"Unarmed" damage for natural weapons

[buzz]

What is the "unarmed damage" for a creature who's sole attack(s) is a natural weapon? E.g., a monstrous spider whose only attack is a bite? I had a gargantuan spider grappling a PC in my game tonight. I had assumed that the unarmed damage it got to do as part of grappling was the same as its bite damage; I figured that's the only manipulative appendage it has, so why not? I was then told my the player that it should only be doing unarmed damag which, since it did not have Improved Grab, was some small amount of nonlethal damage.

If so, where is this in the books, and how do I determine what kind of unarmed damage a creature does? Just use the human unarmed damage and adjust for size?

I tell you, I freaking hate grappling (right now, at least; tonight's session was all a single combat. I'm tired. ).

 

[Caeleddin]

No. Unarmed subdual damage while grappling (d4 for Med creatures) only applies to creatures without a natural attack. A monster with a natural attack will use the natural attack's damage. The text always states with which part the creature grabs you with. With the spider, I believe it gets grab only if it hits you with its bite attack. So it does lethal bite damage.

 

[Scharlata]

No. Unarmed subdual damage while grappling (d4 for Med creatures) only applies to creatures without a natural attack. A monster with a natural attack will use the natural attack's damage. The text always states with which part the creature grabs you with. With the spider, I believe it gets grab only if it hits you with its bite attack. So it does lethal bite damage.

Hi!

Yupp, and remember: If the creature has only one natural attack add 1 and 1/2 times it's Strength bonus to damage (see Monster Manual).

Enjoy

 

[Hypersmurf]

No. Unarmed subdual damage while grappling (d4 for Med creatures) only applies to creatures without a natural attack. A monster with a natural attack will use the natural attack's damage.

Source?

A creature with Improved Grab deals the damage of the weapon that established the hold on successful grapple checks. A creature without Improved Grab deals damage equivalent to an unarmed strike.

For a Medium creature, that's 1d3 non-lethal (not 1d4). For a Gargantuan Monstrous Spider - a Gargantuan creature without Improved Grab - that's 1d8 non-lethal.

Alternatively, instead of using the Damage Opponent option to deal 1d8 non-lethal with a successful grapple check, the spider could use the Attack Opponent with Light Weapon option to make a normal bite attack at -4.

-Hyp.

 

[Caeleddin]

I'm still trying to figure out how that spider managed to grab that PC to begin with. The MM's spiders don't have grab or grapple.


Hypersmurf - All creatures with Improved Grab/Grapple have an entry that tells you what happens when you get grabbed. Some swallow, others sting, still others bite. All those are lethal damage, not the standard d4 subdual.

 

[Egres]

I'm still trying to figure out how that spider managed to grab that PC to begin with. The MM's spiders don't have grab or grapple.


Hypersmurf - All creatures with Improved Grab/Grapple have an entry that tells you what happens when you get grabbed. Some swallow, others sting, still others bite. All those are lethal damage, not the standard d4 subdual.

You don't need to have any special attack/quality listed in order to grapple someone/something.

And, as Hypersmurf already wrote, the standard damage for a medium creature is 1d3, not 1d4.

 

[buzz]

I'm still trying to figure out how that spider managed to grab that PC to begin with. The MM's spiders don't have grab or grapple.

Yes they do. All monstrous spiders have a listed Grapple bonus. Any creature can grapple, but not all have Improved Grab (Ex). (I.e., no creature "has" grapple. Grapple is simply a basic combat manuever.)

A creature with Improved Grab deals the damage of the weapon that established the hold on successful grapple checks. A creature without Improved Grab deals damage equivalent to an unarmed strike.

Can you point me to where in the rules it talks about what the unarmed damage is for creatures with natural weapons? Is this just one of those implied things? This is the part that confused the heck out of me last night.

 

[buzz]

Ha!

If a creature has natural weaponry, it deals lethal natural weapon damage with a successful opposed grapple check (its natural weapons are just like unarmed strikes). A creature with natural weaponry can choose to deal nonlethal damage in a grapple by taking a -4 penalty.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050308a

If the monster's grapple attack deals damage to a foe, the damage is lethal (unless the monster takes a -4 penalty to deal nonlethal damage) and equal to the damage rating for the natural weapon. For example, a troll grappling with a claw has a grapple bonus of +14 and deals 1d6+6 point of damage with the attack.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050322a

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ha!

But you won't find that in the rules anywhere - it's Skip making stuff up.

Damage for an unarmed strike is based on size category - 1d3 for Medium, adjust up or down from there. 1d4 Large, 1d6 Huge, 1d8 Gargantuan, 2d6 Colossal. 1d2 Small, 1 Tiny or smaller.

An unarmed strike deals non-lethal damage unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike or take a -4 penalty on your roll.

When you use the Damage your Opponent option while grappling, you deal damage equivalent to your unarmed strike - not to any natural weapons you might have - unless you have the Improved Grab special ability.

Skip's "Any creatures with natural weaponry" is unsupported by the rules.

If the spider wants to bite, it can use the 'Attack with Light Weapon' option instead.

-Hyp.

 

[buzz]

Skip's "Any creatures with natural weaponry" is unsupported by the rules.

But do the rules state explicitly anywhere that "unarmed" != "natural"? Why should, e.g., a giant eagle's talons do 1d6+4 lethal when attacking a PC but only 1d4 nonlethal when grappling a PC with those same talons? Why does a monk or PC with Improved Unarmed Strike get to be an exception to this becuase they have a class ability/feat, but a creature born with claws or mandibles doesn't?

Skip's RotG article is as close to canon as I've been able to find on this subject, and it gels with basic logic, IMO. That a creature that has you in its giant maw needs to take a penalty to do damage to you with said maw just makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.