I've never understood why humanoids are treated as not having Natural Weapons, and why the concept of an "Unarmed Strike" exists at all. Humanoids have teeth, humanoids have limbs that can be used to bludgeon things. Granted they're not the most efficient weapons, but we still have them.
So I wondered what would be the effects of removing the concept of an "Unarmed Strike" and having humanoids given 2 Natural Weapons, all sized for a creature two sizes smaller than normal. 1 Bite Weapon and 1 Slam. So far I realize it seems to be a bit of a boost to monks, and anyone who wants to fight without a weapon.
Essentially the changes I feel this would have to include in list form would look kinda like:
1. Unarmed Strikes don't exist. Nothing provokes an attack of opportunity merely by wielding a weapon which they are not proficient with.
2. Improved Unarmed Strike, Throw Anything, and Catch Off-Guard do not exist, and all things requiring these abilities simply ignore them.
3. Humanoids are given a Bite and a Non-lethal Slam Natural Weapon that is 2 sizes smaller than normal. For Medium humanoids this equals 1d3. For small humanoids this equals 1d2.
4. Monks have a few changes. Humanoid monks improve their original Bite and Slam Weapons to equal their own size at 1st level (They then increase as the Unarmed Strike does now). A monk applies their full Strength bonus to all their Natural Weapons. A monk can use any limb to perform their Slam attack, and can treat their Slam attack as any number of weapons for the purposes of Flurry of Blows and Two-Weapon Fighting and its improvements.
5. Any ability that previously gave a bonus only to Unarmed Strike now gives it to a creature's Natural Attacks (such as a monk's Ki Pool ability).
6. Natural Weapons no longer grant additional attacks beyond the creature's normal attack routine. For example, a creature with a Bite and 2 Claw weapons but with only a BAB of 6 can still only attack twice with a Full Attack Action, using any combination of their Natural weapons. The multi-attack feat restores this ability in addition to its normal effects.
7. Amulet of Mighty Fists applies its bonus only to 1 Natural Weapon, chosen at the time of donning the amulet. An Amulet of Mighty Fists is treated as a single weapon for the purposes of enchanting prices (an Amulet of Mighty Fists costs the same as say, a longsword, to enchant). An Amulet of Mighty Fists may be enchanted to provide its effect to any number of Natural Weapons, but its price changes accordingly (2 attacks doubles the original price. 3 attacks triple it, etcetc).
Now, these changes make sense, to me. However I'm not even sure what the longer term effect of these changes would be. I'm sure there are builds that would become overpowered by this, and others that suddenly lose a lot of power. Tell me what you think about these various changes, how they would effect the game, which feats and abilities would lose effectiveness, all that good stuff.
Also, thank you for your time folks!
I've never understood why humanoids are treated as not having Natural Weapons, and why the concept of an "Unarmed Strike" exists at all.
I guess it can be explained by DnD's history: Natural weapons were the tools of monsters, unarmed strikes were the backbone of monks. Later PCs got access to natural weapons, but no offical dev found it worth the trouble to streamline and combine both systems.
So I wondered what would be the effects of removing the concept of an "Unarmed Strike" and having humanoids given 2 Natural Weapons, all sized for a creature two sizes smaller than normal. 1 Bite Weapon and 1 Slam. So far I realize it seems to be a bit of a boost to monks, and anyone who wants to fight without a weapon.
Hmm, some consequences coming to my mind:
* Every humanoid could add a bite attack with both hands full - meaning a bit more damage output, but a disproportionate amount of additional rolling.
* At the beginning these two natural weapons would be slightly stronger than unarmed two-weapon fighting. They require no high Dex, no feat and don't get -2 attack bonus.
* As a nonmonk, later you could have 7 unarmed attacks, but are still stuck with 2 natural weapon strikes, hmm.
* Traits, feats and class abilities providing bite attacks would be redundant, should probably be changed to increase damage by one category.
Removing Throw Anything and Catch Off-Guard would have the side effect of (basically) disallowing the usage of improvised weapons at lower levels - since you need BAB 8 for Improvised Weapon Mastery.
@SheepishEidolon
1. I can hold a box and bite someone at the same time :P
2&3. Part 6 of my changes states that Natural Weapons don't give additional attacks. If you're a level 1 commoner, you get to attack once. Choose either your Slam or your Bite, but not both. So I suppose I should reword it to say that Natural Weapon attacks act just like Manufactured weapon attacks, they're tied to your BAB and don't normally give an extra attack unless you have something like Flurry of Blows, Multi-attack, or similar.
4. Those things tend to add a bite attack that is properly sized for the creature. The normal bite attack is 2 sizes smaller. Thus, these abilities would simply increase the original bite attack 2 sizes. Your idea to add a note is still a good one.
@Malag
I'm not here to debate whether or not this is a good idea. Everyone is going to have their own opinion on that. I just want the data it would take to make this idea easily mesh with the existing system, for the sake of anyone who might want to apply this idea as a Houserule.
Part 6 of my changes states that Natural Weapons don't give additional attacks. If you're a level 1 commoner, you get to attack once. Choose either your Slam or your Bite, but not both. So I suppose I should reword it to say that Natural Weapon attacks act just like Manufactured weapon attacks, they're tied to your BAB and don't normally give an extra attack unless you have something like Flurry of Blows, Multi-attack, or similar.
Ok, understood that section now. This has quite some impact at monsters, though - sometimes I want to use low CR monsters with three attacks per round, e.g. trolls. Would this need new feats / abilities then?
Your idea to add a note is still a good one.
Thanks.
Why are you throwing out Throw Anything? It doesn't have anything to do with unarmed strikes or natural attacks. It's about throwing things, and being better at landing splash weapons. So now alchemists lose out on proficiency at throwing things and the +1 to hit? I don't get it..
Catch-off guard can still work as a "surprise!" feat (you can leave out the unarmed aspect of it, it's just surprising that someone picked up and smacked you with a chair), and ultimately it's giving proficiency with improvised weaponry.
Are you folding in improvised weapons in your unarmed vs natural attack thing? I didn't see that in your post if you did intend it.
.
I'd also look at maybe saying they can have a bite and slam attack, but no Strength damage at all to the attack unless they get proficient with them. Biting is one thing, biting such that you deal +10 damage from Strength is another.
This is what the "improved unarmed strike" can do, make it so the person had trained their bite or slam to the point of strengthened muscles, etc.
|
I think what he's trying to say is yes players have "tooth and nail" attacks like any beast but instead of getting a penalty for evolving to use them for other thing to (in comparison) boost those who didn't or those that learned to re-use them. but improv. weapon still shouldn't be effected by that.
The idea was to throw out the concept of Attacks of Opportunity because of what weapon you may or may not be wielding, because removing Unarmed Strike and replacing it with Natural Weapons means they would no longer be subject to free Attacks of Opportunity in melee if they're unarmed. After rereading the Throw Anything and Catch Off-Guard feat I realize it's not related to that. In my head someone got an Attack of Opportunity on them when wielding an improvised weapon unless they had Catch Off-Guard or Throw Anything. My mistake. Your idea to keep both feats and just remove the note about flat-footing unarmed opponents make good sense.
I'm unsure about the no-strength bonus unless you have Imp. Unarmed Strike, at least for the Slam. I agree the Bite attack probably shouldn't benefit from the strength mod, but then again I can't see training really helping a regular human increase their jaw strength. Anybody who wanted to improve their bite could just take any number of abilities to give them a normal bite attack. Perhaps have it instead that the bite attack, unless improved, cannot be used as a primary Natural Weapon and counts as an off-hand weapon?
I'll admit my system knowledge may not be up to par to a lot of people, which is why I had this thread placed this way rather than just trying to put forward a "completed" idea. Thanks everyone who's giving Constructive Criticism.
I'd love to get some more information. There's got to be more stuff I'm missing here.
|
Alright, if you are interested into data, here is a longer version what might happen.
A regular commoner (let's put all statistics to 10 for simplicity sake) has total attack bonus of +0. He is our daily commoner, a person coming home after a job, going into the shopping, working daily routines, etc. He is not really interested into fights or violence, but he might defend himself if necessary. The fact that he isn't trained in any martial techniques means that he is lousy at it and he provokes Attack of Opportunity due to slower reflexes or exposing himself in the process. He isn't perfect, but against another commoner, he stands a decent chance. His total attack would look like this: unarmed strike +0 (1d3 nonlethal). He can also deal lethal damage, but at a -4 penalty which is realistic. He isn't trained.
Let's see what we get if a person gains several natural attacks here.
The non-regular commoner would be able to deal damage in similar way (because unarmed attacks include headbutts, biting, clawing, hitting, punching, kicking, etc.), but only through natural attacks. Natural attacks mean that person is "trained" or at least experienced in using such attacks on a daily routine. I personally do not think that commoners are experienced in such attacks, but let's see some mechanics. Considering that his normal attack bonus is +0 as before and we wish to add those attacks, his total attack would look like this: bite +0 (1d6), slam +0 (1d4). This non-regular commoner is hitting for lethal damage without much problem and doesn't get -4 penalty for doing it. This is honestly, brutal difference.
You can also compare the results of it with regular commoner who is trying to use Two-Weapon Fighting to simulate same fighting style:
Regular commoner using TWF to deal lethal damage: unarmed strike -8 (1d3), unarmed strike -12 (1d3). His hitting chance is non-existent and his average lethal damage is 3.
Non-regular commoner: bite +0 (1d6), slam +0 (1d4). His hitting chance is unchanged and his average damage output is 6.
That's few mechanical differences on it. If you add some Str Bonus, your non-regular commoner is becoming a killing machine. The changes to CR should be evident in such case and should at the very least warrant a +1 CR increase.
Adam
To be fair, he did say that the natural attacks are sized two sizes smaller. So Bite (1d3) and Slam (1d2).
Though really, it's the reliable lethal damage that makes the difference.
Personally, if Attacks of Opportunity are a problem, I'd stick with just removing them in general. Or maybe replace them with something tamer, like an "Off-balance" condition that reduces AC until the beginning of your next turn.
You can still write in abilities for classes that are VERY AoO focused to trigger on the "Off-balance" condition, such as the Rogue or Fighter, but at least it's not *every single creature* getting a free whack whenever you try and punch unarmed, or trip someone, etc.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm fully capable of dealing "lethal damage" to things with my limbs and teeth. Sure I can't bite through solid steel like say a Crocodile, or toss people from hitting them like a gorilla can, but still... If I bite you I'm drawing blood and taking chunks, if I punch you I'm liable to break bones and rupture organs. And just to be clear, I've no real combat training. In rule terms, I'm either a commoner or a rogue at best.
Humans are naturally capable of dealing lethal damage while unarmed. Period.
Can we please stop with the "Well I don't think this is a good idea.." posts and just focus on the data?
