Qualifying for monster feats


Rules Questions


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Can you qualify for certain monster feats if you only meet the prerequisites through a spell or class ability?

Example: as a hexcrafter magus I can cast fly, or monstrous physique (gargoyle) or grab the flight hex. Does any of this qualify me for the Flyby attack feat even though I naturally have no fly speed?


Well, it says in the Monster Feat section in the Bestiary that "Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them." Some easy ones to qualify for would be Improved Natural Armor and Improved Natural Weapon, because a lot of races can get these through alternate racial features etc.

That said, as for Flyby Attack, the prerequisite is "Fly speed." It doesn't say "Must possess a natural fly speed," so strictly based on that reading... I don't know honestly. It's not like Flyby Attack is overpowered or anything, so as a GM, I personally would allow a PC to take it.


Damn man, faq candidate much?


There is nothing special about the feats in the Bestiary. That said, there is a very stupid ruling, maybe in the CRB FAQ, about the Fly skill and how much you need to be able to fly in order to use it as a prerequisite.


I'm not 100% sure how much ability to fly you need to qualify for a feat which has a Fly speed as a prerequisite. I'd think you should be OK with Monstrous Physique since as far as I know Druids can take feats which they'd only qualify for in wildshape like Weapon Focus (Claw).

You should be free to take any feats in the Bestiary which you qualify for though. Many people resist this or advise getting special permission from your DM though since PCs and animal companions aren't allowed to take Bestiary feats in PFS (crafting feats are banned too though no similar confusion seems to exist for those in home games)


This isn't at all based on any sort of interpretation of the rules (aside from the fact that it calls them "monster feats"), but I personally think that players should probably never get monster feats.

Why? because it doesn't open the potential can of worms, and was probably mostly designed without as much balance consideration considering that it's designed for monsters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, because PC feats are so balanced and monster feats are so bad - a Barbarian PC who increases his claw damage from 1d6 to 1d8 is so much worse than a Wizard with Sacred Geometry!


If they have the book, and qualify for the feat, then go nuts I always say.

"How many feat, feat you meet!" - Doctor Seuss.


Since you can take ranks in Fly the moment you gain access to a fly speed from an ability, like the feat Angel Wings or the spell Fly, you can take any feat that you qualify for, even if the qualification is temporary. You just need to be able to acess it on a daily basis. This includes prerequisites beyond just monster feats.


The simplest way to qualify for monster feats is to add walnuts to your brownie batter...


As a GM I'd allow it, but these things are always subject to GM's approval so I cannot be of much help.
I don't think Flyby atack is unbalancing at all and not being able to fly all the time only means that you are not able to use this feat all the time but it doesn't necesarily make you less proficient with it.


As a GM, there are enough feats for players already without digging into the Bestiary for more. El nope would be the answer.


If your GM allows those feats at all (which is perfectly fine), then all you need to take a feat that doesn't specify "natural" flight speed is access to flight in some way/shape/form, just like with Fly ranks, namely Fly/Overland Flight spell, broom of flying, shapeshift (spell or innate ability) into something that can fly, wings, etc.

It's not like those feats are overpowered, it's just they might not be something your GM wants to deal with from PCs.

So, for your question exactly as asked: usually. I'm not so sure about Awesome Blow unless you get a Permanent Enlarge Person. If it's a thing you *can do* then most likely. If it's a thing that *you are* then probably not.


I wouldn't allow anything that comes from "outside" the PC to qualify for feats, like having winged boots for flying feats.


I'm going by the PRD's:

Quote:
You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other special ability).

Granted, it does not SPECIALLY call out items for flight, but: if the item gives the spell, sorta like a spell-like ability, then why would it not be equivalent to the special ability/only preparing the spell X/day.

And that's for the skill, not the feats, but: there's a rule on losing qualifications for feats you already have, and just not getting to use them if you no longer qualify.

What if, for instance, they instead had a custom Ioun Stone that gives them flight embedded in them? Or a constant fly speed from outside of them, like Wings of Flying?


It is clear the creators of pathfinder think PCs can take monster feats. That is why they errata'd Improved Natural Attack, because monk PCs could take it and after crunching the numbers they considered it to be too powerful for monks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Certain "Monster Feats" are listed as options for animal companions in the CRB. Others are listed as options for Rangers with certain combat styles in the APG. Pretty much all games include at least some of the Bestiaries, and those have some options for players besides feats, stuff like different animal companions and of course things to wildshape into.

I wonder how many people won't allow a PC who reaches Dex 19 by wearing a magic item to take Greater Two Weapon Fighting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rikkan wrote:
That is why they errata'd Improved Natural Attack, because monk PCs could take it and after crunching the numbers they considered it to be too powerful for monks.

I really, really, really doubt that anyone at Paizo ever crunched numbers in regards to Monk balancing. They probably went the 12-year-old approach of yelling "OMG, monk can haz eh biggest damatch numbah than mah barbarian, NERF IT!!!!!". Becase it is not possibly to have ever played an (unarchetyped) monk in a game together with proper martials* and not realize that cMonk sucks so hard, you could give him Imp Natural Attack for free and he's still be grossly underpowered.

*) No, that does not include I-only-do-skill Rogues, S&B Fighters or, like the pregens, crossbow Rangers without Rapid Shot or TWF Fighters with weapons from different weapon groups.

Brother Fen wrote:
As a GM, there are enough feats for players already without digging into the Bestiary for more. El nope would be the answer.

There are 175 feats in the CRB - that's more than enough feats for players without digging into any additional books! Yeah, your argument can be used against every single (non-CRB-)book, and thus, unless you play CRB only, makes no sense.

Kileanna wrote:
I wouldn't allow anything that comes from "outside" the PC to qualify for feats, like having winged boots for flying feats.

Because heaven forbid martials being able to get something with an investment that casters get for free?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
That is why they errata'd Improved Natural Attack, because monk PCs could take it and after crunching the numbers they considered it to be too powerful for monks.
I really, really, really doubt that anyone at Paizo ever crunched numbers in regards to Monk balancing. They probably went the 12-year-old approach of yelling "OMG, monk can haz eh biggest damatch numbah than mah barbarian, NERF IT!!!!!". Becase it is not possibly to have ever played an (unarchetyped) monk in a game together with proper martials* and not realize that cMonk sucks so hard, you could give him Imp Natural Attack for free and he's still be grossly underpowered.
Well check this out:
James Jacobs Creative Director wrote:

Jason crunched his numbers and the official errata is this—the Improved Natural Attack feat can not be applied to unarmed strike. We'll be issuing an errata for that feat that adds this sentence to the feat:

"Improved Natural Attack can not be applied to unarmed strikes."

Unarmed strikes ARE still treated as natural weapons for most effects (particularly for the spell magic fang and for amulets of magic fang), but the Improved Natural Attack feat is an exception to that rule.

So! There ya go! Official errata! Sorry it took so long to nail it down.

Also, monks aren't supposed to be able to match a barbarian in a straight up fight.

Jason Bulmahn Lead Designer wrote:

Changing a monk's BAB is not in the cards, just like it is not for any other class. Changing BAB monkey's with a lot of statistics (especially for the monk with flurry). Truth be told, the monk is not a class that is designed specifically to stand up toe-to-toe with a fighter. They serve slightly different roles.

[other post by Jason Bulmahn]

They do not stand up as well in a straight up fight with fighters, barbarians, and paladins. But this limitation is more about their niche than their shortcomings.


Derklord wrote:


Kileanna wrote:
I wouldn't allow anything that comes from "outside" the PC to qualify for feats, like having winged boots for flying feats.
Because heaven forbid martials being able to get something with an investment that casters get for free?

I might be wrong on that. I thought you had to have a "natural" way of accesing those capacities but now that I've thought of it I can't see why someone who has been flying for a long time with some magic ítem couldn't learn how to make some maneuvers.

Yes, I said I wouldn't allow it. Now I'm saying I'd think it. Tomorrow I might say I would totally allow it. I'm from chaotic alignment and free as wind. Never trust my word ;-D
I'd probably make the player who wants the feat to roleplay how his character uses his flying or to train in his free time before he takes the feat (same if he's an spellcaster). I like things to make sense in the game and I expect at least a bit of flavor in my players' choices. You want to pick dragons as your favored enemy even though you have not seen a dragon in your whole life? OK, but you'd better have your character read a lot of books about it or ask the bard in your group to tell you some dragon stories or something. But I hate things that just come out from nowhere (unless we are talking about ninjas. I like ninjas)

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed a post. Even though it's a quote from a movie, intent matters, and conflating a developmental disorder with decisions/mechanics you do not like/agree with is not cool.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Qualifying for monster feats All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.