I think your DM is wrong, but I doubt anything short of a developer post would convince him otherwise. So you’d probably be better off to just move on.
You might consider pointing out that the Link ability belongs to the eidolon and not the summoner. But I doubt that will change anyone’s mind.
I think Mark Seifter worked on the unchained eidolon, so he might have some insight as to how it should work. But he’s probably busy with pf2 now and his comments are only official when he says they are.
The only thing I can think of is to compare it with the dominate animal spell. It also creates a mental link and allows you to give orders. But it doesn't mention anything about communication.
When I look at other spells, feats, etc. that use the terminology communicate I can't find any examples where it's not two way. Even the feat Improved Horse Whisperer is two-way communication.
the strongest parallel I've found is the wizard/witch familiar empathic link ability. This ability allows you to communicate with your familiar but only emotions can be shared. The fact that it says you can't see through the familiar's eyes indicates that you are receiving information from the familiar, just not visual information.
Also, like the eidolon this is an ability the familiar has not the wizard/witch.
But, the case is, my GMs reads the Link ability in another way.
He says that the Link description, readed literally, is that "communication" it's just give orders unidirectional from the summoner to the eidolon. Without feedback or questions from the eidolon side.
He thinks that because the "give orders" it's the only clarification added to the Link description, so it's the important part.
What do you say? Exists some official response about this question?
Thanks! :)
I actually made the same house ruling for the summoner in my game as well. I went through a similar process searching everywhere online for some kind of official ruling, but there just isn't anything out there to settle the matter.
I just took that first sentence of the Link ability literally:
"A summoner and his eidolon share a mental link..."
Ok, so a statement of fact that a mental connection exists.
"...allows for communication across any distance (as long as they are on the same plane)."
Next statement establishes the first limitation of the ability.
"This communication is a free action..."
Next statement further establishes the action needed to communicate.
"...allowing the summoner to give orders to his eidolon at any time."
Final part of the sentence specifies the nature of the communication.
Needless to say my player took your position Gaxxian, and it has been a topic of debate from time to time. We ended up compromising and saying that while the Summoner can send specific verbal communication to his eidolon mentally, that his eidolon could only send emotional communication similar to how familiars work. This also meant that if his eidolon went ahead and scouted for the party I switched to more Theater of the Mind and described what the eidolon was feeling before he came back to report, and the summoner would sometimes use his Bonded Senses ability to get a "live feed" of what was going on.
Obviously my player wanted a full on 2-way Telepathic Link with his eidolon so I gave him 2 options.
1) Buy a Permanent Telepathic Bond spell for the Summoner and Eidolon. (I was also considering making it cheaper since there was a weaker pre-existing bond already established).
2) I offered a modified version of the Telepathic Link feat so that its effect would work for the Summoner and Eidolon.
He decided on taking the feat so now when his Eidolon is exploring I allow the party to reveal the battle map and the Summoner basically controls him at all times now during play (I would only run the Eidolon when it was in a position where it had to make decisions on its own and the Summoner had more limited information).
This communication is a free action, allowing the summoner to give orders to his eidolon at any time.
This sentence was likely not to be meant as a restriction. Rather, it says that the communication is a free action, and then clarifying it could be used to give commands.
Compare it to the wizard's familiar:
Empathic Link (Su): The master has an empathic link with his familiar to a 1 mile distance. The master can communicate empathically with the familiar, but cannot see through its eyes. Because of the link's limited nature, only general emotions can be shared. The master has the same connection to an item or place that his familiar does.
So, if we were to use similar logic from the eidolon discussion, can the familiar not communicate empathically with the familiar?
This communication is a free action, allowing the summoner to give orders to his eidolon at any time.This sentence was likely not to be meant as a restriction. Rather, it says that the communication is a free action, and then clarifying it could be used to give commands.
Sure, I would agree, its not a restriction. It's just clarifying the necessary type of action that needs to be taken.
Compare it to the wizard's familiar:
Empathic Link (Su): The master has an empathic link with his familiar to a 1 mile distance. The master can communicate empathically with the familiar, but cannot see through its eyes. Because of the link's limited nature, only general emotions can be shared. The master has the same connection to an item or place that his familiar does.So, if we were to use similar logic from the eidolon discussion, can the familiar not communicate empathically with the familiar?
I am assuming, but am I correct in understanding that your question is the following?
"...can the familiar not communicate empathically with the wizard?"
If so then based strictly on how this one sentence is worded I would say that like the phrasing for the Eidolon ability the meaning is unfortunately too ambiguous to be clearly defined without the help of the additional phrasing in the rest of the ability. The problem is that the word "Communicate" can either mean to transmit information (one way) or exchange information (two way).
If the wording were closer to the following:
Speak with Master (Ex): If the master is 5th level or higher, a familiar and the master can communicate verbally as if they were using a common language. Other creatures do not understand the communication without magical help.
then I would conclude that the meaning is clear and that there is no room for misinterpretation.
So then the problem comes down to the following phrase in the Eidolon Link ability
...allowing the summoner to give orders to his eidolon at any time.
While I can imagine that this phrasing was intended to imply that the eidolon is receiving orders, and that the Summoner clearly has control over the eidolon it also is the only example of the type of communication possible with this ability and it is described as a one-way communication.
I understand that the additional phrasing in the familiar ability Empathic Link puts the evidential weight on the side of two-way communication, but the additional phrasing in the eidolon's Link ability puts its weight more on the side of one-way communication. Since the text is not explicit enough in either case, and there is no official statements from the designer as far as I know, we must come to our own conclusion as a house rule. I can see why a GM would rule it either way simply because of the ambiguous language.
My ultimate ruling was that a Summoner can send Telepathic (full words and sentences) communication to his eidolon via the link, and that the eidolon could send Empathic (only emotions and feelings) communications back to the Summoner because I felt that it was a fair compromise.
In my game, we played it as 2-way, but I am inclined to make it 1-way now that I have looked at it more closely.
Of course, that does make me want to reconsider that archetype where it is the eidolon who gives orders to the summoner instead of vice versa.
"...can the familiar not communicate empathically with the wizard?"If so then based strictly on how this one sentence is worded I would say that like the phrasing for the Eidolon ability the meaning is unfortunately too ambiguous to be clearly defined without the help of the additional phrasing in the rest of the ability. The problem is that the word "Communicate" can either mean to transmit information (one way) or exchange information (two way).
But for the familiar, we do have other sources for how that piece of text is meant to be read.
Remember that a familiar has an empathic link to its master, and its animal instincts can lead to plot hooks. For example, a toad familiar might project feelings of hunger whenever a member of a fly-demon cult is nearby, a bat familiar might express curiosity about the words a weird hermit is muttering under his breath, and a rat familiar might feel fear when a dangerous assassin walks into the room.
So, we know that for a familiar's similarly worded ability, it is meant to work both ways. And we can logically assume the text for the eidolon was based off of the familiar's ability. And so the eidolon's ambiguously worded language is likely meant to be read in the same way as the familiar's.
Remember that a familiar has an empathic link to its master, and its animal instincts can lead to plot hooks. For example, a toad familiar might project feelings of hunger whenever a member of a fly-demon cult is nearby, a bat familiar might express curiosity about the words a weird hermit is muttering under his breath, and a rat familiar might feel fear when a dangerous assassin walks into the room.So, we know that for a familiar's similarly worded ability, it is meant to work both ways. And we can logically assume the text for the eidolon was based off of the familiar's ability. And so the eidolon's ambiguously worded language is likely meant to be read in the same way as the familiar's.
Well, I'll honestly say that I was unaware of this excerpt from Ultimate Campaign. I'll say that it does provide the necessary clarification on how the familiar's Empathic Link ability was intended to work, and I'll even admit that it does make me reconsider my ruling regarding the eidolon's Link ability. That said I do want to bring up two additional aspects to this conversation.
- First, I feel that you have made an excellent case that we can decide how the Eidolon's Link was intended to be understood based on comparisons to another similar ability of another class, and this is a fine and justifiable approach. But I do feel that ideally the original text of an ability should be clear enough that as players we can understand the ability without the need of comparison. And even if comparisons are necessary that the fewest number of steps would need to be taken. There is just alot of material out there and even with the help of everyone one the forums, it can sometimes just be too convoluted to make all the necessary connections. This is where FAQ's and Official responses from Paizo work very well to fill the gap to clarify published works that can't be updated without a new edition. So I still advocate that an official response from Paizo would be preferred for clarification.
- Second, the logical assumption that the two abilities should work the same way because they are similar, or one based on the other is ultimately still an assumption on our part. If we question this assumption critically and there is enough evidence to show that similar abilities do not always follow the same intentions then we are back to square one. Unfortunately I don't have an example of this off the top of my head, so I'll wait till I have more of a chance to rummage through my books. Otherwise, point well taken Melkiador.
If we may approach this from a different angle. When I was trying to make a decision on this I was mostly considering the circumstances of the Summoner my player was creating for my game. In this case he is a Fetchling Shadow Caller who's eidolon was a Shadow. My player wanted to make a more scouting and skill focused eidolon that could gather information without putting his actual character in any danger. So obviously the question of whether or not the link connecting his Summoner and eidolon was a Telepathic or Empathic as well as one-way or two-way was pretty important.
The first thing I personally noted was that of all the "second character" options in the game (Animal Companion, Mount, Familiar, Eidolon, Cohort, or Follower) I did not find any other that came with a specific two-way telepathic link on obtaining that second character. So if this is how the Eidolon's link worked it would be unique compared to all the other available options.
Next I tried to evaluate how powerful an effect his would be. Going by the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list I found this could be accomplished with the spells.
- Telepathy 6th level spell
- Telepathic Bond 5th level spell
- Dominate Person 5th level spell
- Familiar Melding 4th level spell with a pretty specific purpose
- Companion Mind Link a 3rd level Druid/Ranger spell
I also found a few feats that gave this ability.
And outside of some very specific magical items (which all seemed to cost more than the price of a Permanent Telepathic Bond), some unusual races, and some Psionic classes I haven't found any way to gain two-way telepathic communication. So since a limited version of this telepathic communication wasn't available until Level 5 as a Druid (and for only 1 minute/level) it seemed like a powerful enough ability that I should be reluctant to rule that this is how the power works permanently at level 1 for a Summoner.
Going with a stricter reading of the ability and not assuming anything outside of the text I felt that a one-way telepathic communication allowed for everything the wording described. And it also seemed reasonable that the Eidolon could send Empathic communications back. This did allow for some pretty good story telling moments. But it did certainly seem reasonable to gain the full two-way telepathic link as a Feat since Wizards could do so with their familiar, or with a discounted magic item, or discounted Permanency spell.
I guess I'll leave it to you and others on the board to decide (unless someone at Paizo wants to chime in), but I do think my conclusion was pretty reasonable considering the context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah. The ability’s wording is too vague. But in this case, it’s a kind of vague we’ve seen before. Yet, while we can make educated guesses as to how an ability is supposed to work, we can’t be 100% sure without another more specific ruling.
I’ll note that while I very strongly suspect the original intent was for two way communication, it wouldn’t be unusual for Paizo to use a vagueness like this to take summoners down another notch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This discussion also reminds me of an odd bit of text from the monk.
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.
But that text does not mean that only a monk can make unarmed strikes with his hands full. Anyone can kick with stuff in their hands.
Oh yeah. The ability’s wording is too vague. But in this case, it’s a kind of vague we’ve seen before. Yet, while we can make educated guesses as to how an ability is supposed to work, we can’t be 100% sure without another more specific ruling.
I’ll note that while I very strongly suspect the original intent was for two way communication, it wouldn’t be unusual for Paizo to use a vagueness like this to take summoners down another notch.
Lol, yeah. I didn't really know all the background about Summoners when my player pitched his idea so I didn't think much of letting him play the original version. Since then I've seen quite a bit and had to make a number of calls on quirky aspects of the class.
I think Mark Seifter worked on the unchained eidolon, so he might have some insight as to how it should work. But he’s probably busy with pf2 now and his comments are only official when he says they are.
I helped fill out a lot of the flavor text on the different eidolons and the subtypes, but the core chassis for the update was Jason's. Even so, the GM's explanation strikes me as unusual. Nonetheless, my comments aren't official. And yeah, lots of PF2 work right now!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Mark.
I'm guessing Jason is Jason Buhlman. He pretty much never drops by the rules forum, and is probably also super busy with PF2, so the odds of ever getting an official answer are super low. Hopefully the OP was able to resolve his issue with the DM.