Eidolons and Elixirs?


Rules Discussion

51 to 66 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I think you are misunderstanding drakeheart. Eidolons do not wear armor so that rule in drakeheart cannot be relevant. You just replace your eidolons item bonus with drakehearts. There's no other way to do it. That rule is there to clarify that the mutagen doesn't work while wearing armor aside from its secondary effect and drawback.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Errenor wrote:
YuriP wrote:
exploit
Why are you trying to cancel quite clear general rule based on a presumable problem with one item?
It's no just one item. It's the first mutagem that came in my mind. It's virtually possible to combine any other elixir effect in unexpected way due the lack o Eidolon trait, this trait just exists to avoid these things.

No, it does not. Because it obviously does not prevent using items on eidolons and using items on eidolons is not them using items on themselves. Including elixirs and potions.

YuriP wrote:


No, the mutagen explicitly says "If you're wearing armor, you still calculate your proficiency bonus to AC based on your proficiency in the armor you're wearing, even if the drakeheart mutagen has a higher item bonus.". So the normal "is higher" don't apply here.

The bolded part literally does not do anything, the full sentence doesn't concern what we are discussing (because it's about proficiency bonus and we talk about item bonus) and your conclusion does not make any sense.

YuriP wrote:
One is in the traits saying that item activation is done when you drink the item, the other says that you can activate the item to feed someone. But it's easily to understand the context. This second rule exists to allow the use of drinkable itens in characters that are unable to act, while the first one to explain that you will use same interaction action that you use to drink to also activate the item.

What you are saying here does not follow from anything. You just completely made this up. And no, you do not understand this 'context' right. There's no context: they just made a bit vague rule (again) when in one place haven't mentioned that you also can use elixirs and potions on others too. There's nothing else to it at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Considering that they fixed mountain stance to be an item bonus specifically to prevent the drakeheart exploit, eidolons and their item bonuses should be treated exactly the same because that's how armor works.


YuriP wrote:
As I said before there are 2 rules contradicting each other but in practice they are in different contexts.

This simply isn't true You can either activate a potion and drink it or activate a potion and feed it to a creature: that's a fact not a contradiction.

YuriP wrote:
That's why the RAI context exist. No only to see how exactly the rules are written but also what they intended or trying to prevent.

*shrug* If anything, I'd think the RAI would be that Eidolons could be fed a elixir of healing. Remember, you're arguing against ANY potion/elixir from working so you're arguing that every familiar, animal companion and Eidolon that's down and dying can't take a potion/elixir to heal. IMO, that doesn't sound RAI. The RAI is that they can't go around and feed potions/elixirs to others as a free workaround to the range limitations of the PC's.


Errenor wrote:
YuriP wrote:


No, the mutagen explicitly says "If you're wearing armor, you still calculate your proficiency bonus to AC based on your proficiency in the armor you're wearing, even if the drakeheart mutagen has a higher item bonus.". So the normal "is higher" don't apply here.
The bolded part literally does not do anything, the full sentence doesn't concern what we are discussing (because it's about proficiency bonus and we talk about item bonus) and your conclusion does not make any sense.

You right I missunderstand this part but the exploit continues. The mutagen gives up to +7 +2 from DEX and if combined with summoner runes bonus this can be increased to +12. This don't happen with a normal char due the runes applies direct to armor and then armor applies to chat but here this runes bonus are "copied" to Eidolon and this +7 from Major Drakeheart Mutagen is already counted to simulate an armor with rune and not to sum with it.

graystone wrote:
YuriP wrote:
That's why the RAI context exist. No only to see how exactly the rules are written but also what they intended or trying to prevent.
*shrug* If anything, I'd think the RAI would be that Eidolons could be fed a elixir of healing. Remember, you're arguing against ANY potion/elixir from working so you're arguing that every familiar, animal companion and Eidolon that's down and dying can't take a potion/elixir to heal. IMO, that doesn't sound RAI. The RAI is that they can't go around and feed potions/elixirs to others as a free workaround to the range limitations of the PC's.

Animal Companion already have an explicitly exception allowing the GM to interfere if this is required (a little redundant IMO once the GM has the last word always) but I have to agree that "can never Activate an Item" may too harsh when you are using a heal potion but for Eidolon this doesn't apply due Eidolon-Summoner HP sharing:

Core Rulebook pg. 604 2.0 wrote:
You might want to acquire items that benefit an animal or beast that assists you. These items have the companion trait, meaning they function only for animal companions, familiars, and similar creatures. Normally these are the only items a companion can use. Other items can qualify, at the GM's discretion, but an animal can never Activate an Item.


Ok, the potency bonus does have some issues with drakeheart. Normally, you aren't allowed to wear armor to apply potency runes to drakeheart. But eidolons can get them sort of retroactively without needing to wear armor. So there's that. Clearly, that shouldn't happen. Drakeheart should replace potency runes applied. That's the only real issue with eidolons and elixirs.


Drakeheart has the same issue with ABP for PCs since they get those bonuses without needing armor. Just need a simple fix that prevents the item bonus from drakeheart from stacking with potency bonuses.


It's weird since the restriction on drakeheart is really butchered. It should say you use your item bonus for any armor you're wearing instead of drakehearts item bonus. Proficiency has absolutely nothing to do with it. I'm not sure why that wasn't tagged for errata.


YuriP wrote:
Animal Companion already have an explicitly exception allowing the GM to interfere if this is required (a little redundant IMO once the GM has the last word always) but I have to agree that "can never Activate an Item" may too harsh when you are using a heal potion but for Eidolon this doesn't apply due Eidolon-Summoner HP sharing:

#1 Sure, but that's a non-rule: a Dm can alter/change ANY rule that want so that's just a reminder.

#2 I still disagree on your interpretation of activation for potions/elixirs: when feeding someone one it isn't both you and the target activating it [or you'd both have to spend an action]. In fact, the section you quote on DM not letting an item work also states "but an animal can never Activate an Item" but that doesn't stop others from activating the item.

Activate an Item
Source Core Rulebook pg. 532
"Requirements: You can Activate an Item with the invested trait only if it’s invested by you. If the item requires you to Interact with it, you must be wielding it (if it’s a held item) or touching it with a free hand (if it’s another type of item). The person Interacting with a potion/elixir and "wielding" or "touching it with a free hand" is the one activating it: that's something that a KO'd person can't do.

"You can activate a potion with an Interact action as you drink it or feed it to another creature."
"You usually Interact to activate an elixir as you drink it or feed it to another creature."

#3 HP sharing is a thing but so is positioning and you might not have access to the summoner [they might even be in another room].


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:

Guys/Girls please try to understand that you are trying to use this rule as an exploit!

This rules allowing you to feed another creature is here to make possible to give someone a potion to a dying character. But when you use this to allow circumventing the eidolon restriction you are allowing things like this:

By default give item or status AC's bonus are very caped in the system. The bonus item is limited to 6 + runes. Allowing a total of 9 for any class.

The eidolons receive a item bonus that is not explicitly an armor depending on your Eidolon Array.

The Drakeheart Mutagen give item bonus to AC from +4 to +7 and +2 from DEX depending from item level except if your item bonus comes from an armor.

The rules as as clear as they are going to be for PF2.

Stop saying no. Say yes unless there is a real problem. There is no real problem here.

Most PCs have an extra point of AC available via Alchemical items if they have an Alchemist and can get the right elixir.

Eidolons can already get an item bonus to AC via their Summoners invested Bracers of Armor. Item bonuses don't stack. This is just an alternative. Drakeheart Mutagen has a Dexterity Cap which hurts the Eidolon. Bestial Mutagens bonus is lower. There is no problem here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
YuriP wrote:

Guys/Girls please try to understand that you are trying to use this rule as an exploit!

This rules allowing you to feed another creature is here to make possible to give someone a potion to a dying character. But when you use this to allow circumventing the eidolon restriction you are allowing things like this:

By default give item or status AC's bonus are very caped in the system. The bonus item is limited to 6 + runes. Allowing a total of 9 for any class.

The eidolons receive a item bonus that is not explicitly an armor depending on your Eidolon Array.

The Drakeheart Mutagen give item bonus to AC from +4 to +7 and +2 from DEX depending from item level except if your item bonus comes from an armor.

The rules as as clear as they are going to be for PF2.

Stop saying no. Say yes unless there is a real problem. There is no real problem here.

Most PCs have an extra point of AC available via Alchemical items if they have an Alchemist and can get the right elixir.

Eidolons can already get an item bonus to AC via their Summoners invested Bracers of Armor. Item bonuses don't stack. This is just an alternative. Drakeheart Mutagen has a Dexterity Cap which hurts the Eidolon. Bestial Mutagens bonus is lower. There is no problem here.

There is a point to the drakehearts restriction on armor. Under normal circumstances, you can't apply potency bonuses to drakeheart because you can't wear armor and gain the benefits of drakeheart, so runes can't apply. The eidolons mechanics seem to circumvent that. It's the same issue as drakeheart and ABP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Although, there's definitely a case for potency bonuses simply not adding to drakeheart since drakeheart isn't armor and therefore could not add the bonuses from potency even if you could wear the runes while drakeheart is in effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
There is a point to the drakehearts restriction on armor. Under normal circumstances, you can't apply potency bonuses to drakeheart because you can't wear armor and gain the benefits of drakeheart, so runes can't apply. The eidolons mechanics seem to circumvent that. It's the same issue as drakeheart and ABP.

What are you worried about with Eidolons that doesn't also apply with all the other types or armour that aren't armour in this game? Its all within one number of what other characters can get using drakeheart. It requires a cooperative alchemist to do. Eidolon only gets expert defense at level 11 and master at level 19. They also can't use shields and only have d8 attacks.

Every class with similar defense progression can do it better. Monks Fighters and Champions significantly better.

There is no rules issue here. You are making one up, over a balance concern which is minor at best, and really only covers a weakness.


aobst128 wrote:
Although, there's definitely a case for potency bonuses simply not adding to drakeheart since drakeheart isn't armor and therefore could not add the bonuses from potency even if you could wear the runes while drakeheart is in effect.

YuriP confused you, but there's actually no problem at all:

Errenor wrote:


Ok, at least I now see what you think is a problem. Even though eidolon's AC item bonus is not armor, runes from the PC increase it literally the same as for PC: they 'increase item AC bonus'. So you have new item bonus. And then, just the same as for a PC and as usual, Drakeheart replaces this item bonus with its own (or not, if it's lower). That's it, no problem, no exploit, no stacking Drakeheart with runes.

Drakeheart: "You gain the listed bonus to AC" (item)

Eidolon: "Your eidolon increases its item bonus to AC based on your armor's armor potency rune or bracers of armor."
Runes: "Increase the armor’s item bonus to AC by..."
Bonuses: " if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you can use only the highest bonus on a given roll—in other words, they don’t “stack.”"
See? To make runes work and stack with armor they invented new language without making new type of bonus: "increase item bonus". Then we have a new increased item bonus, but different item bonuses still don't stack. So there's no problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:


Eidolon: "Your eidolon increases its item bonus to AC based on your armor's armor potency rune or bracers of armor."
Runes: "Increase the armor’s item bonus to AC by..."
Bonuses: " if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you can use only the highest bonus on a given roll—in other words, they don’t “stack.”"

Its not a rule for double stacking item bonuses.

That is a poor interpretation of some sloppy wording. There is no way any sane GM would allow that to stand.

The only reason they are using the word increases is that they are talking about the effect of runes on items. Which is clear if you look at the armour potency rune which increase the base item bonus of the item. Typically it is bracers of armour that a Summoner is giving to an Eidolon. They are trying to say is that the Eidolon gets the increased amount of the rune or that of the bracers of armour, not the plate armour the Summoner is wearing.

Whatever that total the Eidolon gets from the items its Summoner is wearing, that is then replaced by the item bonus from the elixir. The Eidolon gets the Dex Cap too, which means its all fair as Eidolon AC is Dexterity limited.


Gortle wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
There is a point to the drakehearts restriction on armor. Under normal circumstances, you can't apply potency bonuses to drakeheart because you can't wear armor and gain the benefits of drakeheart, so runes can't apply. The eidolons mechanics seem to circumvent that. It's the same issue as drakeheart and ABP.

What are you worried about with Eidolons that doesn't also apply with all the other types or armour that aren't armour in this game? Its all within one number of what other characters can get using drakeheart. It requires a cooperative alchemist to do. Eidolon only gets expert defense at level 11 and master at level 19. They also can't use shields and only have d8 attacks.

Every class with similar defense progression can do it better. Monks Fighters and Champions significantly better.

There is no rules issue here. You are making one up, over a balance concern which is minor at best, and really only covers a weakness.

On a second look, yeah you would just take the total item bonus of the eidolons armor, including the bonus from runes and replace it with drakehearts. Simple enough. I wasn't worried about the balance of it. They would benefit from drakeheart in the same way as other PCs. The wording just caught my attention along with drakehearts restriction but it doesn't seem to matter. I just wish they'd fix the text on drakeheart.

51 to 66 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Eidolons and Elixirs? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.