Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 1316091" data-attributes="member: 94">First off, I'm not arguing with you, just thinking out loud with you. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The Dire Ape is getting the short end of the stick.A Large creature has a base damage of 1d8. The ape's claw is underpowerd (-1 step to 1d6) as is its bite-- but, its bite DOES follow UK's guideline of being +1 step above the claw (1d8 vs. 1d6).The Bear is closer to target. It's claw is basically right on (2d4 vs. 1d8 is ok); it's bite is 2d8, which means it must be considered a &quot;dominant appendage&quot; and is thus +2 steps (and x2 damage) from the claw.In both cases, you'll note that the Str bonus to damage follows the MM3.5 guidelines. The claw is the primary attack for both creatures (x1 Str bonus to damage) and the bite is secondary (x1/2 Str bonus to damage).So you seem to be asking, how does UK's system account for the difference between the Ape and the Bear? Section 8, FULL ATTACK. (Strength is not a factor here-- increased strength is paid for either by Size or by directly adding to Ability Scores).The Dire Ape pays (1d6 + 1d6) x 0.1, plus (1d8 x 0.05) = .7 + .225 = .925.The Dire Bear pays (2d4 + 2d4) x 0.1, plus (2d8 x 0.05) = 1.0 + .45 = 1.45.The Bear pays more for its attacks and, in the end, is twice the total CR of the Ape.Now all that's out on the table-- what exactly is the problem?Wulf</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 1316091, member: 94"] First off, I'm not arguing with you, just thinking out loud with you. ;) The Dire Ape is getting the short end of the stick. A Large creature has a base damage of 1d8. The ape's claw is underpowerd (-1 step to 1d6) as is its bite-- but, its bite DOES follow UK's guideline of being +1 step above the claw (1d8 vs. 1d6). The Bear is closer to target. It's claw is basically right on (2d4 vs. 1d8 is ok); it's bite is 2d8, which means it must be considered a "dominant appendage" and is thus +2 steps (and x2 damage) from the claw. In both cases, you'll note that the Str bonus to damage follows the MM3.5 guidelines. The claw is the primary attack for both creatures (x1 Str bonus to damage) and the bite is secondary (x1/2 Str bonus to damage). So you seem to be asking, how does UK's system account for the difference between the Ape and the Bear? Section 8, FULL ATTACK. (Strength is not a factor here-- increased strength is paid for either by Size or by directly adding to Ability Scores). The Dire Ape pays (1d6 + 1d6) x 0.1, plus (1d8 x 0.05) = .7 + .225 = .925. The Dire Bear pays (2d4 + 2d4) x 0.1, plus (2d8 x 0.05) = 1.0 + .45 = 1.45. The Bear pays more for its attacks and, in the end, is twice the total CR of the Ape. Now all that's out on the table-- what exactly is the problem? Wulf [/QUOTE]

Verification