Ok -- here we go:
HERE we see that monsters have a die assigned to them based on size when it comes to the damage that they deal.
HERE we see a feat that allows for a monster to progress up to the next best die.
HERE & HERE we see two examples that do not match up. According to the rules, as I see them, the gargoyles claw attack as a medium creature should be a base 1d4 and the mummies slam should be as well. Note that neither creature takes the Improved Natural Attack feat.
What gives?
I know that monster's have a certain damage output to reach, and thus need to do a certain amount of damage. But if we are kowtowing to that maxim, why have the feat in the first place? It seems useless.
I am sure I am missing something and that someone will illuminate it for me -- my interest lies purely in the fact I wanted to homebrew some baddies, and am wondering how, if, this feat may play into their stats.
Thanks in advance.
When it comes to monster design, the most important table in the rules is table 1.1 Monster Statistics by CR on page 291 of the Bestiary.
No matter what, once you've designed a monster, you refer back to this table and adjust up or down to get close. You won't always be perfect (dragons, for example, are a fickle mistress--I'm designing 5 for Bestiary II right now) but you should always at least be close. Sometimes hitting those numbers means arbitrary increases/decreases in dice steps, or stat boosts, or even adding feats that boost damage to reach where the CR-appropriate damage should be.
Monster design is 50% math and 50% art and that flexibility, IMHO, it what allows 3.5/PRPG to have some of the best monsters of any game out there.
JJ Frost,
That is what I thought/expected ---> Does that essentially mean that Improved Natural Attack should be used more as a 'flavor feat' for those beasts who do not need the benefit of the another feat, but since they are getting the boost to damage die anyways we should add the feat?
Ultimately, I guess it doesn't matter, but even in 3.5 that feats just bugged me as useless.
Thanks again.
Improved Natural Attack is for when you want to take a monster beyond what the chart indicates.
The way I see it, monsters will start with, say, 'basic claws.'
If you want to reflect the monster having an innate advantage with claws, perhaps they have terrifying claws that are bumped up a degree across the board.
Someone can take that monster and, with advancement, decide it has trained Improved Natural Attack (claw), being even better than most members of the species.
In deciding a given species has extra-good claws, you work that into the basic balance of the creature.
Like, for instance, Tyrannosaurs are gargantuan. Normally, bite attacks should be 2d8, but T-rexes have MASSIVE jaws, so they are bumped up a degree to 4d6. Not only that, they have a special 'powerful bite' power.
If you wanted, an advanced T-rex could then take Improved Natural Attack (Bite) to bump it up even further (shudder).
But this is somewhat balanced by the fact T-rexes only have one attack, their ACs are kinda meh for CR 9 (like most animals), and so on; they only HAVE a bite (and swallow).
Improved Natural Attack is for when you want to take a monster beyond what the chart indicates.
Actually, I disagree with you a bit, I think. But in doing so and reading the post after yours I think I see the use of this feat. Improved Natural Attack is not needed to go beyond the chart, most monsters do this anyways . . . the chart has NO effect on the damage dice they deal for their natural attacks, in most cases.
Where it does come into play is when you want to advance a creature . . . it is a handy mechanic to 'authorize' a bump in damage die.
MMM . . I'm not sure I am happy with that answer, either but the point is somewhat moot, yes?