| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously by raw, there is nothing saying it can do this to begin with, but if you look closely, we aren’t in the Rules Questions forum, rather, we are in the General Discussion forum. So would you find it believable for an intelligent quadruped to wield a weapon in its mouth?
Disney movies aside, No. Though to be fair, I also wouldn't find it believable for an intelligent biped to wield a weapon in its mouth. I have nothing in particular against quadrupeds.
Edit: Ninjaed!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if you have an intelligent horse that wants to Roronoa Zoro it up. I suppose it could, but like the anime character it would require special training and at minimum it should probably cost a feat. Otherwise, it would suffer the normal non-proficiency penalties.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. You're an intelligent biped. If you have a dagger in your teeth, would you try to stab someone with it or simply drop it from your mouth and bite as hard as possible?Obviously try to stab someone with it.
You see One Piece. I see this.
I'm with marcryser: why not just use it's bite instead?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not impossible, it just shouldn't be effective. (Try writing with a pen in your mouth, for example.) Non-proficiency penalty, secondary attack penalty, and only getting half-strength mod (or no Str mod at all) on damage would all be reasonable penalties for using such an inefficient tactic.
Actually making such a thing viable would be a good(?) use of custom feats.
An intelligent horse picking up a sword in its mouth and being good at fighting with it should be an immense and unwelcome shock to the person at the other end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I pity the wolf that encounters a flock of longsword-wielding intelligent sheep!
As a rule of thumb, if the aesthetics seem silly you probably shouldn't do it.
I don’t really like that rule of thumb, because how silly something seems is entirely how it is presented.
For instance:
You see an awakened kitten riding on the head of a red dragon, commanding it with a squeeky voice to destroy all the puppies.
Vs
You see a kitten riding on the head of a red dragon, but something seems off. It is almost as if your eyes are trying to tell you it is heavier than you think. It opens its mouth and starts to speak. The dragon trembles at the sound, terrified of its master, and is quick to follow the commands given to it.
One of those is silly, the other serious, but they are the same situation.
I think you need to define "Silly" as your not getting his argument. (I can't believe I'm about to say this) The Disney film makes sense (HRRRRNG) BECAUSE it is a quadrupedal horse. If you get polymorphed into a dog, you still retain your intelligence, yes? But you do NOT retain your thumbs, and you've spent your entire life moving (presumably) as a bipedal organism. Ever try to walk around on all fours? It's DAMNED difficult because of our bipedal body structure. If you do, however, find yourself polymorphed into a dog, and a sword is lying around... Yeah you could pick it up and try to stab someone with it. BUT in that same vein, you'd likely take massive penalties, due to not having any idea how to fight with something held in your mouth like that. Even assuming you've had a lifetime of training, that training was to fight sword in hand, standing up right, and potentially how to defend yourself if knocked down and trying to get back up... not sword in teeth and on all fours.
"Silly" in this context is closer to "unrealistic" in meaning, rather than "goofy".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So would you find it believable for an intelligent quadruped to wield a weapon in its mouth?
Believable, no. But this a game with flying dragons the size of houses and heroes who can kill them...casters who can bend reality to their whim...so in this context, with enough feat investment, sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Broad strokes? Sure, why not? This game is supposed to be fun so if it would be fun to add it to your game then go nuts.
If its for a player or their familiar/animal companion then I'd say make the critter take a feat and its good to go.
It would be considered an improvised weapon because it is not being used in the way it was designed for. And second you would be considered using your off-hand even if it was the only weapon you are using. Since the mouth is not a prehensile limb it should always be considered an off-hand limb.
Adding these penalties up you take a -12 penalty for attacking with a light weapon in your mouth and a -14 for anything heavier than a light weapon. You also only get ½ your STR modifier for damage. Since you are not using the weapon as it is designed any feats that would normally apply to the weapon are not usable.
Taking the appropriate feats will reduce some of these penalties, but more than likely it will not be worth it.
In short... do what you want. Though even in my magical fantasy, I'd be pretty disappointed to see someone try to bring this to life at a game table.
Before even digging into evidence to support or refute the idea. You'd have to ask yourself the real question here: What would really ever make you think this was believable.
If you simply think about the bio mechanics of biting vertebrates, the muscle tension of closing the mandible is as rigid of a motion as can be (with exceptions to species with highly specialized jaws such as certain snakes).
The performance of bites and also neck muscles of humans really isn't all that different from other vertebrates. They simply lack the dexterity and ability to utilize tools of any kind. Its what makes humans and tool-making so incredible. Applying psychics to lifeless objects to serve as extensions of the body. If a human wouldn't ever do it why would an animal.
Even in a world where magic and stuff is real, the intelligent quadruped would probably cast a spell to grow itself weapon wielding arms, or turn itself into a bipedal form, or polymorph etc. before anything absurd.
There is only one exception... The Elephant. Though not truly its mouth. It might not be particularly effective, but an elephant's trunk has incredible motor control, flexibility, and power.
It is not really believable at all, but many feats in Pathfinder can create even weirder effects.
Just look at the aesthetics of your campaign setting and see, if animals wielding wielding weapons in their mouth fit here.
It would be considered an improvised weapon because it is not being used in the way it was designed for. And second you would be considered using your off-hand even if it was the only weapon you are using. Since the mouth is not a prehensile limb it should always be considered an off-hand limb.
Adding these penalties up you take a -12 penalty for attacking with a light weapon in your mouth and a -14 for anything heavier than a light weapon. You also only get ½ your STR modifier for damage. Since you are not using the weapon as it is designed any feats that would normally apply to the weapon are not usable.
Taking the appropriate feats will reduce some of these penalties, but more than likely it will not be worth it.
This would still be totally viable. I don't see any reason a fighter shouldn't spend 15or so gp to add an additional attack. Even at -14 it's still a free extra attack, a s~*%ty one but at least it hits on a 20.
Don’t forget that a fighter trying this is also going to take a -6 penalty on his primary attack. Taking two weapon fighting is going to reduce this down to a -4. It also will not work if you are actually using a weapon in your off-hand because two weapon fighting only gives you one extra attack, not one per limb.
In all honesty if someone tried this in a group I game with they would be laughed at for weeks. The only exception would be if we were playing the old game Toon in which case this would probably be a brilliant ploy worth a huge amount of XP.
D&D2e and D&D 3.5 Lords of Madness included magical mouthpick weapons by the way.
They were specific magic items for Beholders, but player characters could use them as well, if they really wanted to follow that playstyle.
Unless it was specifically designed to be used by a quadruped in that way, I would say no. I could imagine some very limited tool use (biting a lever and pulling it, pressing a button, and similar actions) but using a weapon? Not at all.
So would you find it believable for an intelligent quadruped to wield a weapon in its mouth?Believable, no. But this a game with flying dragons the size of houses and heroes who can kill them...casters who can bend reality to their whim...so in this context, with enough feat investment, sure.
I'd argue the issue is that it's not even really believable in the fantasy universe of pathfinder. No matter where you go in all the planes, a dog is still a dog. A fighter can get polymorphed into a dog, sure, and he'd have the knowledge of "This is a sword, I can probably run it into that guy awkwardly if I pick it up in my mouth" but he'd likely have the sense to go "NOW I HAVE BIG SHARP TEETH RAWRAWRAWR" due to his experience, seeing as he's a DOG now, and his stats reflect that. Even if you had 24 strength before being polymorphed, a dog does NOT have 24 strength, and it would be "unbelievable" for a dog to perform a herculean feat of strength. Even if you had a 18,000 year old wizard, who traveled beyond infinity (like Zon'Kuthon), he would think it strange if a dog who suddenly performed a feat of strength like he had 24 STR.