Hello,

Players use strenght bonus for melee weapons.

What about monsters?
I know bonus is applying for claw's type weapon, but for bite?
I have looked into many monsters in BG2, and some does have it, some doesn't.

For example, greater basilisk have 3 attack:
- petrification
- claw with poison (with strenght bonus)
- bite (no strenght bonus)

What do you think about that?

Not that all cre files are perfect or anything throughout the IE games but the above example at least makes sense.

I don't think a basilisk bite should have a strength bonus unless basilisks are known for having particularly strong bites The claw should as the basilisk can put the force of its body behind a swing (it is much harder to put bodily force behind a bite). On the other hand I would expect creatures such as the Sauhagin or Kua-toa to have powerful bites if they chose that form of attack.

Strength bonus is always applicable when a creature (monster or not) attacks by weapons.

The fact that monsters can inflict such noticeable ammounts of damage with their bare hands or claws, is at least partly because of their strength. No additional strength bonus is actually needed unless they take weapons instead of using their claws.

In other words, montsers have (in a way) already received their strength bonus by the fact that they can inflict such amounts of damage wihout using any weapon. For example, consider a storm giant who inflicts 15d6 points of damage per hit. Do you really suggest to add another 12 points of damage because of his 24 strength?! I don't think that it would be a good suggestion.

You can choose to turn on or off strength bonus for a weapon, be it a sword or a claw.

I think what aigleborne was trying to point out was that it does not seem consistent through the creature files he has looked at. Saying that a claw inflicts such high damage partly because of the creatures strength is fair enough but it is the same for creatures wielding swords. A sword lying on the ground does no damage to anyone of its own volition, it definately doesn't do 1d8 damage. For game purposes claws should be treated as wielded weapons and the strength bonus applied logically.

So in aigleborne's example I would agree that what has been done is fine. The bite of a basilisk should not draw on the creatures strength bonus as basilisks are not generally known for the powerful nature of their bite. Giving the bite attack of a Kua-toa/Sahuagin a strength bonus would be okay in my book as this creature has a large set of teeth and is shark-like in countenance though I don't think they actually come with a bite attack but you get the idea. A dog for example should be able to apply strength bonus to its bite as dogs generally bite rather than claw (paw?) and are built to better attack in this fashion.

Quite true!

If someone is not strong enough even to wield a long sword, he cannot inflict even the base 1d8 damage. It is exactly for this reason that we apply strength bonus to weapon users. It doesn't make sense to say that a long sword inflicts the same damage whether wielded by a storm giant or by Jan Jansen! The sword has of course a similar base damage in both cases, but the difference is to be applied by considering different damage bonuses different wielders have.

But once we turn our attention to natural weapons such as fists and claws, we see that things are different. Unlike the case of the long sword, Jan Jansen's fist and the storm giant's fist do not have a similar base damage. That is to say the difference in their strength scores is already applied and it seems to me that we do not need to add another 12 points of damage bonus to the damage inflicted by the storm giant's fist.

As for the difference between the bite of a basilisk and a shark, you are right, but again I believe that the difference should be pre-applied through different damages their bites (per se) inflict, so that we do not need to add damage bonuses as mentioned in the strength table.

It's of course just the way I see and understand the issue. I understand that others may have different interpretations.

Well, since we were talking about monsters, perhaps replacing "Jan Jansen" with "a goblin" (in my example) may prevent some possible confusions.

The logic behind the Strength bonus is that Jan Jansen with an altered strength so that it was the same as a storm giant would do the same damage as his fist would normally do plus a bonus for now being as strong as a storm giant. To me that makes sense. In your example Jan would get no bonus for being stronger.

Again I would go back to game mechanics, in the game a claw is a weapon, rather than have 100 different claws all with various damage amounts to reflect strength of the wielder why not have 5 claws doing 1d6, 1d8, 1d10 etc and apply a strength bonus based on the creature using the claw. This way you can account for sudden changes in the strength of the wielder, be it of claw or weapon. It makes much more sense to do it this way and this is primarily how Bioware went about it.

It also makes spells that weaken enemies more useful. If a storm giant had a weapon (fist) that did 1d10 damage and you used Enfeeblement he would still do 1d10 damage. If the storm giant had a weapon that did 1d6 damage plus strength bonus then he would not get the strength bonus while enfeebled. To me that is better and again makes more sense.

The only oddity would be say if a dragon had a claw that did the same damage as a werewolf claw (for example) and they both were enfeebled and the claw hit you then in the "real" world you would still take more damage from the dragon claw simply due to its size and weight. The game engine has its limitations of course!

Thanks for all responses.

It was very interesting to read you

Yes, I agree with Rabain.

Strenght is necessary and more realistic.

In case of a claw, compare 2 monsters:
Black bear and Polar bear, they should have a similar claw. But polar bear is more stronger, bigger, and so should inflict more damage.

I have never doubt about this in fact

About bite, it's more difficult to say. Since I have to review all monsters for my mod, I am not sure if I have to apply or not the strenght bonus.

I will do my best.

Thanks again!

I agree that Jan (after drinking a potion of storm giant strength) should receive bonuses. I don't see how you derived the opposite from my text. Perhaps I had expressed myself inadequately.

Jan will have bonuses because his strength is *modified*, but this doesn't mean that a storm giant (already rolling 15d6 for his damage) should still gain another 12 points of damage bonus for having a 24 strength score. I thought this was what aigleborgne was trying to suggest (and if so I still disagree).



Yes, but I thought that the question was about P&P where there are actually too many different claws and bites.



Even in the former case, the penalty can be applied by counting all dices as 1's. Different DMs use different rules.



Good point! The weight and the size of the creature is also a factor which should not be neglected. Considering the limitations of the game engine, I guess that either way we try to resolve the issue some oddities will be inevitable.

Yes a storm giant would receive his bonus for having 24 strength. The argument could then move to whether his base damage should be 15d6 or something more realistic which would include the fact that a lot of the damage in that 15d6 is due to his strength. So perhaps a storm giant with 24 strength could have a strength bonus if his damage was 10d6 instead of 15d6.

I still think str bonus to damage is better separated from base damage.

This was actually the situation in 2nd edition AD&D - giant's attacks would do damage by weapon, either doubled to tripled depending on the size of the giant (IIRC size 'huge' giants did double damage, while size 'gargantuan' giants did tripled damage), and then added their strength-based damage bonus.
I believe that 3rd and 3.5th editions use a for formulised and general rule to do the same thing.

Charles

Hmm, but the strength of the monsters is reflected in their damage. For example, in PnP black bear has damage statistics 1-3/1-3/1-6 and polar bear 1-10/1-10/2-12.

It is similar with the idea of weight that modifies the damage. There is the dependency between weight and creature's strength a thus again in the monster's damage. The idea is nice but we must put up with the fact that all is about rules. ADnD has some conception how to "simulate" reality.

There is the imaginary line between playability and reality. We can say that the attack can be better because of high strength, ok... We can say that the attack can be better because of high dexterity (attacker is more skilled in handling of weapon), we can say that the attack can be better because of intelligence (attacker is able to do better analysis of the certain combat situation), we can say that the attack can be better because of wisdom (attacker knows the weakness of his enemy), we can say many other ideas affecting the attack "quality"... And not just in discussion about attack - speed factor, spellcasting, every other aspect of the game rule can be more specific and precise. However, in most cases we would cross the border of the space where ADnD rules are meaningful.

As my friend said "Don't try to simulate reality in simple rules. Differential equations are the method how to describe reality - so the game would need them then at least."
ADnD are quite simple rules, every attempt to make some aspect more complex can break their (already weak ) balance from the whole system view. And I think that the damage of monsters is already cover quite good by rules.