Post/Author/DateTime	Post
runestar 08-20-07, 10:14 PM	I saw some feats with the (monstrous) feat descriptor, but am unsure of just what exactly counts as a "monster". The feat I have in mind is a 2-feat tree in serpent kingdoms which ultimately grants its recipient immunity to all poisons. It has no prereqs, save for the (monstrous) descriptor beside it. Meaning that in theory, a human, dwarf or any other sundry race could take the feat. So what exactly do you need to have to qualify as a monster?:confused:
Kouk 08-21-07, 03:57 AM	Serpent Kingdoms refers you to Savage Species for the definition of "Monstrous Feats", and that book states that Only creatures with a monstrous form or one or more monstrous abilities may select these feats. Monstrous forms and abilities are those that are unavailable to normal humanoid or animal creatures, including but not limited to extra appendages, nonstandard appendages (such as tentacles or a tail), supernatural abilities and spell-like abilities. With your DM's permission, you may be able to choose monstrous feats for your character if your character acquired unusual abilities through transformation or by advancing in a prestige class. They really should have just reprinted that one paragraph...
rampant 08-21-07, 04:01 AM	Mostly it means its a feat designed to be used by special monster NPCs and the DM should think long and hard about letting the PCs use them. Especially if one of those players is me.
Banatine 08-21-07, 04:40 AM	Basically, it means you have to use common sense. Humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, and stuff like that aren't monsters. orcs and drowwill probably count as monsters, but are kind of on the middle line. minotaurs, trolls, ogres, dragons, aboleths, beholders, and pretty much the whole monster manual series (I-V) do count as monsters. simple as that. It's when you start to nit-pick and (quite obviously) pervert the original intent of that paragraph that you start thinking that elves can qualify because they have pointy ears.
runestar 08-21-07, 06:06 AM	Meaning that it ultimately depends on DM fiat. Fair enough. An odd reply for a game who rules are meant to be more or less adhered to, rather than meant as a general set of guidelines, but I can live with that.:) Basically, it means you have to use common sense. Humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, and stuff like that aren't monsters. orcs and drowwill probably count as monsters, but are kind of on the middle line. minotaurs, trolls, ogres, dragons, aboleths, beholders, and pretty much the whole monster manual series (I-V) do count as monsters. simple as that. That may be true, but I can think of some examples which may arguably toe the line. What about elans, who are aberrations, or even a human who has take feats which grant him claws or even tentacles? Likewise, I am not sure why a minotaur could become immune to poison but not a goliath. What makes one more "monstrous" than the other? I am simply trying to establish if there is any 1 unifying mechanic which determines what a monster is. I mean - dwarves and gnomes are detailed in the MM. Seems like whatever qualifying criteria is cited, there will always be some examples which buck the trend. This reminds me of an old saying - "It is like porn. You can't define it, but you will know it when you see it".:P Still, thanks all for your replies.:)
Broken vacuum 08-21-07, 09:40 AM	As far as I know, most monstrous feats all have additional prerequisites that specify the monstrous qualities needed to take the feat. I was, for example, under the impression that Poison Resistance requires you to have a poison special attack as an extraordinary ability. I do not currently have access to Serpent Kingdoms so I may be entirely wrong here, but are you sure that no prerequisites are given?
Broken vacuum 08-21-07, 09:42 AM	Double Post
runestar 08-21-07, 10:12 AM	As far as I know, most monstrous feats all have additional prerequisites that specify the monstrous qualities needed to take the feat. I was, for example, under the impression that Poison Resistance requires you to have a poison special attack as an extraordinary ability. I do not currently have access to Serpent Kingdoms so I may be entirely wrong here, but are you sure that no prerequisites are given? :embarrass You are absolutely correct - the feat does require me to possess a poison attack as an extraordinary ability...:embarrass This is what I get for not double-checking the feat before posting. However, if a hypothetical human could somehow access this, could he then take said feat? Is he then considered monstrous enough?
Broken vacuum 08-21-07, 10:35 AM	However, if a hypothetical human could somehow access this, could he then take said feat? Is he then considered monstrous enough? Yes, he could take the feat. The 'monstrous' label is more or less only there to signal that the feat has unusual requirements. Most books containing monstrous feats should have a paragraph in the feat section giving at least a loose definition of them. The text quoted earlier in this thread may seem a bit unclear, perhaps, but at least the definition given in Libris Mortis makes abundantly clear that characters that meet the necessary prerequisites can take the feats.
runestar 08-21-07, 10:41 AM	The 'monstrous' label is more or less only there to signal that the feat has unusual requirements. And we can't tell that by reading the feat itself?:confused: But then, I shouldn't be the one to say that...:P For example, I think complete champion allows a barb to access improved grab (someone correct me if I am mistaken). This would allow him to take a monstrous feat with improved grab as a prereq. Just seems a little off, now that I really think about it...
tarkin 08-21-07, 10:55 AM	The (monstrous) serves pretty much the same purpose as (fighter) Generally the (fighter) feats are supposed to say: Special: this feat may be taken as a fighter feat. Similarly, (Metamagic) and (Item Creation) are there as a kind of flag, telling you a bit more about the feat without forcing you to read the entire feat.
Broken vacuum 08-21-07, 10:59 AM	And we can't tell that by reading the feat itself?:confused: But then, I shouldn't be the one to say that...:P Well, feats are separated into different classes and I do not really see why this case is any stranger than most other classes. Labelling the feats 'general' might be a little misleading on the other hand. For example, I think complete champion allows a barb to access improved grab (someone correct me if I am mistaken). This would allow him to take a monstrous feat with improved grab as a prereq. Just seems a little off, now that I really think about it... And why do you think the problem is with the monstrous feats? If it is all-right for a barbarian to get Improved Grab, why is it not all-right to be able to build on that ability?
runestar 08-21-07, 09:07 PM	And why do you think the problem is with the monstrous feats? If it is all-right for a barbarian to get Improved Grab, why is it not all-right to be able to build on that ability? I dunno - it just seems to defeat the purpose of making it a monstrous feat, if a human barb can likewise take it without having to really go out of his way to meet the supposedly "monstrous" requirements. Or maybe I am just reading too much into it.:P
Broken vacuum 08-22-07, 02:32 AM	I dunno - it just seems to defeat the purpose of making it a monstrous feat, if a human barb can likewise take it without having to really go out of his way to meet the supposedly "monstrous" requirements. Or maybe I am just reading too much into it.:P That might be the problem. Consider 'fighter' feats; do you find it equally strange that non-fighters can take them? If so, you are reading too much into the labels and if not you are inconsequent. But I still see it as somewhat strange that you have no problem accepting that a barbarian can get access to Improved Grab - an ability presented in the MM that only a select few monsters have - but find feats that actually build on that specific ability right out.
rampant 08-22-07, 02:38 AM	You wanna know what's really messed up? A Hydra barbarian with mouth pick weapons. Makes a Barb with improved grab seem a little lame. The monsrous feats were frankly not designed for PCs, if the DM allows it though its their decision. (the Dm's to allow it, the player's to take it) The DM needs to be prepared for the repercussions after that there's not much left to be said.
Broken vacuum 08-22-07, 03:12 AM	The monsrous feats were frankly not designed for PCs, if the DM allows it though its their decision. (the Dm's to allow it, the player's to take it) The DM needs to be prepared for the repercussions after that there's not much left to be said. I disagree. I do not own all books published by WotC with montrous feats in them, so conceivably what you say might be true for one of those books, but for others it is very clear that the feats are designed with PCs in mind. Again, Libris Mortis is very clear on that PCs are free to take monstrous feats as long as they meet the prerequisites. Taking a step back I also really do not see from where come your misgivings. I cannot think of a monstrous feat that I find overpowered for a PC with the proper prerequisites. Certainly, there may be monstrous abilities that are unsuitable for a specific campaign, but the thing is that monstrous feats generally only build on those abilities, they do not grant them in the first place. The problem is then not the monstrous feats but allowing the monstrous ability in the first place.
rampant 08-22-07, 03:24 AM	Let me try that again, It's not that the feats are overpowered (well most of them aren't I gotta say the fly-by-attack chain from SS gets pretty wacko) its that they tend to have much bigger impacts on the game. Even just building off existing abilities they tend to be a bit above and beyond what feats for "non-monstrous" characters do. I will grant you that you make an excellent point about how its not the feats that are the issue its the fact that a player qualifies in the first place. You're right of course players are going to want to take feats that work with their abilities so getting acces to unusual abilities requires unusual feats.
Broken vacuum 08-23-07, 03:41 AM	Let me try that again, It's not that the feats are overpowered (well most of them aren't I gotta say the fly-by-attack chain from SS gets pretty wacko) its that they tend to have much bigger impacts on the game. Even just building off existing abilities they tend to be a bit above and beyond what feats for "non-monstrous" characters do. I do not doubt that there are some really powerful monstrous feats, but the same goes for general feats. In general I do not find the ones I have seen that special - taking into account that the monstrous abilities the feats require usually makes for rather expensive prerequisites. Do you have any specific feats in mind? On another note I thought that Improved Flyby Attack and Greater Flyby Attack (which I gather were the feats you referred to) were general feats. Be that as it may, though, Improved Flyby Attack is about equal to Spring Attack and though Greater Flyby Attack is a bit more special (essentially line-shaped attack), you have to remember that SS is 3.0 and as such the feat was building on a Flyby Attack that expressly disallowed magical flight as a prerequisite (magically shapechanging into something that had natural flight was all-right, though). It is not that you could not break it, but that was more the result of a few whacky spells than anything else.