|
Fused Eidolon of Synthesist said,
"The synthesist gains the eidolon’s hit points as temporary hit points...The eidolon’s temporary hit points can be restored with the rejuvenate eidolon spell."
So, the only way to cure Eidolon's temporary hp is rejuvenate eidolon spell (and lesser) ?
And, another Question.
Is Synthesist a legal Archetype for unchained Summor ?
The healing part is correct. The only way to restore that temp HP is with the cure eidolon spells.
What do you mean by "legal"? You can't play synthesist in PFS. But otherwise, you should be able to make an unchained synthesist just fine, if your GM allows synthesists. Unchained doesn't remove anything that synthesist changes.
correction.
this faq satiated that "effects that specifically restore hp to an eidolon (such as rejuvenate eidolon) restore temporary hit points to a synthesist's eidolon"
as such stuff like evolutions that heal up the eidolon should also work.
so the fast healing evolution that say "The eidolon heals 1 point of damage each round" should work as well.
"Even the Fast Healing evolution, or other fast healing or regeneration effects, restore hit points rather than temporary hit points, so they heal the summoner, not the eidolon's temporary hit points."
So no, the fast healing evolution does not restore the synthesist temporary hit points.
"Even the Fast Healing evolution, or other fast healing or regeneration effects, restore hit points rather than temporary hit points, so they heal the summoner, not the eidolon's temporary hit points."
So no, the fast healing evolution does not restore the synthesist temporary hit points.
well obviously the guy writing this had not looked up the words in the evolution itself and just relayed on what the general fast healing information say when he wrote it otherwise he wouldn't be writing a contradiction to the same rule he just put up.
i mean it's not much different then the rejuvenate eidolon spell that he does allow. (in respect to effects that specifically call out to heal the eidolon)
that is a clear oversight done by a person not paying attention to the information he refer to.
( i guess he just read the begining of the fast healing evolution that said something along the line 'the eidolon gain fast healing'. and not continue to the part which is specific about healing the eidolon itself)
compare :
"An eidolon's body gains the ability to heal wounds very quickly, giving it fast healing 1. The eidolon heals 1 point of damage each round, just like natural healing."
to
"Target eidolon touched"
"By laying your hand upon an eidolon, you cause its wounds to close and its form to solidify. This spell cures 1d10 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5)."
why would one effect that state to heal an eidolon effect work and the other won't?
FAQs don’t care about RAW. They replace RAW. So basically, the only thing that can recover the temp hit points are the few spells that heal eidolons.
To put some context on it, as originally written there was no way to ever recover the temp hit points. Healing spells and abilities recover hit points and temp hit points aren’t the same thing and can’t be healed in the same way. The bit about the rejuvenate spells was thrown in later as a patch, first in that FAQ and later in a reprinting.
yes. i know.
my point is that the faq didn't say only spells it said effects that specifically call out healing the eidolon. which the fast healing evolution clearly say. and in the very same faq the writer then go around saying it doesn't do what he just say it does a few sentences above.
which bring me to think that he only read the first sentence of the evolution not bothering to read the 2nd. i agree that normal fast healing doesn't help since it would heal the summoner. but according to the start of the faq the fast healing evolution should work.
in a way you can say im doing exactly what the writer of the faq did, im ruling using the first sentences of the source(the faq in may case. fast healing evolution in his) and ignoring the part later that doesn't agree with the way this works...if he can do it so can i.
he ignores the words about how the fast healing evolution heal the eidolon,even though his very words in the start of the faq said it works. im ignoring his specification of fast healing evolution.after all he just brought it as an example to his rule, and it was a bad one. (he was giving more then one example to what doesn't work and it seem to me that in his rush he put one example that he should have left out since by his own ruling it should work)
Or maybe they found the one exception to what they wrote and specified that that one case also doesn't heal the temporary hit points.
Personally, I'd rather have the fast healing evolution heal the real hit points than the temp hit points anyway, as you will typically have more total real hit points.
if it was an exemption they would have stated it as such, not as example to things that heal the summoner and not give temp hp.
the rest are things that obviously doesn't state anything about specifically healing the eidolon so they can't be exemptions
you don't lump examples to a rule with exemption of that rule..
the words you pointed to themselves prove it's an example:
"Even the Fast Healing evolution, or other fast healing or regeneration effects, restore hit points rather than temporary hit points, so they heal
the summoner, not the eidolon's temporary hit points."" (if it was an exemption it should be more like - 'even though the fast healing evolution state it heals the eidolon, it instead heal the summoner..' and not mention the other stuff together at all )
my point stand. they gave a bunch of examples that don't work and put in one they shouldn't - as it, by their own rules, should work.
Regardless, specific trumps general. The fast healing does not cure the temp hit points, because it is specified that it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter that it is contradictory. It is the official ruling. Anything else is just a house rule.
yep, i get that they specified the thing they say should work along with things that shouldn't, so while i agree that raw it doesn't work, i still stand my ground that it's a stupid mistake and not rai
There's a bunch of FAQs on Sythesist.
Indeed there are, almost a year ago this thread was discussing one. And?