Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="juggerulez" data-source="post: 6726862" data-attributes="member: 98250">You retain the best between yours and the animal's, exception made by STR, DEX and CON &quot;strict&quot; values (it means that if you have an higher STR saving throw than the animal's, you use your STR bonus in that regard, but hit and deal damage applying the animal's STR bonus instead).Creatures have their own proficiency mechanics which share very little with playable classes'. I'm assuming this is due to challenge mitigation or stats balancing, can't say which one though.Also, there is no such thing as &quot;proficiency in bear paws&quot; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />if you would do so, you're fudging with the rules. Nothing wrong with it, mind you, but it's not how things are supposed to run.Bears have 1 action called multi attack, which allows them to perform a claw attack and a bite attack. These attacks are portrayed as &quot;armed&quot; attacks, because &quot;natural weapons&quot; are, in fact, &quot;weapons&quot; by design. A bear's unarmed attack works exactly as any other classes' unarmed attacks, with the exception of monk bears and tavern brawler bears, which dish 1d4+STR rather than 1+STR damage. The rule of thumb here is: Natural weapons are, in fact, weapons, thus they can't be used to *arm* an *unarmed* strike. You can argue that your bear drops on his foe's stern and surely this will dish more than 1+str damage. Couldn't agree more, but IMHO this shouldn't be regarded as an unarmed strike, rather than a &quot;squashing damage&quot; (the same mechanics used to calculate the damage of a boulder falling on your character's head, which implies a conversion of your bear's weight in bludgeoning damage).I can't really dip into that, but i'm quite sure it's not the correct way to reverse engineer creatures' stats itemization. Enlarge is a magical effect that could easily have been nerfed down the way, thus all the assumptions you could make could be fallacious <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="juggerulez, post: 6726862, member: 98250"] You retain the best between yours and the animal's, exception made by STR, DEX and CON "strict" values (it means that if you have an higher STR saving throw than the animal's, you use your STR bonus in that regard, but hit and deal damage applying the animal's STR bonus instead). Creatures have their own proficiency mechanics which share very little with playable classes'. I'm assuming this is due to challenge mitigation or stats balancing, can't say which one though. Also, there is no such thing as "proficiency in bear paws" :) if you would do so, you're fudging with the rules. Nothing wrong with it, mind you, but it's not how things are supposed to run. Bears have 1 action called multi attack, which allows them to perform a claw attack and a bite attack. These attacks are portrayed as "armed" attacks, because "natural weapons" are, in fact, "weapons" by design. A bear's unarmed attack works exactly as any other classes' unarmed attacks, with the exception of monk bears and tavern brawler bears, which dish 1d4+STR rather than 1+STR damage. The rule of thumb here is: Natural weapons are, in fact, weapons, thus they can't be used to *arm* an *unarmed* strike. You can argue that your bear drops on his foe's stern and surely this will dish more than 1+str damage. Couldn't agree more, but IMHO this shouldn't be regarded as an unarmed strike, rather than a "squashing damage" (the same mechanics used to calculate the damage of a boulder falling on your character's head, which implies a conversion of your bear's weight in bludgeoning damage). I can't really dip into that, but i'm quite sure it's not the correct way to reverse engineer creatures' stats itemization. Enlarge is a magical effect that could easily have been nerfed down the way, thus all the assumptions you could make could be fallacious :) [/QUOTE]

Verification