D&D 5E Natural Weapons, How Much Value Is There To Actually Having Them?

[Fanaelialae]

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?

You're shifting goalposts.

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.

 

[James Gasik]

That's another mechanic you can fix.

Only if I'm the DM!

 

[ECMO3]

RAW Natural Weapons can also be very good if they are not part of your hands.

If you for example need to pull out a focus for a spell like Hex, or something you cast with action surge or while Hasted. You are not going to be able to draw a weapon that turn to attack with. Also if you are a sword and board and need to do something with a hand - hold a torch or hold a focus, again you are not going to be able to attack

Finally if you are grappling two enemies you can still attack a third. I have never played a Grappler with natural weapons, but I have played a grappler a lot who is grappling two enemies and resorting to a head butt unarmed strike for strength damage only to make an attack. Having a natural weapon on something other than your hands would alleviate that.

None of these things are groundbreaking but they are significant. Probably as significant as a bad cantrip.

 

[James Gasik]

Fair enough on the mechanical aspects I suppose (though Con / Wis IS still great for a Cleric, and I don't think my argument about that specific class being good for Lizardfolk is good).

I suppose the lore and flavour aspects did not bother me as much due to playing in a custom setting... and the fact that Volo's guide has generally been negatively received on that side for a while. At the same time though, this type of character could be quite quite fun to play (sans the corpse stuff - logically, any lizardfolk adventurer would know revival is possible), as an exercise in xenobiology and characters way outside the standard wheel-house. Not for everyone, however.

That, and the aesthetics of skinny lizards going about wrecking shite is fun c=.

I'll be honest, it's not that I don't think someone could roleplay an interesting lizardman with an alien mindset. Though you could do much the same with a Warforged, IMO.

I just have a conditioned bad reaction to any text that seems to say "hey, it's ok to play like an a-hole" because I've played with a lot of "it's what my character would do" a-hats in the past. As for the mechanics, well, I've played a lot of races that were subpar in the past because I thought they were cool. I got a Kobold Wizard right now, and I get very little mileage out of my kobold-ness, lol.

So if Lizardfolk does it for you, by all means, play one. Mordenkainen's certainly made them better. But I think it's still fair to note that WotC has made superior choices. Which I don't really understand. How hard is it to make all races equally good choices?

 

[ReshiIRE]

Which I don't really understand. How hard is it to make all races equally good choices?

Depends on the methodology and what features you give them, the weight / value of each of those features, and how they tie into the theme of the ancestry - and that's without considering the limitations or requirements of the game balance.

There is also the fact that people will often pick ancestry more for character feel, lore, aesthetic etc. rather than pure mechanics.

Like anything in game design, it's not easy, and it's clear that 5e doesn't have specific mechanical guidelines or designs for what an ancestry should be, how they are set up, and where their power should lie. There is such a wide depth and breadth of different mechanics used in them that I'd almost say that for Wizards, there really aren't guidelines for what features are allowed or not allowed.

That's how you can end up with the original printing of Dragonborn and Yuan-Ti in the same game; why you can end up with Lizardfolk and Variant Human in the same game; etc.

So it's quite hard, particularly with how 5e is designed. If ancestries had specific limits and guides as to what features are suitable for their choice, it'd be easier to balance them all.

That being said, I would say overall, because of what I mentioned before about why people pick ancestries and other balance factors, the balance of different ancestries is not a significant concern in 5e compared to other balance issues or issues of design; especially with the free choice in Ability Score Boosts, how weak or strong each ancestry choice is pales in comparison to the issues present between different classes and the martial / caster divide*.

Because of this, while it would be nice for ancestries to be more balanced, it is in my opinion the least significant design issue, and arguably for the space that 5e wants to hit, I honestly feel that ancestry choice is a good mix of simple and complex; there is real meat in all aspects of the game to that choice, particularly depending on how you run the game at your table; depending on what you want out of the game, there are real lore or setting implications about the difference between being an elf and being a dragonborn, that players and DMs may want to explore, etc. With ancestry as well being one of the most major points of player expression outside of class, and often more apparent or important for quite a lot of roleplay, choosing the most 'mechanically best' ancestry is a much less obvious factor; I would not be surprised if quite a lot of players who otherwise pick optimal class, spell, item etc. choices will stick pick a 'subpar' ancestry because it appeals to them.

That is why, while it would be cool for Natural Weapons to be more generally useful and worth more of a consideration**, I think overall 5e has gotten ancestries right mechanically, in terms of what the system design wants to do.

* I DON'T WANT TO TURN THIS THREAD INTO A DISCUSSION ON THIS. I AM MAKING A POINT ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC OF ANCESTRY BALANCE.

** in my opinion, the biggest issue is how Unarmed Attacks in general are handled in 5e and in Monks specifically, rather than an issue with Natural Weapons tehemselves. They are a weak option in general that should be able to be boosted through something. Sure, that'll probably introduce more complex mechanics, but I don't think it'd be a sin to have more codified ways to use Unarmed Attacks specifically. It gives an interesting choice: weapons are simpler, tend to do more damage, and fit into nice places, but classes that boost Unarmed attacks and ancestries with special Natural Weapons get access to different manuvers to deal with their foes. Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Expecting that I ought to write a full dissertation on what a city like this might look like is absurd.

But this rather proves my point about this all being theoretical and unlikely.

You previously appeared to be indicating that this was a real thing that was actually in your games, and your players enjoyed going to cities where only natural weapons are allowed, but clearly either I misunderstood, or you were talking about a theoretical situation as if it were a real one. Were it the case that you actually ran your game like this, you wouldn't need a "full dissertation", nor would you say "what a city like this might look like" [my emphasis], you'd just telling me examples from your actual game.

I didn't think I was asking you to design it on the spot, because it appeared you were indicating it was something that already existed. As that's clearly not the case, fine, and I don't mean to bother you, I'm just pointing out that there seems to be a miscommunication here.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There is also the fact that people will often pick ancestry more for character feel, lore, aesthetic etc. rather than pure mechanics.

That's literally completely immaterial and irrelevant to balancing races.

People will pick humans even if they're clearly the worst race, sure, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try and balance races.

So it's quite hard, particularly with how 5e is designed. If ancestries had specific limits and guides as to what features are suitable for their choice, it'd be easier to balance them all.

The issue here is that you're complaining as if there are two conflict agendas/sides, but that's not true. WotC decided how 5E was designed. WotC decided to make 5E's races/species have incredibly dodgy balance. WotC decided to insanely overvalue natural weapons, and natural armour, and rather undervalue innate spellcasting. To be fair they also undervalued Magic Resistance, but they DID fix that, by changing it to be spells only, which is still good but not killer (esp. as they simultaneously steeply reduced how much monsters use actual spells).

This is all on WotC either way - they could have fixed it, they could still fix a lot of it if they wanted to. I know a lot of the races got updates with MotM, but the 2024 MM could update the relevant ones from there further.

I DON'T WANT TO TURN THIS THREAD INTO A DISCUSSION ON THIS. I AM MAKING A POINT ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC OF ANCESTRY BALANCE.

I get that but my dude, why did you edit your post massively (more than doubling its size) to add in a giant discussion which begs a response then lol? I'm trying to minimize my response though!

Either way, some of points don't really make sense when actually held up to the light and examined. WotC did this. WotC could fix this.

To focus on natural weapons and armour - WotC wildly overvalues and it's entirely unclear why. It should change.

Sorry to be clear I think your arguments are not silly, and I'm not trying to be annoyance, I just think there's a bit to consider a bit more deeply here.

** in my opinion, the biggest issue is how Unarmed Attacks in general are handled in 5e and in Monks specifically, rather than an issue with Natural Weapons tehemselves. They are a weak option in general that should be able to be boosted through something. Sure, that'll probably introduce more complex mechanics, but I don't think it'd be a sin to have more codified ways to use Unarmed Attacks specifically. It gives an interesting choice: weapons are simpler, tend to do more damage, and fit into nice places, but classes that boost Unarmed attacks and ancestries with special Natural Weapons get access to different manuvers to deal with their foes. Wouldn't that be nice?

Yeah this is a very good point and unfortunately it seems WotC's design team have the same issues with unarmed in general as they do with natural weapons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Only if I'm the DM!

Or have a decent relationship with them. I rewrote a lot of the heritage mechanics O use.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I do find it odd how weak most are, so I guess they're mostly ribbons. They could be useful in a situation where bringing weapons would be innapropriate, like in a temple, or fancy dinner/party, but the hosts asking you to cut off your claws would be rude.

Edit: I like the idea of extra effects, like a Minotaur horn adding a free shove on hit

 

[ReshiIRE]

That's literally completely immaterial and irrelevant to balancing races.

People will pick humans even if they're clearly the worst race, sure, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try and balance races.

I agree with you though. Sorry if I made it seem like I don't.

My overall point was more so that of all the design issues in the game, this is the type of issue I would try to solve last; especially since Wizards has taken MANY ATTEMPTS to fix certain ancestries (hello, Dragonborn), and it hasn't always worked well; and while that may just be an issue with how they approach designing ancestries, it could also because all the other balancing and design issues in 5e makes it too difficult to consistently create good ancestries with their processes.

The issue here is that you're complaining as if there are two conflict agendas/sides, but that's not true. WotC decided how 5E was designed. WotC decided to make 5E's races/species have incredibly dodgy balance. WotC decided to insanely overvalue natural weapons, and natural armour, and rather undervalue innate spellcasting. To be fair they also undervalued Magic Resistance, but they DID fix that, by changing it to be spells only, which is still good but not killer (esp. as they simultaneously steeply reduced how much monsters use actual spells).

This is all on WotC either way - they could have fixed it, they could still fix a lot of it if they wanted to. I know a lot of the races got updates with MotM, but the 2024 MM could update the relevant ones from there further.

Yeah, they certainly have caused this themselves; agreed again. They should be focusing on understanding their design and how to make changes over time. Rather than big changes at once like the 2024 book approach, there should be more erratas of old content going on, and a bigger push to get a consistent design philosophy going.

I guess I'm not really trying to defend them; my point overall is more so that I think a bigger top down design fix is needed rather than necessarily focusing on features like this.

Though, I will say: how many specific things are designed by freelancers or non core members of the team? What guidance are they being given? We talk about Wizards as a cohesive block but I don't think that's true on the D&D team, especially not when Mearls, one of the original designers, is out of the public view and probably sidelined for his bad actions.

I get that but my dude, why did you edit your post massively (more than doubling its size) to add in a giant discussion which begs a response then lol? I'm trying to minimize my response though!

Either way, some of points don't really make sense when actually held up to the light and examined. WotC did this. WotC could fix this.

To focus on natural weapons and armour - WotC wildly overvalues and it's entirely unclear why. It should change.

Sorry to be clear I think your arguments are not silly, and I'm not trying to be annoyance, I just think there's a bit to consider a bit more deeply here.

I am a girl ^^.

That is fair; I more so put that there to... massage any fears others would have, because it seems like a big talking point in general is how much talk is getting redirected back towards martial versus casters.

As for why Wizards overvalue these features: my key guess is that they see them as massive gold saves for certain types of characters or a boost for certain concepts. Whether they are in reality is probably immaterial to that concern; there may even be an assumption within Wizards that player characters not wearing armour or not having a weapon on hand is common enough to warrant those features being a genuine advantage. Remember - 5e as written doesn't consider Magic Items core to the experience, so equipment and gold savers may be a lot more valuable to Wizards than they are to everyone else.

Has Wizards ever detailed any playtest they do internally? Or has Crawford ever made his philosophy on this stuff known?