Hello,
The rules for eidolon says: "Your eidolon can't wear or use magic items, except for items with the eidolon trait."
What of non-magic items ?
For instance, I'd like for my eidolon to take Battle Medicine through the feat skilled Partner - but that's only useful if he can use a healer's kit.
Thanks a lot for your input !
An important angle to this is if the Eidolon counts as a "companion" like familiars, as all of them are blocked from the Activate action.
No idea if that's been adjudicated.
Eidolons and their item restrictions are extra weird thanks to alchemy items specifically *not* being magical. And if Eidolons also lack that "no Activates" restriction... well, at least some of them have hands to hold elixirs and pop corks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is an open question. You will have to talk to your GM for a final ruling at your table.
For my ruling: I go with the rules text of the rules, not the summary given in the sidebar or the Eidolon trait.
Your eidolon can't wear or use magic items, except for items with the eidolon trait.
So an Eidolon can open doors and throw balls and use Healer's Tools.
What kind of eidolon is it? What does it look like?
Is it a snake? No opening doors or using healers' kits is allowed. It has no arms.
Is it a demon with arms. Sure, I'd allow that eidolon to use normal items. I think the restriction on magical items is to prevent the summoner from being able to Invest 20 items, 10 for the summoner and 10 for the eidolon.
But, as Finoan said, ask your GM. It will be their decision in the end no matter what we say here :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it a snake? No opening doors or using healers' kits is allowed. It has no arms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is an open question. You will have to talk to your GM for a final ruling at your table.
For my ruling: I go with the rules text of the rules, not the summary given in the sidebar or the Eidolon trait.
Your eidolon can't wear or use magic items, except for items with the eidolon trait.So an Eidolon can open doors and throw balls and use Healer's Tools.
Yes, the eidolon trait says:
EidolonA creature with this trait is a summoner's eidolon. An action or spell with this trait can be performed by an eidolon only. An item with this trait can be used or worn by an eidolon only, and an eidolon can't use items that don't have this trait. (An eidolon can have up to two items invested.)
To the OP, this is what can throw off most item use: one section says magic items and the other says just items. This means you can find your eidolon literally unable to pick up or use ANY item except the 2 items with the Eidolon trait. So it's an 'ask your dm' question.
The curious about this is that we got another a big errata of SoM and the designers even didn't touch in this thing. So my current understood is that's right! Eidolons cannot use any items except those with eidolon trait no mater if it's magic or not.
That said it's a homebrew but your GM may allow doing similar to companion items where "Other items can qualify at the GM's discretion, but a companion can never Activate an Item." and extend the same exception to allow eidolons to use items specially skill related items.
But RAW no the current rules are pretty clear and eidolons cannot use any non-eidolon trait item even for skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The curious about this is that we got another a big errata of SoM and the designers even didn't touch in this thing. So my current understood is that's right! Eidolons cannot use any items except those with eidolon trait no mater if it's magic or not.
I am not convinced by that logic.
It is a reasonable argument for things that are not inherently a contradiction or major ambiguity in the rules. Such as the Rogue Resilience ability. The rule as it is currently written is not unclear and doesn't actually break anything other than some people's expectations. So the longer it goes without errata the more likely it is that the way that it is currently written is intended.
But even then it is still not guaranteed evidence that it is actually intended and will never get errata because it is not an error in the first place.
In this case with Eidolons and item use though, the rules are inherently contradictory. The subset of items that are nonmagical items and the subset of items that are magical items are different subsets of items. So having 'Gear and your Eidolon' prohibit only the magical items and having the Eidolon trait and the sidebar that quotes it prohibiting all items, is a place where two different rules are giving two different answers to the question of "can my Eidolon use this item?" If we ask the question regarding a magical item such as a Legerdemain Handkerchief the answer is 'no' from both rules. But if we ask the question regarding Healer's Tools, one rule says 'no', but the other rule says 'yes'.
So lack of errata does not mean that the rules are unambiguous and consistent and therefore do not need errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this case with Eidolons and item use though, the rules are inherently contradictory.
I'd disagree. One says they can't use magic items without the trait and one says they can use items without the trait: since magic items are items, it's not inherently contradictory [it's basically like one place saying you can't use squares and another saying you can't use rectangles]. It IS confusing to have it worded differently.
The subset of items that are nonmagical items and the subset of items that are magical items are different subsets of items.
That's like saying a magic staff if different from a non-magic staff for proficiency... they are the same for proficiency. And if I damage one, I look under Item Damage and not 2 lists with one for magic items and one for non-items. The only distinction is in the lists for buying them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this case is a bit of an issue where the RaW prevents too many actions that eidolons should reasonably be able to do, leaving tables in a place where they want/need to homebrew in a grey & ambiguous amount of RaW-illegal compatibility.
.
An item with this trait can be used or worn by an eidolon only, and an eidolon can't use items that don't have this trait. (An eidolon can have up to two items invested.)
This is more restrictive than even familiars / companions.
RaW it seems questionable if an Eidolon can pick up something off the floor, and RaW they definitely cannot pull a lever to "use" it.
Both of those cases are absurd to ban for humanoid eidolons, so that leaves people who encounter that rule to override it and make up their own houserule / "line" as to where eidolon item interaction "should" be.
Are there any build options that necessarily depend on the eidolon using nonmagical items without the trait? Such as a subclass that expects the eidolon to wield tools, or a spell that expects the eidolon to be wielding a potion?
Are there any build options that necessarily depend on the eidolon using nonmagical items without the trait? Such as a subclass that expects the eidolon to wield tools, or a spell that expects the eidolon to be holding a potion?
I think it's mostly the feats Dual Studies [eidolon gains skill] and Skilled Partner [eidolon gains skill feats] that people bring up the most. Even those have some remedies like Improvise Tool for Craft or Magical Understudy [Healing Plaster] for Medicine.
I think it's mostly the feats Dual Studies [eidolon gains skill] and Skilled Partner [eidolon gains skill feats] that people bring up the most. Even those have some remedies like Improvise Tool for Craft or Magical Understudy [Healing Plaster] for Medicine.
I thought about healing plaster but if you rule that you cannot use healer's tools, then by the same token you shouldn't be able to use the healing plaster.
The spell doesn't make you treat wounds (which would work) but creates healer's tools that you have to use.
I think it's mostly the feats Dual Studies [eidolon gains skill] and Skilled Partner [eidolon gains skill feats] that people bring up the most. Even those have some remedies like Improvise Tool for Craft or Magical Understudy [Healing Plaster] for Medicine.I thought about healing plaster but if you rule that you cannot use healer's tools, then by the same token you shouldn't be able to use the healing plaster.
The spell doesn't make you treat wounds (which would work) but creates healer's tools that you have to use.
It doesn't manipulate the plaster per se. Neither is it an identifiable item. It says it "can be used in lieu of healer's tools" but doesn't say it must be held or worn to do so either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this case with Eidolons and item use though, the rules are inherently contradictory.I'd disagree. One says they can't use magic items without the trait and one says they can use items without the trait: since magic items are items, it's not inherently contradictory [it's basically like one place saying you can't use squares and another saying you can't use rectangles]. It IS confusing to have it worded differently.
Since they mean very different things and one is more permissive than the other, it is contradictory if you're looking at it from the direction of "are basic tools allowed?" Because one of those rules says "yes" and the other says "no".
This has been a source of confusion ever since SoM came out.
The subset of items that are nonmagical items and the subset of items that are magical items are different subsets of items.That's like saying a magic staff if different from a non-magic staff for proficiency... they are the same for proficiency. And if I damage one, I look under Item Damage and not 2 lists with one for magic items and one for non-items. The only distinction is in the lists for buying them.
Or its like saying a magic staff is different from a non-magic staff for Runes... which it is. But in this case the way this resolves is clear since a normal staff follows the standard rules and a magic staff has text in its own description to explain how its different.
We don't have that clarity with Eidolos. We have two rules with effectively the same precedence that say different things and no way to determine which one is the intended one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since they mean very different things and one is more permissive than the other, it is contradictory if you're looking at it from the direction of "are basic tools allowed?" Because one of those rules says "yes" and the other says "no".
This has been a source of confusion ever since SoM came out.
But they don't mean very different things: one just has broader implications than the other but they are VERY similar things. Again, IMO no inherent contradiction as one also includes the other. It even makes sense where one mentions magic items specifically as it also goes on to explain that it can only invest 2 items and it can benefit from certain magic items invested by you after it mentions it can't wear or use magic items.
It's when you get to more generic entries you see "An item with this trait can be used or worn by an eidolon only, and an eidolon can’t use items that don’t have this trait" in a section that isn't about magic items.
And again, I'm not saying it isn't confusing to do so or even that this is necessarily correct RAI: I'm just saying that I can't point to it and say that it's inconsistent. It's not like it's the only place in the game where rules are worded differently and in this case, neither one is worded in a way as to make it not work with the other: Both 'can't use items' and 'can't use magic item' are compatible and exist side by side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't manipulate the plaster per se. Neither is it an identifiable item. It says it "can be used in lieu of healer's tools" but doesn't say it must be held or worn to do so either.I think it's mostly the feats Dual Studies [eidolon gains skill] and Skilled Partner [eidolon gains skill feats] that people bring up the most. Even those have some remedies like Improvise Tool for Craft or Magical Understudy [Healing Plaster] for Medicine.I thought about healing plaster but if you rule that you cannot use healer's tools, then by the same token you shouldn't be able to use the healing plaster.
The spell doesn't make you treat wounds (which would work) but creates healer's tools that you have to use.
It's a restorative substance presumably to be applied to the wounds directly. I find it hard to believe it can be used without being held or worn.
It's a restorative substance presumably to be applied to the wounds directly. I find it hard to believe it can be used without being held or worn.It doesn't manipulate the plaster per se. Neither is it an identifiable item. It says it "can be used in lieu of healer's tools" but doesn't say it must be held or worn to do so either.I think it's mostly the feats Dual Studies [eidolon gains skill] and Skilled Partner [eidolon gains skill feats] that people bring up the most. Even those have some remedies like Improvise Tool for Craft or Magical Understudy [Healing Plaster] for Medicine.I thought about healing plaster but if you rule that you cannot use healer's tools, then by the same token you shouldn't be able to use the healing plaster.
The spell doesn't make you treat wounds (which would work) but creates healer's tools that you have to use.
It's not summoned to your hand but is created up to 5' away [NOT touch] and 'dirt' isn't a specific item. Kick some dirt on someone and cast the spell and that person has a plaster on them [or have them put some dirt on their wounds]. It doesn't lists hand requirement, just saying it's used "in lieu of" the kit which isn't an explicit statement that it has the same requirements/restrictions as the kit.
Even if it has to be Interacted with, I've seen DM put it in the same category as 'simple' Interactions [like some tails feats allow] and allow Eidolons to use those kinds of actions as s 1/2 way measure so they can open doors and such but not use normal tools.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because it doesn't have a stat block or a rules citation to link to doesn't mean that it isn't an item in the game.
A rock is an item. It can be used as an improvised weapon. Dirt is also an item. As is the Healing Plaster dirt.
If the GM prevents an Eidolon from using all items, then those would be included in the restriction as well.
The Eidolon wouldn't be able to throw a rock any more than they would be able to throw a Ball. Stat block existence and capitalization is irrelevant. Both are still items.
Similarly, the Eidolon would not be allowed to use either Healer's Tools or the spell effects of Healing Plaster. Both are items that are being prohibited by the GM's ruling.
Just because it doesn't have a stat block or a rules citation to link to doesn't mean that it isn't an item in the game.
And just because it replaces an item in game doesn't mean that it IS an item that requires hands and wielding it.
A rock is an item. It can be used as an improvised weapon. Dirt is also an item. As is the Healing Plaster dirt.
You are welcome to treat it as such: that doesn't mean that that's a rule.
If the GM prevents an Eidolon from using all items, then those would be included in the restriction as well.
Nothing in the spell REQUIRES the Eidolon to interact with it: the patient themselves can put it or the dirt on the wound.
The Eidolon wouldn't be able to throw a rock any more than they would be able to throw a Ball. Stat block existence and capitalization is irrelevant. Both are still items.
But rock throwing is a moot point as that ACTUALLY requires you to wield it in the rules: no such requirement is in the rules for the plaster.
Similarly, the Eidolon would not be allowed to use either Healer's Tools or the spell effects of Healing Plaster. Both are items that are being prohibited by the GM's ruling.
Point to where the spell explicitly requires this. You specifically do not have to pick up dirt: it has a range of 5'. No where does it require you to touch or place the plaster. I see no need for hands at all. Any of those requirements would be ones you yourself added to make it match what you see as RAI.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to try to be a 3rd party mediator here.
... This restorative substance can be used in lieu of healer's tools for Medicine checks to Administer First Aid or Treat Wounds. ...
This rather clearly means that you follow the rules/norms of the item that the created plaster is replacing. This means that not only does it require handling as it it were an item, but that there's a real argument for "wearing" said plaster as a toolkit before a fight, lol.
I can find no honest way to angle or twist around to say that the benefits of the Plaster spell can happen without someone handling the mud as a real item.
.
To go at it from the other direction, the Plaster specifies that it's a substitute for Amin First Aid or Treat Wounds; that's it, no other action. Both of those are very RaW clear about being item manipulations of the Healer's Kit, which the spell subs mud in for.
There's just no getting around this one.
Yes, an Eidolon with cantrips can make the mud via casting the spell, but RaW they cannot use the magical mud. That absurdity and problem-creating result of the overly-harsh item restriction is the very point of the discussion.
Since they mean very different things and one is more permissive than the other, it is contradictory if you're looking at it from the direction of "are basic tools allowed?" Because one of those rules says "yes" and the other says "no".
This has been a source of confusion ever since SoM came out.
But they don't mean very different things: one just has broader implications than the other but they are VERY similar things. Again, IMO no inherent contradiction as one also includes the other. It even makes sense where one mentions magic items specifically as it also goes on to explain that it can only invest 2 items and it can benefit from certain magic items invested by you after it mentions it can't wear or use magic items.
It's when you get to more generic entries you see "An item with this trait can be used or worn by an eidolon only, and an eidolon can’t use items that don’t have this trait" in a section that isn't about magic items.
And again, I'm not saying it isn't confusing to do so or even that this is necessarily correct RAI: I'm just saying that I can't point to it and say that it's inconsistent. It's not like it's the only place in the game where rules are worded differently and in this case, neither one is worded in a way as to make it not work with the other: Both 'can't use items' and 'can't use magic item' are compatible and exist side by side.
I agree with graystone the rules aren't contradictory they are complementary. The fact that the class text add magic items to the text doesn't negate the fact that the trait just say items once that the magic items are included in the items set. So it's hard to say that by RAW you can make an exception once there's no explicity a space to make an exception.
Just to try to be a 3rd party mediator here.
... This restorative substance can be used in lieu of healer's tools for Medicine checks to Administer First Aid or Treat Wounds. ...This rather clearly means that you follow the rules/norms of the item that the created plaster is replacing. This means that not only does it require handling as it it were an item, but that there's a real argument for "wearing" said plaster as a toolkit before a fight, lol.
I can find no honest way to angle or twist around to say that the benefits of the Plaster spell can happen without someone handling the mud as a real item.
.
To go at it from the other direction, the Plaster specifies that it's a substitute for Amin First Aid or Treat Wounds; that's it, no other action. Both of those are very RaW clear about being item manipulations of the Healer's Kit, which the spell subs mud in for.
There's just no getting around this one.
Yes, an Eidolon with cantrips can make the mud via casting the spell, but RaW they cannot use the magical mud. That absurdity and problem-creating result of the overly-harsh item restriction is the very point of the discussion.
I agree with Trip too what Healing Plaster do is to turn dirt or mud into an temporary item that works like healer's tools for Medicine checks to Administer First Aid or Treat Wounds and follows all its rules.
--
That said I perfectly understand that all these rules used as RAW are too restrictive. But my point is that it's unlikely that the designers doesn't know that and if after years they didn't changes or clarified it (yet I still want a clarification) just enforces that it's probably the way that it was designed to work. Maybe they just doesn't want that Eidolons are able to use tools this way and become restricted to just RK or Aid with such skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with graystone the rules aren't contradictory they are complementary. The fact that the class text add magic items to the text doesn't negate the fact that the trait just say items once that the magic items are included in the items set. So it's hard to say that by RAW you can make an exception once there's no explicity a space to make an exception.
And again, that depends on what direction you're reading from and how you're parsing it out. If you're reading these as a list of "what's forbidden", then they don't contradict since one is a superset of the other and thus one of them is just redundant (or misleading if you don't know the more restrictive one exists, and considering the less restrictive one is far more prominently presented in the book, that's a real possibility). But when you're using a "whats forbidden" style of reading, they stack on top of each other and you can only use what gets through both.
If you're reading these as a list of "what's allowed", then they absolutely do contradict since one explicitly has wording to allow more things than the other. In this style of reading, one of them allows it and one of them doesn't, so the GM has to make a call on if that means you go with allow/forbid, with some rules text supporting both. From experience, the outcome of this decision is highly inconsistent.
I think the people that don't find it contradictory are reading it from one direction and the people that do find it contradictory are reading it from the other direction.
But more fundamentally: the fact that this still confuses people looking at the class 3 years later in the number that it does means its confusing and should be fixed. These wouldn't be hard to align so that they say the same thing, whatever the correct version is.
That said I perfectly understand that all these rules used as RAW are too restrictive. But my point is that it's unlikely that the designers doesn't know that and if after years they didn't changes or clarified it (yet I still want a clarification) just enforces that it's probably the way that it was designed to work. Maybe they just doesn't want that Eidolons are able to use tools this way and become restricted to just RK or Aid with such skills.
In a book that has gotten significant errata, I'd entirely believe that (it's my position on Rogue's Resilience). The issue with it here is that Secrets of Mana is notorious for not getting errata. It took over 2 years to make Arcane Cascade actually function RAW, and it took 3 years to change Inner Radiance Torrent after we were told it was changing. We finally did get some errata in this book recently but with what they did and didn't touch, its entirely plausible that this simply didn't make the list of things to look at.
As opposed to someone actually looking at it and going "its fine as is", especially when the fix is literally adding/removing one word from one of the two definitions so they align.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And again, that depends on what direction you're reading from and how you're parsing it out. If you're reading these as a list of "what's forbidden", then they don't contradict since one is a superset of the other and thus one of them is just redundant (or misleading if you don't know the more restrictive one exists, and considering the less restrictive one is far more prominently presented in the book, that's a real possibility). But when you're using a "whats forbidden" style of reading, they stack on top of each other and you can only use what gets through both.
If you're reading these as a list of "what's allowed", then they absolutely do contradict since one explicitly has wording to allow more things than the other. In this style of reading, one of them allows it and one of them doesn't, so the GM has to make a call on if that means you go with allow/forbid, with some rules text supporting both. From experience, the outcome of this decision is highly inconsistent.
I think the people that don't find it contradictory are reading it from one direction and the people that do find it contradictory are reading it from the other direction.
But more fundamentally: the fact that this still confuses people looking at the class 3 years later in the number that it does means its confusing and should be fixed. These wouldn't be hard to align so that they say the same thing, whatever the correct version is.
No Tridus you are just forcing the logic here. The thing is simple we just have 2 rules:
A creature with this trait is a summoner's eidolon. An action or spell with this trait can be performed by an eidolon only. An item with this trait can be used or worn by an eidolon only, and an eidolon can't use items that don't have this trait. (An eidolon can have up to two items invested.)
Your eidolon can't wear or use magic items, except for items with the eidolon trait...
So for example a healing potion and a elixir of life:
Healing potion:Elixir of life:
IMO the Gear And Your Eidolon part about magic items is just a reinforcing text that was specific about magic items due the both currently eidolons items that had eidolon traits are all magical (including probably any future eidolon item will be magical too).
In a book that has gotten significant errata, I'd entirely believe that (it's my position on Rogue's Resilience). The issue with it here is that Secrets of Mana is notorious for not getting errata. It took over 2 years to make Arcane Cascade actually function RAW, and it took 3 years to change Inner Radiance Torrent after we were told it was changing. We finally did get some errata in this book recently but with what they did and didn't touch, its entirely plausible that this simply didn't make the list of things to look at.
As opposed to someone actually looking at it and going "its fine as is", especially when the fix is literally adding/removing one word from one of the two definitions so they align.
Originally PF2e erratas was released with book new prints. The designers usually only released erratas when they will need to do print of an out-of-stock book.
But while this allowed to get 4 erratas for CRB, for books that stays longer in stock like SoM these erratas never comes.So they changed this politics and choosed to release an errata every 6 mouths instead but shortly after this we got all the OGL problem and the paizo decided to remaster the basic books with a new license to avoid legal disputes and this made them to delay the erratas like they writen more than once in their blog. Only after the remaster that they made a little compatibility errata and now that they was able too keep the promise and releases a new errata including non-core books.
I know that is an speculation of myself yet they know about all this confusion about how eidolon interacts with items. This is not new in this forum or in reddit and was long discussed topic where we always have a doubt about if was a mistake in the trait or not. Yet they decided to release a relatively big new errata in this fall and yet choose to not put this question and IMO there's only 3 different possible reasons where this could happened:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because the devs haven't errataed something doesn't mean they won't. Inner Radiance Torrent has been slated for errata for years and they only just got around to it. The devs really have been that busy remastering their books.
As for whether the two rules contradict each other, it reminds me of an argument I had with a high school teacher. She tried telling us that all squares are rectangles but no rectangles are squares. I was like WTF? That's not how words work.