Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sorites 10-18-07, 09:44 AM	I'm reading the entry for the Werebear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm#werebear), and I can't figure out how one of the attack bonuses is calculated. Here's the Full Attack and some other info: Str: 29 BAB: +5 Size: Large Claw +13 melee (1d6+9) and greataxe +9 melee (1d12+4/×3) and bite +11 melee (1d8+4) or 2 claws +13 melee (1d6+9) and bite +11 melee (1d8+4) Claw: I understand this attack. +5 (BAB) +9 (Str) -1 (Size) = +13 Greataxe: This is my problem. +5 (BAB) +9 (Str) -1 (Size) -2 (Inappropriately Sized Weapon) -2 (???) = +9 Where does the other -2 come from? Why isn't his attack bonus with the greataxe +11? His attack bonus when performing a single attack as a standard action *is* +11. So the +9 is only for when he full attacks.... The only thing I can think of is that he's using the greataxe in his off-hand. But I can't find any rules that would generate the -2 penalty. He has multiattack, but that feat only applies to natural weapons. He doesn't have the two-weapon fighting feat, but it doesn't look like TWF even applies here. Can anyone help me out? :confused:
eamon 10-18-07, 10:48 AM	Normally, when combining weapon attacks with natural attacks, the natural attacks are the secondary attacks and take the appropriate penalty. They're apparently not in this case, so the manufactured weapons are considered secondary. There's no really explicit rule about this case, but I guess they're considering it to use rules similar to natural weapons - you'll notice they also halved the str bonus... Frankly it doesn't make much sense. The werewolf lord example doesn't apply any weapon-sizing penalty either. (I'm not really convinced about the appropriateness of weaponsizing penalties for something like a greataxe anyhow... it doesn't strike me as that different from a large battleaxe). I'd avoid the situation with custom-built opponents, and simply play the werebear as written - he's not particularly optimal anyhow.
Merestil Haye 10-18-07, 12:20 PM	I'm reading the entry for the Werebear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm#werebear), and I can't figure out how one of the attack bonuses is calculated. Here's the Full Attack and some other info: Str: 29 BAB: +5 Size: Large Claw +13 melee (1d6+9) and greataxe +9 melee (1d12+4/×3) and bite +11 melee (1d8+4) or 2 claws +13 melee (1d6+9) and bite +11 melee (1d8+4) Claw: I understand this attack. +5 (BAB) +9 (Str) -1 (Size) = +13 Greataxe: This is my problem. +5 (BAB) +9 (Str) -1 (Size) -2 (Inappropriately Sized Weapon) -2 (???) = +9 Where does the other -2 come from? Why isn't his attack bonus with the greataxe +11? His attack bonus when performing a single attack as a standard action *is* +11. So the +9 is only for when he full attacks.... The only thing I can think of is that he's using the greataxe in his off-hand. But I can't find any rules that would generate the -2 penalty. He has multiattack, but that feat only applies to natural weapons. He doesn't have the two-weapon fighting feat, but it doesn't look like TWF even applies here. Can anyone help me out? :confused:My guess would be that not only is he wielding an inappropriate size weapon, he's also wielding it in only one hand. That's probably where the extra penalty came from. (The entry explicitly mentions this). That being said, the axe should be the primary weapon.
sorites 10-18-07, 07:06 PM	Thanks for your replies. They both make sense, but I think eamon is probably right. I did overlook the halved strength bonus on the greataxe's damage. It technically breaks the RAW for the greataxe to be a secondary attack, but it sure looks like that's how they're treating it here. Unfortunately, I was hoping the wearbear would show me how to build a full attack that has both manufactured and natural attacks. Setting aside wearbear wonkiness, here's what I figure... It looks like TWF rules are not invoked by the combination, which is surprising. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon, and a monk wielding a weapon in one hand and fist in the other would surely be required to use TWF rules. A claw is not so different from a fist... It also appears that the first attack is the primary and subsequent attacks are secondary. So, for example, if the werebear used his greataxe first, it would be the primary attack and his 2 claws and bite are secondary attacks. When 'unarmed', the 2 claws are primary and the bite is secondary. That sound right?
eamon 10-19-07, 09:17 AM	Sounds right. Basically, you have two types of attacks from our point of view: manufactured (thus iterative) attacks - this includes monk's fists. natural attacks - this includes slam attacks, claw attacks, and almost all attacks made with various body-parts, but not a monk's unarmed strike. These two types can be used simultaneously, and mostly independently from each other. That means you can still TWF even if you're using natural attacks, though of course you need hands to wield most manufactured weapons - so if you're using a normal claw or slam attack, you're using a hand, and can't use it for manufactured weapon attacks. It's simplest, and usually optimal anyhow, to always choose the manufactured weapons as primary weapons. In that case, all natural weapons are secondary attacks, and they are made at appropriate bonuses: with 1/2 strength bonus to damage, and with a -5 penalty to hit (-2 with multiattack). Your (usually manufactured) primary weapon(s) take no penalties. A centaur takes no penalties to his weapon attacks when he uses his hoof attacks. Example: A character with two natural hoof attacks and a base attack bonus of +6 and TWF and ITWF and multiattack, wielding two weapons, could attack as follows, assuming a strength bonus of +4 and a size penalty of -1 and no other bonuses whatsoever (think "centaur with daggers"): Primary hand: +6 bab, -2 TWF, -1 size, +4 str: +7/+2 (1d6 +4) Secondary hand: +6 bab, -2 TWF, -1 size, +4 str: +7/+2 (1d6 +2) 2 Hooves: +6bab, -2 multiattack secondary att., -1 size, +4 str: +4/+4 (1d6 +2) Now, the MM doesn't always follow this pattern; but that's neither here nor there ;)... Postscript: If our centaur wanted to throw his daggers, he could further use rapid shot - but note that rapid shot imposes a penalty of -2 on all attacks, thus including non-ranged attacks and in my example including the hoof attacks. According to the FAQ, if the centaur were a monk and wielding monk weapons (so he could flurry of blows) you could flurry in addition to TWF and even then also perform hoof attacks (and even still rapid shot too), but not everyone agrees with that interpretation (not that it's likely to occur in-game anyhow), and of course flurry's penalty applies to all attacks, just as rapid shot does, and stacks with other penalties (like those from TWF and rapid shot). Incidentally, whether or not you're of the school of thought that the rules allow TWF in combination with flurry, doing so isn't likely to be a big balance issue (because of all the penalties, and the cost in feats), but will turn your game into dice-madness (I don't even want to count how many attacks you could get... too many)...
eamon 10-19-07, 09:27 AM	My guess would be that not only is he wielding an inappropriate size weapon, he's also wielding it in only one hand. That's probably where the extra penalty came from. (The entry explicitly mentions this). Normally you wield a two-handed weapon which is one size category too small as a one-handed (non-light) weapon without special penalty - beyond the normal weapon-sizing -2 penalty. That being said, the axe should be the primary weapon. That certainly would have been simpler, and not really less powerful. And I don't think weapon-sizing makes much sense here anyhow, if I try to visualize the situation. In any case, weapon-sizing rules are... very odd: can a large creature wield a medium spiked chain as a reach weapon in one hand? What about a (large) stone giant wielding a (small) halfling's spiked chain? Could he conceivably still get the reach benefit? Since it's a light weapon, could he then also TWF it in his off hand? Fortunately these things don't actually happen in-game, and on the off-chance that they do, you can rule-zero 'em. Note that the Werewolf lord doesn't get a weapon-sizing penalty... The MM just isn't consistent with these things. Not that it really matters...