PC Races and Monster Feats

[Andre Roy]

I've looked around as well as at the FAQ and the PFS Additional Ressources and Campaign Clarification but couldn't seem to find an answer.

Q. Can a PC race who qualify for a monter feat, take said monster feat?

For example, let's say I have a Tengu or Kitsune character, that both start with a natural weapon (beak or bite respectively), and down the road they qualify for the following feat. Can they take it as one of their feat or not?

As a side question, would this be part of the natural feat progression or could a fighter take it as their bonus combat feat?

PRD wrote:

Improved Natural Attack

Attacks made by one of this creature's natural attacks leave vicious wounds.

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, it applies to a different natural attack.

[dragonhunterq]

The only thing preventing a PC from taking feats that they qualify for, no matter the source, is the GM. There is no rule preventing it.

PFS does not allow it, except for animal companions.

additional resources - bestiary wrote:

Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source

INA is not a (combat) feat, so cannot be selected as a Fighter bonus feat.

[Andre Roy]

I figured it would be something along those line and at the end being that the GM's word is final. However, it's just easier to make a case in favor of something, if nothing prevents it (explicitly or implicitely) rulewise.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Yeah, no monster feats unless specifically allowed by another legal source. And there are archetypes and such, that do grant access to some of the monster feats. The Eagle Shaman, Druid archetype, can take Flyby Attack because the class specifically mentions it.

For improved Natural Attack, you'd need a class (or other source) that specifically granted access to that feat, not just that type of feat. The Ranger "Natural Weapon Combat Style" does grant access to Improved Natural Attack, specifically.

[Java Man]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Yeah, no monster feats unless specifically allowed by another legal source. And there are archetypes and such, that do grant access to some of the monster feats. The Eagle Shaman, Druid archetype, can take Flyby Attack because the class specifically mentions it.

For improved Natural Attack, you'd need a class (or other source) that specifically granted access to that feat, not just that type of feat. The Ranger "Natural Weapon Combat Style" does grant access to Improved Natural Attack, specifically.

If you are quoting PFS rules, this is the general rules forum, so the RAW on this is they are allowed until Houseruled otherwise. PFS happens to have that houserule, but for nonPFS players who read this forum that is no more relevant than my table's homebrew archetype stacking rules.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Java Man wrote:

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Yeah, no monster feats unless specifically allowed by another legal source. And there are archetypes and such, that do grant access to some of the monster feats. The Eagle Shaman, Druid archetype, can take Flyby Attack because the class specifically mentions it.

For improved Natural Attack, you'd need a class (or other source) that specifically granted access to that feat, not just that type of feat. The Ranger "Natural Weapon Combat Style" does grant access to Improved Natural Attack, specifically.

If you are quoting PFS rules, this is the general rules forum, so the RAW on this is they are allowed until Houseruled otherwise. PFS happens to have that houserule, but for nonPFS players who read this forum that is no more relevant than my table's homebrew archetype stacking rules.

I was under the impression the OP was asking in regards to PFS.

[Java Man]

Ah, and I was under the impression this was in the proper forum, I suppose by now the OP has whatever they came for.

[Andre Roy]

It's not for PFS games, however it remains that it can still be a source for guidance/clarification as they have to deal with a lot of situation and corner cases more regularly.

I'm aware that some class or archetype will give access to it, like the natural weapon fighting style of the Rangers, but I was looking more broadly for a regular home game with races like kitsune or tengu, which came in later, what was the game's general stands in regards to PC and Monster feats.

[Java Man]

Allowed barring GM houserule.

[Pizza Lord]

About the best you're going to get is:

Monster Feats wrote:

Monster Feats

Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).

How that's read could be up for debate. To me, the first part is pretty clear; specifically monsters.

The second line could be read as 'PCs may be able to take these... if they happen to be monsters (or have the monstrous quality the feat applies to.)
Others might just read that it's more open and 'easy-going'.

For instance, Improved Natural Armor lists a requirement of Natural Armor and Con 13 and increases a creature's natural armor bonus by +1. Now, the way it's written, where the feat comes from, and what it does makes it pretty clear it's for creatures that have a natural armor bonus. However, technically a creature without a natural armor bonus is usually regarded as having a Natural Armor bonus of 0 (typically because of wording in the barkskin spell.) This means that technically any creature (with Con 13) can just take this feat as much as it wants to, because rules-wise it can be argued that it has the Natural Armor quality (just equal to 0.) The way the feat is written however, clearly indicates this was not the case (Otherwise way make 'Natural Armor' a requirement at all rather than 'Natural armor bonus of +1 or greater'?)

So it's most likely the intention that Monster feats are NOT for player characters however, since no one can determine every type of campaign or what a group of players might be allowed to play, they likely didn't go into exacting minutiae.

So the answer is, unfortunately... it's up your GM. Though in your specific case, regarding a Tengu or a Kitsune and Improved Natural Attack, the answer is likely that those are considered suitably 'monstrous' in so much as they have a type of attack that applies to what the feat is intended for.

[Andre Roy]

Thank you both.

Yeah I would never try to pull that "We all have a Natural Armour 0" kind of shenanigan as it would kill the fun for everyone really fast.

I'm looking as more "clear cut" case like my example where it would be easier to present my case to the GM so to speak.

Even druid, would be possible, but iffy, as they would not always qualify (as most would only qualify while wildshaping).