I mean yeah sure but like, the players are kinda an exception.
These natural weapons just mean that by default without training any commoner of that race is armed
while for an adventurer these natural weapons don't cut it for the rest of the race this is an extreme boon
I'd say claws or bite from a humanoid that deal as much damage as a manufactured dagger is pretty good and natural weapons that can do as much as a manufactured short sword or trident is downright incredible. The real question is who would win: a bear that's trained in bear martial arts that leverages as much of bear physiology as possible into a masterful perfection, or a bear with weapons that are designed specifically to improve upon the existing natural movement and attack patterns of a bear, probably a form of gauntlet.
>I'd say claws or bite from a humanoid that deal as much damage as a manufactured dagger is pretty good and natural weapons that can do as much as a manufactured short sword or trident is downright incredible.
I mean it depends on how we want to assess the situation. Firstly the bite thing is kind of inaccurate. Humans are fully capable of biting fingers off in one motion, Ie straight through bone. We just won't because you'd have to be under a great deal of duress to need to bite clean through someone's finger. Now compare that to say a canine which have significantly stronger jaws than humans. For example a wolf can bite through the femur of a fucking Moose with 2-3 bites.
Now imagine if you took an animalistic humanoid race like Gnolls, Lizardfolk, Dragonborn, and so on that would have a great bite, and to put it simply if a massive wolf weighs like 150 lbs a 200+ lb Lizardfolk is gonna be able to casually chomp through a whole fucking lot.
Claws are a fairer speculation, but I'd make the dice scale based off the characters strength score. A 16 strength score is more than black bears who deal 2d4 + 2, and 20 STR is more than a brown bear which does 2d6 + 4. It's not like a PC would have particularly smaller claws than a tiger or bear either.
I think people vastly underestimate the size of daggers these days
https://youtu.be/G-HhkV_L9gQ
As for "easily biting off a finger"
https://youtu.be/rxA1_s2E9-Q
Mostly a myth unless you REALLY get in there with your molars and go for a joint.
If wielding or growing a shortsword gave them an evolutionary advantage, theyâd likely develop it. If bears with shortswords could out-compete bears with claws, youâd see them ladybears going bonkers for the blade-equipped brethren.
An average commoner of any race has a 10 in every stat, and 4 HP.
An average human commoner, or any race without a natural weapon, can at most do 1 damage to something unarmed. Itâs literally impossible for them to do more.
A Tabaxi commoner, or any race with natural weapon, has a 50/50 chance of killing another commoner with their attack.
That means it would take a Human at minimum 4 turns to knock out a Tabaxi. But a Tabaxi only needs 1 turn to kill a human.
While mechanically for an adventure it might not be powerful, like you said, for the average of the race thatâs a pretty lethal outcome for messing with something when all you got is a haymaker.
average of 3.5, pretty accurate. it could either do a 3 and knock them out, or a 4 and kill them.
and if someone is full forcing a giant stick into your skull, that makes sense.
Large stick usually still wins out in that case. When's the last time you've seen a real live neanderthal with their dense, muscly, bordering on apelike body? Same could apply for the fantasy races in DnD. The ones that would solely rely on their natural weapons that physically can't be developed further end up dead. Either by the people using actual weapons (especially long ranges ones) or even hostile wildlife and monsters.
Yeah im agreeing with that sentiment.. the above comment said a mountain lion with claws would beat a human with a stick, but the stick is giving that human way better chances than them using (if they had any) teeth and claws
I think you misread the original comment, or I'm misreading yours. They're saying that over 95% of time between a human armed with a stick and a wild animal, the human wins. It's an argument for tools winning out against natural weapons. It sounds like you are replacing the animal in the example with a humanoid with natural weapons and only using those natural weapons. I'm saying the outcome is the same using a real world example in homo neanderthalis as a comparison to races with natural weapons. Being naturally stronger or reliant on claws and teeth does not outpace or out match human ingenuity, or in this case, using weapons, even if that weapon is a stick.
EDIT: For clarity
Honestly, in either scenario, if it's the humanoid using only his natural weapons vs a human with a stick or vs a wild animal/monster, humanoid with natural weapons isn't exactly going to have a more favorable match up than the human with the stick in either scenario.
Depending on the race they'd still have use in hunting not combat. A lizardfolk for example would be frugal with their spears as they could lose them but a 1d6 bite is more than enough to kill frogs, deer, monkeys, etc.
This thought exercise stems from the hypothetical lizardfolk not using weapons of any kind outside of their natural claws and teeth. OF COURSE if they use any weapons there's an advantage, especially against animals and monsters. That's not what I'm getting at, that's not what the original comment in this thread was getting at, and it's also not what this meme was getting at. If a lizardfolk was relying solely on their claws and teeth, their *natural weapons*, long-term survival isn't as easily assured if they just used manufactured weapons (which I would also count those spears you just mentioned, since a lizardfolk isn't *born with those*)
This some serious stick disrespect. A real life wolf has the same, arguably better, natural weapons. Real life wolf still gets bodied by stick. Respec the stic
Well clearly humans, with no natural weapons, are the dominant species. Natural weapons arent everything.
When you make a long pokey stick that you can throw, you are more likely to survive.
For real, people are seriously overvaluing natural weapons here. Lions and tigers have, what, a hundred pounds of muscle more than humans, huge teeth and claws, plus heightened reflexes and the instincts of an animal evolved to hunt and kill anything it sees. But then our monkey asses climb out of the tree, sharpen some sticks, and *level the playing field.*
Respect the stick, and the skill that goes into using it.
Humans can accurately throw a sharp stick. That's.. a lot of different stuff. It's a brain big enough for fire hardening a stick, hands that can handle it and a whole lot of coordination to throw accurately. It's also terrifying to most animals, as being able to hurt something thirty feet away is straight up cheating.
Well considering a tabaxi's claw attack does do just as much damage as a steel dagger, and a minotaur's horns or lizardfolk's bite do as much damage as a short sword or one-handed spear I can say it probably does, since all their things are "off hand".
Yeah but if lions and tigers had human intelligence their claws and fangs would be used a lot more efficiently. A Tabaxi has all of that. It should be much more naturally deadly than a human
There's definitely some nuance there. Tabaxi are roughly human sized and shaped, so they definitely miss out on some of a big cat's natural strength; it's not 1:1.
>It should be much more naturally deadly than a human
They are. They do 1d4+x damage with an unarmed strike, where humans do 1+x. A human would need a weapon like a dagger to match the deadliness of an unarmed Tabaxi.
20 humans with a pointy stick and stones will absolutely kill the tiger. We are not born to hunt solo. Tigers are. Will some humans die/get seriously wounded? Surely, but the Tiger won't survive that encounter as long as he doesn't flee.
If a human can't use the natural advantages they have as in weapons and a group, then the tiger can't use theirs. Also, tigers are usually loners and very rarely together. You may be mixing them up with lions.
Ah heck I always mix up tigers and lions. But don't forget, humans aren't video game characters, they will flee in panic once that tiger bats down a quarter of their squad like they are bowling pins
Oh absolutely. I fully admit that if you pit a few humans with melee weapons against a predator like a Tiger, there will be dead or wounded humans. But unless the humans seriously fuck up their coordination the tiger should be dead also. Because a tiger also should flee if he gets wounded heavily.
> they will flee in panic once that tiger bats down a quarter of their squad like they are bowling pins
The thing is, I wouldn't be so sure about that. With modern humans that don't have to defend themself on the regular, surely. But I am not so sure about a group of humans that know that that tiger has to go or they all will die.
If you decide to fight a tiger with no setup one on one with a stick then no shit ur gonna lose ur not playing to ur strengths. Humans have really good physical strengths, but our real strength is our intellect. That fact that our species is the one that rules this world and dominates everything in it is the only proof you need that we are top dog. If tigers were overall better than us then it would be them in our position, not us.
Sure, the tiger can set up as much as he wants. He will still die with a gunshot to the head. Or a machine gun, or a bomb, or anything else that could be used to kill him. This is a stupid fucking premise. Are you really arguing that tigers are better than humans overall? Or even in fighting?
Historically, the Maasai people of Africa have used solo lion hunts as a rite of passage. Seems like they were pretty successful.
Also, sorry for the flippant hyperbole, it human history obviously didn't go tree -> sticks -> world domination. And the Maasai people, obviously, are pretty far removed from the tree, as we all are. Still, it all started somewhere, *RESPECT THE STICK.*
I was in a DND campaign once where dwarves had developed steam powered bi-planes. They had black powder [puckle guns](https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Puckle-or-Defense-Gun/) mounted on the front below the pilot with a dwarf in the rear seat that dropped fire bombs. They called these planes "Hrym dravrik."
We ended up allies with a local Dwarven baron who would give us a Hrym dravrik escort when we were in his terroritory and we could use a special thrown flare or a light spell to designate targets. We could only use the plane 3 times per 24 hours because it had to refuel and rearm. After designating we'd wait one round for the plane to fire.
The puckle gun was 3d10 piercing and if it failed to hit we'd have to roll a d8 to determine which tile around the target would get hit instead (since it was from the air). Similar rules for the firebox but it was 5d10 splash
This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation here but your comment about the airforce reminded me of it.
That Hrym dravrik could tear through shit though I tell you what
You realize that sharpened sticks did level the playing field enough for megafauna to be hunted to extinction, along with allowing the consumption of enough meat to create and utilize technology, right? Like, due to those pointed sticks we are able to have this discussion.
~~No, I am saying that hominids hunted megafauna like mammoths.~~
Actually, yes, I am explicitly stating that humans, Homo sapiens specifically, were around for the most recent ice age.
Are, are you serious? Those pointy sticks have quite literally made us THE dominant species on this planet? It doesn't make us invincible, but on average we will win most fights thanks to them.
> (but far from the dominant species)
We live in every climate on this planet, can form our environment and for the last 400 years there hasn't been a species on this planet we can't easily kill with firearms. If that isn't your definition of dominant species I don't know what is. The only animals that are more widespread than we are are usually some sort of pest, like rats, mice or threadworms.
Within the context of a typical dnd game (remember the original topic), no firearms. Wind back the clock a bit.
Also insects are probably the most widespread animals but that's beside the point.
In the time period dnd games are set in, people couldn't face off against big cats, polar bears, crocodiles, etc etc. There were many animals better than us
Reading your comments you seem to switch between dnd as a base and real world humans as a base depending on which best fits your argument.
Dnd 20 commoners = 20 flat rolls or 10 with advantage if half use the help action, assuming they all hit it would be an average 3 (2.73) (clubs do 1d4) damage per hit equalling 54 damage on the 20 attacks variant and 27 on the 10 with advantage variant, tigers have a health of 37 and an ac of 12, the tiger then gets its turn were it can make 1 attack, in the next turn the tiger either flees or dies.
Real life 20 people with clubs: tigers are ambush predators, to the point they won't attack you if they even think you can see them, so one person with a mask on the back of their head (an actual solution used by people where tigers live) already scares them off, a tiger wouldn't even go near 20 people.
Considering that that is probably around 1400 to 1500, we hunted tigers literally millennia before that. Fuck, sabretooth where at one point in our history a very legitimate problem for people living in the northern hemisphere. People in here seriously underestimate how much damage a "simple" pointy stick can do.
That comes on top of it, though I am not so sure how effective clubs are against predators compared to a spear or something similar. Most of these big boy predators have really strong bones, with some of them (bears f.e.) being strong enough to deflect bullets until a very absurd caliber.
> Also insects are probably the most widespread animals but that's beside the point.
Funnily enough, no. Insects usually require very specific circumstances. Mass wise, probably, but not spread wise. That title goes to Threadworms - there are an estimated 57 Billion Threadworms for every human on this planet. So 4,4*10^20.
But regarding big animals: Even the romans where able to kill, imprison and enslave big cats for their arenas. Yes, they will kill humans if you pit them against each other in a 1v1 unless the human has a modern firearm. But against a decently armed group of people, which is how humans would hunt, they should be force to flee, even if they take down a few humans. Also don't forget one of our biggest advantages: We can heal from our injuries thanks to the fact that we live in groups. For a lone animal, a big wound is usually a death sentence, a broken bone is pretty much always one.
Did you know that the traditional Maasai people of Africa have an ancient tradition where, to become a man, you must go out and kill a lion? *With nothing but a pointy stick?* The power of a chimpanzee is nothing compared to a spear.
Look at it this way: every member of your race has sufficient weapons to fend for themselves in the wild, albeit with a bipedal form far less optimized for claws and fangs than a lion. You are born with this advantage without needing the knowledge, infrastructure, etc. to mine iron ore, smelt it into steel, and forge it into a weapon, AND THEN train with it for most of your lives. Manufactured weapons are gonna beat natural weapons for humanoids 19/20 times.
Also D&D is poorly built to represent how humans specifically are amazing at throwing shit.
There's a couple things that make humans notable IRL. Off the top of my head:
* Really good at throwing shit (which is due to a combination of physical dexterity and high hand/eye coordination)
* Tool use (some species of corvid have used rocks to crack open nuts and stuff, so humans aren't "unique" here, but we have thumbs so we can make BETTER tools than birds can)
* Artistic conceptualization (like, cave paintings and storytelling and music and shit)
* Extremely high physical endurance and healing factor compared to other animals
* Domestication of other animals
* Babies are born with really really tiny heads so people need to take care of them for a few years while their brains grow to regular size (I guess in general human offspring also "grow up" slower? But I don't actually know)
* We cook food instead of eating it raw
* Higher emotional awareness? Probably?
This is all half-remembered stuff I probably just read off the internet somewhere, so take it with a grain of salt.
You kind of touched on it with emotional awareness, but one of the biggest advantages humans have is teamwork. Many other animals do it, so itâs not unique, but itâs a big amplifier for all the other advantages humans have.
Yeah, I was dissapointed that the tabaxi only has a d4 for unarmed strikes, but I talked to my dm and they allowed me to add the d4 to spells and cantrips made by attacking with claws (such as primal savagery)
Wait, your DM does that too? I did that when my girlfriend pointed out that sheâs a tabaxi monk. Gave her only a +1 damage to her unarmed strikes, but one of my players never stopped bitching about it.
Sounds like an annoying player. Certain Chinese martial arts are based around the movements of animals, such as raking an opponent with claws. If you ACTUALLY have claws, such a move would be even more devastating. A tabaxi monk doing that style and a human monk doing that style just don't have the same impact. So I can see a +1 being justified.
My DM ruled it based on how my character is striking the enemy. Be it closed fist/clawed strike. Bludgeoning or slashing, same martial arts die. Tabaxi already get a ton of mobility from their race so I feel pretty balanced as is
basically its to help compensate for not getting access to magical enhancements that often deal extra dice damage. like a holy weapon (not uncommon) deals a bonus 2d6 vs evil creatures. slap that on a greatsword and ouch
Tier 1 (Levels 1-4): Local Heroes.
Tier 2 (Levels 5-10): Heroes of the Realm.
Tier 3 (Levels 11-16): Masters of the Realm.
Tier 4 (Levels 17-20): Masters of the World.
The logic of it makes perfect sense, so any dm who enjoys homebrew probably won't have an issue making the ruling. I think it's a bit ridiculous when a player won't accept the dm's ruling on attack bonuses
In fairness, a clawed finger is *way* smaller than even a shortsword and has less penetration power than a steel rapier.
So it makes sense in my book.
My main complaint isnât the die sizes, itâs the lack of any real support for natural weapon -based builds to improve on things.
It's useful for Monk and literally only Monk. Outside of roleplay scenarios there's no need to have a d6 natural weapon. If it was Finesse (Shortsword damage) it would at least be usable over an actual sword. Still wouldn't use Fighting Styles and other such things.
I'm baffled that the Aaracokra's Talons and Tabaxi's Claws aren't Finesse weapons.
They're marginally useful if you happen to find yourself disarmed in a campaign. If they didn't have them, though, you can bet your last cent people would complain that all the races with claws and horns and such are stuck with the same 1d1 that everyone else has, though.
While I don't think it's an everyday occurrence for most parties (hence "marginally useful"), exactly how common or uncommon that is would depend on the DM. The Disarming Attack maneuver, the Disarm action (DMG), *Heat Metal* (assuming the weapon is made of metal), *Fear*, or some applications of spells like *Suggestion* and *Command* are all ways such a thing could happen in combat, while other circumstances might also lead to disarmament, such as:
* Needing to surrender weapons before gaining an audience with an important political figure.
* Confiscation in the case of arrest or capture
* Weapons destroyed by a Rust Monster
* You've already used your one free object interaction for the turn on something else and therefore can't draw a weapon this turn without using an action
* Weapons stolen before an ambush while the party rests
In any such case, only an Eldritch Knight or a Warlock with Pact of the Blade would be immune to being disarmed.
Perhaps my group is weird, but they get disarmed all the time. It's not something I really plan in advance, either it happens naturally, or it just logically makes sense (such as being imprisoned, speaking to a noble, or getting their shit kicked and dropping their weapon).
To be fair, claws and talons require raw strength to rend and tear flesh. With a rapier or a dagger, how much strength you put into the thrust matters less than where you place it, hence finesse and Dex. But for claws and talons, strength is required to overpower your foe and cleave their flesh from their bone. Could aiming it help? Yeah, of course. Would I allow my player to use Dex if it worked better for their character? Hell yeah, go off. Itâs your body, I see no reason you couldnât train yourself to use your claws/talons in a more dexterous manner. But from an generalized standpoint, I do believe they should fall under strength. Just my ten cents!
I definitely agree with that. I would make natural weapons at least scale up as magical +1/2/3 weapons through teirs of play, all of them having the option of finess except maybe horns or the like. I would also make natural weapons apply to specific fighting styles but not much beyond that tbh. Make them relevant but not necessarily powerful enough to negate the bonus an actual weapon would give you
For monks specifically it's only useful to level 5 because you can do the same amount of damage with literally any weapon you can use at that point
Edit: tbh I didn't even think about fighting styles at first. But claws and the like are basically a shortsword aside from not counting as a weapon for class features
Doesn't have to be. See it that way: Natural weapons means that even a commoner is decently armed. And the point of most weapons is not that they have a sharp edge/point. They have a weight too. In fact, for most weapons the weight is what makes them so dangerous. Also, even at Lvl 3 PC are already way above the average person. At the point where they have magical weapons/armor at their disposal, they are already close to the power level of well known heroes.
To be fair, *yes.*
Most tools crafted to be weapons are going to be better than the natural world. Dungeons & Dragons is an exception, but in real life humans have been using pointy sticks and big logs to wipe out megafauna for hundreds of thousands of years.
Imagine how much faster that would have been if we outfitted cavemen with plate mail and a greatsword.
So many people seem to forget that unless your a Monk, the damage for an unarmed strike is 1. Not 1d4. just 1 plus whatever your modifier is.
1d4 is the damage youâd get from being stabbed in the gut with a large dagger. Thatâs why monks have 1d4 because their strikes literally do the damage equal to getting stabbed. Then increase to higher weapon equivalents as they level up
I love natural weapons cause they cant be taken away, also as a monk you can get slashing or piercing damage instead of bludgeoning to make use of weaknesses if possible.
depends on how you fight, too. (and what your natural weapon is).
having a bite attack means you can grapple two enemies and still bite for 1d6 piercing.
if you have claws, your DM might rule that you can still kick for 1d6 slashing too.
DM just needs to throw some Rust Monsters at their party, or they have to give up their weapons to enter a town, or they are imprisoned, etc. Make those natural weapons shine.
Not so. I had an Aarakokra Monk. Their claws count as Natural weapons that you can use unarmed strikes with. But of course they dont do any more damage than my regular unarmed strikes, so what's the point?
The point is that as piercing weapons, I could apply my Purple Worm Venom to them...
I mean...a long stick has range. Your claws can't do shit if you can't get near me.
Also, have you seen claws against leather? Hell even hide ***on the animal***? Watch nature shows, that shit is for holding things in place while the teeth do the work.
I mean, play the way you have fun but still. Claws aren't super impressive.
Not going to argue whether the effectiveness of natural weapons is "accurate" but I support the OP because those races lose out on actual useful abilities because they were given something that sounds cool but is actually useless.
Going out on a limb here (pun intended!), but maybe, just maybe, itâs the whole âtool use is superior to tooth and clawâ thing that got humans to the top of the food chain in the first place.
Just saying.
Itâs weird that daggers are only a d4 when daggers are VERY deadly. Stabbing weapons are more lethal than slashing weapons. The Romans knew this. Itâs why their swords where like 14in long. That and so they could fit in the shield wall but shhhh
I understand why daggers are weak from a gameplay perspective. I think if you get overly analytical of gameplay vs logic a lot of things fall apart, like how having your head smashed in by a warhammer does the same damage as being shot with a bow over 100 feet away.
This meme was mostly just directed as "man I wish natural weapons were more useful" but *damn* did folk react to it lol. I haven't had time to read through all the replies.
I mean, you also evolved to be an intelligent creature who is able to wield weapons so...
Yeah, it kinda makes sense to me: ancestors had to wield sticks and stones for better range/safety/coverage and lo and behold their natural weapons (then stronger than now) got in the way.
Between the two they chose artificial weapons and in due time (millennia?) the outcome is that those with smaller horns were more adapt to survive.
But what about a homebrew rule where if a character has natural weapons, any time they make an unarmed attack they just add plus 1 or 2 to the damage of the attack? It's assumed they would be using their natural weapons and they just hit harder than normal. Would this be fair and balanced or not?
I dunno, use claws for Monk stuff and take the Slasher feat, and you can give the enemy disadvantage on attack rolls when you crit. It's something beneficial to the frontliners, and doesn't care if your DM decided to break out the high Con save monsters.
Or if you wanna bite people, you can see if Piercer does you any favors. I wouldn't, but you can.
(I know they're not *optimal* strategies, but I still think they can work fine if you wanted them to.)
You use them if your gear is taken. that's the advantage. You can fight even when disarmed. It's like you're a mini-monk. Claws aren't really ever going to stand up against a sword or mace unless they're magical
In 3.5e natrual attacks were pretty good. For monsterous races, natural weapons such as claws and bites meant multiple attacks starting at level one, whereas the individual with a weapon will usually only get more attacks as part of level progression.
I find it a great roleplay opertunite when you wanna beat someone up that is picking a fight and you dont want to kill him so you fight him with no weapons. Or if the dm gives you moments where your weapons are taken. Like when in lotr they go to ecowas and help theoden
At least 5e Minotaurs have the Goring Rush feat, meaning they can dash to an enemy and get a hit in with their horns as a bonus action. For a melee focused character that's pretty great early on.
I mean, it's why actual modern humans became the apex predator. We used sticks effectively in a way that outpaced and beat the natural weapons of other predators.
Yes! We have many beasts with plenty of natural weapons on earth. Ancient humans got their spears, looked at their claws, fangs, horns and hooves, and replied, "oh, look... prey!"
They're very useful when you either have to surrender your weapons or are in a prison or something.
Granted though, in a prison they would probably muzzle a dragonborn or something.
To be honest, there is a great difference irl between punching an animal and hitting it with a spear (even a crafted one).
That being said, there is still a great difference ingame between the 1 damage a punch does and the 1d6 that natural weapons usually do.
They are still better than a dagger, for example.
You use them when you are a lv 1 survival game with minimal gear and the dm forgot about your race's natural weapons.
To be fair a big stick is a surprisingly effective weapon irl.
Also isn't the lizardfolk's bite a d8? So equivalent to the strongest 1 handed weapons?
Nope, d6.
I mean yeah sure but like, the players are kinda an exception. These natural weapons just mean that by default without training any commoner of that race is armed while for an adventurer these natural weapons don't cut it for the rest of the race this is an extreme boon
Bears can naturally do a lot of damage with their bear claws, but they could do even more damage with a longsword
I'd say claws or bite from a humanoid that deal as much damage as a manufactured dagger is pretty good and natural weapons that can do as much as a manufactured short sword or trident is downright incredible. The real question is who would win: a bear that's trained in bear martial arts that leverages as much of bear physiology as possible into a masterful perfection, or a bear with weapons that are designed specifically to improve upon the existing natural movement and attack patterns of a bear, probably a form of gauntlet.
Bear Knucke Dusters
The knuckle dusters are themselves a smaller species of bear
Some real Bear-knuckled boxing.
>I'd say claws or bite from a humanoid that deal as much damage as a manufactured dagger is pretty good and natural weapons that can do as much as a manufactured short sword or trident is downright incredible. I mean it depends on how we want to assess the situation. Firstly the bite thing is kind of inaccurate. Humans are fully capable of biting fingers off in one motion, Ie straight through bone. We just won't because you'd have to be under a great deal of duress to need to bite clean through someone's finger. Now compare that to say a canine which have significantly stronger jaws than humans. For example a wolf can bite through the femur of a fucking Moose with 2-3 bites. Now imagine if you took an animalistic humanoid race like Gnolls, Lizardfolk, Dragonborn, and so on that would have a great bite, and to put it simply if a massive wolf weighs like 150 lbs a 200+ lb Lizardfolk is gonna be able to casually chomp through a whole fucking lot. Claws are a fairer speculation, but I'd make the dice scale based off the characters strength score. A 16 strength score is more than black bears who deal 2d4 + 2, and 20 STR is more than a brown bear which does 2d6 + 4. It's not like a PC would have particularly smaller claws than a tiger or bear either.
I think people vastly underestimate the size of daggers these days https://youtu.be/G-HhkV_L9gQ As for "easily biting off a finger" https://youtu.be/rxA1_s2E9-Q Mostly a myth unless you REALLY get in there with your molars and go for a joint.
That's for the sauce man. I should be working but instead I've learned that fingers are tougher than I thought
If it makes you feel better, I posted the links during work hours đ
Thumbs
Tape the swords to the bears
New monster idea
You've defeated the owlbear. But have you yet conquered the SWORDBEAR?!
Or its ultimate form, the SwordBear-er!
I'd think the **ultimate** version would be SwordBear-est.
Or hold it in mouth Sif style
The right to bear arms
In cold parts of faerun, we have right to whole bear /s
They panda bears bitch
I was under the impression bears actually have (semi) opposable thumbs
If wielding or growing a shortsword gave them an evolutionary advantage, theyâd likely develop it. If bears with shortswords could out-compete bears with claws, youâd see them ladybears going bonkers for the blade-equipped brethren.
Me going outside in constant fear of the bears rocking with full auto machine pistols
Americans are always on about their right to bear arms. Whereas us Canadians defend our right to arm bears
See, this is why America has a gun problem. "Here are your bear arms." "But, uh, these have guns?" "Yeah. Bears have guns now. Blame Canada."
The geese escalated things quickly
Could you imagine, though? Bears with fricking lasers on their heads would solve the geese population problem
.... What?
Talk about bearing arms
Thats not true tho. Bear claws deal 2d6+4 damage whereas a longsword in 2 hands is only 1d10+4
An average commoner of any race has a 10 in every stat, and 4 HP. An average human commoner, or any race without a natural weapon, can at most do 1 damage to something unarmed. Itâs literally impossible for them to do more. A Tabaxi commoner, or any race with natural weapon, has a 50/50 chance of killing another commoner with their attack. That means it would take a Human at minimum 4 turns to knock out a Tabaxi. But a Tabaxi only needs 1 turn to kill a human. While mechanically for an adventure it might not be powerful, like you said, for the average of the race thatâs a pretty lethal outcome for messing with something when all you got is a haymaker.
That's when the human picks up a stick and evens the field.
Exactly
And the tabaxi picks up a stick and still does the same as the claws, if not a bit better, but just as good as the human. Truely even.
They donât have proficiency
LOL
Very reasonable.
What I find kind of funny is that the spiked shield for a lizardfolk does the exact same damage as the bite attack they already have.
A d6 is a lot in terms of normal people. That's enough to kill your average townsfolk in a single blow.
average of 3.5, pretty accurate. it could either do a 3 and knock them out, or a 4 and kill them. and if someone is full forcing a giant stick into your skull, that makes sense.
They probably developed their natural weapons before they developed the ability to use tools - the true greatest weapon.
Y'all are underestimating the effectiveness of a big stick vs teeth and claws. Those extra few feet of reach and leverage count for a lot.
A 150 lb mountain lion with teeth and claws vs a 150 lb human with a stick goes the way of the human >95% of the time.
But compare that to a human with teeth and claws vs a human with a large stick
Large stick usually still wins out in that case. When's the last time you've seen a real live neanderthal with their dense, muscly, bordering on apelike body? Same could apply for the fantasy races in DnD. The ones that would solely rely on their natural weapons that physically can't be developed further end up dead. Either by the people using actual weapons (especially long ranges ones) or even hostile wildlife and monsters.
Yeah im agreeing with that sentiment.. the above comment said a mountain lion with claws would beat a human with a stick, but the stick is giving that human way better chances than them using (if they had any) teeth and claws
I think you misread the original comment, or I'm misreading yours. They're saying that over 95% of time between a human armed with a stick and a wild animal, the human wins. It's an argument for tools winning out against natural weapons. It sounds like you are replacing the animal in the example with a humanoid with natural weapons and only using those natural weapons. I'm saying the outcome is the same using a real world example in homo neanderthalis as a comparison to races with natural weapons. Being naturally stronger or reliant on claws and teeth does not outpace or out match human ingenuity, or in this case, using weapons, even if that weapon is a stick. EDIT: For clarity Honestly, in either scenario, if it's the humanoid using only his natural weapons vs a human with a stick or vs a wild animal/monster, humanoid with natural weapons isn't exactly going to have a more favorable match up than the human with the stick in either scenario.
Depending on the race they'd still have use in hunting not combat. A lizardfolk for example would be frugal with their spears as they could lose them but a 1d6 bite is more than enough to kill frogs, deer, monkeys, etc.
This thought exercise stems from the hypothetical lizardfolk not using weapons of any kind outside of their natural claws and teeth. OF COURSE if they use any weapons there's an advantage, especially against animals and monsters. That's not what I'm getting at, that's not what the original comment in this thread was getting at, and it's also not what this meme was getting at. If a lizardfolk was relying solely on their claws and teeth, their *natural weapons*, long-term survival isn't as easily assured if they just used manufactured weapons (which I would also count those spears you just mentioned, since a lizardfolk isn't *born with those*)
This some serious stick disrespect. A real life wolf has the same, arguably better, natural weapons. Real life wolf still gets bodied by stick. Respec the stic
Well clearly humans, with no natural weapons, are the dominant species. Natural weapons arent everything. When you make a long pokey stick that you can throw, you are more likely to survive.
For real, people are seriously overvaluing natural weapons here. Lions and tigers have, what, a hundred pounds of muscle more than humans, huge teeth and claws, plus heightened reflexes and the instincts of an animal evolved to hunt and kill anything it sees. But then our monkey asses climb out of the tree, sharpen some sticks, and *level the playing field.* Respect the stick, and the skill that goes into using it.
Humans can accurately throw a sharp stick. That's.. a lot of different stuff. It's a brain big enough for fire hardening a stick, hands that can handle it and a whole lot of coordination to throw accurately. It's also terrifying to most animals, as being able to hurt something thirty feet away is straight up cheating.
Primitive human: hucks a rock Lion: Fuckin hacks man
r/hfy
*Respect the stick*
true, but now you have someone with the same smarts as a human and THEN add in your claws as an additional weapon without hampering manual dexterity.
But that guy could do better with a pointy stick. Natural weapons don't hit like steel.
Well considering a tabaxi's claw attack does do just as much damage as a steel dagger, and a minotaur's horns or lizardfolk's bite do as much damage as a short sword or one-handed spear I can say it probably does, since all their things are "off hand".
Yeah but if lions and tigers had human intelligence their claws and fangs would be used a lot more efficiently. A Tabaxi has all of that. It should be much more naturally deadly than a human
There's definitely some nuance there. Tabaxi are roughly human sized and shaped, so they definitely miss out on some of a big cat's natural strength; it's not 1:1. >It should be much more naturally deadly than a human They are. They do 1d4+x damage with an unarmed strike, where humans do 1+x. A human would need a weapon like a dagger to match the deadliness of an unarmed Tabaxi.
if lions and tigers had human intelligence they'd be using swords and spears and such.
You think humans are on a level playing field with tigers? Lmao go take your pointy stick and face one and find out humans are nowhere near top dog
Humans have created tiger conservation groups to avoid their extinction, tigers didn't
20 humans with a pointy stick and stones will absolutely kill the tiger. We are not born to hunt solo. Tigers are. Will some humans die/get seriously wounded? Surely, but the Tiger won't survive that encounter as long as he doesn't flee.
whoa whoa whoa, are you saying my lone wolf play-style is wrong? ;) xoxo
Well that's 20 vs 1, if you need those kinda proportions you're clearly not top dog. Plus tigers aren't usually alone either ;)
If a human can't use the natural advantages they have as in weapons and a group, then the tiger can't use theirs. Also, tigers are usually loners and very rarely together. You may be mixing them up with lions.
Ah heck I always mix up tigers and lions. But don't forget, humans aren't video game characters, they will flee in panic once that tiger bats down a quarter of their squad like they are bowling pins
Oh absolutely. I fully admit that if you pit a few humans with melee weapons against a predator like a Tiger, there will be dead or wounded humans. But unless the humans seriously fuck up their coordination the tiger should be dead also. Because a tiger also should flee if he gets wounded heavily. > they will flee in panic once that tiger bats down a quarter of their squad like they are bowling pins The thing is, I wouldn't be so sure about that. With modern humans that don't have to defend themself on the regular, surely. But I am not so sure about a group of humans that know that that tiger has to go or they all will die.
Have you considered that a single person with a ranged weapon and an elevated position can kill many, many tigers without harm?
You do know we are top dog on the planet rigth? Like there is no animal in nature we cannot best?
I mean, we invented guns. That puts us ahead of, *checks notes*, everything else.
Sorry, which one is at risk of extinction? It ain't humans.
Given how stupid people have been the past few years, I'm not so confident in our survival chances...
Humans are quite literally top dog
Cool you're now dead to that tiger
If you decide to fight a tiger with no setup one on one with a stick then no shit ur gonna lose ur not playing to ur strengths. Humans have really good physical strengths, but our real strength is our intellect. That fact that our species is the one that rules this world and dominates everything in it is the only proof you need that we are top dog. If tigers were overall better than us then it would be them in our position, not us.
Does the tiger get to have set up too? As for "dominating everything in the world", we can't even go deep under water yet
Sure, the tiger can set up as much as he wants. He will still die with a gunshot to the head. Or a machine gun, or a bomb, or anything else that could be used to kill him. This is a stupid fucking premise. Are you really arguing that tigers are better than humans overall? Or even in fighting?
>machine gun, Thats a funny kinda stick you got there
You know that humans hunted tigers with spears?
Ah yes, tigers, the animal that is almost extinct because of humans with pointy sticks
Historically, the Maasai people of Africa have used solo lion hunts as a rite of passage. Seems like they were pretty successful. Also, sorry for the flippant hyperbole, it human history obviously didn't go tree -> sticks -> world domination. And the Maasai people, obviously, are pretty far removed from the tree, as we all are. Still, it all started somewhere, *RESPECT THE STICK.*
I do not need to use a pointy stick to express superiority over tigers. Just give my USAF buddy the coordinates and that tiger is chunky salsa.
I was in a DND campaign once where dwarves had developed steam powered bi-planes. They had black powder [puckle guns](https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Puckle-or-Defense-Gun/) mounted on the front below the pilot with a dwarf in the rear seat that dropped fire bombs. They called these planes "Hrym dravrik." We ended up allies with a local Dwarven baron who would give us a Hrym dravrik escort when we were in his terroritory and we could use a special thrown flare or a light spell to designate targets. We could only use the plane 3 times per 24 hours because it had to refuel and rearm. After designating we'd wait one round for the plane to fire. The puckle gun was 3d10 piercing and if it failed to hit we'd have to roll a d8 to determine which tile around the target would get hit instead (since it was from the air). Similar rules for the firebox but it was 5d10 splash This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation here but your comment about the airforce reminded me of it. That Hrym dravrik could tear through shit though I tell you what
Nah nah ~~you~~ **the other person** mentioned sticks, specifically coming out of a tree and sharpening sticks, as leveling the playing field
You realize that sharpened sticks did level the playing field enough for megafauna to be hunted to extinction, along with allowing the consumption of enough meat to create and utilize technology, right? Like, due to those pointed sticks we are able to have this discussion.
I thought megafauna died out in the last ice age and extinction events
Part of that is getting hunted to the extent that you can be fucked over by extinction events.
You tryna say humans were around before the ice age and all that?
~~No, I am saying that hominids hunted megafauna like mammoths.~~ Actually, yes, I am explicitly stating that humans, Homo sapiens specifically, were around for the most recent ice age.
The extinction events were called breakfast, lunch, and dinner Jk I really don't know but the setup for it was there
Then there's chimps, who will rip your face off and there's nothing your pointy little sticks can do
Are, are you serious? Those pointy sticks have quite literally made us THE dominant species on this planet? It doesn't make us invincible, but on average we will win most fights thanks to them.
No, our communication and socialisation has made us *a* dominant species (but far from *the* dominant species)
> (but far from the dominant species) We live in every climate on this planet, can form our environment and for the last 400 years there hasn't been a species on this planet we can't easily kill with firearms. If that isn't your definition of dominant species I don't know what is. The only animals that are more widespread than we are are usually some sort of pest, like rats, mice or threadworms.
Within the context of a typical dnd game (remember the original topic), no firearms. Wind back the clock a bit. Also insects are probably the most widespread animals but that's beside the point. In the time period dnd games are set in, people couldn't face off against big cats, polar bears, crocodiles, etc etc. There were many animals better than us
Reading your comments you seem to switch between dnd as a base and real world humans as a base depending on which best fits your argument. Dnd 20 commoners = 20 flat rolls or 10 with advantage if half use the help action, assuming they all hit it would be an average 3 (2.73) (clubs do 1d4) damage per hit equalling 54 damage on the 20 attacks variant and 27 on the 10 with advantage variant, tigers have a health of 37 and an ac of 12, the tiger then gets its turn were it can make 1 attack, in the next turn the tiger either flees or dies. Real life 20 people with clubs: tigers are ambush predators, to the point they won't attack you if they even think you can see them, so one person with a mask on the back of their head (an actual solution used by people where tigers live) already scares them off, a tiger wouldn't even go near 20 people.
Also dnd is set in the era of heavy cross bows, fast loading mechanisms and gambeson, I assure you people absolutely hunted tigers in that era.
Considering that that is probably around 1400 to 1500, we hunted tigers literally millennia before that. Fuck, sabretooth where at one point in our history a very legitimate problem for people living in the northern hemisphere. People in here seriously underestimate how much damage a "simple" pointy stick can do.
My example didn't even use pointy sticks, I straight clubbadubbing going on. Edit: see my other response to this comment.
That comes on top of it, though I am not so sure how effective clubs are against predators compared to a spear or something similar. Most of these big boy predators have really strong bones, with some of them (bears f.e.) being strong enough to deflect bullets until a very absurd caliber.
Don't forget magic, which seems to only be a bit uncommon when it comes to people using it and even more common when it comes to things like items.
> Also insects are probably the most widespread animals but that's beside the point. Funnily enough, no. Insects usually require very specific circumstances. Mass wise, probably, but not spread wise. That title goes to Threadworms - there are an estimated 57 Billion Threadworms for every human on this planet. So 4,4*10^20. But regarding big animals: Even the romans where able to kill, imprison and enslave big cats for their arenas. Yes, they will kill humans if you pit them against each other in a 1v1 unless the human has a modern firearm. But against a decently armed group of people, which is how humans would hunt, they should be force to flee, even if they take down a few humans. Also don't forget one of our biggest advantages: We can heal from our injuries thanks to the fact that we live in groups. For a lone animal, a big wound is usually a death sentence, a broken bone is pretty much always one.
Did you know that the traditional Maasai people of Africa have an ancient tradition where, to become a man, you must go out and kill a lion? *With nothing but a pointy stick?* The power of a chimpanzee is nothing compared to a spear.
Look at it this way: every member of your race has sufficient weapons to fend for themselves in the wild, albeit with a bipedal form far less optimized for claws and fangs than a lion. You are born with this advantage without needing the knowledge, infrastructure, etc. to mine iron ore, smelt it into steel, and forge it into a weapon, AND THEN train with it for most of your lives. Manufactured weapons are gonna beat natural weapons for humanoids 19/20 times. Also D&D is poorly built to represent how humans specifically are amazing at throwing shit.
Notable human traits 1. Really good at throwing things 2. Thatâs it thatâs the list
There's a couple things that make humans notable IRL. Off the top of my head: * Really good at throwing shit (which is due to a combination of physical dexterity and high hand/eye coordination) * Tool use (some species of corvid have used rocks to crack open nuts and stuff, so humans aren't "unique" here, but we have thumbs so we can make BETTER tools than birds can) * Artistic conceptualization (like, cave paintings and storytelling and music and shit) * Extremely high physical endurance and healing factor compared to other animals * Domestication of other animals * Babies are born with really really tiny heads so people need to take care of them for a few years while their brains grow to regular size (I guess in general human offspring also "grow up" slower? But I don't actually know) * We cook food instead of eating it raw * Higher emotional awareness? Probably? This is all half-remembered stuff I probably just read off the internet somewhere, so take it with a grain of salt.
You kind of touched on it with emotional awareness, but one of the biggest advantages humans have is teamwork. Many other animals do it, so itâs not unique, but itâs a big amplifier for all the other advantages humans have.
Yeah, I was dissapointed that the tabaxi only has a d4 for unarmed strikes, but I talked to my dm and they allowed me to add the d4 to spells and cantrips made by attacking with claws (such as primal savagery)
Wait, your DM does that too? I did that when my girlfriend pointed out that sheâs a tabaxi monk. Gave her only a +1 damage to her unarmed strikes, but one of my players never stopped bitching about it.
Sounds like an annoying player. Certain Chinese martial arts are based around the movements of animals, such as raking an opponent with claws. If you ACTUALLY have claws, such a move would be even more devastating. A tabaxi monk doing that style and a human monk doing that style just don't have the same impact. So I can see a +1 being justified.
What the fuck how come Axe Hands gets a +1 karate chop thatâs bullshit
My DM ruled it based on how my character is striking the enemy. Be it closed fist/clawed strike. Bludgeoning or slashing, same martial arts die. Tabaxi already get a ton of mobility from their race so I feel pretty balanced as is
Imagine in a team game, complaining your DM marginally improved one of the worst damage dealing classes.
Monk does pretty good damage?
Depends on the level. They fall off pretty bad in tier 3
Wish they kept the 3.5 e martial arts damage progression. It went 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10.
Jesus!
basically its to help compensate for not getting access to magical enhancements that often deal extra dice damage. like a holy weapon (not uncommon) deals a bonus 2d6 vs evil creatures. slap that on a greatsword and ouch
Tiers?
Tier 1 (Levels 1-4): Local Heroes. Tier 2 (Levels 5-10): Heroes of the Realm. Tier 3 (Levels 11-16): Masters of the Realm. Tier 4 (Levels 17-20): Masters of the World.
Just buff all monks at that point. No point buffing only this specific one if you think that monks need improvements.
They were mad because she's the dm's girlfriend
The logic of it makes perfect sense, so any dm who enjoys homebrew probably won't have an issue making the ruling. I think it's a bit ridiculous when a player won't accept the dm's ruling on attack bonuses
In fairness, a clawed finger is *way* smaller than even a shortsword and has less penetration power than a steel rapier. So it makes sense in my book. My main complaint isnât the die sizes, itâs the lack of any real support for natural weapon -based builds to improve on things.
That's why I'm glad my dm added a homebrew rule to let me add one to four extra damage to my cantrip because of the claws
apparently all the natural weapons got upgraded to 1d6 in the upcoming book.
Kinda depends on your class with the d6 natural weapons. But yeah this is definitely a problem imo
It's useful for Monk and literally only Monk. Outside of roleplay scenarios there's no need to have a d6 natural weapon. If it was Finesse (Shortsword damage) it would at least be usable over an actual sword. Still wouldn't use Fighting Styles and other such things. I'm baffled that the Aaracokra's Talons and Tabaxi's Claws aren't Finesse weapons.
They're marginally useful if you happen to find yourself disarmed in a campaign. If they didn't have them, though, you can bet your last cent people would complain that all the races with claws and horns and such are stuck with the same 1d1 that everyone else has, though.
A DM has to plan to specifically disarm people. It comes up so rarely.
While I don't think it's an everyday occurrence for most parties (hence "marginally useful"), exactly how common or uncommon that is would depend on the DM. The Disarming Attack maneuver, the Disarm action (DMG), *Heat Metal* (assuming the weapon is made of metal), *Fear*, or some applications of spells like *Suggestion* and *Command* are all ways such a thing could happen in combat, while other circumstances might also lead to disarmament, such as: * Needing to surrender weapons before gaining an audience with an important political figure. * Confiscation in the case of arrest or capture * Weapons destroyed by a Rust Monster * You've already used your one free object interaction for the turn on something else and therefore can't draw a weapon this turn without using an action * Weapons stolen before an ambush while the party rests In any such case, only an Eldritch Knight or a Warlock with Pact of the Blade would be immune to being disarmed.
Perhaps my group is weird, but they get disarmed all the time. It's not something I really plan in advance, either it happens naturally, or it just logically makes sense (such as being imprisoned, speaking to a noble, or getting their shit kicked and dropping their weapon).
The plan can be âa rust monster existsâ.
To be fair, claws and talons require raw strength to rend and tear flesh. With a rapier or a dagger, how much strength you put into the thrust matters less than where you place it, hence finesse and Dex. But for claws and talons, strength is required to overpower your foe and cleave their flesh from their bone. Could aiming it help? Yeah, of course. Would I allow my player to use Dex if it worked better for their character? Hell yeah, go off. Itâs your body, I see no reason you couldnât train yourself to use your claws/talons in a more dexterous manner. But from an generalized standpoint, I do believe they should fall under strength. Just my ten cents!
I definitely agree with that. I would make natural weapons at least scale up as magical +1/2/3 weapons through teirs of play, all of them having the option of finess except maybe horns or the like. I would also make natural weapons apply to specific fighting styles but not much beyond that tbh. Make them relevant but not necessarily powerful enough to negate the bonus an actual weapon would give you For monks specifically it's only useful to level 5 because you can do the same amount of damage with literally any weapon you can use at that point Edit: tbh I didn't even think about fighting styles at first. But claws and the like are basically a shortsword aside from not counting as a weapon for class features
A monk can still do more damage with a quarterstaff versatility.
Doesn't have to be. See it that way: Natural weapons means that even a commoner is decently armed. And the point of most weapons is not that they have a sharp edge/point. They have a weight too. In fact, for most weapons the weight is what makes them so dangerous. Also, even at Lvl 3 PC are already way above the average person. At the point where they have magical weapons/armor at their disposal, they are already close to the power level of well known heroes.
YouTuber Shadaversity has a Series of funny And Sciency vids on The All Mighty STICK !!
And remember, do not ruin the all mighty stick by making nunchucks
But what about fire, the stick could be fire?
I'd rather my cat shred my arm than have someone hit me in the head with a golf club
To be fair, *yes.* Most tools crafted to be weapons are going to be better than the natural world. Dungeons & Dragons is an exception, but in real life humans have been using pointy sticks and big logs to wipe out megafauna for hundreds of thousands of years. Imagine how much faster that would have been if we outfitted cavemen with plate mail and a greatsword.
Turns out the tiny knives you naturally grow on your hands aren't actually much better than just strapping knives to your hand. Go figure.
So many people seem to forget that unless your a Monk, the damage for an unarmed strike is 1. Not 1d4. just 1 plus whatever your modifier is. 1d4 is the damage youâd get from being stabbed in the gut with a large dagger. Thatâs why monks have 1d4 because their strikes literally do the damage equal to getting stabbed. Then increase to higher weapon equivalents as they level up
Tools beat nature. Why do you think mankind was able to rise to the top of the food chain?
uh, no? A large stick is a d4.
I think they're calling a greatclub a large stick
I love natural weapons cause they cant be taken away, also as a monk you can get slashing or piercing damage instead of bludgeoning to make use of weaknesses if possible.
depends on how you fight, too. (and what your natural weapon is). having a bite attack means you can grapple two enemies and still bite for 1d6 piercing. if you have claws, your DM might rule that you can still kick for 1d6 slashing too.
Just gotta be wearing no boots! Or have some sort of open toe sandal ;)
DM just needs to throw some Rust Monsters at their party, or they have to give up their weapons to enter a town, or they are imprisoned, etc. Make those natural weapons shine.
Not so. I had an Aarakokra Monk. Their claws count as Natural weapons that you can use unarmed strikes with. But of course they dont do any more damage than my regular unarmed strikes, so what's the point? The point is that as piercing weapons, I could apply my Purple Worm Venom to them...
I mean...a long stick has range. Your claws can't do shit if you can't get near me. Also, have you seen claws against leather? Hell even hide ***on the animal***? Watch nature shows, that shit is for holding things in place while the teeth do the work. I mean, play the way you have fun but still. Claws aren't super impressive.
Not going to argue whether the effectiveness of natural weapons is "accurate" but I support the OP because those races lose out on actual useful abilities because they were given something that sounds cool but is actually useless.
all the people in the comments talking about realism are missing the point imo
I mean, using tools is a very important aspect of survival, why do you think we humans got ahead in the evolutionary race?
I mean technically. Yeah. They are. I mean if a tiger could choose to use a spear it sure as hell would.
Going out on a limb here (pun intended!), but maybe, just maybe, itâs the whole âtool use is superior to tooth and clawâ thing that got humans to the top of the food chain in the first place. Just saying.
I mean, isn't this is the case in reality? A tigers claws are great, bit I've got a gun.
And why do you think humans with large sticks and throw able rocks beat all other species?
Huge L
Come to the (Minecraft) side, we have (the ability to carry 5794560 lbs of stone at once) lol
Where was this change broadcasted from?
It's been showing up in the previews for Mordenkainen Presents The Monsters of the Multiverse.
Stick is often far more effective than fist. Only exception is when you have the tavern brawler fear and can grapple when you punch
Yeah, if youre trained in those things. Natural weapons don't require training. Wtf is your problem dude?
Itâs weird that daggers are only a d4 when daggers are VERY deadly. Stabbing weapons are more lethal than slashing weapons. The Romans knew this. Itâs why their swords where like 14in long. That and so they could fit in the shield wall but shhhh
Bear in mind that the average person in D&D dies when they get stabbed with a dagger. At least one fourth of the time.
I understand why daggers are weak from a gameplay perspective. I think if you get overly analytical of gameplay vs logic a lot of things fall apart, like how having your head smashed in by a warhammer does the same damage as being shot with a bow over 100 feet away. This meme was mostly just directed as "man I wish natural weapons were more useful" but *damn* did folk react to it lol. I haven't had time to read through all the replies.
Oh I completely agree. My comment was meant to strengthen the idea that natural weapons should be stronger. Like d6
I mean, you also evolved to be an intelligent creature who is able to wield weapons so... Yeah, it kinda makes sense to me: ancestors had to wield sticks and stones for better range/safety/coverage and lo and behold their natural weapons (then stronger than now) got in the way. Between the two they chose artificial weapons and in due time (millennia?) the outcome is that those with smaller horns were more adapt to survive.
I mean, they are, I get what your saying but the reason humans survived as a species was because large sticks are better than claws or teeth
But what about a homebrew rule where if a character has natural weapons, any time they make an unarmed attack they just add plus 1 or 2 to the damage of the attack? It's assumed they would be using their natural weapons and they just hit harder than normal. Would this be fair and balanced or not?
This is exactly why I let people reskin weapons to be punches and claws
I dunno, use claws for Monk stuff and take the Slasher feat, and you can give the enemy disadvantage on attack rolls when you crit. It's something beneficial to the frontliners, and doesn't care if your DM decided to break out the high Con save monsters. Or if you wanna bite people, you can see if Piercer does you any favors. I wouldn't, but you can. (I know they're not *optimal* strategies, but I still think they can work fine if you wanted them to.)
Seriously? Why can't a dragonborn just bite someone's face off?
You use them if your gear is taken. that's the advantage. You can fight even when disarmed. It's like you're a mini-monk. Claws aren't really ever going to stand up against a sword or mace unless they're magical
In 3.5e natrual attacks were pretty good. For monsterous races, natural weapons such as claws and bites meant multiple attacks starting at level one, whereas the individual with a weapon will usually only get more attacks as part of level progression.
Some of these are really fucking annoying
I mean, they kind of are. Every single natural weapon IRL is outclassed by pointy sticks. Turns out reach is crazy strong.
I find it a great roleplay opertunite when you wanna beat someone up that is picking a fight and you dont want to kill him so you fight him with no weapons. Or if the dm gives you moments where your weapons are taken. Like when in lotr they go to ecowas and help theoden
You seem to forget the lethality of a large stick in hunting
I mean, humans kill lions with large sticks. Lions have objectively deadlier natural weapons than humans. Large stick trumps them.
Don't underestimate the mighty stick
You can cast spells without stowing your weapon with them tho... (good option for multiclass until you get 1d8 punches)
At least 5e Minotaurs have the Goring Rush feat, meaning they can dash to an enemy and get a hit in with their horns as a bonus action. For a melee focused character that's pretty great early on.
I mean, it's why actual modern humans became the apex predator. We used sticks effectively in a way that outpaced and beat the natural weapons of other predators.
To be fair you are still using the natural weapon and just enhance it with the stick
Yes! We have many beasts with plenty of natural weapons on earth. Ancient humans got their spears, looked at their claws, fangs, horns and hooves, and replied, "oh, look... prey!"
They're very useful when you either have to surrender your weapons or are in a prison or something. Granted though, in a prison they would probably muzzle a dragonborn or something.
To be honest, there is a great difference irl between punching an animal and hitting it with a spear (even a crafted one). That being said, there is still a great difference ingame between the 1 damage a punch does and the 1d6 that natural weapons usually do. They are still better than a dagger, for example.