| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi folks
my gang are having a headache
the natural attacks by size table 3.1 p302 in Bestiary does not tally with the feat Improved Natural Attack.
add to this other stuff, eg strong jaw, means one can enter a world of hurt with the maths
We have been house ruling what is the progression....
Can anyone tell me if there is an chart which does this on these forums/ post me a solution - or is it make it up/ house rule for now?
Thanks!!
Ben
I'm part of that gang, and this is what I think we're looking at. We're having the problem in two places: my monk, and our druid's elk companion.
The issue is that Natural Attacks by Size doesn't agree with Improved Natural Attack or Weapon Damage by Size, but the latter two charts do more or less jibe with each other.
So do we ignore Natural Attacks by Size?
|
The only real difference seems to be that in the Natural Attacks by Size table the '3d6' damage slot (between '2d6' and '4d6') is replaced by '2d8'. It's this table which appears to be the red-headed stepchild of the piece - normal 'damage progression by size' is what is listed under Improved Natural Attack and Weapon Damage by Size.
It's a bit of a strange one, since 3d6 has a better minimum damage, maximum damage, and average damage than 2d8... on the other hand, the 2d8 has a greater chance of rolling its maximum damage (being rolled on only two dice and not three)...
The progression listed under the Improved Natural Attack Feat is certainly the one used with that Feat, and I'd suggest anything else which doesn't specifically refer to the Natural Attacks by Size table. The table, after all, does mention that the listed damage varies from creature to creature, and is only the suggested base damage for such attacks.
If it helps at all, the 'universal' damage progression by size rules in 3.5 matched those listed under the Improved Natural Attack Feat.
The only real difference seems to be that in the Natural Attacks by Size table the '3d6' damage slot (between '2d6' and '4d6') is replaced by '2d8'. It's this table which appears to be the red-headed stepchild of the piece - normal 'damage progression by size' is what is listed under Improved Natural Attack and Weapon Damage by Size.
It's a bit of a strange one, since 3d6 has a better minimum damage, maximum damage, and average damage than 2d8... on the other hand, the 2d8 has a greater chance of rolling its maximum damage (being rolled on only two dice and not three)...
The progression listed under the Improved Natural Attack Feat is certainly the one used with that Feat, and I'd suggest anything else which doesn't specifically refer to the Natural Attacks by Size table. The table, after all, does mention that the listed damage varies from creature to creature, and is only the suggested base damage for such attacks.
If it helps at all, the 'universal' damage progression by size rules in 3.5 matched those listed under the Improved Natural Attack Feat.
JJ weighed in on this question a while ago, but I can't seem to find the thread that he did, and unfortunately I can't remember what his opinion was either.
The only real difference seems to be that in the Natural Attacks by Size table the '3d6' damage slot (between '2d6' and '4d6') is replaced by '2d8'. It's this table which appears to be the red-headed stepchild of the piece - normal 'damage progression by size' is what is listed under Improved Natural Attack and Weapon Damage by Size.
This stepchild also exists in the damage table for Dragon's natural attacks. That table was (more or less) the same in 3.5, and I always thought it was strange also back then.
I've houseruled both dragon attacks and the "natural attacks by size" table to accurately reflect the "improved natural attack" and "weapon damage by size" tables (which means replacing a few 2d8s with 3d6, and a few 4d8s with a 6d6).
I imagine the reason for the stepchild's existence in the original Dragon table was an error, which Paizo then copied and multiplied in the "natural attacks by size" table.