I see a lot of Eidelon builds that have the eidelon taking the improved damage evolutions and also choosing the improved natural damage feat (which is a monster feat). It is my understanding that Eidelons can take character feats but not monster feats. Am I wrong?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone can take "monster" feats. They're just in the Bestiary since that's where they're most often used.
Players can take Craft Construct, and that's in the bestiary's monster feat area. (Would be mostly useless in the CRB)
Unless you have a restrictive GM. Mine, for example, won't let PCs take feats from the bestiary.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The restriction on Bestiary feats is not made up. They in the monster book beacuse they are for /monsters/.
If your DM wishes to allow you access to them he should feel free- but you should ask first incase he doesn't.
-S
The Eidolon is technically a monster, so it makes no sense IMO to disallow the feats.
The restriction is made up. The feats are allowed unless the GM says otherwise. If the feats were disallowed by default the GM would have to give special permission to use them. The only reason they are in the monster book is because most PC's can't qualify for them, but many monsters can.
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).
Even though they apply to monsters, normally due to SLA's and natural attacks, which is not a staple of PC classes, but is for monsters, PC's can still qualify for them.
By the rules of the game you only need to be able to meet the prereqs to select it. There is no verbage saying they(monster feats) are not allowed.
Thanks all---will just ask my GM and go by what he says. He didn't know either so the two of us will probably just get together.
There was some line about not allowing players to take feats in the old 3.5 Monster Manual.
Nope. All the 3.5 Monster Manual had to say on the subject was "This chapter provides descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are typically used only by monsters."
Of course, many ignored the "typically", and assumed PC's couldn't take those feats even if they happened to meet the prerequisites.
While the 3.5 FAQ didn't answer that specific question, it did answer a number of questions related to the MM feats, without ever suggesting that regular characters couldn't take them. For instance, it answered "yes" to questions of "can a warlock take Empowered Spell-Like Ability and Ability Focus to enhance his eldritch blast?", and "can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to improve his unarmed damage?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH, I'm now tempted to push for getting feedback on if Witches can take Ability Focus (Hex) or Ability Focus (Slumber).
o.O Is there dev feedback saying such or is that community consensus?
Yeah, my GM is one of those "doesn't say special attacks so it's not" types. Boo...
In the monster stat block there is a section denoted "special attacks." It could only potentially apply to something in that block.
Actually by RAW there is no specific rule allowing a player to take any feat they qualify for, so technically while you can meet the prerequisites for monster feats the GM isnt required to let you take them.
That your GM should definitively say if you can or cant take monster feats as part of the rules of the campaign is a good idea. Most GM's say no in general with the option of allowing specific ones at a later stage, but I would never assume that beastiary feats are open as part of planning my character.
I will put it another way. The games basic rules are assumed to be in play unless a GM says otherwise. Since there is no bar on monster feats they are allowed by default. You should assume they are in play since is the default. If the GM wished to institute house rules he should tell you up front.
o.O Is there dev feedback saying such or is that community consensus?
We don't need a dev. It is in the book.
Special Abilities
The following special abilities include rules commonly used by a number of creatures, spells, and traps.
Extraordinary Abilities (Ex): Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical. They are, however, not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. Effects or areas that suppress or negate magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled but they cannot be counterspelled or used to counterspell.
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities.
I have a gift for everybody:
From... guess where? Here:
"Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct)."
In other words: if you want them, just meet the prerequisites and go in peace.
Now, with this clarified, on the matter of Improved Damage evolution and Improved Natural Damage feat: I don't know what has been ultimately established as legal, but the general rule is that two equal effects do not stack, unless there is specific mention that they do, so...
Hmm, in the NPC stat blocks for witches, it lists Hexes under special attacks.
Ooooh. I may appeal this then.
It does not, unfortunately. Neither does the NPC Guide. The Irrisen write up is even a sorcerer, haha.
I have a gift for everybody:
From... guess where? Here:
"Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct)."
In other words: if you want them, just meet the prerequisites and go in peace.
Now, with this clarified, on the matter of Improved Damage evolution and Improved Natural Damage feat: I don't know what has been ultimately established as legal, but the general rule is that two equal effects do not stack, unless there is specific mention that they do, so...
The restriction against taking feats from the Bestiary isn't completely "made up". It is an actual rule from PFS organized play. Unfortunately I think some DMs get confused (perhaps willfully) into thinking that it is a general rule.
For what it's worth, The Core rulebook specifies several Bestiary feats as being explicitly available to animal companions. In PFS these feats would not be allowed. In normal play the presumably would be. Else why would they bother listing them as allowed in the Core rulebook? I think some of these feats are also listed as bonus feats for Rangers in the APG...
Actually, upon inspection, the Ranger in APG erroneously lists Improved Natural Attack as Improved Natural Weapon. I'm pretty much certain this is just a typographical error since the link on the PRD goes to Improved Natural Attack and there's a footnote that the feat comes from the Bestiary. Anyhow, Multiattack is listed correctly and also noted as being a Bestiary feat.
Natural Weapon: If the ranger selects natural weapon style, he can choose from the following list whenever he gains a combat style feat: Aspect of the Beast*, Improved Natural Weapon**, Rending Claws*, and Weapon Focus. At 6th level, he adds Eldritch Fangs* and Vital Strike to the list. At 10th level, he adds Multiattack** and Improved Vital Strike to the list.
* These feats are found in the feat section of this book.
** These feats are found in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary.
It could be argued that the animal companion and the Natural Weapon style Ranger are special exceptions somehow, but there's no indication of that in the rules.
Can Eidolons take monster feats in PFS?
I don't think Summoners are even allowed in PFS.
From Devilkiller's statement above, even Animal Companions can't take them in PFS. So Eidolons wouldn't be able to take them either (if Summoners were allowed).
I haven't played PFS lately or much, but upon looking at the actual PFS rules it doesn't look like Eidolons are specifically barred from taking Bestiary feats although PCs, animal companions, and familiars are.
Actually, I'm not 100% sure whether animal companions should be barred from taking the Bestiary feats "specifically granted" by the Core rulebook since that should qualify as "another legal source". I'd been told that the feats were not allowed, but maybe the DM was in error. Anyhow, these rules are PFS specific, and the fact that Craft Construct is in the Bestiary but can be taken by PCs seems like good evidence that other feats in the Bestiary can be taken by PCs (outside of PFS)
http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/about/additionalResources
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary
Animal Companions: ankylosaurus, aurochs, brachiosaurus, dire bat, dire rat, dolphin, elasmosaurus, electric eel, elephant/mastodon, frog, goblin dog, hyena, monitor lizard, moray eel, octopus, orca, pteranodon, rhinoceros, roc, squid, stegosaurus, triceratops, and tyrannosaurus; Familiars: all familiars listed on pages 131–133; Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source. Other: all creatures in this book are legal for polymorph effects (including a druid’s wild shape ability) within the boundaries of each spell or ability’s parameters.
Most of us know about the PFS ruling, but the myth of monster feats not being available goes back to 3.5. The fact that they were in the monster book has a lot to do with it. People just assumed they were off-limits.
I don't think AC's should have that restriction in PFS, but I am not sure. If I was in PFS I would ask in the PFS board to see answers I could get.
Paizo stat blocks shift around quite a bit from one to another, so relying on them to determine what is or is not a Special Attack doesn't generally work too well.
As far as I'm concerned, it it's an attack (as in it would end invisibility) then it can potentially benefit from Ability Focus.