Eidolon energy attacks evolution

[The floor is lava]

Excuse and forgive me if this has been asked and answered before, I'm just seeking some clarification. The eidolon evolution "energy attacks" says this:

Energy Attacks (Su)
An eidolon’s attacks become charged with energy.
Pick one energy type: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. All of the eidolon’s natural attacks deal 1d6 points of energy damage of the chosen type on a successful hit. The summoner must be at least 5th level before selecting this evolution. Source: Advanced Player's Guide

Now, my understanding was that it added that damage in addition to your natural attacks normal damage. However, reading it, it does not explicitly state that to be so, and having a rules lawyer in my party, he refuses to see my interpretation. My DM has decided to stay silent on the issue until a more convincing argument can be made, either way. Please help, whether by explaining your understanding or possibly pointing out some previous discussion that came to a decision. Thanks everyone.

[darth_borehd]

My opinion is that it is addition to your natural damage.

For one thing, it doesn't mention what to do if your attack does more or less than 1d6. So a small eidolon would do the same damage as a large eidolon? It just doesn't sound right.

Also, it's similar to the monk abilities/items that add energy damage to unarmed strikes.

To keep pace with other characters at higher levels, it is almost required to be able to add energy type to the natural damage.

[Ravingdork]

Yes, it adds to your base damage.

[Brain in a Jar]

Wow. Some people will lawyer anything. If he is refusing to see how this ability functions, then they most likely won't see it since they are "right".

It adds onto the damage of the natural attacks.

[Cheapy]

It does not say it replaces the damage, which is what he's arguing. It never explicitly states that.

What it does say is that it does 1d6 points of that energy whenever it successfully hits. So, if you hit you deal damage normally and the extra damage.

Hey, if "it doesn't explicitly state..." is good enough for his argument, I'm sure he'd see the wisdom of your argument. Since it's the same thing.

That said, of course the intention was in addition.