6 armed giant and natural attacks ?? [Archive] - Wizards Community

6 armed giant and natural attacks ?? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Shadowfax7
07-18-04, 12:47 PM I need to create a 6 armed giant for an adventure . . .

I decided to use the Ogre as a base, since a 9' giant type creature was large enough.

The creature uses 6 slam attacks and has the multi-attack feat instead of Weapon Focus (great club), now this is where the confusion starts:

1) Is the creature's full attack +7/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5 OR +7/+7/+7/+7/+7/+7 ?? I believe it is the latter.

Since this is the creature's primary (and only) natural attack, it is made at the creature's full atack bonus and since all 6 attacks are part of the primary attack, then all 6 attacks are made at the full attack bonus. Which means that the multi-attack feat is useless for this crearture ??

2) The standard Slam damage for a Large creature is 1d6, as per the chart in the MM 3.5, pg. 296, thus this creature's Slam attack is 1d6+5 (Str 21).

However, in comparing another multi-armed Large creature using Slam attacks, this seems not to be true ??

For example:

The Marilith (Large creature) has 6 slams at 1d8+9 (Str 29) ??

Also, other creatures such as Flesh Golems (2d8 instead of 1d6 for Large size), Fire, Frost, Hill, Stone Giants (all 1d4 instead of 1d6 for Large size), Mummies (1d6 instead of 1d4 for medium size), etc. don't follow the Slam damage listed for their size from that chart ??
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht
07-18-04, 01:21 PM The full attack is +7/+7/+7/+7/+7/+7. The Multi-attack feat is unneccessary. The damage is a guideline, not a rule. It even says that right above the table that everything in the table is a guideline. The table should not be there, as it causes unneccessary confusion.
grazzt_the_dark
07-18-04, 01:35 PM As far as damage is concerned, I believe that giving giants lower slam damage than other creatures put them in line with human unarmed attacks (ie since a human unarmed attack does 1d3 damage, a giants slam (which is really just a punch) does 1d4 damage).
Shadowfax7
07-18-04, 01:59 PM Thank you both . . . clear as day now.

I agree with you Grazzt in regards to Giant's unarmed attacks compared to Humans.
Mithral Icesilver
07-19-04, 12:04 PM Shouldn't it be Slam +7 melee and 5 slams +2 melee? It's something like that for the Darktentacles in the MMII.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht
07-19-04, 04:23 PM Originally posted by Mithral Icesilver
Shouldn't it be Slam +7 melee and 5 slams +2 melee? It's something like that for the Darktentacles in the MMII.

No. Why would it be that? They're the same natural weapon.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shadowfax7 07-18-04, 12:47 PM	I need to create a 6 armed giant for an adventure . . . I decided to use the Ogre as a base, since a 9' giant type creature was large enough. The creature uses 6 slam attacks and has the multi-attack feat instead of Weapon Focus (great club), now this is where the confusion starts: 1) Is the creature's full attack +7/+5/+5/+5/+5/+5 OR +7/+7/+7/+7/+7/+7 ?? I believe it is the latter. Since this is the creature's primary (and only) natural attack, it is made at the creature's full atack bonus and since all 6 attacks are part of the primary attack, then all 6 attacks are made at the full attack bonus. Which means that the multi-attack feat is useless for this crearture ?? 2) The standard Slam damage for a Large creature is 1d6, as per the chart in the MM 3.5, pg. 296, thus this creature's Slam attack is 1d6+5 (Str 21). However, in comparing another multi-armed Large creature using Slam attacks, this seems not to be true ?? For example: The Marilith (Large creature) has 6 slams at 1d8+9 (Str 29) ?? Also, other creatures such as Flesh Golems (2d8 instead of 1d6 for Large size), Fire, Frost, Hill, Stone Giants (all 1d4 instead of 1d6 for Large size), Mummies (1d6 instead of 1d4 for medium size), etc. don't follow the Slam damage listed for their size from that chart ??
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 07-18-04, 01:21 PM	The full attack is +7/+7/+7/+7/+7/+7. The Multi-attack feat is unneccessary. The damage is a guideline, not a rule. It even says that right above the table that everything in the table is a guideline. The table should not be there, as it causes unneccessary confusion.
grazzt_the_dark 07-18-04, 01:35 PM	As far as damage is concerned, I believe that giving giants lower slam damage than other creatures put them in line with human unarmed attacks (ie since a human unarmed attack does 1d3 damage, a giants slam (which is really just a punch) does 1d4 damage).
Shadowfax7 07-18-04, 01:59 PM	Thank you both . . . clear as day now. I agree with you Grazzt in regards to Giant's unarmed attacks compared to Humans.
Mithral Icesilver 07-19-04, 12:04 PM	Shouldn't it be Slam +7 melee and 5 slams +2 melee? It's something like that for the Darktentacles in the MMII.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 07-19-04, 04:23 PM	Originally posted by Mithral Icesilver Shouldn't it be Slam +7 melee and 5 slams +2 melee? It's something like that for the Darktentacles in the MMII. No. Why would it be that? They're the same natural weapon.