PFS summoner related feats?

[Murdock Mudeater]

Do feats which add evolutions, like Evolved Familiar, use the Pathfinder Unchanged Evolutions in PFS play?

[Michael Haneline]

Sorry for the Threadcromancy, but I have this exact same question. I initially assumed you would used the Unchained versions of the evolutions since original flavor summoner class is banned, but the feat references the original summoner's eidolon's evolutions and by a strict reading, the unchained evolutions are actually illegal to take with this feat.

[Wayne Bradbury]

I have wondered/looked into this before, and even went as far as to post this question.

The only answer I received there leans toward being able to use the APG evolutions for these legal options. On the flip side, a local VL auto-no'd the idea, insisting that absolutely everything to do with the APG summoner forever just doesn't exist, so far as PFS is concerned.

So... an official answer on this would be delightful.
I'm even going to hit that FAQ button. If enough people do the same maybe we can get an answer to this.

[Michael Haneline]

Wayne Bradbury wrote:

I have wondered/looked into this before, and even went as far as to post this question.

The only answer I received there leans toward being able to use the APG evolutions for these legal options. On the flip side, a local VL auto-no'd the idea, insisting that absolutely everything to do with the APG summoner forever just doesn't exist, so far as PFS is concerned.

So... an official answer on this would be delightful.
I'm even going to hit that FAQ button. If enough people do the same maybe we can get an answer to this.

Hmm, so John Compton said no spell or feat collateral is affected by the summoner being replaced by unchained summoner, here: http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lheb&page=6?Society-Unchained#280

By that, did he mean that they continue to use the chained versions? Or do they have to use they unchained version and didn't think that was a noticeable change(despite becoming unable to qualify for most of the 1-pt evolutions due to subtype requirements)?

[SCPRedMage]

He meant that the Unchained update doesn't change how such feats and spells work. Since they used the "chained" versions before, they continue to do so now.

[Linda Zayas-Palmer]

We've talked over how to approach this feat, and we'd like it to use Unchained evolutions without blocking access to evolutions that most subtypes can take. We're planning to add the following to the next update of the Campaign Clarifications document.

"For the Evolved Familiar feat, use evolutions for the unchained summoner (Pathfinder RPG Pathfinder Unchained 25). The familiar must conform to all requirements listed in the evolution, such as having wings to take wing buffet, with the following exception. If any of the eidolon subtypes that appear in Pathfinder Unchained qualify for the evolution, then a familiar qualifies for that evolution as well."

[Wayne Bradbury]

Not the answer I was hoping for (really wanted a pouncing Mauler) but I'm super happy to have an official response to this.

Thank you very much!

Will this same ruling apply to other legal options that refer to evolutions (such as Primal Companion Hunter)?

[supervillan]

Thanks Linda,

Will this clarification also apply to the Figment archetype familiar? It gains evolutions that can be varied daily.

[TimD]

Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

We've talked over how to approach this feat, and we'd like it to use Unchained evolutions without blocking access to evolutions that most subtypes can take. We're planning to add the following to the next update of the Campaign Clarifications document.

"For the Evolved Familiar feat, use evolutions for the unchained summoner (Pathfinder RPG Pathfinder Unchained 25). The familiar must conform to all requirements listed in the evolution, such as having wings to take wing buffet, with the following exception. If any of the eidolon subtypes that appear in Pathfinder Unchained qualify for the evolution, then a familiar qualifies for that evolution as well."

Disappointing - another case of "oh by the way, now you need another book rather than the actual source material".

When the update goes live, please clarify how those who may not have access to additional source material now required should handle the character changes.

[Michael Haneline]

TimD wrote:

Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

We've talked over how to approach this feat, and we'd like it to use Unchained evolutions without blocking access to evolutions that most subtypes can take. We're planning to add the following to the next update of the Campaign Clarifications document.

"For the Evolved Familiar feat, use evolutions for the unchained summoner (Pathfinder RPG Pathfinder Unchained 25). The familiar must conform to all requirements listed in the evolution, such as having wings to take wing buffet, with the following exception. If any of the eidolon subtypes that appear in Pathfinder Unchained qualify for the evolution, then a familiar qualifies for that evolution as well."

Disappointing - another case of "oh by the way, now you need another book rather than the actual source material".

When the update goes live, please clarify how those who may not have access to additional source material now required should handle the character changes.

hopefully they handle it like adventurer's guide updates where you don't actually need the new book.

[TimD]

Michael Haneline wrote:

hopefully they handle it like adventurer's guide updates where you don't actually need the new book.

Except the APG Summoner is a weirder corner case as it's not an outright ban / change (I still play regularly with APG Summoners) and if someone built a character around a pounce-mauler familiar that character is pretty much non-existent with this new change, so may need some additional evaluation for adjudication.

(Note, I don't have a pouncing mauler familiar character - this is just an example of what could be affected by the shift from one to the other where there is no equivalent. As usual, consult your PCP or psychiatrist before imbibing any examples provided by TimD. Unusual side-effects can occur and include planar destabilization, an increased tolerance in alcohol consumption and an uncontrollable urge towards sarcasm. These claims have not been evaluated by the FDA, who has cited the Innsmouth Clause in their statement to decline the review. We now return you to your regularly scheduled forums, already in progress.)