Brown Bear and Improved Natural Weapon

[gnrlogan]

Does the Brown Bear in MM 3.5 have Improved Natural Weapon feat?

In comparison with Tiger, who have the INW feat, both are Large and have the same basic damage dice (1d8 Claw and 2d6 bite).

:smallbiggrin: sry about my english btw :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

IT doesn't say they do. I do not recall if there is a "standard claw and bite damage for X-sized creature" table. I cannot find one.

Assuming there isn't, what this means is that the tiger is actually weaker than the brown bear in that regard: his "base" attack damage would be d6 for claws and d8 for bite, but the Improved Natural Weapon feat is buffing that to d8 and 2d6, respectively. Whereas the brown bear (and the polar bear) don't need INW to get to those die types.

Why they'd do that, I'm not sure, so I actually suspect it's a typo and you should apply the die-size increase to the tiger, but that's the DM's call.

Again, this is assuming there isn't a table that says what "base" damage should be based on size, in which case you could compare both creatures' damage to that table to see which is "right" with or without the INW feat.

[gnrlogan]

Thanks for the quick answer! :smallsmile:

In fact, there is a table in the MM I, I just don't remember the exactly page. It says that the basic damage dice for Large creatures should be 1d8 and 1d6 for bite and claw, respectively.

I think it is a typo too, or they just forgotten to add the feat to the brown bear.

[The Viscount]

While as you say there is a standard for claws and bite, there are occasional digressions from the standard. First example that springs to mind is the bone devil, which is large but has d4 claws. It's not necessarily wrong or a typo, just odd.

[Inevitability]

I believe MM2 had such a table. However, I don't know what happened to it in the update to 3.5.

[gnrlogan]

While as you say there is a standard for claws and bite, there are occasional digressions from the standard. First example that springs to mind is the bone devil, which is large but has d4 claws. It's not necessarily wrong or a typo, just odd.

Same for crocodile (1d12 tail when should be 1d6). Maybe it relies on creature's anatomy, since the crocodile have a kind of disproportional tail.

Thanks for the aswers, everyone! :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

I would hazard to suggest, if there is a table and the Brown Bear and the Tiger both demonstrate damage codes that agree with said table, then the tiger is in error because the writers forgot to up the die types in response to the two feats. If the table says, on the other hand, that the Brown Bear's damage codes are too big, then they forgot to add the feats to the bear.