Natural weapons and natural armor are a prime example of narrative abilities that are given mechanical heft... but whose heft is largely ceremonial. The board game of D&D combat has been designed with a very specific pattern, and for the most part there is a strong path to take, with a whole bunch of weaker ones. Using natural weapons rather than the weapons the D&D combat pattern demarcates for your specific class being one of those weaker ones.
Now of course there's a reason for this... natural weapons have a few minor bonuses that the standard combat pattern weapons do not (the "no disarms" for example)... and thus the game is unwilling to put natural weapons on equal footing with the standard pattern weapons (like say damage, and being able to use them with all standard weapon-user class abilities) because then that bonus of "no disarms" in theory make them "overpowered".
However, most of us of in the "real world" of players and not designers of course fully acknowledge that not being able to disarm someone is barely a worthwhile action, so that "bonus" the natural weapon gets is nowhere nearly considered overpowering by most of us out in the world. It's basically the same as the concept of "no components" for Psionic characters-- Psionics fans do not think they should have components, but WotC refuses to go in that direction because if they then make Psionics equal in power to Spellcasting, that "no components" bonus would make them "overpowered" to spellcasters by comparison. Casters have to use components, psionicsts do not. Even though almost all of us out in the "real world" know that components themselves are so inconsequential that they are barely a worthwhile thing to worry about. But because WotC designs from the idea of the "platonic ideal" of D&D... components and undisarmable weapons have import. They give those things more credit than the rest of us think they deserve.
It's why for me... I try and treat natural weapons as flavor and not give them mechanical heft. Which means that if a player at my table wishes to use their species' claws as their weapons of choice rather than shortswords, picks, or whatever because it looks and sounds cool... then I select for them the most beneficial real weapon option their class can have (that works with all their class features) and say "You get the mechanics of X for all your actions and uses... but we will fluff it as saying you are using your claws". Because I know and the player knows that not being able to disarm their "claws" is not actually a true benefit that it is worth not letting them do it.
So I can't disarm that PC because they are using "claws" rather than the weapon that the mechanics are based off of. Oh well. It's not like anyone at the table is ever really attempting disarms anyways-- again, that is a maneuver that is useful in the "platonic ideal" of D&D combat... but in reality is just a waste of time in 95% of the situations. So the loss of disarming that PC isn't actually a loss to me as a DM at all.
Now of course there's a reason for this... natural weapons have a few minor bonuses that the standard combat pattern weapons do not (the "no disarms" for example)... and thus the game is unwilling to put natural weapons on equal footing with the standard pattern weapons (like say damage, and being able to use them with all standard weapon-user class abilities) because then that bonus of "no disarms" in theory make them "overpowered".
However, most of us of in the "real world" of players and not designers of course fully acknowledge that not being able to disarm someone is barely a worthwhile action, so that "bonus" the natural weapon gets is nowhere nearly considered overpowering by most of us out in the world. It's basically the same as the concept of "no components" for Psionic characters-- Psionics fans do not think they should have components, but WotC refuses to go in that direction because if they then make Psionics equal in power to Spellcasting, that "no components" bonus would make them "overpowered" to spellcasters by comparison. Casters have to use components, psionicsts do not. Even though almost all of us out in the "real world" know that components themselves are so inconsequential that they are barely a worthwhile thing to worry about. But because WotC designs from the idea of the "platonic ideal" of D&D... components and undisarmable weapons have import. They give those things more credit than the rest of us think they deserve.
It's why for me... I try and treat natural weapons as flavor and not give them mechanical heft. Which means that if a player at my table wishes to use their species' claws as their weapons of choice rather than shortswords, picks, or whatever because it looks and sounds cool... then I select for them the most beneficial real weapon option their class can have (that works with all their class features) and say "You get the mechanics of X for all your actions and uses... but we will fluff it as saying you are using your claws". Because I know and the player knows that not being able to disarm their "claws" is not actually a true benefit that it is worth not letting them do it.
So I can't disarm that PC because they are using "claws" rather than the weapon that the mechanics are based off of. Oh well. It's not like anyone at the table is ever really attempting disarms anyways-- again, that is a maneuver that is useful in the "platonic ideal" of D&D combat... but in reality is just a waste of time in 95% of the situations. So the loss of disarming that PC isn't actually a loss to me as a DM at all.
Last edited:
