4
\$\begingroup\$

I am working on a druid character and just getting around to wild shapes natural attacks and I spotted what should be an error in its damage progression under the universal monster rules which conflicts with the newer damage dice progression rules.

Official Damage Dice Progression Chart $$ \begin{array}{l|l} \text{Level} & \text{Dice}\\ \hline 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1d1 \\ 2 & 1d2\\ 3 & 1d3\\ 4 & 1d4\\ 5 & 1d6\\ 6 & 1d8\\ 7 & 1d10\\ 8 & 2d6\\ 9 & 2d8\\ 10 & 3d6\\ 11 & 3d8\\ 12 & 4d6\\ 13 & 4d8\\ 14 & 6d6\\ 15 & 6d8\\ 16 & 8d6\\ 17 & 8d8\\ 18 & 12d6\\ 19 & 12d8\\ 20 & 16d6\\ \end{array} $$

Here we have the chart for Bite

$$ \begin{array}{l|l|l} \text{Size} & \text{Dice Level} & \text{Dice}\\ \hline Fine & 1 & 1d1\\ Diminutive & 2 & 1d2\\ Tiny & 3 & 1d3\\ Small & 4 & 1d4\\ Medium & 5 & 1d6\\ Large & 6 & 1d8\\ Huge & 8 & 2d6\\ Gargantuan & 9 & 2d8\\ Colossal & 12 & 4d6\\ \end{array} $$

Here we can clearly see that huge to gargantuan is only 1 and not 2, and from gargantuan to colossal is 3 instead of 2. If gargantuan was changed from 9 to 10 then the chart would be correct, its the only value that's off. So is this just a mistake or is this actually what its suppose to be?

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

It took quite a long time before Paizo came to an official ruling about how to make the damage increase with size. As you noted the monster rules are older (first bestiary was published in 2009) than the errata (from 2015). It seems very likely that the table just haven't been updated since the ruling has been made

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.