Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6557420" data-attributes="member: 7635">The problem would be that each monster would be its own &quot;class&quot;. There is no set pattern, rhyme or reason. (Take the two examples: both deep gnomes and aarakroca have 3 HD, but one has three skills at normal proficiency, and one has one skill at super-proficiency.) You can assume each monster has a unique &quot;monster class&quot; but I fail to see much value in it. NPCs usually don't get feats, so if they do have some sort of feat, that is extrapolation beyond the core rules. Now, if you make a feat for a race to grant it abilities the monster version has, that should work (provided you don't mind the race lacking said ability for at the minimum 4 levels) but assuming that a monster aarakroca has some hidden &quot;monster feat&quot; that grants it dive attacks isn't supported at all in the core rules literature. (Though it would make a very fine houserule for PC aarakroca to take).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 6557420, member: 7635"] The problem would be that each monster would be its own "class". There is no set pattern, rhyme or reason. (Take the two examples: both deep gnomes and aarakroca have 3 HD, but one has three skills at normal proficiency, and one has one skill at super-proficiency.) You can assume each monster has a unique "monster class" but I fail to see much value in it. NPCs usually don't get feats, so if they do have some sort of feat, that is extrapolation beyond the core rules. Now, if you make a feat for a race to grant it abilities the monster version has, that should work (provided you don't mind the race lacking said ability for at the minimum 4 levels) but assuming that a monster aarakroca has some hidden "monster feat" that grants it dive attacks isn't supported at all in the core rules literature. (Though it would make a very fine houserule for PC aarakroca to take). [/QUOTE]

Verification