D&D 5E Cat has "Weapons Expertise" with its Claws?

[Pickles JG]

I think they would usually get finesse weapons & +2 proficiency but as CR 0 critters they are not supposed to threaten people so they have a pretty nominal attack bonus that seems reasonable to whoever made up the stat block. Historically house cats would get 3 attacks - claw claw bite each with a damage expression that made them a serious menace to low level characters especially wizards - which was of course ludicrous.

The DMG rules, as usual, do not seem to emphasise how hand wavy all this is but it sure is.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Thanks for responding! I've never played 3e/3.5e/or 4e, so I wouldn't know how to think in any of those things, and I'd appreciate you not telling me how to think in the first place. Seriously, look at every other monster stat-block. They all get their Proficiency bonus, based on their CR, on their attack actions. Also, this topic actually interests me, so it's not very constructive for you to tell me it's inconsequential. If that's how you feel, you can find someone else's thread to post on. If OTOH you actually think you're being helpful and that I am that misguided, then I appreciate your attempt at "helping" me. I suggest that in the future, however, you try to use a less condescending tone.

I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was trying to convey the general feeling of "don't expect every little thing to be able to be broken down into numbers and specific-word-designations as 3.x/PF/4e does". The way those games are written, the expect that the reader will "need" to know how every attack, every point of hp/ac/attack/etc, every spell or ability, etc. "fits" into the game rules. In those editions, simply saying "There is a magical shield protecting the amulet from removal" is, game mechanically speaking, simply impossible without opening a whole can of worms. The magic shield would/should have to be codified into specifics; does it have an AC? does it use the Hardness/HP factor? What is the DC to dispel it? Does it fall under Spell, Supernatural Ability, or some other "word designation". That is important in those editions because everything hinges around knowing that stuff (e.g., maybe a PC has an ability that allows him Spell Resistance to all but Supernatural Abilities...in which case "Magic" or "Supernatural Ability" makes all the difference in the world). With 5e, you can't "think like that", because the 5e rules are designed around a fast-n'-loose play style where not everything needs to fit neatly into some particular box. If a player says "But my character has X ability, can I bypass it?", then the DM steps in and does his DM'ing job of adjudicating the situation and makes a ruling ("Rulings, not rules" is frequently tossed about when talking about running/playing in a 5e game). Sorry if my initial post came across as condescending.

Looking at the Cat, as per your example, would you rule that a house can can carry 45 lb, let alone have a 90 lb person stand on it's back? Of course not...but "as per the rules", it can with it's STR 3. So, if you are going to "adjust those weights down to realistic levels" (re: make it up), then making the assumption that a Cat gets +0 to its Claw attack seems likewise "adjusted to realistic levels" (re: it was made up). That's how 5e rolls... I'd suggest a 1 minute to 3 minute "look up" table rule; if you can't find specifics or a rule that fit's a situation...then make it up. That seems to be the go-to method for 5e, as I've said many times.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Riley37]

The people who wrote stat blocks could answer this question better than I can. I suspect - without evidence - that the designers realized that the core rules give the desired outcome in cases which are typical for PCs and mid-level monsters, and that the core rules work less well when applied at the low end of the scale.

This is more or less true for any simulation game. D&D is great for running a fight between dwarves and goblins, not for running a fight between a mouse and a rabbit, nor for a fight between the Enterprise and the Death Star.

Physics analogy: there are laws which predict the behavior of vapor by its temperature and pressure. When vapor condenses into liquid, those laws stop working.

They could have ruled that a cat doesn't have an attack which can do HP damage. Has a housecat ever killed an adult human in a fair fight?

 

[Ashoka]

I was trying to convey the general feeling of "don't expect every little thing to be able to be broken down into numbers and specific-word-designations as 3.x/PF/4e does". The way those games are written, the expect that the reader will "need" to know how every attack, every point of hp/ac/attack/etc, every spell or ability, etc. "fits" into the game rules.

I may be misunderstanding, but are you sure that's how 4e works? That's not how monsters are put together in 4e, I know that much. They have all their own rules (like you say for 5e).

 

[Tormyr]

Hiya!



I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was trying to convey the general feeling of "don't expect every little thing to be able to be broken down into numbers and specific-word-designations as 3.x/PF/4e does". The way those games are written, the expect that the reader will "need" to know how every attack, every point of hp/ac/attack/etc, every spell or ability, etc. "fits" into the game rules. In those editions, simply saying "There is a magical shield protecting the amulet from removal" is, game mechanically speaking, simply impossible without opening a whole can of worms. The magic shield would/should have to be codified into specifics; does it have an AC? does it use the Hardness/HP factor? What is the DC to dispel it? Does it fall under Spell, Supernatural Ability, or some other "word designation". That is important in those editions because everything hinges around knowing that stuff (e.g., maybe a PC has an ability that allows him Spell Resistance to all but Supernatural Abilities...in which case "Magic" or "Supernatural Ability" makes all the difference in the world). With 5e, you can't "think like that", because the 5e rules are designed around a fast-n'-loose play style where not everything needs to fit neatly into some particular box. If a player says "But my character has X ability, can I bypass it?", then the DM steps in and does his DM'ing job of adjudicating the situation and makes a ruling ("Rulings, not rules" is frequently tossed about when talking about running/playing in a 5e game). Sorry if my initial post came across as condescending.

Looking at the Cat, as per your example, would you rule that a house can can carry 45 lb, let alone have a 90 lb person stand on it's back? Of course not...but "as per the rules", it can with it's STR 3. So, if you are going to "adjust those weights down to realistic levels" (re: make it up), then making the assumption that a Cat gets +0 to its Claw attack seems likewise "adjusted to realistic levels" (re: it was made up). That's how 5e rolls... I'd suggest a 1 minute to 3 minute "look up" table rule; if you can't find specifics or a rule that fit's a situation...then make it up. That seems to be the go-to method for 5e, as I've said many times.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Don't forget that the strength based numbers are divided by 2 for each size below medium. The house cat can carry 11 lbs by its strength score instead of 45 lbs..

As for the OP, I think some of the other people got it right. There are several creatures with 1 negative ability score (Strength or Dexterity) but no creature that I can find has a negative attack bonus. Those same creatures that are at a +0 attack bonus also do 1 damage. This suggests that there is a hard limit of +0 attack bonus and 1 damage when creating a creature stat block.

These low numbers aren't my favorite examples of things not following normal conventions. The carrion crawler has a +8 attack bonus for each of its 2 attacks. By the numbers, the attack bonus should be +4, but the creature used to have something like 8 attacks, so they collapsed the attacks into 2 and bumped the attack bonus.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I may be misunderstanding, but are you sure that's how 4e works? That's not how monsters are put together in 4e, I know that much. They have all their own rules (like you say for 5e).

In all honesty, I can't remember fully. I haven't looked at 4e for well over two years or more. I just remember there being a lot of "fiddly bits" (number and absolutes..."if you do X, then Y happens pretty much regardless of any circumstances"). I remember one thread somewhere on the net (likely here or the Paizo boards) about if the 'rules' allowed some freezing-ray spell/ability that did damage, if it hit water did the water freeze? I didn't follow the rather large thread, but it basically came down to "No, doesn't say so in the book" vs. "But it should, as it is freezing", vs. "By the rules no, but a DM could say yes" vs. "Yeah, but if you do that then you have to do the same kind of logic extrapolation for everything else, like does a fire blast actually catch loose wool or dry paper on fire....it's a big mess and will turn some at-wills into being MUCH more powerful" vs. ...well, you get the point.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[seebs]

They could have ruled that a cat doesn't have an attack which can do HP damage. Has a housecat ever killed an adult human in a fair fight?

Yes, although it's quite rare. Happened to open an artery in someone already sort of old and not in great health, the one time I remember details of. And the scratches often get infected and that can kill, but not quickly.

For a more practical example: A friend of ours with no experience with cats once tried to help me pill a cat. Unfortunately, he was a dog person, so he did what you'd do to helplessify a dog, which is put the cat on its back.

It made enough holes in him that we ran out of bandages and band-aids and things, so he had to go to the veteran's affairs hospital covered with Hello Kitty band-aids. He ended up being hospitalized, because he ended up with an antibiotic-resistant infection.

Total time to do that much damage: Roughly one, maybe two, seconds.

Oh, and at the same time it managed to get its teeth to meet inside my thumb, and I couldn't use my left hand competently for weeks.

And that's one cat, not in great health, against two people, one of them an actual armed forces vet who was in pretty good shape at the time.

See, house cats don't fight people normally, because that's stupid and they know better. They will not actually fight a human unless they think they are dead and they are trying to make sure they buy the other cats time, or maybe there's kittens involved. Otherwise? They are not going to actually fight you. They are going to try to make you not think they are worth the trouble to kill and eat. But when they are actually fighting? They are blindingly fast, and they are some of the more efficient predators out there, and they are machines *designed* for shredding things made out of meat. We are made out of meat.

 

[Ashoka]

In all honesty, I can't remember fully. I haven't looked at 4e for well over two years or more. I just remember there being a lot of "fiddly bits" (number and absolutes..."if you do X, then Y happens pretty much regardless of any circumstances"). I remember one thread somewhere on the net (likely here or the Paizo boards) about if the 'rules' allowed some freezing-ray spell/ability that did damage, if it hit water did the water freeze? I didn't follow the rather large thread, but it basically came down to "No, doesn't say so in the book" vs. "But it should, as it is freezing", vs. "By the rules no, but a DM could say yes" vs. "Yeah, but if you do that then you have to do the same kind of logic extrapolation for everything else, like does a fire blast actually catch loose wool or dry paper on fire....it's a big mess and will turn some at-wills into being MUCH more powerful" vs. ...well, you get the point.

Hmm.. No, I don't think I get the point. In fact, I don't have any idea what you're talking about or how it relates to my comment. But that's ok. It's cool.

 

[Riley37]

They will not actually fight a human unless they think they are dead and they are trying to make sure they buy the other cats time, or maybe there's kittens involved.

You think like a soldier, and I mean that in the most respectful way: you think in terms of expending one's life in the service of others.

Grappling a cat is generally a bad idea, because grappling waives the human advantage of reach. If a human and a cat start 5' apart, and the human has boots and a club, let alone leather or metal armor, and the cat tries a frontal assault, it would be lucky to hit for 1 HP, because that pits cat speed against human reach. +0 attack for 1 HP seems reasonable to me.

Cat scratch would be more likely to carry infection than, say, an injury from a (clean, oiled, sharpened) sword. Infection, however, (if not stopped with magical healing) would make any D&D game more lethal, across the board, even if no cats were involved.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

They couldn't nerf the cat ... he needs to maintain his superiority in the cat v. commoner cycle.