Shadow Blending Evolution

[Verzen]

Is Shadow Blending legal for a half elves Eidolon to take? According to the rules, any race can take shadow blending. It's just more common for Fetchlings to take the evolutions.

Thanks.

[Brian Lefebvre]

The ARG additional resources says that you need to be the race to unlock the evolutions found in the Fetchling entry for PFS. Only equipment and magic items are available to anyone eligible to buy them.

To create an dhampir, fetchling, grippli, goblin, ifrit, kitsune, nagaji, oread, suli, sylph, undine, vishkanya or wayang character, you must have a Chronicle sheet that opens the race as a legal option at character creation.
Note: Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed).
The new alchemist discovery on page 44 is legal for play for characters of all races.

[Verzen]

It says a 'racial evolution.'

Under any archetype it says that you are required to be that race to be that archetype. i.e. Scarred Witchdoctor.

It does not say the same thing under evolution. It does not classify the evolution as a racial evolution.

It's a bit vague.

[Brian Lefebvre]

Here you go.

[Mortifier]

I see what you mean, however I'm pretty sure it is ment to be a racial evolution.

I looked over the Additional Resources for the book in question and noticed that new class content that is allowed for all races is given the "OK." I would expect to see the same thing for summoner evolutions if it was allowed, unfortunately that is not the case.

The two examples I found:

"The new alchemist discovery on page 44 is legal for play for characters of all races."

and

"The rogue talents on page 193 are legal for play for characters of all races."

[lastblacknight]

Are the Shadow Blend and Shadow Form 'racial' evolutions?

They can be found on page 111 of the ARG under the heading

New Evolutions
The following evolutions are available to all summoners.

(my bolding for emphasis)

now the evolutions entry is under the Fetchling entry in the ARG, but is called out specifically as being available to to all, whilst other feats, items are noted as being fetchling specific.

Is a copy of the page required for PFS as per usual for a normal summoner to use - these evolutions are meant for all to take in the ARG as the book clearly say's 'available to all summoners.'

[Finlanderboy]

from the additional resource guide

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide
To create an dhampir, fetchling, grippli, goblin, ifrit, kitsune, nagaji, oread, suli, sylph, undine, vishkanya or wayang character, you must have a Chronicle sheet that opens the race as a legal option at character creation.
Note: Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed).
The new alchemist discovery on page 44 is legal for play for characters of all races.

[lastblacknight]

And the question is; Are they racial? I have read the Additional resources and have my copy of the ARG open in front of me

It's no question they appear under the Fetchling entry, but are in fact specifically called out as being available to all and therefore clearly not fetchling racial evolutions but rather new evolutions introduced into PFS in the fetchling entry in the ARG.

[Finlanderboy]

Good luck in trying to rules lawyer that at the tables you play at.

Edit* that is the only thing in the book that offers an evolution.

[lastblacknight]

It's ok if you don't know the answer or if you don't own the ARG to check for yourself.

But some feats, spells, traits and abilities are called out as being only allowed for specific races. These two evolutions arent'

also a rules-lawyer wont ask the devs or Mike to explain or lock-down a ruling.

They will instead use the loophole or edge-case like a zero-day exploit for their own benefit.

[Brian Lefebvre]

Mike Brock specifically clarified only Fetchlings can take the shadow blend and shadow form in this Post. That means regardless of what the ARG says or how you interpret the Additional Resources entry, those two evolutions are restricted in PFS to those with a Fetchling race boon.

[John Compton]

Allow me to help. The shadow blend and shadow form evolutions are racial evolutions as far as the Additional Resources page is concerned. Those evolutions are fetchling-only.

[lastblacknight]

Wow, Thanks to you both - so for use in PFS it's a no to those evolutions unless your PC is a Fetchling.

If you have no objection John I will be using your post to rebuild/reassign GM credits on one PC (as it's not legal) The second PC I can change without any issue.

It's a bit disappointing as I always try an set a good example when putting character together. I am glad I asked the questions though.

edit: I have also flagged this for FAQ as when I checked through FAQ's when creating both these PC's this ruling wasn't included.

[Brian Lefebvre]

lastblacknight wrote:

If you have no objection John I will be using your post to rebuild/reassign GM credits on one PC (as it's not legal) The second PC I can change without any issue.

If the character is a collection of GM credits you can rebuild to your hearts content. However if you have played these characters the only thing you can change is their eidolon's evolutions.

[lastblacknight]

Thanks Brian,

The PC was a simple yet complicated build that actually hinged on the Shadow evolutions. (simple mechanically,technically and conceptually complicated).

This ruling will retire this character from PFS, and that's not an issue. I am cool with it. (I am only interested in playing legal characters - no real harm done - I will simply make him an NPC in my Reign of Winter AP).

One of the issues I raised was the fact that Mike's decision was not covered off in the FAQ or Additional Resources and I allocated a GM credit played the character then added two more levels of GM credits. All after May 2012 and Mike's ruling. Which was a bummer.

Don't worry though - this isn't an issue. I am totally ok with the ruling and if there is a way I can help get these sort of rulings into the FAQ I will.