Cold boes boom

[sinjun]

I hate being sick. Hrmph.

But it's not so bad. At work, getting things done. Hopefully I won't have to redo the entire thing on Monday when I'm feeling better.

I can hope, anyway. I read a whole 19 pages out of my 110 for Monday. Go me. And got a small scene in on RS too. And got to chat with my fiance who was being most charming. But I ended up with an early night anyway, and still feel dog tired today. (How tired /do/ dogs get anyway?)

(Do not let me play Fresca today - I will not be responsible for the results.)

Does it make sense that a bite attack in d20 does 1d6 damage and a claw attack only does 1d4? What do you all think? I can't think right now, so I'm curious as to other folks' opinions. Assuming you have any.

Oh, and did I mention that my Uncle Richard put in the neat key lock on my garage door so I won't have to break into it next time? Yeah, I have cool relatives. Yay!

And it's a Jessica/Aunt Jean birthday thing this Sunday for dinner. Works for me.

Comments

Re: Damage

[insaint.livejournal.com]

I think that's one of those things that would be up to the DM to customize. Frankly, I wouldn't seriously make the separation between different types of animals without enough research into their attacks first.

As it is, 1d6 and 1d4 seem like reasonable approximations to me.

Re: Damage

[arwen77.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with Aleriel here. Claw swipes can be very nasty indeed, which is why quite a few monsters have higher critical threats with claw attacks. But bites are very severe once the creature gets to a certain size. Imagine a bear or a lion bite for example - their jaws can pretty much pulverize bone, and lion teeth are specially designed to puncture deeply and rupture arteries and such. Claws will generally have a shallower penetration than a bite with a good set of teeth, although they can certainly be devastating as well.

I recently watched a program on Discovery where they created artificial tiger and lion heads and claws to simulate their attack capabilities. There was quite some in-depth analysis there, and from what I saw, being bitten by a lion would be far worse than 'just' being clawed.

But I will be bringing consideration into the picture when it comes to PC classes that have claw or bite attacks, and see whether it would be logical to adjust the damage on them according to realism.

Re: Damage

[damara.livejournal.com]

Oh, in general, I agree that a bite attack should be worse than a claw attack (though I disagree that every unarmed attack should be the same. A kick is far more devastating than a punch, given the muscle mass and power - especially given someone who is trained in how to kick and punch.

But with respect to the bite and claw - I don't see why a housecat should have the same bite/claw attack as a tiger or any other wild cat. And in fact, since you've already suggested that some animals have bites that are specifically tailored to do more damage - why should they do as much damage as animals with teeth that are not so tailored? Should they not do more?

With that said, I also have to agree that it would take some amount of time to investigate bites and claw attacks of various critters (Tal and Terry are chasing each other around again - I can hear the sound of elephants in the hall.), but given that quite a few of the folks who work on the d20/d&d/rpg in general books seem to have too much time on their hands to begin with, I'm not seeing a problem here.

Re: Damage

[eustacio.livejournal.com]

Realistically, I'm inclined to agree that each type of animal should do different amounts of damage for their attacks.

At the same time, the primary d20 books are already stuffed with rules. This is where beast books come in handy. I'm not sure if they've got a book out of that nature for d20, but I wouldn't be surprised (no, I don't keep up with d20 all that much).

Re: Damage

[damara.livejournal.com]

Good point. It might well be in the plethora of monster manual type books.