This it something I came to wonder some time ago, so here goes nothing:
Why do humanoids have unarmed strikes instead of natural weapons?
I mean, sure, a human bite (for example) is not THAT big a threat, but it's a potential attack (with a low damage die) nonetheless.
So what would happen if all humanoids (and other type with it) would receive a number of natural attacks instead of this mysterious unarmed strike?
Sure, the rules for natural attacks hat to be nerfed/changed, but maybe, just maybe, it would make things better in the long run?
Probably not, but that's what this THINKTANK is meant to find out!
I don't have that much time now, but I will take a deeper look into the natural attack rules soon and start thinking.
Hopefully some of you want to tag along and see where this would be going...
-------------
To all of you that think this idea is simply stupid and think this isn't going anywhere: Please don't post and simply stay away.
Thank you.
Look at a wolf: it is sleek, furry, and has big teeth that it evolved to bite things. When a wolf wants to fight or hunt, he bares those teeth and goes for it. His teeth are designed for that, he's made for the hunt and the kill.
Look at a human: he has small teeth and weak jaw muscles, his bite is NOT meant to be a weapon. His hands are not tipped with claws, they are tool-making/using hands, not items of destruction. If a human needs to fight or hunt, he grabs a stick and fashions a club or spear out of it, and uses that as his weapon.
That's why, to me, humanoids have unarmed strikes - their natural weapons are not well evolved for battle, they are in effect improvised weapons. Humans are not instinctively able to use them either, which is why they provoke attacks of opportunity. A human needs special training to make his natural weapons effective where for an animal it's instinctive (this isn't unusual for anything a human does, though - almost everything instinctive in other animals is learned in humans).
Because then unarmed strike would have full BAB all the time, and it's much different from natural attacks. With natural attacks, you are limited to one method of attack: claw, bite, slam, etc. With unarmed strikes, you can do whatever.
They might be quite underdeveloped compared to other animals of equal size, I'd say a cat or rat (i.e.) might think quite differently about this.
Our "bite attack" might be weak for our size, but all is relative.
And as the both of you guys so happily ignored, I said
a) this ThinkTank is about figuring out "what would happen if", not about "should we even try it" or "does this make sense".
b) OF COURSE the natural weapon rules had to be changed, but the question again is not "if" but "how".
and again:
c) If you don't like this (or any) idea or think it's not worth the effort, why even bother posting? Why not just staying the f**k away and let those whose who do have their fun?
(And please don't answer to this. It's a rhetorical question if you didn't realize...)
Here's a thought: If a monk has all the tiger-style feats and can mimic a tiger's slashing claw AND THEN he also happens to have a natural claw attack, does it deal extra damage? Should the natural claw attack be allowed to deal damage as the unarmed monk claw attack. Something to ponder.
a) this ThinkTank is about figuring out "what would happen if", not about "should we even try it" or "does this make sense".
Well, you would have to define which part of the body the attack is with, just as with natural weapons you have to define which attacks are with claws, which are bites, which are slams etc.
For a human you have (potentially) a bite and three slams (two fists/elbows and a foot/knee), four slams on a pounce.
For magic fang spells you would have to identify which attack the spell was cast upon.
Dotting.
MA
Just took a quick look into several animals/monsters.
The natural weapons attack rules don't make much sense to begin with (from a realism point of view).
Sure a cat (i.e) has claws and sharp teeth, but NO cat would go all-out and attack with claws AND try to bite.
They don't do this. (They would use the bite or front-claws to grap, pull close, and then claw/bite and rake)
Likewise a crocodil is listed as having a bite and a secondary tail slam.
Did you ever see a crocodile use BOTH at the same time?
[BTW: Cheetahs don't even attack with their claws (those paws are meant for running, not "clawing")]
-------
Thinkin about this, I believe the whole "natural full attack" concept ought to be remade, so that a creature does NOT automatically attack with all its NA when doing so.
-------
@ Dabbler:
Thought about the same attacks. I considered a "head-slam" too. Would be more of a "potential attack".
Had 2 leg attacks first, but you are right, keeping standing is certainly a win. :)
It's good that you mention things like "magic fangs", but actually, I consider those things secondary, since once the "basic concept" is somewhat solid, we could always come back round to address those things.
(And probably have to)
That's my cents for now...
Just took a quick look into several animals/monsters.
The natural weapons attack rules don't make much sense to begin with (from a realism point of view).
Sure a cat (i.e) has claws and sharp teeth, but NO cat would go all-out and attack with claws AND try to bite.
They don't do this. (They would use the bite or front-claws to grap, pull close, and then claw/bite and rake)
What most cats do is sing their claws in and use them to immobilise the target, then deliver a killing bite. The rear claws come into play once the teeth are in to add to some bleed damage if the cat's prey doesn't go down. The bite is primary damage, but attacks last after the two claws.
Likewise a crocodile is listed as having a bite and a secondary tail slam.
Did you ever see a crocodile use BOTH at the same time?
Yes, when fighting on land crocodiles curl their body's around and lash with the tail then snap with a bite. In the water, they go for a bite, hang on tight and then go into a death-roll.
@ Dabbler:
Thought about the same attacks. I considered a "head-slam" too. Would be more of a "potential attack".
Had 2 leg attacks first, but you are right, keeping standing is certainly a win. :)
It's good that you mention things like "magic fangs", but actually, I consider those things secondary, since once the "basic concept" is somewhat solid, we could always come back round to address those things.
Well you could in theory kick with both feet because you can deliver one kick and then another alternately easily within the time period of a round, but it's a technique I advise only for the experienced.
Humans could easily try to entangle or grapple as well as head-butt or even kick without training. Kind of an instinctive thing to do when cornered, as well as biting whatever will fit in their mouth. (Do we need to mention Mike Tyson?)
Well, that is my 2 copper pieces at any rate.
Dotting
Humans could easily try to entangle or grapple as well as head-butt or even kick without training. Kind of an instinctive thing to do when cornered, as well as biting whatever will fit in their mouth.
Sure they can, and like unarmed strikes these things provoke without special training.
The thing about unarmed attacks provoking AoO from armed ones is also one rule that would need rethinking.
Just saying...
Draco, this is an interesting 'thinktank' point to raise, and thanks for raising it.
I mulled this over a while back (offboard) and put together a system which cut out the middle man (ie the unarmed strike), partly to see if doing so could help the Monk Issue. Herebelow some quick thoughts:
(1) non-giant humanoids don't generally have natural attacks, because if they did it would slow down the game quite a bit. Every character would be capable of making multiple attacks from 1st level. Avoiding game-slowing is a good general rule.
(2) the rules on interaction of natural and manufactured attacks are...a bit cobwebby, let's say. Cobbled together oover several editions (and indeed games). Giving PC races natural attacks exposes new players to what are currently rather complex rules. So, the ineraction of natural/manufactured attacks rules would have to be rewritten more efficiently for unarmed removal to work well.
(3) The monk - well, you can't consider unarmed attacks without considering him, really. Natural attacks would change him greatly, because more than any other class, that (or the unarmed strike) is what he's all about.
(4) as has been said, everyone gets AoOs, all the time.
Other stuff, too. Will look at my notes. Good topic.
Here is a chart that may help
Interesting, but bite force isn't the whole story. Humans have small, relatively blunt teeth, dogs have big ones that are very sharp. With a dog, it's bit is it's reach, but with a human you have to grab and bring to the mouth to bite.
Look at a wolf: it is sleek, furry, and has big teeth that it evolved to bite things. When a wolf wants to fight or hunt, he bares those teeth and goes for it. His teeth are designed for that, he's made for the hunt and the kill.
Look at a human: he has small teeth and weak jaw muscles, his bite is NOT meant to be a weapon. His hands are not tipped with claws, they are tool-making/using hands, not items of destruction. If a human needs to fight or hunt, he grabs a stick and fashions a club or spear out of it, and uses that as his weapon.
While I do agree with your analysis, giants are humanoids and have natural weapons (slam attacks) rather than unarmed strike. Also, weapons in D&D scale in 'deadliness' from poor weapons to better ones. So i don't see why human's bite isn't a weapon, even if the dog's bite is admittedly is a better weapon, but not yet as good as a crocodile's bite.
Personally, I find the whole natural weapon differentiation counter-intuitive from the otherwise united 3e D&D's mechanics. I understand that the designers wanted to keep the former editions' monstrous attack routine, but the whole natural weapon sub-system sticks out as a band-aid IMO. I think there would have been better ways of resolving multiple attacks by adhering to the guidelines that compose the core combat rules.
@ Laurefindel
I agree. The system needs a little cleaning up, or cleaning out.
@Dabbler
True enough and it was clearly demonstrated by Mike Tyson, too. Most critters that my characters have been bitten by (in game) have had to grapple first before they bite, also.
Most critters that my characters have been bitten by (in game) have had to grapple first before they bite, also.
Most feline grapple before they bite as well. One could argue that their 'claw' attacks don't serve as a purpose of dealing damage, but as a way to deliver their killing bite.
Canines don't claw, but one could also argue that their initial bite serves as a way to trip their prey, then to deliver a killing bite. That's why canines primarily attack in pack (one trips, one goes for the kill). Felines also attack in packs to round the herd and trap individuals, but they don't usually need to gang-up on a single prey to bring it down and kill it (unless they take on an elephant of something particularity tough and large).
While I do agree with your analysis, giants are humanoids and have natural weapons (slam attacks) rather than unarmed strike. Also, weapons in D&D scale in 'deadliness' from poor weapons to better ones. So i don't see why human's bite isn't a weapon, even if the dog's bite is admittedly is a better weapon, but not yet as good as a crocodile's bite.Look at a wolf: it is sleek, furry, and has big teeth that it evolved to bite things. When a wolf wants to fight or hunt, he bares those teeth and goes for it. His teeth are designed for that, he's made for the hunt and the kill.
Look at a human: he has small teeth and weak jaw muscles, his bite is NOT meant to be a weapon. His hands are not tipped with claws, they are tool-making/using hands, not items of destruction. If a human needs to fight or hunt, he grabs a stick and fashions a club or spear out of it, and uses that as his weapon.
The relative sizes of a giant with a slam attack as compared to a human answers that - the giant has the reach over a weapon to deliver the attack without great risk, even untrained.
I agree, you could include a human's bite, as an option for using against a grappled foe. But damage would be small, 1d2 say, at a hefty negative penalty because you gave to get so close.
Personally, I find the whole natural weapon differentiation counter-intuitive from the otherwise united 3e D&D's mechanics. I understand that the designers wanted to keep the former editions' monstrous attack routine, but the whole natural weapon sub-system sticks out as a band-aid IMO. I think there would have been better ways of resolving multiple attacks by adhering to the guidelines that compose the core combat rules.
Yes, the game is full of these.
The relative sizes of a giant with a slam attack as compared to a human answers that - the giant has the reach over a weapon to deliver the attack without great risk, even untrained.
I understand the logic when the giant is compared to the human, but it tends to fall apart when you consider two giants hitting each other, or when a human attacks a tiny creature while unarmed. (so since kicking a puppy doesn't deal lethal damage, is it still considered an Evil act?) However, I'm aware that giants are the exception rather than the norm when it comes to human-like* creatures with natural weapons rather than unarmed strikes.
Furthermore, I agree with the fact that human's bite is not intended to be an effective weapon, and that hands and feet are not efficient weapons compared to a bear's claw or even a horse's hoof. However, I do think the game went too far in terms of unarmed fighting inefficiency and that the two could have easily been the same, but that's a personal opinion.
*I use human-like instead of humanoid because there are many humanoids with claws and other legitimate natural weapons, or humanoid outsiders (i.e. not of the Humanoid type but with a humanoid shape) with bony profusions and whatnot that can easily qualify as "weapon".
'findel
I agree, but it's the logic I think the writers used at the time.
The thing to remember about the D&D system is that it's an evolved system, not designed from the ground up. It started out very simple, and bits have been tacked on here and there to make it work.