Size and Special Attacks

[ChudoJogurt]

If a creature has some rider on a natural weapon attack (e.g. Constrict or Rend), would that rider increase when the creature is Enlarged?
Would the answer change if that special attack is granted by a spell or a Martial ToB stance (such as Crushing Weight of the Mountain)?

[Darg]

If a creature has some rider on a natural weapon attack (e.g. Constrict or Rend), would that rider increase when the creature is Enlarged?
Would the answer change if that special attack is granted by a spell or a Martial ToB stance (such as Crushing Weight of the Mountain)?

They would only be modified if it states that the damage is based on weapons that have increased in size. Abilities can grant weapons, but they themselves cannot be a weapon. I don't know of a constrict ability that does so, however the feat Rend from Draconomicon deals damage equal to two claw attacks. That would be increased. However the feat Two-weapon Rend from PHBII would not because the extra damage isn't based on weapons.

[Duke of Urrel]

If a creature has some rider on a natural weapon attack (e.g. Constrict or Rend), would that rider increase when the creature is Enlarged?
Would the answer change if that special attack is granted by a spell or a Martial ToB stance (such as Crushing Weight of the Mountain)?

We can be confident that the Constrict or Rend special attack will inflict more damage when a creature's size category increases, because the damage of this special attack is based on the damage of the natural weapon that the creature uses in the attack. Natural weapons do inflict more damage as they get bigger. There is a table on page 291 of the MONSTER MANUAL 3.5 that shows the general pattern. This table also appears in the SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases).

I am less confident about the effect of enlargement on Martial Stances. I will let somebody else handle this question.

Note to Darg: I assume that enlargement does increase the damage of the Constrict or Rend ability because this is what actually happens in the MONSTER MANUAL. Look at the monstrous scorpion, for example. This creature inflicts claw damage with its Constrict attack. The bigger the size category of the monstrous scorpion, the bigger its claws, the more damage its Constrict attack inflicts.

[RSGA]

The scorpion may not be the best choice because it both has the Improved Grab ability and the SRD text says that it's version of Constrict does damage based on its claw attack. Indeed, a reading of the abilities may mean that it essentially does two claw attacks on anyone hit by a claw and than successfully grabbed at +17.

A little more looking seems to say to me that the answer would depend on the wording of Constrict. Some monsters have a seemingly independent value for it, others base it off some natural weapon. Which if nothing else is a good guideline.

[Duke of Urrel]

The scorpion may not be the best choice because it both has the Improved Grab ability and the SRD text says that it's version of Constrict does damage based on its claw attack. Indeed, a reading of the abilities may mean that it essentially does two claw attacks on anyone hit by a claw and than successfully grabbed at +17.

A little more looking seems to say to me that the answer would depend on the wording of Constrict. Some monsters have a seemingly independent value for it, others base it off some natural weapon. Which if nothing else is a good guideline.

Well, okay, but with Constrict attacks, size does seem to matter, as a general rule. The bigger the creature, the greater the damage. For example, a Huge-sized constrictor snake does a lot more damage with its Constrict ability than a Medium-sized one. I can't find a counter-example.

[RSGA]

Well, okay, but with Constrict attacks, size does seem to matter, as a general rule. The bigger the creature, the greater the damage. For example, a Huge-sized constrictor snake does a lot more damage with its Constrict ability than a Medium-sized one. I can't find a counter-example.

If we could find an official stats for a 13+ hit die giant octopus, we could get a better idea. It's constrict damage doesn't neatly map to any simple use of its existing natural weapons and has an off bonus damage if you go based on strength.

[Darg]

Note to Darg: I assume that enlargement does increase the damage of the Constrict or Rend ability because this is what actually happens in the MONSTER MANUAL. Look at the monstrous scorpion, for example. This creature inflicts claw damage with its Constrict attack. The bigger the size category of the monstrous scorpion, the bigger its claws, the more damage its Constrict attack inflicts.

While the constrictor's constrict ability's damage is equal to that of its bite, the constrictor isn't biting.

It depends on the wording of the individual monster's ability. The monstrous scorpion's constrict damage is explicitly stated to be based on its claw damage. The constrictor's however is not. So in this case the scorpion's would increase in size while the constrictor's would remain the same.

[Duke of Urrel]

While the constrictor's constrict ability's damage is equal to that of its bite, the constrictor isn't biting.

It depends on the wording of the individual monster's ability. The monstrous scorpion's constrict damage is explicitly stated to be based on its claw damage. The constrictor's however is not. So in this case the scorpion's would increase in size while the constrictor's would remain the same.

The constrictor snake (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/snake.htm)'s damage, though it is inflicted by its crushing coils and not by its bite, does increase with the size of its body. It does not remain the same.


Constrictor Snake
Medium Animal
Special Attacks: Constrict 1d3+4, improved grab


Constrictor Snake, Giant
Huge Animal
Special Attacks: Constrict 1d8+10, improved grab

When a constrictor snake is Huge rather than Medium sized, its damage die for its Constrict attack changes from 1d3 to 1d8. This is actually a bigger change than the "Table: Increased Damage by Size" (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases) predicts. On the other hand, a Medium constrictor snake has a Strength of 17, while a Huge one has a Strength of 25. This is a smaller change than the "Table: Changes to Statistics by Size" (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases) predicts.

It seems that the game designers have done some fudging, which I take to mean that we have the right to do some fudging, too, especially as dungeon masters. There is no hard and fast rule, but there is a general guideline. The bigger the creature is, the more damage it does with its natural weapons and thus also with its special attacks. Even if the creature doesn't use the same natural weapon for its normal mêlée attack as it uses for its special attack, the latter still damages more if the creature is bigger.


If we could find an official stats for a 13+ hit die giant octopus, we could get a better idea. It's constrict damage doesn't neatly map to any simple use of its existing natural weapons and has an off bonus damage if you go based on strength.

Fortunately, there are other monstrous cephalopods that we can use for comparison's sake: the giant squid (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/squidGiant.htm) and the kraken (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kraken.htm).


Squid, Giant
Huge Animal (Aquatic)
Special Attacks: Constrict 1d6+8, improved grab


Kraken
Gargantuan Magical Beast (Aquatic)
Special Attacks: Improved grab, constrict 2d8+12

The change from 1d8 to 2d8 is much bigger than the "Table: Increased Damage by Size" (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases) predicts. On the other hand, the giant squid has a Strength of 26, while a kraken has a Strength of 34. This is exactly what the "Table: Changes to Statistics by Size" (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases) predicts.

Here's how I imagine applying the general principle that bigger natural weapons give your special attacks bigger damage dice.

Suppose you are a ranger and you have the Two-Weapon Rend feat. In contrast to the extraordinary special attack called Rend, the Two-Weapon Rend feat inflicts damage that is not based on the mêlée weapons you use; instead, it is always 1d6. But should you inflict more damage with this feat if your whole body grows, as well as your weapons? I think it should, and it is possible to make this happen.

Suppose you, the ranger with the Two-Weapon Rend feat, use the Claws of the Bear spell (on page 47 of the SPELL COMPENDIUM v. 3.5) to give yourself two bear claw attacks that you can make as a full attack action. If you are Medium sized, each claw attack inflicts 1d8 Hit Points of slashing damage. Now suppose your ally, a sorcerer, casts the Enlarge Person spell upon you. Now that you are Large sized, each claw attack inflicts 2d6 Hit Points of slashing damage. (This increase follows the "Table: Increased Damage by Size" (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases) exactly.)

But what about your Two-Weapon Rend feat? Can you use this feat even when your weapons are natural rather than manufactured? Your dungeon master may say "No," but I would say "Yes." And do you inflict more damage with this feat when you are Large sized than when you are Medium? Your dungeon master may say "No," but I would say "Yes" again. I would say your damage die changes from 1d6 to 1d8, because this is the natural progression according to the "Table: Increased Damage by Size." (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases)

Who says rangers can't have nice things?

*** *** ***

None of this applies to Martial Stances from the TOME OF BATTLE v. 3.5. Since martial arts are purely effects of studied discipline rather than brawn, I don't believe extra damage from any Martial Stance changes with your size. It stays the same whether you grow bigger or smaller. This is the glory of the Force: little Yoda can use it just as well as Count Dooku can.

[Darg]

The fact that the damage dice rarely align to size just points to the obvious conclusion that constrict isn't increased by size unless it's based on an actual weapon. You don't have to believe it, but the evidence is the evidence.

As for TWRend, a naturally large creature will do the same damage as a naturally small creature. Having it increase or decrease with size makes it less predictable and less attractive for smaller creatures.

[loky1109]

The constrictor snake (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/snake.htm)'s damage, though it is inflicted by its crushing coils and not by its bite, does increase with the size of its body. It does not remain the same.

When a constrictor snake is Huge rather than Medium sized, its damage die for its Constrict attack changes from 1d3 to 1d8. This is actually a bigger change than the "Table: Increased Damage by Size" (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases) predicts. On the other hand, a Medium constrictor snake has a Strength of 17, while a Huge one has a Strength of 25. This is a smaller change than the "Table: Changes to Statistics by Size" (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases) predicts.

Your point doesn't work at all, because Constrictor Snake and Constrictor Snake, Giant are two separate different creatures. Huge isn't advanced version of medium. And it's even realistic - they are different species. I don't know, boa and anaconda?

[Duke of Urrel]

The fact that the damage dice rarely align to size just points to the obvious conclusion that constrict isn't increased by size unless it's based on an actual weapon. You don't have to believe it, but the evidence is the evidence.

I am not going to deny evidence. But there is evidence that shows that bigger creatures inflict more damage with the extraordinary Constrict attack than smaller ones do. It's true of bigger monstrous scorpions, it's true of bigger monstrous cephalopods, and it's true of bigger snakes.


Your point doesn't work at all, because Constrictor Snake and Constrictor Snake, Giant are two separate different creatures. Huge isn't advanced version of medium. And it's even realistic - they are different species. I don't know, boa and anaconda?

You're right: The constrictor snake and the giant constrictor snake don't belong to the same species, but to separate and distinct species. (The same is surely true of giant squid and krakens, and it may also be true of monstrous scorpions.) But what is the most obvious difference between the constrictor snake and the giant constrictor snake? It is their size. Is there some difference other than size that explains why the Huge-sized giant constrictor snake does more damage with its Constrict attack than the Medium-sized constrictor snake? Well, maybe there is one, but I don't know what that difference is, do you? It seems to me that this is a situation that calls for Occam's Razor. "If you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one."

On the other hand, there is a snake whose ability to inflict damage with its Constrict ability exceeds its size: the legendary snake, which appears on page of the MONSTER MANUAL II v. 3.5. Since a Medium-sized constrictor snake inflicts 1d3+4 Hit-Points with its Constrict attack and a Huge-sized giant constrictor snake inflicts 1d8+10, we should expect a legendary snake, whose size category is Large, to inflict something in between. But a legendary snake inflicts 1d8+12 Hit Points with its Constrict attack. This beast clearly punches above its weight, which goes to show that size is not the only factor determining how much damage the Constrict attack does. But this is not to deny that size matters. Size does matter. It's just not the only thing that matters.


As for TWRend, a naturally large creature will do the same damage as a naturally small creature. Having it increase or decrease with size makes it less predictable and less attractive for smaller creatures.

This ... is a very good point, Darg. I really don't want smaller creatures to do less damage with the Two-Weapon Rend feat, so I shouldn't make the damage change according to the creature's size. The Two-Weapon Rend feat should be like a martial art, which has the same benefit for any combatant, regardless of size. You're right; I was wrong.

I invented the example of the ranger with the Two-Weapon Rend feat in my previous posting because this is the only way that I could imagine a Humanoid being able to use something like the extraordinary Rend attack. I still wonder what our Original Poster, ChudoJogurt, had in mind. Perhaps there is such a thing as a Humanoid creature that has the extraordinary Rend attack and doesn't need to take the Two-Weapon Rend feat. If there is such a creature, I will stick with my claim that the damage you do with the extraordinary Rend attack (unlike the Two-Weapon Rend feat) should change with the creature's size.

I had to do a lot of hunting in the version 3.5 MONSTER MANUALS to find examples of similar monsters of different sizes to confirm the hypothesis that bigger creatures inflict more damage with the extraordinary Rend attack than smaller creatures do, but I eventually found two examples. These are the windblades, which appear on pages 176 and 177 of the MONSTER MANUAL IV v. 3.5, and the voors, a kind of yugoloth, which appear on page 193 and 194 of the same volume.


Windrazor (Windblade)
Small Outsider
Rend 2d4 +2


Windscythe (Windblade)
Large Outsider
Rend 2d6 +7


Voor (Yugoloth)
Large Outsider
Rend 2d6 +9


Dreadful Lasher (Yugoloth)
Huge Outsider
Rend 2d8 +16

No other examples that I could find support the hypothesis that bigger creatures inflict more damage with the extraordinary Rend attack than smaller creatures do. For example, there are various apes with this special attack. Most of them are of one and the same size category, namely Large, but apes of Large size may inflict either 2d6 or 2d4 Hit Points of rending damage plus 1.5 times their Strength bonus. It varies by species. The legendary ape (which appears on pages 136 to 137 of the MONSTER MANUAL II v. 3.5) inflicts 2d6 Hit Points plus 1.5 times its Strength bonus even though it is only of Medium size. Likewise, there are various trolls, all of them of Large size, but some of them inflict more damage with the extraordinary Rend attack than others. Normal trolls (Large) inflict 2d6+9 Hit Points, but cave trolls (also Large) inflict 4d6+13.

[loky1109]

But what is the most obvious difference between the constrictor snake and the giant constrictor snake? It is their size.
Size, NatAC, Stats, Bite damage, Constrict damage. A lot.


It seems to me that this is a situation that calls for Occam's Razor. "If you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one."
Yes. And idea "these are separate creatures" is simpler.

[Duke of Urrel]

Size, NatAC, Stats, Bite damage, Constrict damage...

Applying Occam's Razor means choosing the simplest explanation out of two or more competing and valid explanations.

Natural armor does not compete against size to explain Constrict damage. Rather, natural armor changes along with size. The bigger a creature is, the thicker its natural armor is.

Bite damage also does not compete against size to explain Constrict damage. Rather, bite damage changes along with size. The bigger a creature is, the bigger its jaws and teeth are. Moreover, a constrictor snake does not constrict with its bite. Rather, it takes hold of you with its bite (using the Improved Grab attack), winds some of its coils around your body, and then squeezes.

I am not sure what you meant to say by stats, but I am sure that, like natural armor and bite damage, many stats, notably Strength, do not compete against size but rather change along with it.

Constrict damage does not explain Constrict damage. You do not explain a thing merely by stating that this thing is its own cause. This is circular reasoning.

It is also circular reasoning when you say that two different creatures inflict differing amounts of Constrict damage because they are different creatures. This isn't an explanation; it's just a restatement of the fact without adding any explanation at all.

I learned about Occam's Razor from a book that used the following example.

Suppose you have baked a pie and set it on the open windowsill to cool in the breeze. One half-hour later, you return to the windowsill and see that the pie is gone. What is the explanation?

1. Your next-door neighbor, who loves pies, has taken your pie and eaten it.

2. A spaceship filled with extraterrestrials has landed, beamed your pie into its research module, and departed again for the Planet Zoltron.


Applying Occam's Razor means choosing Explanation One instead of Explanation Two, even if your next-door neighbor greatly prefers Explanation Two.

If somebody offered a third explanation: "The pie is not there because it is not there," this may be the simplest "explanation" of all, but it is not a valid one. It is invalid, because it doesn't really explain anything at all but relies upon circular reasoning. The simplest explanation that Occam's Razor requires of us is the simplest valid explanation, that is, the simplest explanation that actually works as an explanation.

[ChudoJogurt]

I invented the example of the ranger with the Two-Weapon Rend feat in my previous posting because this is the only way that I could imagine a Humanoid being able to use something like the extraordinary Rend attack. I still wonder what our Original Poster, ChudoJogurt, had in mind. Perhaps there is such a thing as a Humanoid creature that has the extraordinary Rend attack and doesn't need to take the Two-Weapon Rend feat. If there is such a creature, I will stick with my claim that the damage you do with the extraordinary Rend attack (unlike the Two-Weapon Rend feat) should change with the creature's size.

I didn't have anything specific for Rend, but at the very least Girallon Arms bound to Arms would give one a Rend attack (though that one is explicitly tied to claw damage)

[Duke of Urrel]

I didn't have anything specific for Rend, but at the very least Girallon Arms bound to Arms would give one a Rend attack (though that one is explicitly tied to claw damage)

Thanks for this. If I understand Girallon Arms correctly, it is a magical effect that gives you both claws and an extraordinary Rend attack. Am I right? (I am not familiar with any Magic of Incarnum and will defer to the judgement of one who has more knowledge of this than I do.) I cannot find a source that tells me how much damage these claws give you.

Following the rules of the extraordinary Rend attack, the damage that you do if you hit one opponent with both claws in one round should add extra damage equal to your "natural attack" plus 1.5 times your Strength modifier. This is what the MONSTER MANUAL says in its description of the extraordinary Rend attack on page 314. It also says, "The creature’s descriptive text gives the exact amount."

Actually, this description raises another question that I am not sure I can answer. In all the cases that I've looked at recently, the Rend attack deals two dice worth of damage, or in a few cases four dice, not just one die. For the girallon, the damage is 2d4+9. This is equal to two of the girallon's claw-attack dice plus 1.5 times the girallon's Strength modifier. (This doubling of dice has nothing to do with the number of arms you have; a troll's Rend attack also has two damage dice, while the cave troll's Rend attack has four.) So I wonder whether "natural attack" actually means two claw-attack dice rather than only one die. To rend means to use two claws at once, after all. This seems to be a general rule, according to the stat blocks of most creatures that I've looked at recently. So an even bigger question, for me (and maybe for all of us on this thread), may be this. Does your "natural attack," whose damage you inflict with a Rend attack, include two claw-attack dice, or only one die? This is kind of a big deal, I think.

But back to your original question. If you have Girallon Arms and you grow one size category bigger, do your claws also grow bigger?

I would say (though others will disagree) that they do. I would also say (though others will disagree) that with bigger claws, you also do more damage with the Rend attack.

[loky1109]

Applying Occam's Razor means choosing the simplest explanation out of two or more competing and valid explanations.

Natural armor does not compete against size to explain Constrict damage. Rather, natural armor changes along with size. The bigger a creature is, the thicker its natural armor is.

Bite damage also does not compete against size to explain Constrict damage. Rather, bite damage changes along with size. The bigger a creature is, the bigger its jaws and teeth are. Moreover, a constrictor snake does not constrict with its bite. Rather, it takes hold of you with its bite (using the Improved Grab attack), winds some of its coils around your body, and then squeezes.

I am not sure what you meant to say by stats, but I am sure that, like natural armor and bite damage, many stats, notably Strength, do not compete against size but rather change along with it.

Constrict damage does not explain Constrict damage. You do not explain a thing merely by stating that this thing is its own cause. This is circular reasoning.

There are rules that says how should change NatAC, damage, stats, etc with changing size. These two snakes don't fit these rules. NatAC of huge constrictor isn't bigger than medium because of size difference. It's just different. If it was matter of size it should be +6, not +4. The same about stats. The same about damage. So no, you can't use these creatures as argumentation. There could be literally any numbers.