No. Only construct and undead give specific resistances and immunities now. Everything else is a suggestion.I read that clause differently than you.https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=50
Most are able to use a breath weapon and are immune to sleep and paralysis.Which means that you are likely to find most of the dragon type creatures immune to sleep and paralysis.
And there's nothing inthe eidolon description, apart the fact it gets a creature trait depends its own kind, that says that given the dragon trait the creature gains immunity to sleep and paralysis.
For example, a Wyvern, as well as a river drake, is immune to paralysis effects, but not to sleep effect.
Already read the trait. It says most have breath weapons (meaning some) and are immune to paralysis and sleep (all). There is no qualifier on the second part.
I'm not going to debate you. The second part of the sentence is not qualified like the first.
Just like all elementals do not need to breathe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Paizo did its best with the trait.
But if you want to consider it the way you want, it's up to you.
I do like races to have unique traits. I also don't like players getting screwed by having monsters that are supposed to be a thing, but really aren't because they don't get key traits of the creature they are modeling. So it suits me well to let it up the power a little as I doubt it will cause any serious issues other than to make the particular eidolon or dragon trait creature shine a little bit in a few key encounters. Always good to let the players feel a little more heroic and unique than try to stamp out every possible bonus something might provide.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Already read the trait. It says most have breath weapons (meaning some) and are immune to paralysis and sleep (all). There is no qualifier on the second part.
I'm not going to debate you. The second part of the sentence is not qualified like the first.
Er...linguistically, there is no second part of that sentence. That's all one sentence with no punctuation to break it up, just a list of things. In normal grammar, the 'most' applies to all things in the list.
Er...linguistically, there is no second part of that sentence. That's all one sentence with no punctuation to break it up, just a list of things. In normal grammar, the 'most' applies to all things in the list.Already read the trait. It says most have breath weapons (meaning some) and are immune to paralysis and sleep (all). There is no qualifier on the second part.
I'm not going to debate you. The second part of the sentence is not qualified like the first.
There is a connector "and", but because there is no other subject mentioned in this sentence, the subject is likely "Most".
However the whole paragraph reads like a list, and the subject "Most" refers back to "Dragons". I see the confusion but given its a different sentence I have to go with "Most"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Er...linguistically, there is no second part of that sentence. That's all one sentence with no punctuation to break it up, just a list of things. In normal grammar, the 'most' applies to all things in the list.Already read the trait. It says most have breath weapons (meaning some) and are immune to paralysis and sleep (all). There is no qualifier on the second part.
I'm not going to debate you. The second part of the sentence is not qualified like the first.
I prefer things with the dragon trait be like dragons, so I'm going to keep it as is. I miss some of the Pathfinder 1 tropes like races being races with unique traits. I doubt it will seriously disrupt balance.
For what it's worth, the trait (on the eidolon) doesn't actually grant it immunities. Traits don't function that way.
Notice how every single dragon has its immunities called out in its stat block? Notice how the eidolon doesn't?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, the trait (on the eidolon) doesn't actually grant it immunities. Traits don't function that way.
Notice how every single dragon has its immunities called out in its stat block? Notice how the eidolon doesn't?
I did notice that. I went and looked up every dragon and all of them had immune to paralysis and sleep/unconsciousness. I kept wondering why it was so important to ensure players and eidolons didn't have an immunity of the species. Would it really imbalance the game that much to let them have a few of these things? I doubt it would. I think it would make them feel a little more special. So I'm going with it.
I’m curious how they’ll handle constructs myself. A construct eidolon would just play so differently than any other type, assuming the normal benefits and penalties apply.
I’m curious how they’ll handle constructs myself. A construct eidolon would just play so differently than any other type, assuming the normal benefits and penalties apply.
PF2 default seems to keep the power at the lowest, most generic level, then let DMs adjust as desired. I'm ok with that. The PF2 system is pretty customizable without seriously breaking the balance.
I’m curious how they’ll handle constructs myself. A construct eidolon would just play so differently than any other type, assuming the normal benefits and penalties apply.PF2 default seems to keep the power at the lowest, most generic level, then let DMs adjust as desired. I'm ok with that. The PF2 system is pretty customizable without seriously breaking the balance.
Right, but I am interested in what the specific wording might be. I am curious how exactly they will go about writing them to achieve the three goals of: 1) being balanced, 2) being only as complex as needed, and 3) still feeling like the trait has some meaning.
Most creature traits are relatively cosmetic, and simply giving appropriate attacks is enough. Constructs have a host of immunities and drawbacks, like not being able to heal normally. You can eliminate all that, say by saying the connection to the summoner gives the eidolon a semblance of life that they wouldn't normally, but then what do you give the eidolon instead so that it feels like a construct? With Androids coming in a couple of months, an updated version of the constructed trait should be available, so there will be that, but will that be overly complex at tables compared to other Eidolon types?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
otherwise they come across as hollow...
They literally are hollow though? They are a spirit given physical shape of the thing, not the thing itself.
I’m curious how they’ll handle constructs myself. A construct eidolon would just play so differently than any other type, assuming the normal benefits and penalties apply.PF2 default seems to keep the power at the lowest, most generic level, then let DMs adjust as desired. I'm ok with that. The PF2 system is pretty customizable without seriously breaking the balance.Right, but I am interested in what the specific wording might be. I am curious how exactly they will go about writing them to achieve the three goals of: 1) being balanced, 2) being only as complex as needed, and 3) still feeling like the trait has some meaning.
Most creature traits are relatively cosmetic, and simply giving appropriate attacks is enough. Constructs have a host of immunities and drawbacks, like not being able to heal normally. You can eliminate all that, say by saying the connection to the summoner gives the eidolon a semblance of life that they wouldn't normally, but then what do you give the eidolon instead so that it feels like a construct? With Androids coming in a couple of months, an updated version of the constructed trait should be available, so there will be that, but will that be overly complex at tables compared to other Eidolon types?
Not sure how they'll handle that. Personally, I'd avoid it. Plenty of ways to get a true construct minion whether summon construct or creating one as a magic item.