Natural weapons for PC races

[CapnZapp]

It is Brute and Durran who are the obvious problem. It would seem they could equip themselves with a shield and gain +2 AC compared to a normal GWFer or TWFer.

Or from the other direction, Abe can pick up a shortsword and TWF.

If my proposal was a polished ready-to-published final draft, then yes.

At this stage, I'm content saying "obviously the GWF benefits require you to have both hands occupied". Or, perhaps less awkwardly, copying the language on Natural Armor or Bracers of Defense: "you gain this benefit only when you wield no weapon or shield"?

But kudos for bringing it up.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think this would be a perfect kind of product to be written up and put onto DMs Guild-- Advanced Natural Weapon Tactics.

Create a whole subsystem involving racial natural weapons and the different abilities, fighting styles, feats, and magical items that can incorporate them. Because while they would all probably be too complex for the baseline races in the actual books that WotC designs for... there are probably a good number of players for whom something like this would be worthwhile. Heck, add in Wildshape combat and unarmed fighting while you are at it to really expand out the rules for non-weapon hand-to-hand combat.

 

[CapnZapp]

Rather than granting a different progression and magical nature, it might be easier for natural weapons to just follow the Monk progression, and to simply introduce Amulets of natural Attacks or the equivalent. It looks like you're taking optimal magic item distribution as a given, so ensuring that a NW-fighting character gets one shouldn't be an issue.

My aim for this thread is definitely to add support for natural weapons at all levels for all games. To show us all that WotC could have done it.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't think a damage progression is needed.

It should be either d8 or d10 (as the versatile martial weapons). I would probably suggest d8 and the finesse property by default.

This is very good for Monks at the lowest levels, but I'm willing to agree that's a surmountable problem.

I also agree d8 finesse is good enough for every one-handed martial, if the DMG/UA/supplement includes "amulets of natural attack" or something.

But it is not good enough for Strength-based fighters. It is not reasonable to ask a high-level Barbarian Minotaur to trade his 2d6+18 Greatsword for d8+5 Horns.

I do give you the "without feats, it's good enough" argument. Maybe we can fix it by creating an analogue to the GWM feat for natural weapon users.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think this would be a perfect kind of product to be written up and put onto DMs Guild-- Advanced Natural Weapon Tactics.

Personally - if it's all the same to you - I'd much rather have it be published first as an UA article and then in the official hardcover publication "Minsc and Boo's Guide To Tanking And Other Tactics" or whatever.

 

[jaelis]

If you are going for a broader product, you probably want to accommodate tables that play without feats.

 

[CapnZapp]

I had the impression CZ wanted to allow this, but perhaps I misunderstood.

No. Fair point. I'd forgotten the extent of Zapp's suggested homebrew there. If Durran can make multiple attacks with NW, or as a bonus action as per TWF, then they can use a shield in conjunction.

The intention is absolutely that a Rogue should be able to use NW in conjunction with a sword for purposes of two-weapon fighting. And maybe even with no manufactured weapon at all!

But just like you can't get a bonus action attack with rapier + shield, you are not supposed to be able to get it with horns + shield either.

The point of any rules like these is to allow a monster player character to replace a regular weapon with a natural one. In short, not to feel they have to abandon their horns or claws for a manufactured weapon even at high levels. Preferably through as many builds as possible - I'm bringing up the four I personally think are essential.

It's not really intended as "homebrew". More to illustrate that it can be done, and how. The real intent is to make us all ask why WotC isn't doing it.

 

[CapnZapp]

If you are going for a broader product, you probably want to accommodate tables that play without feats.

I absolutely am.

The original version does nothing for greataxe wielders that does not take the GWM feat.

So I am absolutely accommodating tables without feats.

What I am not interested in doing, however, is only accommodating tables that play without feats.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Personally - if it's all the same to you - I'd much rather have it be published first as an UA article and then in the official hardcover publication "Minsc and Boo's Guide To Tanking And Other Tactics" or whatever.

Right. Now, for an actual product that you'll be able to buy and use... someone should design and write up rules for this stuff and put it onto DMs Guild.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Personally - if it's all the same to you - I'd much rather have it be published first as an UA article and then in the official hardcover publication "Minsc and Boo's Guide To Tanking And Other Tactics" or whatever.

There are a lot of assumptions in here that we're dealing with your rather idiosyncratic table, with min-maxing players, readily-available magic items, and emphasis of game balance over theme or realism aspects of the game. I don't think that these would work for a more general audience that plays 5e closer to default.

The point of any rules like these is to allow a monster player character to replace a regular weapon with a natural one. In short, not to feel they have to abandon their horns or claws for a manufactured weapon even at high levels. Preferably through as many builds as possible - I'm bringing up the four I personally think are essential.

It's not really intended as "homebrew". More to illustrate that it can be done, and how. The real intent is to make us all ask why WotC isn't doing it.

That question could have been asked a lot earlier, and saved work on our parts though: We could have just answered you there and then instead of spending our time helping you out with what we thought was some homebrew rules that you wanted to actually use.

WotC isn't doing it because there isn't the need: outside of Monks, there isn't much demand for unarmed strike/natural weapon-using combatants. The concept of using a weaker, less-dangerous, and more exposed piece of your body to attack with when swords and axes are available is pretty niche.

Defcon's suggestion of a DM'sGuild product is a good one. It allows you to cater to niches and styles that there wouldn't enough market to justify WotC making it.