Can an Eidolon wear Mage Armor? I looked it up and it says: "An Eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind"
Has there been an answer from the Developers in the past regarding this topic?
Thx for your answers, this would help me a lot.
Yes, they can. Mage armor is not 'worn'. It's simply a spell effect that grants an armor bonus.
Armor bonus is not armor.
"An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC."
So yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't even know what happens when an eidolon wears regular armor. All we know is that it "interferes with the summoner's connection to the eidolon". But we have no game mechanics of what that actually means or does. For instance, what happens when you cast instant armor on an eidolon?
We don't even know what happens when an eidolon wears regular armor. All we know is that it "interferes with the summoner's connection to the eidolon". But we have no game mechanics of what that actually means or does. For instance, what happens when you cast instant armor on an eidolon?
No one normally asks the latter question since Summoners cannot cast instant armor.
However, presuming Use Magic Device comes along and changes things ...
You instantly wrap your body in a suit of armor made from opaque force [that] acts in all ways as armor typical of its type
instant armor explicitly creates actual armor. mage armor does not do so.
Eidolon]An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind,
The mechanic is explicit. What logically happens is instant armor takes effect upon the Summoner instead since they can wear armor despite lacking proficiency. mage armor is useful only to eidolons with low or no armor bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that wearing armor is something that can be done to you, and not necessarily something that you do. And we don't know what actually happens when it is done to an eidolon. For instance, what happens if some hapless ally casts guardian armor on the eidolon. Does the armor stay on the caster? Does it fall beside the eidolon. Does it appear on the summoner?
"Cannot wear armor of any kind". If that is not a sufficiently clear answer ...
It's pretty straightforward and unfortunately falls out of the realm of lawyer-ball into the realm of GM adjudication. Eidolons are quite powerful and heavily armored as-is. mage armor, shield, barkskin and similar spells exist that - just those in tandem - can boost an eidolon's AC by 10-13 more points. mage armor lasts hours, many hours when cast as an Extended Spell in the mid-level+ range, all day long for most considerations. Extended barkskin at CL 6th lasts 2 hours a pop. shield is the only 'short duration' AC increase and that still lasts minutes at a casting.
Why is an effort being made to circumvent the explicit restriction of "cannot wear armor" to begin with? Don't do it or the armor sources onto the caster.
Wearing of armor under any other circumstance that this specific example is precisely something that one does. Everything else in the game wears armor of their own volition, only eidolons are exempt .
No GM in their right mind is going to let an eidolon acquire actual armor by any means. If one is 'forcing' an eidolon to wear armor by magical means, in general the source of the armor receives it instead is my suggestion. When the summoner is the source, they *pouf* the armor onto themselves. There are at least 3 other ways from the CRB alone to massively improve an eidolon's AC by 3rd or 4th level. There is simply no need to finagle more esoteric means of doing so other than as an intellectual exercise.
If the GM is feeling spiteful, perhaps due to a particular persistence in such attempts by one or more players, they will instead rule that the armor does indeed appear on the eidolon ... and that it immediately returns whence it came, unable to return until the duration of the armor expires. (Permanently donned armor would be removed by the eidolon itself wherever it comes from.) Since such things are probably not considered 'harmless' by the eidolon, it should attempt to save against the effect.
Depending on the eidolon's shape and the type of armor being 'bequeathed' the effect won't work to begin with. Serpentine eidolons are not going to fit in standard armor. Unless such sources as guardian armor are of the same body shape, size and possess the same number of limbs, *poufing* barding onto the eidolon won't work either.
All in all, go with the flow. This seems to be far more trouble than it can possibly be worth.
Mage Armor is not worn, it is an effect.
Against spells that would place armor on another entity, the eidolon is not a valid target. As such, it may not be targeted by these spells.
Who said anything about circumventing. I just want to know what happens when you put armor on an eidolon. It says, it "interferes with the summoner's connection to the eidolon", but doesn't actually tell you what that means. So, if I take a helpless eidolon and put armor on it, does it get unsummoned? Does its body magically slide out of the armor?
I mean, if they wanted to limit the armor of eidolons, why not just say, "The eidolon cannot benefit from armor worn". That'd have the same effect without creating weird and goofy side-effects.
Who said anything about circumventing. I just want to know what happens when you put armor on an eidolon. It says, it "interferes with the summoner's connection to the eidolon", but doesn't actually tell you what that means. So, if I take a helpless eidolon and put armor on it, does it get unsummoned? Does its body magically slide out of the armor?
I mean, if they wanted to limit the armor of eidolons, why not just say, "The eidolon cannot benefit from armor worn". That'd have the same effect without creating weird and goofy side-effects.
"Cannot wear armor" is the same thing as "does not benefit".
Severs the connection to keep it simple. No eidolon until the armor-providing effect expires/it removes the armor involuntarily strapped onto it and the summoner then performs the ceremony to call it back.
Edit: or go with extra-simple and use the above "not a valid target". Smarter, simpler, solves the problem without boning the summoner out of their primary class feature.
Who said anything about circumventing. I just want to know what happens when you put armor on an eidolon. It says, it "interferes with the summoner's connection to the eidolon", but doesn't actually tell you what that means. So, if I take a helpless eidolon and put armor on it, does it get unsummoned? Does its body magically slide out of the armor?
I mean, if they wanted to limit the armor of eidolons, why not just say, "The eidolon cannot benefit from armor worn". That'd have the same effect without creating weird and goofy side-effects.
DM fiat.
There are no explicit rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Mad Comrade, what happens when someone forcefully puts armor onto an eidolon, like how someone can forcefully put armor onto a druid? This is the question that Melkiador is asking. He's not trying to game a system into getting an eidolon more AC than intended.
Considering the phrase "interferes with the summoner's connection to the eidolon", I'm almost inclined to make it poof out of the material plane.
And is a helmet armor? Could a cassisian familiar banish an eidolon by successfully grappling it?
The Mad Comrade, what happens when someone forcefully puts armor onto an eidolon, like how someone can forcefully put armor onto a druid? This is the question that Melkiador is asking. He's not trying to game a system into getting an eidolon more AC than intended.
Considering the phrase "interferes with the summoner's connection to the eidolon", I'm almost inclined to make it poof out of the material plane.
Ah. Thanks for the clarification. So often such threads crop up as a means to squeak more cheese out of the rules than is already copiously possible ... yeah. My apologies to anyone if my posts come across as offensive on this topic!
Under such circumstances one has to subdue the target for a protracted period of time to strap the armor onto the target barring magic of some sort. In the case of the latter, the target is going to get a saving throw. If one is willing to expend such effort, wouldn't it be simpler to kill the summoner to begin with? It'd surely take far less time to simply knife the arcane caster to death and incinerate the corpse.
And is a helmet armor? Could a cassisian familiar banish an eidolon by successfully grappling it?
Seriously? No. A grapple is not strapping on armor.
And is a helmet armor? Could a cassisian familiar banish an eidolon by successfully grappling it?Seriously? No. A grapple is not strapping on armor.
It never says anything about "strapping" though. It just says, "An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind". For that matter, you could carry around a big rubber stamp that says "armor" on it and hit the eidolon with that to get rid of them.
More practically, you could use arcane mark to do that.
Obviously the eidolons inability to wear armor is a physical law of nature as such all attempts made by the eidolon or other forces to place armor upon it are rebuffed and thwarted automatically much like how freedom of movement allows a creature to escape bonds or escape being swallowed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
mage armor is useful only to eidolons with low or no armor bonuses.
There is no reason for an eidolon to do otherwise with its armor/natural armor bonus. Barkskin provides an enhancement bonus to natural armor and thus stacks with whatever natural armor bonus the eidolon already has. On the other hand, Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor explicitly do not stack with any other armor bonus, so the best bet for any eidolon is to make its natural armor bonus from level as high as possible and leave its armor bonus at zero, to be taken care of by spells or magic items.
|
|
And is a helmet armor? Could a cassisian familiar banish an eidolon by successfully grappling it?Seriously? No. A grapple is not strapping on armor.It never says anything about "strapping" though. It just says, "An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind". For that matter, you could carry around a big rubber stamp that says "armor" on it and hit the eidolon with that to get rid of them.
More practically, you could use arcane mark to do that.
This, however, just seems to be arguing in bad faith.
Cassisians are creatures, not armor. Ink that is used to print "armor" is not armor, arcane mark is a spell effect completely unrelated to armor.
Armor is a game term. A helmet that doesn't provide a mechanical effect is clothing, not armor.
mage armor is useful only to eidolons with low or no armor bonuses.There is no reason for an eidolon to do otherwise with its armor/natural armor bonus. Barkskin provides an enhancement bonus to natural armor and thus stacks with whatever natural armor bonus the eidolon already has. On the other hand, Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor explicitly do not stack with any other armor bonus, so the best bet for any eidolon is to make its natural armor bonus from level as high as possible and leave its armor bonus at zero, to be taken care of by spells or magic items.
Exactly what I would do. ;)
And is a helmet armor? Could a cassisian familiar banish an eidolon by successfully grappling it?Seriously? No. A grapple is not strapping on armor.It never says anything about "strapping" though. It just says, "An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind". For that matter, you could carry around a big rubber stamp that says "armor" on it and hit the eidolon with that to get rid of them.
More practically, you could use arcane mark to do that.
This, however, just seems to be arguing in bad faith.
Cassisians are creatures, not armor. Ink that is used to print "armor" is not armor, arcane mark is a spell effect completely unrelated to armor.
Armor is a game term. A helmet that doesn't provide a mechanical effect is clothing, not armor.
This is worse than arguing in bad faith. This is arguing just to be argumentative.
I'm just demonstrating how silly the rule is. It either needs to be changed to say what happens when you wear armor or be changed to say you can't benefit from armor.