Fanaelialae
Legend
You're shifting goalposts.I have to say I don't think that's either likely or realistic and without any explanation from you as to why you think it is, it's just mystifying. Why would a city be so incredibly restrictive as to not allow basic tools humans use to operate like knives and sticks - which is superficially insane, no medieval city in history operated that way (that I can think of - maybe in Asia somewhere?) - but be totally fine with throat-ripping fangs and claws?
The real problem here is the bizarre fantasy of a city that doesn't allow knives/staves/clubs and natural weapons being some use there. Weapons of war are what tend to get banned. Also, you talk about severe punishments for using the natural weapons violently, and yes that seems plausible, but that's going to hit PCs who use them in self-defence as well as in offence.
And what does such a city do to casters? This seems like you've invented these incredibly paranoid cities solely to inconvenience martial characters - I was expecting, reading your post, to hear that casters had to wear a device disabling their magic or something, but it seems they're just fine?
I was talking about visitors to the city. While they might very well allow an old man his staff, they're not necessarily going to allow a group of well armed mercenaries to do the same. A craftsman might be allowed a hammer but a fighter might not. It makes sense that in a world where even a dagger can be a powerful and dangerous magical weapon, that guards might be wary of allowing dangerous looking strangers even that much.
Regarding why it's realistic that a city which disallows folks to enter with weapons might permit natural weapons, I thought it obvious. Let's use the tabaxi, for example. City A has strict weapon regulations. City B does not. City A won't allow tabaxi in, or has such drakonian restrictions (all tabaxi must wear manacles while in the city) as to deter tabaxi from visiting. Tabaxi traders have goods that both cities want, but it's far more convenient for them to trade with City B, so that's where they go. In order to get the same goods, City A has to use intermediaries or trade with City B, which drives up the cost. As such, City B gradually becomes more prosperous than City A. Eventually, it's quite likely that someone in a position of authority in City A is going to notice this and relax their laws on tabaxi, in order to make it less of a hassle for the city to get their goods. That's obviously a fairly simplistic overview, and there would be a lot of other factors in play, but think of it as a broad sketch explanation of the economic forces involved.
As to punishments for using natural weapons, that's true, but only if they get caught. It's not like a tabaxi's claws are going to compel them to go on a murderous rampage through the city. It's a nice option to have if you need it, but no one's forcing you to use it if you think the risks outweigh the benefits.
As for casters, I never brought them into the discussion, because they're completely irrelevant to the thread topic. Expecting that I ought to write a full dissertation on what a city like this might look like is absurd. It would depend on a lot of factors. How common are casters in the setting? If they're common enough, the city could very well take precautions, such as requiring component pouches and implements to be left at the gate. It would be silly in many campaigns to require casters to wear magic disabling devices; where would the city even get such a thing in sufficient quantities? Such a device would be the exception, rather than the rule IMO (and would deter casters from visiting the city, which would likely be harmful in the long term for that city, as I explained above).
In any case, I'm done with this discussion. I expected my first post to be a one off that was simply ignored among other posts. Just a way of me commenting that although I agree that natural weapons are ribbons, I still like them. However, it seems to have taken on a rather tedious life of its own.