Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kaladur 01-25-06, 04:47 PM	Hi, I have a player that is a Dragon disciple soon the player will be a full half-dragon. The player informed me last week that she will be able to take monster feats out of the monsters manual when she becomes a half dragon at 10thlvl dragon disciple. Is this correct? How would most of you run this situation? Thank you for reading.
Lord Ian Stark 01-25-06, 04:53 PM	I allow monstrous feats for characters who are considered a monstrous race (or half) as long as they meet the other prerequisites.
Warslayngawds 01-25-06, 05:06 PM	Honestly, the biggest reason that those feats are listed in the monster manual is that most "normal" characters won't qualify for them. If the pc's do, then there isn't any reason I could see for not allowing it. In one of the articles written I think they even said as such. Plus they have to take those feats at the cost of something from the PHB so it shouldn't be unbalancing.
twelvedrunkenmonkeyz 01-25-06, 06:06 PM	Well by that same note, would you let a Human Monk take Improved Natural attack??? I mean I would if he could justify it, or maybe put a special prereq on it for Monks. I mean I would allow a PC who qualified for such feats to take them, but then again I use training rules in my game.
Cuaglar 01-25-06, 06:33 PM	I don't think there's a problem with using monstrous feats. My own half-dragon character took Awaken Fearful Aura from the Draconomicon, even though there was an equivalent one for players.
DM Denubis 01-25-06, 07:19 PM	Well by that same note, would you let a Human Monk take Improved Natural attack??? I mean I would if he could justify it, or maybe put a special prereq on it for Monks. I mean I would allow a PC who qualified for such feats to take them, but then again I use training rules in my game. No, because he has no natural attacks. Unarmed strike, contrary to popular belief, is NOT a natural weapon. Natural weapons threaten an area and do not provoke attacks of oppurtunity. You cannot make iterative attacks with them. Unarmed strike does not have these properties. (See, we min/maxers can disable players as much as DMs. ^^)
Ilmryn 01-25-06, 07:28 PM	well then....................technically you can take improve natural attack because a fist is natural we all come with one. it's sortaa common sense. if my hand isn't natural I don't know about the rest of my body then.
Deacon Liadon 01-25-06, 07:40 PM	Since when has common sense applied to D&D?
DM Denubis 01-25-06, 07:42 PM	well then....................technically you can take improve natural attack because a fist is natural we all come with one. it's sortaa common sense. if my hand isn't natural I don't know about the rest of my body then. Actually, as I just pointed out, technically, you CAN'T take it. ^^
cynical 01-25-06, 08:23 PM	Yet an amulet of natural attacks works. Call it a slam/ unarmed strike/ natural attack its all the same thing.
celtredleg 01-25-06, 08:31 PM	Monster feats belong to monsters. If your PC is a monster, then the feats should apply. As for the monk, does that monk want to give up iterative attacks to go with the improved punch?? Does not seem like a plan to me.
DM Denubis 01-25-06, 08:42 PM	Yet an amulet of natural attacks works. Call it a slam/ unarmed strike/ natural attack its all the same thing. This is my last post on this subject, because I refuse to hijack the thread more than it already has been. A slam and an unarmed strike are completely different. Human beings do not have slam attacks. A slam threatens an area. It cannot be used for iterative attacks. It does not provoke an attack of oppurtunity. An unarmed strike does not threaten an area. It can be used for iterative attacks. It provokes an attack of oppurtunity. As for your example of an amulet of mighty fists... Amulet of Mighty Fists: This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons. They are noted seperately because they are completely different things. An unarmed strike is NOT a natural weapon.