duhtroll1 said:
Top of p.303 ". . .typically used only by monsters."
As a GM I would not allow this. Unless of course the monk in question also has the ability to alter self (via tattoo or spell) or some other form of poly.
Now, if one were a tat monk and was using the alter self, then they would in effect become a "monster" and it makes much more sense.
Just my $0.02
-A
Just because something is TYPICALLY only used by monsters doesn't mean it can't be used by non-monsters who qualify for it, and before Egres jumps down my throat and says (paraphrased) "Well, they don't qualify for it," I believe they do, following Hong's line of logic, just like I did in the last thread about this topic. There's really no point in responding to your question; you already know the answer, but I'll respond anyway for the sake of those who might not have already heard it - we believe the monk's unarmed attacks meet the definition of 'natural weapons' for the purpose of the feat, and we've laid out for you, in a number of posts, why we believe this. You don't think the same way, and that's fine - I'm tired of arguing with you about it. I think we've finally reached a point where we can all pick up our debating toys for this topic and go home, because you're not going to change my mind about it, and I suspect you've made up your mind about it as well.
Monsters TYPICALLY use it because they usually more easily qualify for the feats in that section by virtue of their abilities - it's a theme-oriented list of feats that monster will usually get to quicker than PCs will. However, it's in the MM, it's core, so there's no reason why a player shouldn't be able to take the feat if they meet the pre-requisites for it.
Starglim said:
Also, Improved Natural Attack is listed in the Monster Feats, not the General Feats, so arguably it is not intended to be available to a PC race regardless of its prerequisites.
It has a GENERAL tag next to its name, last time I looked. It's still in the core three - it's core material. Its placement is due to theme, IMO, as I stated above, just not so concisely. If this was a MONSTER feat, then I'd concede defeat immediately unless my monk was a monster-monk.
Ridley's Cohort said:
That is not generally true. There are multiple ways to gain a Dodge bonus. But just because I have a Dodge bonus does not allow me to pick up the Mobility feat without first having the Dodge feat. In fact, there are many Dodge bonuses that are outright superior to the pitiful +1 to one opponent. But they all are not the Dodge feat when it comes to Mobility/Spring Attack.
But this is also mitigated by the fact that Mobility lists Dodge by name as a pre-requisite. If the wording of the feat stated that he needed a dodge bonus to utilize its effects without naming Dodge as a specific pre-requisite, then he'd golden to take and use it without Dodge.
apesamongus said:
There is a certain pattern that sometimes (often) follows what you are saying, but there is no general rule stated anywhere, so unless it is explicitly stated to work in a specific case, then - by the rules- it doesn't work.
Actually, there is a rule/concept that controls just this sort of thing, IMO - virtual feats. By this logic your statements are indeed correct; since the slam attack doesn't state anything about being treated as a virtual IUS feat, he doesn't qualify for feats that specifically name IUS as a pre-requisite. If the text of the feat states it needs certain scenarios to be present that imitate IUS, but don't specifically name IUS as a pre-requisite, then he can take the feat and use it as long as he meets the stated situational modifiers. Off the top of my head, however, I can't think of any feats like that...
