I had always assumed this couldn't be applied to Monk unarmed damage, but I recently found it in the feats of a monk npc (Nata Tuata, pg 248, PFCS), specifically designated as applying to unarmed damage. I haven't been able to find any recent rules threads on the subject, and the different rules texts are conflicting to say the least.
Any ideas?
Thanks
what about alchemists with claw attacks
thanks gorbacz, that pretty much what I thought
The text of the feat in the Pathfinder RPG also states explicitly that it is not applicable to Unarmed Strike.
The text of the feat in the Pathfinder RPG also states explicitly that it is not applicable to Unarmed Strike.
That's where the confusion came from.
Thanks, I hadn't realised the book was written under 3.5 rules.
Same story - according to the devs, INA is a monster feat, not a player feat.
How very 4e in thinking. (This isn't an insult, but a statement of fact, 4e has that divide between pc and non-pc).
Personally, I've always run it that if a character can qualify for a feat, they can have it.
The feat doesn't allow unarmed strike because it says so right in there. A PC with claws though, why not? He follows all the other rules for claws, and he's burning a feat on this.
I build my NPCs/Monsters with the exact same restrictions as PCs.
Same story - according to the devs, INA is a monster feat, not a player feat.How very 4e in thinking. (This isn't an insult, but a statement of fact).
Personally, I've always run it that if a character can qualify for a feat, they can have it.
The feat doesn't allow unarmed strike because it says so right in there. A PC with claws though, why not? He follows all the other rules for claws, and he's burning a feat on this.I build my NPCs/Monsters with the exact same restrictions as PCs.
I concur with this interpretation. There is nothing in the rules that prevents a PC from taking a feat from the list of "Monster feats" in the Bestiary. In fact, the chapter says so right out:
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).
This can apply to Improved Natural Attack (provided it's not for an unarmed strike), or even Empower/Quicken Spell-Like Ability. The other feats probably aren't achievable for PCs built according to the core rules.
Improved Natural Attack is a little over powered I think for a PC, alchemist with Feral mutagen would be doing 1d8 claw and 1d10 bite I think. The feat is also replicated my a discovery for Master Chymist I don't think that the feat is balanced for Characters however I don't think it is a game breaker
So, do NPCs in your games have PC wealth by level ? :)
Mine do if it fits the story.
Improved Natural Attack is a little over powered I think for a PC, alchemist with Feral mutagen would be doing 1d8 claw and 1d10 bite I think. The feat is also replicated my a discovery for Master Chymist I don't think that the feat is balanced for Characters however I don't think it is a game breaker
Remember that you must take Improved Natural Attack for each attack individually, and that it comes to about +1 damage on average for the alchemist, so I don't really think it's that big a deal.
Hm. Just looked at the feat, it does say that it applies to only one of a creature's natural attack, but it doesn't have a Spacial section that says it can be taken more than once. The latter must be an oversight, though, as several monsters from the Bestiary, for example, have multiple instances of this feaṫ
So, do NPCs in your games have PC wealth by level ? :)Mine do if it fits the story.
Paizo does that from time to time on key NPCs in adventures too. They usually raise the NPC's CR by 1 for that, though. (One of the reasons for the rule that an NPC's CR is equal to level minus 1 seems to be that they have less equipment than PCs.)
|
Paizo does that from time to time on key NPCs in adventures too. They usually raise the NPC's CR by 1 for that, though.So, do NPCs in your games have PC wealth by level ? :)Mine do if it fits the story.
It's OK an on occasional "boss", but if we were to build PCs and NPCs from the same blocks, and every classed NPC would have PC WBL, the PCs money stash would skyrocket in no time, and you would end up with lvl 10 PCs running around with +5 flaming choking singing weapons and +6 stat boost items.
At which point the CR system jumps the cliff, because it was designed with WBL in mind.
So, while I *do* agree that monster-only feats smell and one of the biggest failures of 4ed is building PCs from one set of Lego bricks and monsters from another, I *don't* think that going full symmetric is a good idea.
So, do NPCs in your games have PC wealth by level ? :)
Not necessarily, but then wealth by level is a guide, not exactly a restriction. ;)
Sometimes I don't even have my PCs don't go by the PC wealth by level...
So, while I *do* agree that monster-only feats smell and one of the biggest failures of 4ed is building PCs from one set of Lego bricks and monsters from another, I *don't* think that going full symmetric is a good idea.
I'm talking about restrictions and qualifiers. If something qualifies for a feat, prestige class, etc, then I let 'em have it.
As such, any material I create myself for monsters, I assume a PC might want access to as well.
Perhaps I'm a liberal DM, but more likely I just like having the PCs and NPCs playing by the same ruleset.
I allow "monster PCs" for example... it'd be strange, for instance, if a player making a lizardfolk character couldn't choose the improved natural attack feat on his bite or claw attacks.
going full symmetric
While you could peg me as the type of person who is the exact opposite of 4e ideas on this subject (kobold using his harpoon vs a player picking it up and using it), I can see the reasoning behind wanting something special for monsters kept out of the hands of players (the BBEG having more actions in a round than the players).
While I wouldn't play that way in games I DM, I wouldn't cry foul and leave if a DM wanted to play that way when I was playing in his game.
wealth level have to be manage of coarse, and I try to go below normal wealth levels for as long as I can. I like my pcs hunger.
as far as monster feats go, I would mostly let player's take what ever feat they want, and Zaister pointed out it only works on one attack at a time. I don't think it is over powering at all, just not a typical build feat. The new ranger combat style Natural Weapon has it on there feat list.
also I can't find it where it is printed that player can have feats from the Bestiary. I just think it comes down to play style.
Just found this
Appendix 5: Monster F eats
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters,
although some player characters might qualify for them
(particularly Craft Construct).
so it looks like monster feats are kosher for PC as long as requirements are met and DM approval
Psst... Zaister ninga'd that rule by about an hour. ;)
Same story - according to the devs, INA is a monster feat, not a player feat.
That's silly. If you have natural attacks, you should be able to take improved natural attack.
Pathfinder Society is not the default game. It does not use the same rules as the default game. It has its own set of house rules; one of those is that PCs cannot take feats from the Bestiary.
Same story - according to the devs, INA is a monster feat, not a player feat.
Then why would the Natural Attack Ranger variant in the APG have it as a bonus feat possibility?
I find very strange that one PC can't take a feat "because is a PC". It creates a disconnect that remebers me other games I don't like so much.
Moreover, there is a druid spell in the APG able to raise the unarmed strike damage dice by two steps.
Of course the druid could cast it on the monk, but I feel like some difference of treatment.
Once again... it is not true that the devs said that INA is a "monster feat, not a player feat". They did say that it cannot be applied to Unarmed Strike, and that it isn't an allowed feat in Society play, but that's it. There's no such thing as "monster feat, not a player feat" in d20.
Once again... it is not true that the devs said that INA is a "monster feat, not a player feat". They did say that it cannot be applied to Unarmed Strike, and that it isn't an allowed feat in Society play, but that's it. There's no such thing as "monster feat, not a player feat" in d20.
That's what i thought.. sorry for my laziness (ya know, when i skipped that you had actually intelligently answered the question but I scanned past). I'm flawed.
Once again... it is not true that the devs said that INA is a "monster feat, not a player feat". They did say that it cannot be applied to Unarmed Strike, and that it isn't an allowed feat in Society play, but that's it. There's no such thing as "monster feat, not a player feat" in d20.That's what i thought.. sorry for my laziness (ya know, when i skipped that you had actually intelligently answered the question but I scanned past). I'm flawed.
Hey, no worries. I'm certainly not flawless myself, and that's an understatement!
|
IMC, PCs can't qualify for INA without special circumstances. For example, the dragon bloodline sorceror can grow claws, so they could take INA for those claw attacks. The barbarian can take INA for the bite attack granted by Animal Fury.
But just like the Fly skill, I'd say that they couldn't take the feat at the same level that they gained the NA. So the sorceror might gain the claws as Level X but can't take INA until Level X+1. Ditto for the barbarian.
That said, INA doesn't apply to unarmed strikes in my game.
Improved Natural Attack is a little over powered I think for a PC, alchemist with Feral mutagen would be doing 1d8 claw and 1d10 bite I think. The feat is also replicated my a discovery for Master Chymist I don't think that the feat is balanced for Characters however I don't think it is a game breaker
You mean like the same damage as a long sword or warhammer you can get at 1st level? Also remember that you dont get to enchant natural weapons like manufactured ones. How is too powerful again?
AtD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Improved Natural Attack is a little over powered I think for a PC, alchemist with Feral mutagen would be doing 1d8 claw and 1d10 bite I think. The feat is also replicated my a discovery for Master Chymist I don't think that the feat is balanced for Characters however I don't think it is a game breakerYou mean like the same damage as a long sword or warhammer you can get at 1st level? Also remember that you dont get to enchant natural weapons like manufactured ones. How is too powerful again?
AtD
This thread is almost 6 years old. Did you do a search on "Improved Natural Attack" without checking the dates?