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

[Riley37]

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

Housecats dominate in flexible stretching, in napping, and in ultra-close-range shredding of things made of meat. Commoners have fire, language, and opposable thumbs, giving them a wide range of noncombat utility options, plus superior ranged combat. If you consider all three pillars, they're fairly balanced.

 

[Hriston]

Here's an example of what a cat can do within 5 feet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-oVhu2fu20. It doesn't look like they'd need to be "ultra-close" to do a little damage. This woman ended up in the hospital with an infection as well.

 

[Hriston]

And how is that CR determined? Partially by the desired attack bonus, so we have a loop of stats determined by CR and CR based on the stats you want to assign to something.

So really, there aren't any rigidly coded rules that spell out how a monster got X.

I understand this. What I'm interested in exploring is what the design considerations may have been that led the team to assign a Proficiency bonus to a monster which is different from the one which the monster's Challenge Rating would imply. Here's what the MM says about Proficiency as it relates to Skills:

"A skill bonus is the sum of a monster's relevant ability modifier and its proficiency bonus, which is determined by the monster's challenge rating (as shown in the Proficiency Bonus by Challenge Rating table). Other modifiers might apply. For instance, a monster might have a larger-than-expected bonus (usually double its proficiency bonus) to account for its heightened expertise."

So mightn't we then be able to extend the same logic to the Attack bonus? I admit to not knowing what these "other modifiers" are in every case, but the example that is given is one where they have multiplied the Proficiency bonus to give the creature "expertise." I've done a quick review of the creature list in the PHB and they all seem to have Attack bonuses that are some multiple of their base Proficiency bonus. Bears, for instance, have a Proficiency bonus applied to their Attack that has been multiplied by 1/2. So, to me, this is the cleanest explanation of what I'm seeing with these low-strength creatures.

 

[pemerton]

"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?

A couple of things.

First, the "DC to dispel it" question comes up in AD&D as well as 3E, to the extent that the rulebooks set out a default level for magic items (12th). It doesn't come up in 4e, which has no general anti-magic/dispel mechanic. Getting rid of the magic shield would generally be part of a skill challenge (or perhaps a singe skill check), and the DC would therefore be read off the overall level of the encounter.

Second, as [MENTION=6775774]Ashoka[/MENTION] points out, attack bonuses in 4e are computed by reference to creature level (level +5 vs AC, level +3 vs NADs) and are not built up out of sub-elements like stats, gear etc.

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. ...

Perhaps that thread would have benefitted from the posters in it reading the section in the 4e DMG on damaging objects, which suggests (p 66) that

you might rule that some kinds of damage are particularly effective against certain objects and grant the object vulnerability to that damage type. For example, a gauzy curtain or a pile of dry papers might have vulnerability 5 to fire because any spark is likely to destroy it.​

Woah - the mind-blowing power of "rulings not rules" right there in your 4e DMG!

 

[Hriston]

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.

MM:"Monsters with a challenge rating of 0 are insignificant except in large numbers; those with no effective attacks are worth no experience points, while those that have attacks are worth 10 XP each."

So a "large number" of cats could pose some sort of threat.

 

[BigVanVader]

So a "large number" of cats could pose some sort of threat.

They usually do.

 

[Riley37]

Here's an example of what a cat can do

(shrug) looks like about 1 HP of damage, against an unarmed human who wasn't taking the encounter seriously, didn't use the Disengage action, and thus was wide open to AoO while turning away.

The cat's leap onto her head is impressive. Cats having finesse with claws seems plausible.

 

[Hriston]

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

Dear Paul,

Your insistence that others follow a loosey-goosey play-style ignores the fact that 5e was written for ALL play-styles. Here you are again telling me that I'm not allowed to think a certain way when I consider how things work in this game because that's on a need-to-know basis somehow. It isn't an issue of whether I need to know why they gave the Cat this or that bonus. I'm perfectly capable of forgetting about any of this and just playing the game as-written. For some people, and you may not be one of them, contemplation of the rules and mechanics of the game are a subject of interest in and of itself. In a forum such as this I would expect to find many such people. I don't see how shutting down such discussions with a claim that they are inappropriate or even detrimental to the enjoyment of the game is at all constructive. I know it was made up. My interest in this discussion is why they made it up the way they did and what are the implications that can be drawn from such decisions when considered within the larger framework of the game as a whole. The assertion that you seem to be making, that there is no such framework, is deeply unsatisfying to me as an explanation of design elements. As I said above, I've never played 3rd or 4th edition. Most of my experience has been with AD&D, and as you may know, the design of monsters in that edition is far less rational than what I've seen in 5e. So please don't pretend that you are the only person who understands the intent behind the design of 5e. Also, I find your suggestion that I put a time limit on inquiries into the rules at my table to be dismissive. If you wish to suppress discussion of the rules in your own games, go right ahead. I will follow no such rule, and I don't see the point of carrying over an impatience with such inquiries into a discussion forum whose sole intent it is to discuss the game.

Thanks,
Hriston

 

[ExploderWizard]

I understand this. What I'm interested in exploring is what the design considerations may have been that led the team to assign a Proficiency bonus to a monster which is different from the one which the monster's Challenge Rating would imply. Here's what the MM says about Proficiency as it relates to Skills:

"A skill bonus is the sum of a monster's relevant ability modifier and its proficiency bonus, which is determined by the monster's challenge rating (as shown in the Proficiency Bonus by Challenge Rating table). Other modifiers might apply. For instance, a monster might have a larger-than-expected bonus (usually double its proficiency bonus) to account for its heightened expertise."

So mightn't we then be able to extend the same logic to the Attack bonus? I admit to not knowing what these "other modifiers" are in every case, but the example that is given is one where they have multiplied the Proficiency bonus to give the creature "expertise." I've done a quick review of the creature list in the PHB and they all seem to have Attack bonuses that are some multiple of their base Proficiency bonus. Bears, for instance, have a Proficiency bonus applied to their Attack that has been multiplied by 1/2. So, to me, this is the cleanest explanation of what I'm seeing with these low-strength creatures.

Something of that nature might be going on.

OR

The designers might have just decided, hey it's an ordinary cat, here are the stats in game scale.

 

[Umbran]

Something of that nature might be going on.

OR

The designers might have just decided, hey it's an ordinary cat, here are the stats in game scale.

Yah. There's no particular evidence that the designers used strict procedures in all monster design. Many of them may hold to certain guidelines, but they have not said all do.

And that, I suspect, is what pming was trying to get at. If a monster stat block does not seem to fit the guidelines mentioned, there may not be a strict logic behind the resulting stats. Coming up with a rationale after the fact, without word from designers, may be kind of like looking for a Marvel Comics "No-Prize". It is not a reliable way to get at designer logic, and likely wouldn't be predictive.