Synthesist Multiattack feat from eidolon


Rules Questions


OK, normally an eidolon would gain multiattack as a free feat at 9th lvl if it has 3 or more natural attacks, but I don't know if that applies to the Synthesist or not given what it says in the Fused Eidolon feature:

While fused with his eidolon, the synthesist uses the eidolon’s physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), but retains his own mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma). The synthesist gains the eidolon’s hit points as temporary hit points. When these hit points reach 0, the eidolon is killed and sent back to its home plane. The synthesist uses the eidolon’s base attack bonus, and gains the eidolon’s armor and natural armor bonuses and modifiers to ability scores. The synthesist also gains access to the eidolon’s special abilities and the eidolon’s evolutions. The synthesist is still limited to the eidolon’s maximum number of natural attacks. The eidolon has no skills or feats of its own. The eidolon must be at least the same size as the synthesist. The eidolon must have limbs for the synthesist to cast spells with somatic components. The eidolon’s temporary hit points can be restored with the rejuvenate eidolon spell.

Given from what the two bolded parts say, my GM has ruled that the Synthesit does not qualify for the bonus feat given by the eidolon's special ability Multiattack. I can't really argue with this either. I have searched to see if there is any official ruling on this and have come up with nothing so far. I was just wondering if there was any official errata or some kind of faq concerning this matter.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Paizo's stance on Synthesist has been "we don't want to deal with it, so it's banned from PFS". As they are generally disinclined to do anything with it, I think a lot of things depend on the GM.

It's my general impression, though, that if you're getting the eidolon's abilities, you're also getting the ability that says "you gain Multiattack as a bonus feat", so it's you being awarded it, not your eidolon. You only have it in Eidolon form, but of course when are you not in one?


As mentioned above, there are a lot of issues with the Synth archetype. It is a great but unfortunately complex concept that wasn't given the space it needed to be less problematic. There are just too many corner cases that it brings up which cause rules issues (and as such became banned from PFS most likely due to table variation and 'drama'). It probably needed twice the page count it got, and as an archetype that is entirely too much space for something.

That being said, you may want to look at d20pfsrd. There is a psionic class that isn't really 'psionic-dependant' and allows you to do the same concept. The Aegis' mechanics are less problematic and more defined as it is a whole class, not a tack on to an existing one. There are maybe 3-4 abilities that even reference the psionic point rules so it is very very easy to transplant into a non-psionic game.

That all being said, RAW your GM has the right of it, it is a bonus feat and the write up makes it clear the eidolon doesn't get those. You (the summoner) could take the feat normally, but would only have it when "suited up" like many other feats that are taken using temporary class abilities as prerequisites.


Skylancer4 wrote:
As mentioned above, there are a lot of issues with the Synth archetype. It is a great but unfortunately complex concept that wasn't given the space it needed to be less problematic. There are just too many corner cases that it brings up which cause rules issues (and as such became banned from PFS most likely due to table variation and 'drama'). It probably needed twice the page count it got, and as an archetype that is entirely too much space for something.

Synthesist needs to be redone as a full class, and the archetype shelved.


Snowlilly wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
As mentioned above, there are a lot of issues with the Synth archetype. It is a great but unfortunately complex concept that wasn't given the space it needed to be less problematic. There are just too many corner cases that it brings up which cause rules issues (and as such became banned from PFS most likely due to table variation and 'drama'). It probably needed twice the page count it got, and as an archetype that is entirely too much space for something.
Synthesist needs to be redone as a full class, and the archetype shelved.

Well, as my post indicated, that has been done.


Skylancer4 wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
As mentioned above, there are a lot of issues with the Synth archetype. It is a great but unfortunately complex concept that wasn't given the space it needed to be less problematic. There are just too many corner cases that it brings up which cause rules issues (and as such became banned from PFS most likely due to table variation and 'drama'). It probably needed twice the page count it got, and as an archetype that is entirely too much space for something.
Synthesist needs to be redone as a full class, and the archetype shelved.
Well, as my post indicated, that has been done.

Third party sources don't help a large segment of the player base.


Snowlilly wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
As mentioned above, there are a lot of issues with the Synth archetype. It is a great but unfortunately complex concept that wasn't given the space it needed to be less problematic. There are just too many corner cases that it brings up which cause rules issues (and as such became banned from PFS most likely due to table variation and 'drama'). It probably needed twice the page count it got, and as an archetype that is entirely too much space for something.
Synthesist needs to be redone as a full class, and the archetype shelved.
Well, as my post indicated, that has been done.
Third party sources don't help a large segment of the player base.

Something is better than nothing, especially when it is better thought out and more balanced than the original, which isn't an option.

If you are talking PFS, it is a moot point as it isn't an option and the likelihood of it being redone is... slim to say the least. Which is more a problem with agreeing to play 'organized play' and the restrictions that come with that type of game. You cannot realistically complain when something is banned, as you signed up fully aware those restrictions were possible. Nothing anyone does outside of Paizo can "help" that "segment" of gamers, and as a business sinking man hours and money into something that was a problem doesn't make much sense.

The class exists for people who want to use it, those it can help. And it doesn't sound like the OP is in a restrictive PFS scenario from what they have said, so it is definitely something they should at least look at.


Synthesist would have been better off using the polymorph rules rather than trying to recreate the 3.5 wild shape rules. There's a reason Pathfinder moved away from those.


Skylancer4 wrote:
If you are talking PFS, it is a moot point as it isn't an option and the likelihood of it being redone is... slim to say the least. Which is more a problem with agreeing to play 'organized play' and the restrictions that come with that type of game. You cannot realistically complain when something is banned, as you signed up fully aware those restrictions were possible. Nothing anyone does outside of Paizo can "help" that "segment" of gamers, and as a business sinking man hours and money into something that was a problem doesn't make much sense.

PFS and a sizable segment of home games that don't allow third party.

Rewriting synthresist as a full class would give Paizo the space to address all the issues that came up with the archetype, implementing solutions to questions that have arisen over the years.


I don't know how large PFS is, no one I know plays it, nor have any groups I've played in (the last 26 years of personal gaming) not allowed house rules or 3pp content. I would like to see numbers which make up this 'sizeable' segment, beyond vocal posters on forums. The entire point of pen and paper games was to let the creativity flow, as they say.

That being said, if you choose to play in organized play or in a group that disallows content, you have no complaints. That is your choice. Putting it on Paizo to make a whole new class that was taken to, when all they wanted was a 2 column archetype, is putting your hopes a bit high. Expect to have them crushed.

They don't want to address the problems. That is why they stopped allowing it in PFS after several FAQs/errata on it. What makes you think they want to sink more time into it, to make it a functional full class, than they have already done? By dumping it from PFS they removed the necessity to further support it because they know that any groups that wanted to use it, would rule how it worked at the table without their input.

If you play PFS, you know you cannot play one, that is on you. You choose to play 'there'.
If your group won't let you play one, that is also on you, you choose to play with that group.
Making choices that leave you SoL, is a personal issue. Expecting the company to revisit something that was basically a 'loss' because you are unable to play it until they do so because of your choices.. is rather dumb.

Don't get me wrong it would be nice if they did, but I highly doubt it is in the works. Aegis is available right now, is significantly better balanced and infinitely less convoluted (and functional without errata/FAQ) than what we do have from Paizo. I won't be replying to this discussion any more as it does nothing to further or help the OP.


as a synthesist unless your mixing manufactured weapons into the mix wouldnt multi attack be useless as the majority of the cheep natural attacks(evolution point wise) are all primary attacks and thus dont take the -5?


doomman47 wrote:
as a synthesist unless your mixing manufactured weapons into the mix wouldnt multi attack be useless as the majority of the cheep natural attacks(evolution point wise) are all primary attacks and thus dont take the -5?

Some synthesis attacks, like hooves and wings, are secondary attacks.

Gaining those attacks is cheaper they buying extra limbs and may be more thematically appropriate for certain eidolons.


Thanks for all the replies guys. I am playing an unchained summoner synthesist with an azata eidolon. I am mainly going to being using a manufactured weapon like a great sword for my melee attacks. I will be getting wings(free evolution) later on and thought of taking the wing buffet evolution for some secondary natural attacks, but then again when using a manufactured weapon all natural attacks are treated as secondary. I was thinking of going with another pair of arms and the slam attack to get my third natural attack, but since my GM ruled the way he did, that is a dead end now. For more info on my build and to give me any pointers on it, go here.


Snowlilly wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
as a synthesist unless your mixing manufactured weapons into the mix wouldnt multi attack be useless as the majority of the cheep natural attacks(evolution point wise) are all primary attacks and thus dont take the -5?

Some synthesis attacks, like hooves and wings, are secondary attacks.

Gaining those attacks is cheaper they buying extra limbs and may be more thematically appropriate for certain eidolons.

all you really need to do tho is buy extra limbs once and then your good for 6 claws and 1 bite plus it consurves more feats to do it that way as you wont need weapon focus on more than 2 natural attacks or improved natural attacks on more than 1


Skylancer4 wrote:
I don't know how large PFS is,

I suspect that it's large enough to be a critical factor on whether Paizo keeps it's doors open.


doomman47 wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
as a synthesist unless your mixing manufactured weapons into the mix wouldnt multi attack be useless as the majority of the cheep natural attacks(evolution point wise) are all primary attacks and thus dont take the -5?

Some synthesis attacks, like hooves and wings, are secondary attacks.

Gaining those attacks is cheaper they buying extra limbs and may be more thematically appropriate for certain eidolons.

all you really need to do tho is buy extra limbs once and then your good for 6 claws and 1 bite plus it consurves more feats to do it that way as you wont need weapon focus on more than 2 natural attacks or improved natural attacks on more than 1

Sorry, my pet dragon does not have arms.

He does, however, have wings.


Snowlilly wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
as a synthesist unless your mixing manufactured weapons into the mix wouldnt multi attack be useless as the majority of the cheep natural attacks(evolution point wise) are all primary attacks and thus dont take the -5?

Some synthesis attacks, like hooves and wings, are secondary attacks.

Gaining those attacks is cheaper they buying extra limbs and may be more thematically appropriate for certain eidolons.

all you really need to do tho is buy extra limbs once and then your good for 6 claws and 1 bite plus it consurves more feats to do it that way as you wont need weapon focus on more than 2 natural attacks or improved natural attacks on more than 1

Sorry, my pet dragon does not have arms.

He does, however, have wings.

you have no pet dragon when your playing a synthesist


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
I don't know how large PFS is,
I suspect that it's large enough to be a critical factor on whether Paizo keeps it's doors open.

It also arbitrarily disallows content written by their own company, effectively removing a portion of sales.

The sales happen because of the rule set and overall quality of content, not because of PFS. Be honest, the people who play PFRPG are those gamers who had no desire at all to play glorified board games (effectively what 4e was), of which there were many. It was great if you were playing with a younger crowd, as it was simplistic. But that grows old fast, and you go looking for something a bit more 'meaty' and fulfilling.

Even if there was no PFS, they would still be making sales, most likely almost as much as if there was. As I mentioned before, all the people I've played with have never played PFS. Not because it isn't around (I can walk into the local gaming store 2 blocks away and find people playing or go to one of several colleges in the area to find a gaming 'society'). But we all buy PFRPG books. 'Gaming' has been a 'thing' looooonnnngg before organized play was. Hell personally speaking, the only reason I even got into PF was the quality and depth of the APs, not the 3.5 house rules published as core rules, to be completely honest. Whatever issues the rules had, the group was perfectly capable of handling, we didn't need PF to 'fix' anything.

PFS maybe the driving force behind errata/FAQs of things after publishing them. But I am quite certain people vastly overrate it as a driving force for sales. Gamers are going to game, organization or not.


doomman47 wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
as a synthesist unless your mixing manufactured weapons into the mix wouldnt multi attack be useless as the majority of the cheep natural attacks(evolution point wise) are all primary attacks and thus dont take the -5?

Some synthesis attacks, like hooves and wings, are secondary attacks.

Gaining those attacks is cheaper they buying extra limbs and may be more thematically appropriate for certain eidolons.

all you really need to do tho is buy extra limbs once and then your good for 6 claws and 1 bite plus it consurves more feats to do it that way as you wont need weapon focus on more than 2 natural attacks or improved natural attacks on more than 1

Sorry, my pet dragon does not have arms.

He does, however, have wings.

you have no pet dragon when your playing a synthesist

A synthesis can, but only at higher level.

As a Synthesist, rephrase the comment; as dragon, I have no arms. I do, however, have wings.

The point remains the same.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Synthesist Multiattack feat from eidolon All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.