Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Abberation Eidolon Subtype


Rules Questions

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

TL:DR
What evolutions from previous book can the Abberation Eidolon from Horror Realms Take?

They did not say what previous evolutions that the Abberation Eidolon can take. You could ususally assume this means that it can't take any of them. However when you look some of them are things like 'Tentacle'. An abberation can't take Tentacle? Really? That alone isn't enough for quesitons, but this is what is. The Base Forms for Abberation give you evolutions that the Abberation Does Not Qualify for.
E.G. Quadruped: Limbs (Legs) X2, Bite.
Abberations does not qualify for Bite. An Abberation can Not Take the Bite Evolution. The only problem is that this is a reccuring pattern with most of the previous books evolutions. With the rules as written, the maximum attacks an Abberation can get is 3, when eidolons all have the capacity for eventually 6, but the abberations can ONLY GET (Without Manufactured Weapons) 3 Maximum.

It's this conclusion of several fishy things that make me believe that there was a fault on Paizos part for not listing previous evolutions available to the Abberation Eidolon. I could always get home rules, but that is not what I am looking for as I wish to play this in Organised Play.

Can anyone tell me if there has been any kind of ruling made officially by Paizo to comment on these & say what is actually available to a Abberant Eidolon Subtype?


Unchained Eidons are notoriously lacking in future proofing thanks to evolutions being tied to specific subtypes instead of the other way around. So yes, sadly, this means that a solid third of the list is not available.

Thankfully, Aberration types came along when Paizo was getting a better hang of it. While not being able to take Tentacle evolutions is kind of silly, (again, poor future proofing in the base design,) Tentacle Mass is a flavorful and functionality superior option. Plus, it cheats the system and lets you take Constrict. Heck, it's the only way to get a Primary tentacle attack as an Eidolon.

Wing Buffet and Rake are also options, and Slam can be taken repeatedly (even if it's inefficient) so it is possible to cap natural attacks. And yes, your Eidolon gets bite in most base forms. This likely supersedes the rules because so many base forms have no other options beyond Bite at the start.

I suggest working with some kind of Constrict build. Take advantage of what makes the sybtype special. If you want to throw out a million attacks then you might be better off with Demon, Psychopomp, or Elemental types.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Abberation Eidolon Subtype All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.