Confusion of a 3.5 monster vs 3.5 feats.

[killem2]

In a new character coming up, I'll have a Glacier snake from the forgotten realms 3.5 edition, Serpent Kingdom as a familiar.

It starts with multiattack feat with a superscript B next to it. I cannot seem to locate what the B is indicating.

This is what I see when I look at the feat description:

Multiattack [General]
Prerequisite
Three or more natural attacks.

Benefit
The creature’s secondary attacks with natural weapons take only a -2 penalty.

Normal
Without this feat, the creature’s secondary attacks with natural weapons take a -5 penalty.

The only attacks the glacier snake has though are as seen below:

Glacier Snake
Medium Animal
Hit Dice: 2d8+6 (15 hp)
Initiative: +3
Speed: 20 ft. (4 squares), climb 20 ft.
Armor Class: 16 (+3 Dex, +3 natural), touch 13, fl at-footed 13
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/+0
Attack: Bite +4 melee (1d6+3)
Full Attack: Bite +4 melee (1d6+3) and sting +2 melee (1d6+1)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: —
Special Qualities: Fast healing 1, low-light vision
Saves: Fort +6, Ref +6, Will +1
Abilities: Str 17, Dex 17, Con 16, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 2
Skills: Balance +11, Climb +11, Hide +8, Listen +9, Spot +9
Feats: Alertness, MultiattackB, Weapon FinesseB
Environment: Cold mountains
Organization: Solitary
Challenge Rating: 2
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: 3 HD (Medium); 4–6 HD (Large)
Level Adjustment: —


My main question is, do I need to remove multiattack and choose a different feat or is there a reason this monster has a feat that it can't use?

Or am I able to attack twice with the tail or bite and I just don't realize it?

[Bakkan]

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm):



Feats
The line gives the creature’s feats. A monster gains feats just as a character does. Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites.

[killem2]

Huh, how strange. I guess I'll find another feat to replace it. That's too bad! Kinda like the idea of multiattack.


Any suggestions for a snake feat?

[Bakkan]

There's no need to replace it... the fact that the B is there means that it's a bonus feat and hence the fact that the snake doesn't qualify for it is irrelevant.

[erikun]

The B is just to represent that the creature either does not meet the qualifications or does not have the prerequisites to have the feat through normal rules.

The Glacier Snake, for example, only has 2 HD. By normal rules, they should only have one feat. They have three feats though, to better represent the animal; both of these extra feats gets the B tag to show where the 2 HD creature got three feats from.

You see this a lot with animals, who frequently end up with Weapon FinesseB despite only having 1 HD or less, and not having the BAB requirements.

[killem2]

Oh ok, cool.

I did notice this little line in the druid section (i know, not exactly on the same lines here) but,

Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if
it has three or more natural attacks (see the Monster Manual for details
on this feat) and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the
requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead
gains a second attack with its primary natural weapon, albeit at a –5
penalty.

Not entirely sure that it means jack squat to the familiar realm though.

[erikun]

It means nothing for a familiar.

A Glacier Snake animal companion would get a second bite attack at -5 during its full attack, because it already has the Multiattack feat. How it gained the feat would not matter.

[Flickerdart]

It means nothing for a familiar.

A Glacier Snake animal companion would get a second bite attack at -5 during its full attack, because it already has the Multiattack feat. How it gained the feat would not matter.
Why would it possibly do that? It doesn't say "if you already have the feat, you get the second benefit".

[Bakkan]

It says "If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks..." The Glacier snake has two attacks, so it does not have the requisite three attacks, so it gains the benefit in the conclusion of the conditional statement: "... the animal companion instead gains a second attack with its primary natural weapon, albeit at a –5 penalty."

[Flickerdart]

Right, but what does it having Multiattack have to do with that?

[candycorn]

It means nothing for a familiar.

A Glacier Snake animal companion would get a second bite attack at -5 during its full attack, because it already has the Multiattack feat. How it gained the feat would not matter.


Right, but what does it having Multiattack have to do with that?

This is what Flickerdart refers to. The reason it gets a second bite isn't that it already has Multiattack feat; it's because the creature doesn't have 3 natural attacks.

[Necroticplague]

It says "If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks..." The Glacier snake has two attacks, so it does not have the requisite three attacks, so it gains the benefit in the conclusion of the conditional statement: "... the animal companion instead gains a second attack with its primary natural weapon, albeit at a –5 penalty."

Actually, it has three: its bite, its sting, and an unarmed attack (since all creatures have an unarmed attack).

[KillianHawkeye]

Actually, it has three: its bite, its sting, and an unarmed attack (since all creatures have an unarmed attack).

Unarmed strikes don't count because they don't follow the normal rules for natural weapons, even though it technically is one. Having or not having the ability to make an unarmed strike has no bearing on the Multiattack feat.

EDIT: And apparently there is some kind of April Fool's shenanigans going on with the user titles, LOL. I am a "twilight sparkle in the playground." :smallconfused::smallbiggrin:

[candycorn]

Actually, it has three: its bite, its sting, and an unarmed attack (since all creatures have an unarmed attack).

Unarmed Strike is not a natural weapon.

Evidence:


A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach.


Attacks of Opportunity
Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.


If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

Common sense may suggest that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, but they count as light melee weapons in almost all cases, except that you may apply power attack to them.

[tyckspoon]

Unarmed Strike is not a natural weapon, unless the creature is a monk.

Other way around. Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon, unless you are a Monk, in which case it also counts as a manufactured weapon. (Although it operates more in line with manufactured weapons, and does indeed not count as a natural weapon when you're talking about Multiattack and similar things because it uses iterative BAB. It is a natural weapon as far as Magic Fang and similar effects are concerned- you can't use Magic Weapon on an Unarmed Strike unless you're casting it on a Monk. In case anybody reading this has managed not to notice before, the Unarmed Strike rules are a huge mess of poorly written exceptions. :smallsigh:

[candycorn]

Other way around. Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon, unless you are a Monk, in which case it also counts as a manufactured weapon. (Although it operates more in line with manufactured weapons, and does indeed not count as a natural weapon when you're talking about Multiattack and similar things because it uses iterative BAB. It is a natural weapon as far as Magic Fang and similar effects are concerned- you can't use Magic Weapon on an Unarmed Strike unless you're casting it on a Monk. In case anybody reading this has managed not to notice before, the Unarmed Strike rules are a huge mess of poorly written exceptions. :smallsigh:

Natural weapons threaten.
Unarmed Strikes do not threaten.

Natural weapons do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Unarmed Strikes do provoke attacks of opportunity.

Natural weapons have a list which does not include unarmed strike.
Manufactured weapons have a list which does include unarmed strike.

Natural weapons do not get iterative attacks.
Unarmed Strikes do get iterative attacks.

No text states that Unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons normally.
Monk text states that Unarmed Strikes are considered natural weapons, but only for resolving spells and effects that enhance and improve either.

Now.
Please show me a scrap of rules text that states that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, despite the fact that, by the rules, they share precisely nothing in common with them.

[tyckspoon]

Magic Fang:

Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)

Magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

Magic Weapon:

Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.)

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

Unarmed Strikes are associated with a stupidly large pile of exceptions. They are exceptions to the Natural Weapons rule, and they mostly function to cause an Unarmed Strike to work like a manufactured weapon, but they are based on Unarmed Strike being a Natural Weapon.

[Necroticplague]

Natural weapons threaten.
Unarmed Strikes do not threaten.

Natural weapons do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Unarmed Strikes do provoke attacks of opportunity.

Natural weapons have a list which does not include unarmed strike.
Manufactured weapons have a list which does include unarmed strike.

Natural weapons do not get iterative attacks.
Unarmed Strikes do get iterative attacks.

No text states that Unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons normally.
Monk text states that Unarmed Strikes are considered natural weapons, but only for resolving spells and effects that enhance and improve either.

Now.
Please show me a scrap of rules text that states that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, despite the fact that, by the rules, they share precisely nothing in common with them.
Manufactured weapons can be bought.
Unarmed strikes cant.

Manufactured weapons can be sundered.
Unarmed strikes cant.

Manufactured weapons can be disarmed.
Unarmed strikes cant.

Manufactured weapons can have magic properties intrinsic to them (e.x.:flaming sword)
Unarmed strikes can have magic properties extrinsic to them ,unless you're a kensai (e.x.:To enchant UAS, do need magic weapon/fang, necklace of natural attacks or amulet of mighty fists).

Manufactured weapons are able to be made out many different materials.
Unarmed strikes can't.

People don't innately have manufactured weapons built into them.
Everything innately has an unarmed strike.

You can have multiple manufactured weapons.
You can only ever have one unarmed strike.

You can make off-hand manufactured weapon attacks.
An unarmed strike is never off-hand.

So unarmed strike have even less in common with manufactured weapons than with natural weapons.

[KillianHawkeye]

You can make off-hand manufactured weapon attacks.
An unarmed strike is never off-hand.

Actually, I think this one also only applies to Monks.