Cat's claws do 1d2-4... wait, what? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Cat's claws do 1d2-4... wait, what? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Doctor X
07-01-04, 01:07 PM One of my players is thinking about taking a cat familiar, which promted me to check out cat statistics. But there's one thing that confuses me...

According to the 3.5 Monster Manual, a cat's claws deal 1d2-4 damage, which makes sense if you follow the rules of monster creation-- a tiny animal's claws deal 1d2, and the cat's strength modifier is -4...

But how in the world come true are you supposed to use this in a fight? Even at a maximum roll that would come out at negative damage... So is a cat not able to deal damage at all?

Can someone help me out here?
Pyrolocutus
07-01-04, 01:09 PM On damage rolls, you can never go negative. You will always get a minimum of one.

Thus, a cat will deal 1 damage each time it successfully hits an opponent.

Which means a cat could concievably kill an average commoner (4 hp) in 4 strikes. Scary...
Lord_Naerik
07-01-04, 01:21 PM And the reason for bothering to list the damage as 1d2-4 instead of just 1 point is that the player and DM must know what happens when the Cat is buffed up.

Effectively, the cat is so physically weak that it takes a lot of damage boosting to overcome that.

As long as their have been familiars, there have been enterprising players who try to get them to attack big scary monsters.

Personally, I would think a Wizard would be more intelligent than that.

Edit: A cat could conceivably disable a commoner in 4 strikes, perhaps not as far fetched. It would take 5 to render the commoner unconcious, and more if it wanted to be assured the commoner was dead.

Why are all these cats attacking commoners anyway? Have they been abused and cornered?
MetalGemini
07-01-04, 01:36 PM the d2-4 also helps because if the cat criticals, it still only does 1 point of damage.
Doctor X
07-01-04, 02:47 PM Ah, I get it. So attacks always deal a minimum of one point of damage? I must have skipped over that somewhere or forgot. It makes sense, though.

Not that my player would be dumb enough to send his familiar into a fight... I just saw it in the book and thought it was rather strange. Thanks for the help.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Doctor X 07-01-04, 01:07 PM	One of my players is thinking about taking a cat familiar, which promted me to check out cat statistics. But there's one thing that confuses me... According to the 3.5 Monster Manual, a cat's claws deal 1d2-4 damage, which makes sense if you follow the rules of monster creation-- a tiny animal's claws deal 1d2, and the cat's strength modifier is -4... But how in the world come true are you supposed to use this in a fight? Even at a maximum roll that would come out at negative damage... So is a cat not able to deal damage at all? Can someone help me out here?
Pyrolocutus 07-01-04, 01:09 PM	On damage rolls, you can never go negative. You will always get a minimum of one. Thus, a cat will deal 1 damage each time it successfully hits an opponent. Which means a cat could concievably kill an average commoner (4 hp) in 4 strikes. Scary...
Lord_Naerik 07-01-04, 01:21 PM	And the reason for bothering to list the damage as 1d2-4 instead of just 1 point is that the player and DM must know what happens when the Cat is buffed up. Effectively, the cat is so physically weak that it takes a lot of damage boosting to overcome that. As long as their have been familiars, there have been enterprising players who try to get them to attack big scary monsters. Personally, I would think a Wizard would be more intelligent than that. Edit: A cat could conceivably disable a commoner in 4 strikes, perhaps not as far fetched. It would take 5 to render the commoner unconcious, and more if it wanted to be assured the commoner was dead. Why are all these cats attacking commoners anyway? Have they been abused and cornered?
MetalGemini 07-01-04, 01:36 PM	the d2-4 also helps because if the cat criticals, it still only does 1 point of damage.
Doctor X 07-01-04, 02:47 PM	Ah, I get it. So attacks always deal a minimum of one point of damage? I must have skipped over that somewhere or forgot. It makes sense, though. Not that my player would be dumb enough to send his familiar into a fight... I just saw it in the book and thought it was rather strange. Thanks for the help.