Eidolon Weapons

[siegfriedliner]

So it's fairly obvious that by design eidolons have been given pretty substandard natural weapons.

Traitless d8 and Agile d4 are actually weaker than most common weapons.

They certainly don't compare to the the natural weapons that other races and the monk and barbarian class gets.

So that is an understandable point of balance but given that the weapon eidolon was a core playstyle in chained and unchained it does mean that they have cut off weapons as a choice because they are just better.

Which is kind of sad that I will never get my angel with a flaming sword.

I kind of wish they had made them more comparable to weapons so that weapons could be an option.

[Salamileg]

siegfriedliner wrote:

Which is kind of sad that I will never get my angel with a flaming sword.

Traitless d8 is nearly a longsword (only missing Versatile P, which is less useful than other traits), and your angel can get a flaming rune. Isn't that basically that?

[Sedoriku]

This is also the playtest. The developers might have been testing how natural weapons at that power level feel for a summoner. It seems odd that there's even a line under each eidolon subtype for natural weapons when that could have been baked into the ediolon class feature and saved the word space.

Also, I'm feeling more and more that the eidolon for this playtest was intentionally set at a power level lower than full martial characters, whether that stays for the final version or not is to be seen.

[KrispyXIV]

To plug my own suggestions... ;)

A feat that let your Boost Eidolon damage change to an elemental type would also allow you to make your Angels sword fiery on demand.

[HumbleGamer]

What about no feats but appareance?
Couldn't the Eidolon be represented with a flaming sword, a great pick, an harpoon, shining fists, etc... instead of mere unarmed attacks?

Just to know if what people wants is the possibility to customize their aesthetic or to just have different rules ( the possibility to wield a specific weapon, etc... ).

[KrispyXIV]

HumbleGamer wrote:

What about no feats but appareance?

Couldn't the Eidolon be represented with a flaming sword, a great pick, an harpoon, shining fists, etc... instead of mere unarmed attacks?

Just to know if what people wants is the possibility to customize their aesthetic or to just have different rules ( the possibility to wield a specific weapon, etc... ).

This is the current rules as written, actually.

[HumbleGamer]

KrispyXIV wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

What about no feats but appareance?

Couldn't the Eidolon be represented with a flaming sword, a great pick, an harpoon, shining fists, etc... instead of mere unarmed attacks?

Just to know if what people wants is the possibility to customize their aesthetic or to just have different rules ( the possibility to wield a specific weapon, etc... ).

This is the current rules as written, actually.

Sort of, but not 100%

Quote:

This entry suggests forms the eidolon’s

attacks might take, but since eidolons have various body
shapes, you decide the specific form of the unarmed attacks
(claw, jaws, horn, fist, and so on) when you choose your
eidolon. Some eidolons might have unarmed attacks that
look like weapons and are extensions of the eidolon’s form.
Your choice of unarmed attack determines the unarmed
attack’s damage type—bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, as
appropriate for the type of unarmed attack you selected.
Some of the suggested attacks have a typical damage type
listed in parentheses, but you can work with your GM to
choose a damage type that’s right for your eidolon. Once
you decide your eidolon’s unarmed attacks, they can’t be
changed, except with your GM’s permission.

The enemy might attempt to disarm an ally which is wielding a weapon. If the weapon does not exists, it foil the enemy senses.

Also, I'm quite sure the quoted part is not meant to say that you can replace a fist with a greatsword.

[KrispyXIV]

HumbleGamer wrote:

The enemy might attempt to disarm an ally which is wielding a weapon. If the weapon does not exists, it foil the enemy senses.

Also, I'm quite sure the quoted part is not meant to say that you can replace a fist with a greatsword.

I'm going to disagree still -

"Some eidolons might have unarmed attacks that
look like weapons and are extensions of the eidolon’s form."

That text to me is quite clear to me that my eidolons unarmed attacks may look like a greatsword that the eidolon is carrying.

[HumbleGamer]

KrispyXIV wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

The enemy might attempt to disarm an ally which is wielding a weapon. If the weapon does not exists, it foil the enemy senses.

Also, I'm quite sure the quoted part is not meant to say that you can replace a fist with a greatsword.

I'm going to disagree still -

"Some eidolons might have unarmed attacks that
look like weapons and are extensions of the eidolon’s form."

That text to me is quite clear to me that my eidolons unarmed attacks may look like a greatsword that the eidolon is carrying.

So the enemies would be always aware that the eidolon is:

- Not wielding any weapon ( No disarm checks or possibilities to break the object ).
- No need to extract it ( interact action which would trigger AoO )
- No improved reach ( in case the Elidolon would have a polearm, for example ).
- No elemental damage ( A fire sword will just deal for example piercing and positive damage ).

And so on?
If so, it's already perfect.

I was considering there would have been limits because of the listed reasons ( and because so, for example, a fist weapon which is sharpen like a sword and looks like a sword, but it's just a bladed arm as appareance. I imagined something like this ).

[KrispyXIV]

HumbleGamer wrote:

So the enemies would be always aware that the eidolon is:

- Not wielding any weapon ( No disarm checks or possibilities to break the object ).
- No need to extract it ( interact action which would trigger AoO )
- No improved reach ( in case the Elidolon would have a polearm, for example ).
- No elemental damage ( A fire sword will just deal for example piercing and positive damage ).

And so on?
If so, it's already perfect.

I was considering there would have been limits because of the listed reasons ( and because so, for example, a fist weapon which is sharpen like a sword and looks like a sword, but it's just a bladed arm as appareance. I imagined something like this ).

I think you're reading more than I'm saying.

I'm saying its totally valid for my Eidolons unarmed attack to be a greatsword he's carrying.

Beyond that-

I probably would agree that it could be a "flaming greatsword" where observers can tell the flames are just SFX.

I totally think that you can make it legit flaming with a weapon rune, and that it would also be cool if you could do it with Boost Eidolon.

Your questions about "Can observers tell its an unarmed attack without traits?" Are totally valid. As a GM, Id say yes - but a line of clarification wouldn't hurt.

[HumbleGamer]

KrispyXIV wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

So the enemies would be always aware that the eidolon is:

- Not wielding any weapon ( No disarm checks or possibilities to break the object ).
- No need to extract it ( interact action which would trigger AoO )
- No improved reach ( in case the Elidolon would have a polearm, for example ).
- No elemental damage ( A fire sword will just deal for example piercing and positive damage ).

And so on?
If so, it's already perfect.

I was considering there would have been limits because of the listed reasons ( and because so, for example, a fist weapon which is sharpen like a sword and looks like a sword, but it's just a bladed arm as appareance. I imagined something like this ).

I think you're reading more than I'm saying.

I'm saying its totally valid for my Eidolons unarmed attack to be a greatsword he's carrying.

Beyond that-

I probably would agree that it could be a "flaming greatsword" where observers can tell the flames are just SFX.

I totally think that you can make it legit flaming with a weapon rune, and that it would also be cool if you could do it with Boost Eidolon.

Your questions about "Can observers tell its an unarmed attack without traits?" Are totally valid. As a GM, Id say yes - but a line of clarification wouldn't hurt.

I understand your point, but I think there shouldn't be room for

"If I were the GM I'd..."

It has to be either option A or B.
By rules ( an Eidolon could improve its power as you say by putting a fire weapon rune, making its fists, or greatsword, flaming fists or flaming greatsword, but then the aesthetic fire stuff should be forbidden until you have the property rune).

But I suppose it's ok since the playtest just started.

[KrispyXIV]

HumbleGamer wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

So the enemies would be always aware that the eidolon is:

- Not wielding any weapon ( No disarm checks or possibilities to break the object ).
- No need to extract it ( interact action which would trigger AoO )
- No improved reach ( in case the Elidolon would have a polearm, for example ).
- No elemental damage ( A fire sword will just deal for example piercing and positive damage ).

And so on?
If so, it's already perfect.

I was considering there would have been limits because of the listed reasons ( and because so, for example, a fist weapon which is sharpen like a sword and looks like a sword, but it's just a bladed arm as appareance. I imagined something like this ).

I think you're reading more than I'm saying.

I'm saying its totally valid for my Eidolons unarmed attack to be a greatsword he's carrying.

Beyond that-

I probably would agree that it could be a "flaming greatsword" where observers can tell the flames are just SFX.

I totally think that you can make it legit flaming with a weapon rune, and that it would also be cool if you could do it with Boost Eidolon.

Your questions about "Can observers tell its an unarmed attack without traits?" Are totally valid. As a GM, Id say yes - but a line of clarification wouldn't hurt.

I understand your point, but I think there shouldn't be room for

"If I were the GM I'd..."

It has to be either option A or B.
By rules ( an Eidolon could improve its power as you say by putting a fire weapon rune, making its fists, or greatsword, flaming fists or flaming greatsword, but then the aesthetic fire stuff should be forbidden until you have the property rune).

But I suppose it's ok since the playtest just started.

Would a line added to the natural weapons section that said something like "An observer is able to understand the nature of the Eidolons unarmed weapons, and never mistakes its appearance for weapon traits or abilities." Resolve most of your concerns?

That seems reasonable to ask for, if it does.

[Pronate11]

Now, if my summoner feels after some testing that the eidolon needs something more, I'm going to let him take a dedication and archetype feats for his eidolon (so the eidolon could gain rage from a barb dedication, or some casting). Would allowing the eidolon use weapons it gained proficiency with though these archetypes (like fighter dedication or mauler) be ok balance wise?

[RexAliquid]

HumbleGamer wrote:

It has to be either option A or B.

By rules ( an Eidolon could improve its power as you say by putting a fire weapon rune, making its fists, or greatsword, flaming fists or flaming greatsword, but then the aesthetic fire stuff should be forbidden until you have the property rune).

Aesthetic fire stuff is just fine. Until you get a flaming rune, it's just spiritual fire that hasn't manifested as material, yet.

[KrispyXIV]

Pronate11 wrote:

Now, if my summoner feels after some testing that the eidolon needs something more, I'm going to let him take a dedication and archetype feats for his eidolon (so the eidolon could gain rage from a barb dedication, or some casting). Would allowing the eidolon use weapons it gained proficiency with though these archetypes (like fighter dedication or mauler) be ok balance wise?

Allowing actual weapon use creates an option that is always superior to the default eidolon options, and creates an "alpha path". Any eidolon not taking weapon proficiency is inferior to one who does.

So yeah, it creates an internal balance problem (ie, not a problem relative to other classes - a problem where there's one clearly superior path for summoners).

[Pronate11]

RexAliquid wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

It has to be either option A or B.

By rules ( an Eidolon could improve its power as you say by putting a fire weapon rune, making its fists, or greatsword, flaming fists or flaming greatsword, but then the aesthetic fire stuff should be forbidden until you have the property rune).

Aesthetic fire stuff is just fine. Until you get a flaming rune, it's just spiritual fire that hasn't manifested as material, yet.

Good damage isn't to far from a "divine flame".

[The Warden of Aegis 7]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Pronate11 wrote:

Now, if my summoner feels after some testing that the eidolon needs something more, I'm going to let him take a dedication and archetype feats for his eidolon (so the eidolon could gain rage from a barb dedication, or some casting). Would allowing the eidolon use weapons it gained proficiency with though these archetypes (like fighter dedication or mauler) be ok balance wise?

Allowing actual weapon use creates an option that is always superior to the default eidolon options, and creates an "alpha path". Any eidolon not taking weapon proficiency is inferior to one who does.

So yeah, it creates an internal balance problem (ie, not a problem relative to other classes - a problem where there's one clearly superior path for summoners).

The way I see it, eidolons could have the option to build for weapons or natural attacks, with weapons adding the obvious weapon benefits and natural attacks benefiting from some monster ability augments like grab. Of course among the options there would be optimal choices, but that's basically any game with options; I trust Paizo would be able to balance the two build styles so that neither would feel disadvantaged. Of course this assumes we get an eidolon that's meant to be built by the player more so than the ones we have here in the playtest.

[OrochiFuror]

What about more feats like unarmed evolution? Would that cover what your looking for? I think the issue with weapons and certain traits is some would have to lower your damage, like reach, or have some other drawback. Since we don't really have ways for Eidolons to be anything other then one handed, unless the primary attack is considered a two handed equivalent and the secondary a one handed. It's a very interesting and likely complicated design hole to delve into. Just the issue of having arms or not means there needs to be lots of abstraction for Eidolon attacks.
Maybe an option to gain the stats of what ever melee weapon the summoner is using? Would be a huge limit on the summoner getting martial weapons and dropping a shield or wand for a two handed weapon.