In 1e D&D, mimics punched you. 2e showed mimics with teeth and claws, but they had no such attacks. In 3e, claws but no such attacks. 4e mimics have a bite. In 5e, they still do. But they have no claws. Couldn’t they, though? The "why" for the images not matching the monsters is, as RPG developers know well, the art comes in and the artist took liberties. That said, I love this toothy mimic and its tonguopod… pseudotongue… bashy bit. pic.twitter.com/tspofcNncQ
— Chris S. Sims (@ChrisSSims) March 15, 2021
Artists taking liberties is often a good thing, BTW. A lot of times, that improv makes the creature even cooler than it was before. So, I’m not bashing that creativity. I’ve changed more than one critter to match cooler art. But from that perspective, which a lot of developers have–changing monster stats to match cool art–I wonder why the mimic didn't have a bite sooner. I bet it did at some tables. 🙂
— Chris S. Sims (@ChrisSSims) March 15, 2021
I always liked the adhesive trait. I had so much fun across editions with that. Placing a sword (mimic) in the chest of a skeleton is a great trick.
— Alphastream (@Alphastream) March 15, 2021
So you’re saying their bark* is literally worse than their non-existant bite attack? At least prior to 4e?
____
*Assuming mimics bark. Which I now feel should totally be a thing mimics do. They can have bark… and some of them can talk. So, yeah, why not bark? Sure!— Chris S. Sims (@ChrisSSims) March 15, 2021
It'd make sense for mimics to have one attack, and the ability to switch damage types (bludgeoning, piercing, slashing) at will.
— Claudio Pozas (@claudiopozas) March 15, 2021
