is beside the point entirely, really.