So.. lets just take math in consideration (forget about Role Play for a while), why would you take Sting, or Tail Slap, or even Slam? What kind of balance am I missing here?
You'd pick Tail Slap if you already had a tail for another reason.
You'd pick Slam if you wanted an attack that more easily penetrated DR (especially keep in mind that if you only have one natural attack, it's automatically strength-and-a-half damage).Sting isn't terribly hot.
Do you really anyone really think: Constrict == Rake + Trample + Pounce == Trample + Faster Reach?
Constrict is brutal with the right build. Pounce is just broken and should be removed from the evolution list (about 2/3 the "broken" eidolons out there rely on Pounce). Extra reach is very definitely a major advantage for bipeds -- keep in mind, Huge isn't really viable for typical 10' corridor D&D play, so non-biped Eidolons will max at 5' reach for all but one attack.
Also, Does Limbs with weapon equal 2 points for extra primary attacks?
Yes, but you have to pay for the weapons in feats/evopoints and gold, and they're vulnerable to disarm, sunder, etc.
but claws means better chance to do some damage
Unless you're fighting something with DR.
Define "as strong".
Just because Claws do 1d4 and Slam 1d8?
Unless you're fighting something with DR.
That, and claws will never do 3/2 Strength bonus damage, while a single slam will.
Define "as strong".Combat effectiveness.. ˆˆ (Even thought I know that its sort of abstract...)
That's way too abstract to make use of. Give me an actual goal and I'll try, although keep in mind that Sting in particular isn't designed to deal damage as much as it's designed to be a delivery method for the Poison evolution.
|
why is slam underpowered ?
2x claws equals 2D4 (1D4 each)
1x slam equals 1D8
so slam does same max damage & 1 less minimum damage compared to claws
slam also gets increased str damage if only attack (I think thats correct) but claws wont
slam also has beeter chance to get through DR monsters since most have DR5 or better in my experience
am I missing something here ? I am not passing judgement on you it is just I dont see something that maybe you are & want to know what it is
Claws are useful because combined with the evolution to learn weapons, you can use a weapon in one hand and claw with the other.
Slam requires both of your hands to operate.
Slam can be useful because you can vital strike with it. (though personally I would go the bite -> evo damage -> extra damage feat -> poison evolution if I were going that route)
-S
you have to figure in power attack, and vital strike, large and the energy attack to the equation to see the whole picture
lets pick an attack with a 18 strength with level 6 power attack
slam 2d6(7) +6 +6 for power attack + 1d6(3) energy=22 damage
lets look at vital strike 4d6(14)+6+12(power attack doubled)+1d6(3) energy=35 damage
claws 1d6(3)x2 +4x2+4x2 power attack +1d6(3)x2 energy=28 damage over 2 attacks
Vital claw 2d6(7)x1 +4x1+8x1 power attack +1d6(3)x1 energy=22 damage over 1 attack
full attack action looks like claws wins on non dr opponents 22 to 30 and slams wins on single attacks by a lot 22 to 35
Claws are useful because combined with the evolution to learn weapons, you can use a weapon in one hand and claw with the other.
Slam requires both of your hands to operate.
Slam can be useful because you can vital strike with it. (though personally I would go the bite -> evo damage -> extra damage feat -> poison evolution if I were going that route)
-S
ya bite is B/P/S too where slam is B
claws can rend...
Slam requires both of your hands to operate.
This is actually not true. You only get one slam per two arms, but there's nothing that says both arms have to be available to use a slam. In fact, there are creatures with slam attacks that don't even have arms (gelatinous cube is one example), and creatures with slam attacks equal to number of arms (such as balors).
I generally agree Zurai: but the slam attack replaces the claws for the Eidolon, leading to the logical conclusion that they replace them in the attack routine. I've read that several times on the boards, though none of it from anyone with true authority.
I still think slam is all around a poor choice compared to say- bite. But that's just my opinion.
-S
On further thought, it seems that Slam is nearly all around a worse choice than Bite.
To get slam you either need extra limbs, or to replace claws.
That means you are either blowing extra evolution points to get it or you are replacing your claws to get them.
Bite, for one die lower damage, can be used /with/ claws rather than in place of them.
And thats even before you get into the issue of blunt vs b/p/s and such.
or have I missed something?
-S
Well, biting an enemy isn't always the best idea (there's an enemy in one of the APs that gives you a dose of spores if you bite it). Also, there are enemies that punish you for having the wrong damage type as opposed to rewarding you for having the right ones (I recall a creature of some type in 3.5 that splashed acidic blood anytime it was damaged with a slashing weapon).
Also, you can get more than one slam. You can only ever have one bite.
But yeah, generally, slams aren't terribly good.
Well, biting an enemy isn't always the best idea (there's an enemy in one of the APs that gives you a dose of spores if you bite it). Also, there are enemies that punish you for having the wrong damage type as opposed to rewarding you for having the right ones (I recall a creature of some type in 3.5 that splashed acidic blood anytime it was damaged with a slashing weapon).
Also, you can get more than one slam. You can only ever have one bite.
But yeah, generally, slams aren't terribly good.
I think it was a dinosaur in MM3. IIRC
Edit: Now I want to use it. My players will thank you, well not really, but I do.