-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Can a sword and shield fighter make a natural weapon slam attack in the same round?
- Thread starter Angrygodofmilk
- Start date
When most players create a character with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, they arm their character with a weapon in either hand, e.g. a longsword and a shortsword. But why not, instead, arm such a character with a weapon and a shield, thereby giving yourself the option to attack with both in a single combat round? True, while attacking with your shield, you'll not have its AC bonus; that is, unless you have the Improved Shield Bash feat, as well.
FatherTome
First Post
A slam attack is a bludgeoning equivalent to a claw attack. Without sharp, pointy, slashy bits on the end of an appendage, a creature relies on its inherent toughness and strength in order to deal damage - this is different than an unarmed strike, which requires training to hit things with your fleshy, vulnerable bits and deal damage.
What it comes down to is that WOTC made a design decision that medium sized (and smaller) creatures, in general, don't have the strength/weight to effectively attack with both limbs in this fashion. You'll notice, as well, that the damages for medium size claw attacks tend to be 1d4, on average, while medium sized slam attacks (and singular bite attacks) are 1d6, on average.
Not being on the design team myself, I can only assume that the decision was made out of an attempt to balance different creature types with different attacks against each other. A medium-sized creature with a single 1d6, 1.5x str slam attack deals damage roughly equivalent to a medium-sized creature of similar CR with two 1d6, 1x str claw attacks.
Our group had a warforged with a battlefist, and he would use it as a secondary natural attack while wielding a bastard sword in two hands. It followed all the rules for a secondary natural attack: he took a -5 penalty on attacks, only added half his strength modifier, and so forth. It wasn't game-breaking in any sense, it was just something else he could do on a full attack (and frequently forgot).
The difference, largely, between using a two-handed weapon combined with a secondary slam (or claw) and a sword and shield combined with a secondary slam (or claw) is the same difference a spellcaster using a longsword and shield vs a quarterstaff or spear - even though the weapon takes two hands to use, the other hand is still free to perform other actions when necessary. You can make an off-hand attack with a spiked gauntlet, for example, or a claw attack, as long as that particular hand is not holding anything. A shield and sword fighter, on the other hand, can TWF with sword and shield bash, or can skip the need for improved shield bash and simply TWF with sword and armor spikes (which do not require a hand to use and are considered a light weapon).
When it comes right down to it, it's a DM call. I think it's fine as-is, our DM has allowed it, but other DMs may decide otherwise. That's what is so great about Rule Zero.
- Tome
What it comes down to is that WOTC made a design decision that medium sized (and smaller) creatures, in general, don't have the strength/weight to effectively attack with both limbs in this fashion. You'll notice, as well, that the damages for medium size claw attacks tend to be 1d4, on average, while medium sized slam attacks (and singular bite attacks) are 1d6, on average.
Not being on the design team myself, I can only assume that the decision was made out of an attempt to balance different creature types with different attacks against each other. A medium-sized creature with a single 1d6, 1.5x str slam attack deals damage roughly equivalent to a medium-sized creature of similar CR with two 1d6, 1x str claw attacks.
Our group had a warforged with a battlefist, and he would use it as a secondary natural attack while wielding a bastard sword in two hands. It followed all the rules for a secondary natural attack: he took a -5 penalty on attacks, only added half his strength modifier, and so forth. It wasn't game-breaking in any sense, it was just something else he could do on a full attack (and frequently forgot).
The difference, largely, between using a two-handed weapon combined with a secondary slam (or claw) and a sword and shield combined with a secondary slam (or claw) is the same difference a spellcaster using a longsword and shield vs a quarterstaff or spear - even though the weapon takes two hands to use, the other hand is still free to perform other actions when necessary. You can make an off-hand attack with a spiked gauntlet, for example, or a claw attack, as long as that particular hand is not holding anything. A shield and sword fighter, on the other hand, can TWF with sword and shield bash, or can skip the need for improved shield bash and simply TWF with sword and armor spikes (which do not require a hand to use and are considered a light weapon).
When it comes right down to it, it's a DM call. I think it's fine as-is, our DM has allowed it, but other DMs may decide otherwise. That's what is so great about Rule Zero.
- Tome
