I see that in addition to the ability to respec evolutions when the summoner gains a level, the 4th-level spell Transmogrify lets you do it at will (where "at will" means a one-hour casting time and expensive materials). What do you think would be an appropriate level of spell to change the eidolon's basic form, going from (say) biped to quadruped?
Alternately, would a mid-to-high-level feat letting the eidolon switch between two preset evolution and/or base-form sets be too abusive?
If the summoner has used Aspect to divert evolutions to himself, does he keep these evolutions when the eidolon is not summoned?
Can an eidolon benefit from both the Improved Damage evolution and the Improved Natural Attack feat, increasing its damage die by two steps?
A) Nothing in the base rules allow you to change a base form. If, however, you're house ruling it as a spell, I'd make it a 6th level spell (50% higher) and quadruple the cost.
B) I did something similar to this for house ruling. See the final result on Pathfinder DB.
C) As far as I read it, yes, the summoner keeps all the evolutions he diverted to himself.
D) I believe James or Jason one chimed in on this and said no, the two are mutually exclusive, but I could be mistaken.
D) Well RAW it ought to work since they are untyped bonuses from different sources (one's an evolution and other's a feat). Ruling otherwise sets a poor precedent of class features not stacking with feats independent of what type they are.
D) Well RAW it ought to work since they are untyped bonuses from different sources (one's an evolution and other's a feat). Ruling otherwise sets a poor precedent of class features not stacking with feats independent of what type they are.
A precedent already established by the monk however since you can't take improved natural attack for a monk's unarmed strike.
D) Well RAW it ought to work since they are untyped bonuses from different sources (one's an evolution and other's a feat). Ruling otherwise sets a poor precedent of class features not stacking with feats independent of what type they are.A precedent already established by the monk however since you can't take improved natural attack for a monk's unarmed strike.
That's because a monk's unarmed strike is not a natural attack. The monk having improved unarmed does not make the monk's unarmed attacks natural attacks which improved natural attack specifically increase damage of natural attacks.
edit: comprehensibility
That's because a monk's unarmed strike is not a natural attack. The monk having improved unarmed does not make the monk's unarmed attacks natural attacks which improved natural attack specifically increase damage of natural attacks.
edit: comprehensibility
Except this:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
With the huge exception of improved natural attack anything that improves a natural attack can improve a monk's unarmed strike which specifically states it is treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that enhance or improve a natural weapon -- which improved natural attack does.
It's one huge caveat to carve out considering it is about the only means of improving a natural attack that cannot already be used to improve an unarmed strike.
However I'm going to bow out on the issue now as it's not the topic at hand -- and the fact this has been gone around a million times already and doesn't really need addressed again.
Simply saying "It's a precedent already in place with pathfinder."
That's because a monk's unarmed strike is not a natural attack. The monk having improved unarmed does not make the monk's unarmed attacks natural attacks which improved natural attack specifically increase damage of natural attacks.
edit: comprehensibility
Except this:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.With the huge exception of improved natural attack anything that improves a natural attack can improve a monk's unarmed strike which specifically states it is treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that enhance or improve a natural weapon -- which improved natural attack does.
It's one huge caveat to carve out considering it is about the only means of improving a natural attack that cannot already be used to improve an unarmed strike.
However I'm going to bow out on the issue now as it's not the topic at hand -- and the fact this has been gone around a million times already and doesn't really need addressed again.
Simply saying "It's a precedent already in place with pathfinder."
Alright admitting the monk exception (which I'm going to house rule the other way because it's RAW and makes sense). The errata is that improved natural attack cannot be applied to unarmed strikes (monks or otherwise). Now the eidolon taking the feat is not applied the feat to unarmed strikes therefore the feat is applicable to the eidolon's natural attacks. As stated in my above posts the INA feat and INA evolution are indeed two distinct sources from any point of view which means that since they are untyped bonuses (which may be read as "damage die step +1" if you want to homogenize wordings) so they stack.