They dont need it, they are automatically proficient with all natural attacks they start with or gain later through Evolutions. They count as 'armed' for the purpose of possessing Natural Attacks, and need to feat to use their natural attacks proficiently.
They dont provoke AoO's with their natural weapons since they are trained in the use of their own natural weapons.
As far as monsters with Natural Attacks go, are they assumed to have the Imp. Unarmed Strike feat? At least in terms of requirements for other feats?
Asking because I'd like my Eidolon to take Improved Grapple...
Thanks in advance!
I don't think so. IUS grants additional abilities, like being able to strike with any part of the body and penalty free non-lethal attacks. Your Eidolon will probably need to take IUS before IG.
|
They dont need it, they are automatically proficient with all natural attacks they start with or gain later through Evolutions. They count as 'armed' for the purpose of possessing Natural Attacks, and need to feat to use their natural attacks proficiently.
They dont provoke AoO's with their natural weapons since they are trained in the use of their own natural weapons.
I know they don't need the feat for the abilities, I was asking if he needed it for the requirements of another feat (Improved Grapple).
I don't think so. IUS grants additional abilities, like being able to strike with any part of the body and penalty free non-lethal attacks. Your Eidolon will probably need to take IUS before IG.As far as monsters with Natural Attacks go, are they assumed to have the Imp. Unarmed Strike feat? At least in terms of requirements for other feats?
Asking because I'd like my Eidolon to take Improved Grapple...
Thanks in advance!
Imp. Unarmed Strike doesn't mention being able to strike with any part of the body, that's a Monk thing in addition to their IUS. However, you're right about the penalty-free non lethals. Eh, disappointing, but I'll deal :P
Thanks you two!
In 3.5 it was ruled that IUS included the ability to strike with other parts of the body, and since the wording is pretty much the same it stands to reason that the ruling would be the same. But YMMV.