In the Eidolon general rules under the Home Plane entry, it specifically calls out Banishment as a spell and effect that the Eidolon is expected to be subject to.I am aware what the RAW is, and I do think it is unlikely to happen. If the caster of banishment knows it’s facing a summoner, then it should know that close to 95% of the time, the Eidolon will be back next turn, and probably cast something else. Especially as the spell has to be heightened to be effective.
However, if a GM does just keep trying, hoping for that crit fail. The player is going to be pretty angry when it happens. That feels like a lose/lose scenario to me as a GM. Most players I know would rather their character die then have to spend much meaningful game time...
All of this is extremely unlikely any way you cut it. Banishment has the incapacitation trait. That means the theoretical enemy spellcaster trying to banish the eidolon would make it even less likely to happen unless they are at least higher level than the PCs.
If I was playing in a game where the GM pulled this kind of shenanigans, I would place it on par with type of GM who has multiple NPCs across different encounters purely focusing on killing a spellcaster’s familiar. Yes, other than the initial discussion in the heat of the game, I would likely walk away and never return. I believe that is on the level of intentionally trying to cripple a player’s character through twisting both in game and metagame practices in favor of the NPCs “winning.”
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Telling me that, for example, a divine eidolon is "formed of spiritual essence" doesn't really move the needle toward it not existing when unmanifested
Also, being formed of spiritual essence means that it is formed. If it is corporeal and can be affected by Persistent Damage while manifested, then it is also corporeal and can be affected by Persistent Damage while it has been Teleported to its home plane.
MANIFEST --- Not Teleport. Not even Summon. Manifest.
Yes. Teleported. Because Manifest Eidolon has the Teleportation trait, remember?
I could go through the rest of the counterarguments, but I'm not going to. I asked for rules and logic. Not a cherry-picked English vocabulary lesson. Standard English language concepts don't trump the stated rules text such as Manifest Eidolon having the Teleportation trait, or the game's own separate and explicit definition of Eidolon.
-----
And to be clear, I also agree that the game devs messed up when they list Banishment as an effect that the Eidolon should be subject to. Even if it is a rare probability of happening, the idea that having a Summoner's Eidolon banished from the plane for a week can happen at all is a problem.
I think Manifest Eidolon has teleport trait because it 'brings' your eidolon to you into your current plane/reality/universe, from wherever it normally exists.
However, stating it involves teleport, doesn't limit it to only teleport. It also says it manifests, taking physical form it no longer had until coming across and partnering with a summoner. So yes, the non-corporeal creature that was your eidolon gets teleported to you... but it's physical form comes from its connection to you (not from it explicitly having one from where it came) So while the summoner is strong/healthy enough to sustain the Eidolon's physical form, the eidolon has a physical form (until the demanifest it, sending it back)
It does sound like I need to review the rules on conditions, since I'd taken that the health related conditions were all shared, so I had persistent applying to both (but only highest, and only applying once) for both of them because it was a shared health pool. Honestly, it worked to their favor as someone treated the beading on the summoner, whom was away from the Eidolon whom was battling the source of the bleeding damage. If that isn't how it is supposed to work, I need to figure that out and insure I tell the player. I'd figured it was clear, things like grabbed, immobilized, which were physical blockages, were separate applications between the summoner and eidolon. (paralyze/petrify, being health related we had agreed would apply unified)
Based on what I've seen, it sounds like they were clarifying that Death effects would force de-manifesting the Eidolon. I think that the people saying the Eidolon gets transported back to their home plane, and would continue to bleed to death, or 'die' are missing a 'historical' aspect associated with planar travel. It used to be often when a creature came from another plane, that creature wasn't the same physical creature, but was a 'projection' of that creature into the 'material plane/universe'. This seems very much in line with the 'lore' implied for the relationship between the Eidolon and their summoner bringing the Eidolon to exist with them. My interpretation of Eidolon's whose 'origin' seems to have been originally sourced from the 'Universe' is that those creatures were from the universe, most likely, but when they died or otherwise ceased to have physical form, they drifted out of the Universe from which they belong. Maybe not even all the way into some other universe, but drifted into, or even past the 'realm' of what the universe itself is actually. They may technically be Universe beings, but they don't have bodies in the universe any longer and so are sort of other-planar, despite being otherwise 'native' creatures. So I'd say it isn't unreasonable for Banishment to work against them... preventing them from having their form projected from its source, (the edge/boundary of the universe) to the universe near by the summoner.
With this in mind, Persistent Damage state can potentially continue to tick by, lacking the body, it can't 'do' damage, and most persistent damage is said to go way withing a minute or so, but perhaps some might not, so the Eidolon if re-manifested might pop up with the damage. It sounds like diseases or poisons could tick. The interesting and potentially complicated aspect would be without a body, it can't take damage or have complications, so does that mean the time ticks, so when it manifests given the appropriate time occurred, the next roll would occur for a poison/disease, but if more than day occurs for a for the unmanifested eidolon who is poisoned with one with daily checks, do they roll each day when unmanifested and progress, despite not being able to take damage?
[Again, being health related, before, I was assuming they have 'combined' health, so the summoner got poisoned by anything the Eidolon got poisoned by, which seemed to solve that problem, but perhaps that reading was wrong.]
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the persistent damage tick and do damage to them while they’re unmanifested. It’d be really pointless since their health is your health once they manifest, and otherwise they’d always die forever once bleeding et al because they’d start at 0 on the other side with nobody to heal them. It’s just that they keep the persistent damage on them, if it had a duration that keeps counting, and when they manifest they come back with that persistent damage on them if it hasn’t expired. The rules don’t say to do anything with their conditions when unmanifested other than keep them and progress their duration as normal, so it isn’t asking for you to do complex bookkeeping or rolls while they’re away.
And yeah, you’ve been playing it wrong if you have them share all conditions and effects outside of grappled. The “Lost And Altered Actions“ section of the Summoner rules covers most what they share and how, and even explains what happens when only one of you is Confused or Controlled.
If you both had persistent damage applied to you I’m fairly sure those would be different identical effects and you’d take both. Just cause you’d both have persistent fire on you doesn’t mean you’re both in/on the same fire. That’s compared with you both being hit by a single fireball spell which would be the same effect doing the damage to both at once, in which case you’d take the highest only.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the persistent damage tick and do damage to them while they’re unmanifested.
No, that is pretty much exactly what I am arguing. I don't really like that, but it is what the rules imply. All conditions that continue on their own progression such as Frightened continue to 'tick' and have their effects. The effect of Frightened on an unmanifested Eidolon is not really relevant since they can't be targeted or make attacks, so the changes to those stats is not important. But the condition still has that effect on the Eidolon.
But the Persistent Damage condition also progresses over time by itself. So, like Frightened, it should have its effect on the Eidolon while it 'ticks'.
It’d be really pointless since their health is your health once they manifest, and otherwise they’d always die forever once bleeding et al because they’d start at 0 on the other side with nobody to heal them.
The shared health is still shared while the Eidolon is unmanifested. The Eidolon continuing to burn or bleed would continue affecting that shared HP pool. And the Eidolon would continue making flat checks to remove the Persistent Damage condition - just at the base DC since there is no one at their location to provide assistance and they can't take actions while unmanifested.
With this in mind, Persistent Damage state can potentially continue to tick by, lacking the body, it can't 'do' damage,
Like I said to Errenor - What in the rules makes you think that an Eidolon doesn't have a body while it is in its home plane?
Whether it has a physical body when unmanifested or not, it is not the same body it has when manifest, as it is only the manifested body that is a projection of the summoner’s life force. When that body unmanifests, there is nothing present that can continue burning. I think the awkwardness of figuring out what types of conditions would or wouldn’t stick around is complex enough that the RAW ruling is basically, “the GM will have to decide.”
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't any support for the idea that an eidolon has two bodies, one in each plane. Given that eidolons explicitly retain their sickened conditions while unmanifested, this is rather implausible.
There isn't any support for the idea that an eidolon has two bodies, one in each plane[...]
I don't think that is what anyone has suggested.
Rather, when a Summoner manifests their eidolon, they create a form for it, tied to the Summoner's own life force.
Think of it like the Summoner creating a drone and the eidolon logging on from its office, taking control, and piloting the drone remotely.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether it has a physical body when unmanifested or not, it is not the same body it has when manifest, as it is only the manifested body that is a projection of the summoner’s life force.
Rather, when a Summoner manifests their eidolon, they create a form for it, tied to the Summoner's own life force.
Think of it like the Summoner creating a drone and the eidolon logging on from its office, taking control, and piloting the drone remotely.
You are both stating conclusions as though they are facts. Where is the rule support for this conclusion?
Please explain why the Manifest Eidolon activity has the Teleportation trait.
The Teleportation trait makes absolutely no sense under this lore description. And it still isn't any rule statement that leads to this lore either.
Yes, the previous version of Summoner and Eidolon rules did have some rules that suggested that the Eidolon did not physically exist when not manifested. That was removed in errata (or rather the errata-equivalent Remaster reprinting). When errata happens, you need to adjust to what the current rules say.
It seems like there are a lot of people who are emotionally attached to the idea that the Eidolon doesn't exist when not manifested and are trying to shoehorn their interpretations of the current rules to match that expectation. Which doesn't make any logical sense.
I guess the GM is technically allowed to just ignore an unmanifested eidolon's persistent damage. The last sentence does say "The GM makes the ruling for how specific effects work when it's unclear." That's not very satisfying, though. It comes across to me as an attempt by the writers to dodge the question.
Doesn't Frightened tick down at the same time of one's turn that Persistent Damage occurs? Hmm. Not sure Frightened can tick down w/o taking one's turn, though one takes Persistent Damage even if they Delay.
I hate the thought of Persistent Damage persisting like that, and wouldn't want to argue for it except it seems a consequence of the rules. Thankfully Paizo did leave an out for GMs, so we aren't forced (in PFS for example) to have bleeding Eidelons kill their masters.
Yeah, frightened ticking and persistent damage are both explained in Step 3: End Your Turn.
"If you have a persistent damage condition, you take the damage at this point. After you take the damage, you can attempt the flat check to end the persistent damage. You then attempt any saving throws for ongoing afflictions. Many other conditions change at the end of your turn, such as the frightened condition decreasing in severity. These take place after you've taken any persistent damage, attempted flat checks to end the persistent damage, and attempted saves against any afflictions."