The Eidolon is rather famous for playing by its own rules, but sometimes those rules are rather unspecific. I thought it'd be fun to dissect all of these.
- Max Attacks:
This indicates the maximum number of natural attacks that the eidolon is allowed to possess at the given level. If the eidolon is at its maximum, it cannot take evolutions that grant additional natural attacks. This does not include attacks made with weapons.
The second line ignores the case of an evolution that would take you over your max without you already being at max, such as taking a second set of claws on a biped at level 1. Of course, the first line would still be in effect, implying that you could indeed have a first level biped with claws twice, but you'd only have 3 claw attacks.
The second line should instead state:
The eidolon cannot possess a combination of evolutions that give it more natural attacks than this number.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -
- Attacks per body part: There is no rule stating how many different kinds of attacks you can have on any given body part. This most famously comes up with the question of having bite and gore on the same head, but it applies to other limbs as well.
Claws (Ex): An eidolon has a pair of vicious claws at the end of its limbs, giving it two claw attacks. These attacks are primary attacks. The claws deal 1d4 points of damage (1d6 if Large, 1d8 if Huge). The eidolon must have the limbs evolution to take this evolution. This evolution can only be applied to the limbs (legs) evolution once This evolution can be selected more than once, but the eidolon must possess an equal number of the limbs evolution.
and
Pincers (Ex): An eidolon grows a large pincers at the end of one pair of its limbs, giving it two pincer attacks. These attacks are secondary attacks. The pincers deal 1d6 points of damage (1d8 if Large, 2d6 if Huge). Eidolons with the grab evolution linked to pincers gain a +2 bonus on CMB checks made to grapple. The eidolon must have the limbs (arms) evolution to take this evolution. Alternatively, the eidolon can replace the claws from its base form with pincers (this still costs 1 evolution point). This evolution can be selected more than once, but the eidolon must possess an equal number of the limbs evolution.
The "Alternatively... can...." sentence implies that what follows is optional, giving you a RAW option of having claws and pincers on the same limb. Now this one is pretty obviously just bad wording, and most GMs would veto it, but it does leave open the possibility of letting limbs do double duty.
Please add those that I've missed, and I will hopefully be able to edit this post.
|
You are parsing the "Alternatively... can..." statement in a way that is not intuitive.
Most people read that section as giving you two options:
1) if you have limbs, you can add pincers.
or
2) if you have claws, you can replace them with pincers.
I believe the slam attack has the same stipulation.
Nobody interprets it to mean that you can have both pincers and claws on the same pair of limbs.
If you do, it's not because the ability is badly written, it's because English is a complex language and can be parsed in unintended ways when not read at face value.
I figure quite a few people interpret it to be possible to have slam and claws on the same arms. They just wouldn't allow you to attack with both slam and claws at the same time. Of course, part of that may be because slam is so loosely defined. For instance, what does Reach+Slam even look like? One big arm, two big arms or a pair of variable growth arms?
Most people read that section as giving you two options:
1) if you have limbs, you can add pincers.
or
2) if you have claws, you can replace them with pincers.
Even your phrasing is vague. Saying "can" implies a choice by the user. It would be clearer to say "must" if that is what is meant.
Splitting grammatical hairs.
Do you really want each instance where the word "can" is replaced with an either/or sentence, like "You can replace the claws with a pincer, or leave the claws there. Your choice".
I remember a similar argument on the 3.x boards, where a poster insisted that his/her character could do something because the rules didn't explicitly rule out the action. A much more eloquent poster replied by stating casting a fireball grants a wish because the rules didn't explicitly rule out fireball equaling wish granting.
The rules tell you what you can do, not give you an exhaustive list of what you can't do.
Annnnnnd...I just re-read your post on this being a sort of an exercise. Nevermind.
The "Alternatively," sentence is worded properly. Read it as:
"You have option A. Alternatively, you can take option B."
That is, option B is the alternative to option A. There's no other way to read it.
|
Just to clarify something out of the blue. The weapons used by an eidolon (most likely a humaniod form) can exceed the number of Natural attacks through iterative attacks and TWF. That is the reason the last bit is there in Max attacks.
It likely won't, mind you, but it is possible, the natural attack limit doesn't effect what the eidolon can do wielding a pair of weapons.