What I'm considering is saying that...
Any creature with natural weapons counts as having Improved Unarmed Strike, strictly for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites.
This is intended to benefit monsters. But it would certainly also apply to the tiger my hunter has as an animal companion, and would apply to the druid when wild-shaped. (I doubt that he'd find it worth taking feats with IUS as a prereq, since they'd only work while wild-shaped, but I could be wrong.) Of course, I might end up with a PC who has natural weapons all of the time.
Still, it's just for prereqs.
It doesn't sound all that game-shattering to me, but... I could be deaf. Does anyone hear splintering noises?
Well, it would open lots of potential feat chains to Natural Weapon users (of which there are numerous PC permutations) by eliminating the potential feat-tax thereof.
I would suggest looking at the various Style Feats and deciding whether or not a significant number of them would be unbalanced in the hands of a natural weapon user (as opposed to a Brawler/Monk) 2 levels earlier than they can otherwise get them. Also whether or not there is something game-breakingly effective they could be taking in that slot instead of the feat-tax that is Improved Unarmed Strike.
This is mostly for style feats, right? I don't know, on druid is kinda borked, but I think RAW you cannot take feats you only use in wild shape. And druid is still mostly short on feats. But I treat Improved Unarmed Strike as Martial Weapon Prof(unarmed strike), so don't want to rock your boat.
Well, it would open lots of potential feat chains to Natural Weapon users (of which there are numerous PC permutations) by eliminating the potential feat-tax thereof.
I would suggest looking at the various Style Feats and deciding whether or not a significant number of them would be unbalanced in the hands of a natural weapon user (as opposed to a Brawler/Monk) 2 levels earlier than they can otherwise get them. Also whether or not there is something game-breakingly effective they could be taking in that slot instead of the feat-tax that is Improved Unarmed Strike.
My prob, I guess, is that I don't read over the feats making potential builds. So I don't know which styles would be the worst offenders. Is there one or more you can recommend I look at?
My PCs may only use some of the books in the PRD: Core, the Advanced books, and the Ultimate books. (Obviously, monsters also have access to bestiary feats, but honestly, nothing there looks especially useful.) So that helps limit the style feat-chains I'm unlocking.
I dropped the following paragraph from my comment to Cantriped, since it's actually addressed to everyone.
Alternatively, is there a reasonable way to word this so it applies to most monsters, plus tiger companions, and maybe wild-shaped druids, but not full-time PCs? What if I specify "Creatures with natural weapons except those with the humanoid type?" (Meaning that a frost giant would still have to pay the feat-tax, which actually I'm okay with.)
My Self, I hear you on race bias.
necromental, can you tell me more about your variant?
I'm not familiar with the various Style Feats, mostly because I've never played or seen played a character that used them. Which is why I stuck to general advice.
Still, the CRB + Ultimate and Advanced books make up a significant enough portion of the PRD to make a vast number of styles available to your players.
Isofar as overall value, I consider granting a feat only for the purposes of prerequisites to be about on-par with the value of a Trait. In fact for my house rules I wrote Traits that let you select certain common "Tax-Feats" to gain only for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites of other feats (such as Combat Expertise, Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack, Mounted Combat, and Spell Focus). But, to be fair, I've yet to playtest such house rules.
necromental, can you tell me more about your variant?
Basically, anyone who is proficient with all martial weapons is also proficient in unarmed strikes, in effect having IUS.
necromental, can you tell me more about your variant?Basically, anyone who is proficient with all martial weapons is also proficient in unarmed strikes, in effect having IUS.
And thus this is of no benefit to my poor bereft monsters! :)
Thanks for answering.
Feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite usually require a certain understanding for fighting techniques and a degree of finesse that most monsters don't have. A creature that is smart enough to cultivate a fighting style could probably take class levels in monk.
That being said, as the GM, nothing stops you from granting a creature a few unusual abilities that are based on certain feats.
This got started because I've been using a lot of monsters lately with the Grab ability, and it's been pointed out over here that that really takes a number of feats to make effective.
If I'm diving off of the springboard into the homebrew swimming pool, I could just wave my magic wand and give most monsters with Grab the ability to not be grappled when they go ahead and Grab. I think that actually solves all of my problems more neatly. {Edit: If I go this route, I'd probably want to make it a monster feat.}
Giving everyone ius for free is fine, it wont break the game and opens up cool stuff.
Its the same with weapon finesse, i just give it to everyone for free. Lots of characters don't care, the ones who do are happy
Do you give characters the feats for free, or essentially eliminate prereqs for those feats?
{What I meant was: "or essentially eliminate the need to take those feats to meet prerequisites."}
This got started because I've been using a lot of monsters lately with the Grab ability, and it's been pointed out over here that that really takes a number of feats to make effective.
If I'm diving off of the springboard into the homebrew swimming pool, I could just wave my magic wand and give most monsters with Grab the ability to not be grappled when they go ahead and Grab. I think that actually solves all of my problems more neatly. {Edit: If I go this route, I'd probably want to make it a monster feat.}
I disagree. Grappling monsters are fairly effective. The -20 penalty is not as bad as it sounds--just think of it as a rider effect (not unlike a critical feat). Blood drain, constrict, rake, swallow whole (+fast swallow) make grappling monsters even nastier. Also keep in mind that a monster could move a grappled PC, say, into that 50-ft. deep pit next to it, right into the voracious maws of its hungry spawn.
I'm sorry I've been away, but one of my dogs tore her ACL over the weekend, which has been quite an effective distraction! (She comes home from surgery tonight.)
I think coming up with a feat that reduces the extraordinary -20 penalty for making a Grab with a specific body part is going to be the way to go. Obviously, it's going to be purely a monster feat -- or is there a way to gain a "Grab" ability as a PC? (Outside of something like wildshaping.)
~~~~~
This creature can grapple its foes with ease.
Prerequisites: Str 15, Grab ability.
Benefit: If a creature with this feat uses the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent, it takes only a –10 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple. If the check is successful, it does not gain the grappled condition itself.
Normal: Creatures using the part of their body used in the grab to hold an opponent take a –20 penalty on their CMB checks to make and maintain a grapple.
*** Is lowering a penalty from -20 to -10 reasonable for one feat? ***
Maybe (as a house rule) the penalty is reduced by -4 for every Size category the grabbing creature is larger than the opponent? It would make sense that a grabbing creature could grapple a much smaller creature with one appendage easily, whereas the same thing should be nearly impossible with a creature of equal Size.
Also, hope your dog is well!
The thing about that grab ability is it lets you do other stuff like full attack while maintaining a grapple. Normally you dont take that penalty when grappling
Well, that's the thing. From what I've been hearing, that's ONLY true if I take that brutal -20 penalty -- and make it! My goal is to make grab without constrict, swallow whole, etc. a viable option.
OK, it's easy to houserule that...
If a creature with multiple grabs starts a full attack while not grappled, it can finish all of its attacks that turn, simply taking the -2 grappling attack penalty on every attack after it first connects with a grab.
BUT unless it could dare to try for, and make, its CMB grab checks with that -20 penalty, it clearly then ends the turn grappled -- with no AoO's (for limbs not grappling) and with the -4 Dex penalty on its AC & CMD.
Worse, assuming my poor beastie survives, maintaining a grapple on the next round is a standard action. "No full attack possible," is what I'm hearing, even for creatures with the grab ability. And sure, it could let its victims go and start over again with a full attack, but then why did it grab in the first place? (Remember, we're assuming no fun stuff like constrict or swallow whole.)
This isn't what I had imagined, for a creature with several claw or tentacle attacks, each with grab! Plainly put, there's GMs who don't use grab unless they've layered on grapple feats, because they believe they're giving up AoO's and then a full attack on the next turn.
So I looked at the feats they like, and discovered that Improved Grapple requires Improved Unarmed Strike, which does nothing for a monster. And so now we come full circle to my OP.
To condense my pacing within my cage down to one post, the houserule above is easy. But I'd like either my Improved Grab feat, or the following houserule, in addition:
Creatures with natural weapons, except for those with the humanoid type, count as having Improved Unarmed Strike, strictly for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites.
I just don't know what impact either approach will likely have, so I appreciate your help.
Maybe (as a house rule) the penalty is reduced by -4 for every Size category the grabbing creature is larger than the opponent? It would make sense that a grabbing creature could grapple a much smaller creature with one appendage easily, whereas the same thing should be nearly impossible with a creature of equal Size.
Also, hope your dog is well!
To answer the last first, she's awfully bewildered by her pain and inability to use her leg. And her "Cone of Shame," maybe more so! But she's home, and she'll recover. She's cuddled up on my computer desk right now, so she's getting comfort, at least. (At 14 pounds, and in a cone, she's a bit of an obstacle to typing, but she fits.) Thank you for the well wishes for her.
~~~~~~
As for your suggestion, please think about it with the following critters in mind:
Cecaelia -- CR 5, medium, Str 16, "Melee mwk spear +11/+6 (1d8+4/×3), 2 tentacles +5 (1d4+1 plus grab)." - and -
Giant Octopus -- CR 8, large, Str 20, "Melee bite +13 (1d8+5 plus poison), 8 tentacles +11 (1d4+2 plus grab)."
How am I supposed to use such creatures? What if I advance them?
~~~~~~
Tetori Monks can Grab, as the special ability.
Thanks for the heads-up about Tetori monks. I asked about potential impact, and this is certainly one. However, I don't think I have to worry about adding a reduced -10 penalty -- in exchange for a feat burn -- to achieve benefits that they mostly already get alongside the grab ability as part of "Graceful Grappler." (And in exchange for flurry of blows.) I hope I'm not missing something here!
Both the cecaelia and the giant octopus are aquatic creatures, meaning that you can use them to draw a grappled PC under water. Which is really nasty, especially if you consider the PC's APL when they are most likely to face these creatures.
Also, I think you underestimate the grappled condition. Even if the grappling monster releases the grappled creature at the start of its next turn, the target is still grappled during its own turn. I can think of at least three character types who would be severely impeded from being grappled (archers, two-handed weapon wielders, and spellcasters).
Actually how to use the octopus has been discussed before on the forum with no answer.
Right now you can go full wombo combo. Full attack, Each hit try to grab > If you grab, constrict and let go. That's up to 8 constricts per turn.
Amanuensis is correct imo. Grapple is very strong until you get permanent freedom of movement. Against a non martial character, an octopus is at +4 to maintain with the -20 penalty (+19 base +5 from grapple -20 from rules) which is pretty reasonable to succeed.
Does the octo need to take the -20 penalty on the initial grab? I thought it did.
Both the cecaelia and the giant octopus are aquatic creatures, meaning that you can use them to draw a grappled PC under water. Which is really nasty, especially if you consider the PC's APL when they are most likely to face these creatures.
Also, I think you underestimate the grappled condition. Even if the grappling monster releases the grappled creature at the start of its next turn, the target is still grappled during its own turn. I can think of at least three character types who would be severely impeded from being grappled (archers, two-handed weapon wielders, and spellcasters).
I had thought that Cecaelia would be reasonable to advance with class levels, which is where the feats come in. (And my desire to eliminate a feat-tax.)
As for impeding archers, two-handers, & spellcasters -- that's great if you're supplying the party with a target-rich environment! Otherwise, the octopus is grappling one of the above PCs, while the others are whaling away on it (so to speak) -- and it's got -2 AC and no AoO's.
Then supply the party with a target-rich environment! I don't see why the raiding party of an aquatic race wouldn't have a druid that could charm a giant octopus.
But even as a solitary creature encounter, that giant octopus is terribly dangerous. I assume that it attacks from the sea (no problem with its 20 ft. reach), making it difficult to reach from a ship, and granting it cover (maybe even improved cover).
Attacks from Land: Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) from opponents on land.
Combat Reflexes allows it to disrupt a melee charge with an attack of opportunity, grapple the opponent via grab, and place the grappled creature adjacent to it in the water (as per the grapple rules). Then, on its turn, it can continue to drag opponents who cause trouble into the water (forcing the targets to make Swim checks) or pull one of its targets under water (likely a death sentence for most characters). I'm not sure why you would want to make this creature even more deadly than it already is.
Amanuensis, I bow to your analysis. I just think of an 8-armed creature as attacking a whole party, not one foe, so I'm goggling at the rules.
CWheezy, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant, if it wants to end its turn not grappled, it needs to make its grabs with that penalty, right?