Incredibly mundane natural weapons

[Flashkannon]

Okay, so I've been doing some searching, and it seems there's absolutely no rules out there for bite/claw attacks for creatures that have sufficiently hard teeth/nails, but no fangs/claws.

Is there some obscure rulebook I'm missing, or is that just it?

And if there isn't something I'm missing, what do you think reasonable damage for such attacks would be? I'm thinking 1d2 for bite and 1d2-1 for claw, but additional feedback is helpful if I'm going to be pitching this to my DM.

To be clear, I'm talking about humans and the like.

[DrMotives]

Closest thing I've seen is the Aboleth's bite attack in Lords of Madness. They don't have a bite in the MM, and LoM says because it's the bite counts as unarmed attack, not a natural weapon. They could spend a feat or take a level in monk to become proficient in it, otherwise they bite with a -5 non-proficiency penalty.

[Curmudgeon]

Fey, Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, and Outsider creatures all lack proficiency with natural weapons. There is no "Natual Weapon Proficiency" feat to let someone become proficient if they acquire a natural weapon (via graft, for instance).

A Monk isn't proficient with their unarmed strike, let alone any other natural weapons.

[Necroticplague]

Deformity (bite) and deformity (claw) are a bit ectreme, given how it involves some crude DIY body modding, but might provide a hint in the right direction.

[Flashkannon]

I was more looking for if there were rules governing bite/claw attacks for unaltered humans, but it looks like there aren't any, except that maybe it counts as an unarmed attack?

[Curmudgeon]

I was more looking for if there were rules governing bite/claw attacks for unaltered humans, but it looks like there aren't any, except that maybe it counts as an unarmed attack?
Those would have to be bludgeoning unarmed attacks, so it would be more like toothless gumming and poking with fingernails trimmed.

[Florian]

I was more looking for if there were rules governing bite/claw attacks for unaltered humans, but it looks like there aren't any, except that maybe it counts as an unarmed attack?

You can always simply punch someone for nonlethal damage. Check the Unarmed Strike weapon entry. You count as unarmed, so you will trigger an AoO unless you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

[TIPOT]

There are feats to change your unarmed strike damage to piercing or slashing, which could be fluffed to biting/scratching. Otherwise I don't see how having nails sharp enough to injure someone is different to having a claw really.

[Jellyface]

I think it really depends on the context because there are no rules for this.

If it's an actual role-playing scenario and someone is biting or scratching the person who is grappling them (like as a hostage) or someone is giving a lovebite, I would say 1 damage, plain and simple.

If a person is going to intentionally and deliberately attack another or a monster with the intent of killing them with their teeth or nails I would do: provokes attacks of opportunity, no attack penalty, lethal bite damage 1d2, and they just can't make an attack with their fingernails or it's nonlethal 1d2. (In your initial post you suggested 1d2-1. That would imply their str is 9 or 8 wouldn't it? As far as I know there are no weapons that do 1dX-Y+STR) I say it's not an unarmed strike, it's not an improvised weapon, and it is not a natural weapon.

My rationale: Our teeth and nails really are natural weapons, but not like in DnD. Our canines and nails are nothing like (for example) a big cats' are: a big cat's teeth are like daggers, ours are like pebbles. Nor do we use our teeth and nails as instinctively as a big cat does, so using our teeth and nails should provoke AoO. It's not an unarmed strike because that's punching someone (biting is an unarmed attack sure but 'unarmed attack' is not a thing as defined by DnD), but neither are our teeth and nails improvised weapons, so no penalty (sure, we only use our teeth and nails if we have to "improvise," but it's not like I'm trying to disarm someone with bedpan.) A human bite should do lethal damage because I could feasibly kill someone by biting them (not serious damage unless I bit an artery, but nevertheless a human bite can do real damage, it would break the skin and cause bleeding and could cause infection.) A cat does bite 1d3-4: I presume 1d3 cause small mouth with fangs, -4 cause they're not that strong. A dog does 1d4+1, 1d4 cause their fanged-mouth is bigger and more, well, fanged than a cats. A donkey does 1d2+0 because even though they have a bigger mouth their teeth aren't meant (evolution-wise) to kill. These things considered, I figure 1d2 because my teeth weren't made-for-biting like a dog or a cat, they're more like a donkey's. Fingernails... nonlethal because frankly you cannot seriously hurt someone with fingernails. Even if they're long, if you apply enough force to hurt someone you're probably going to break your nails. No matter what I do to make my nails as sturdy as possible (which I think is outside of the scope of this question anyway) I can never scratch anyone else as well as my cat can. Cats have claw 1d2-4, Lions have 1d4+5, a badger has 1d2-1, weasels can't even make claw attacks. So if you allow someone to attack with their normal, everyday fingernails, it can only do as little as 1d2 nonlethal, or 1. I would rather it be 0+str nonlethal but I'm trying to stay out of homebrew, as far as I know 0+str isn't a thing.


Closest thing I've seen is the Aboleth's bite attack in Lords of Madness. They don't have a bite in the MM, and LoM says because it's the bite counts as unarmed attack, not a natural weapon. They could spend a feat or take a level in monk to become proficient in it, otherwise they bite with a -5 non-proficiency penalty.

They don't get a -5 nonproficiency penalty (that would probably be -4 for a weapon anyway.) They get the -5 for bite when it is the second attack of a full attack and that's only if they have the copyrighted feat on page 23. For the aboleths without said unsaid feat their bite is just a nonlethal 1d4. But I don't really like that anyway :P. The monk thing is unnecessary because once they take said unsaid feat their bite becomes a natural bite attack dealing 2d6+.5(str). They could take improved unarmed strike or a level in monk that would make it 1d4+str lethal or they could take said unsaid feat which requires weapon focus bite (which is weird since the bite is already an unarmed strike and you could take weapon focus unarmed strike anyway). Point I'm trying to make is we shouldn't think a human has to take improved unarmed strike or weapon focus (neither bite nor unarmed strike) in order to simply bite somebody.

[Red Fel]

I'm on the unarmed strike bandwagon. An unarmed strike is basically an attack with a part of the body that isn't specifically designated as a natural weapon. So, fists, elbows, knees, maybe a headbutt, all good. By that same logic (or by stretching it) you could argue that an attack with any part of your body that isn't specifically a natural weapon should use your unarmed strike proficiency and damage. So, biting somebody without fangs, or clawing them without claws, would just be a different version of your unarmed strike. If you wanted more "realism," you could reduce the damage die or make it nonlethal, and certainly a person who isn't proficient with unarmed strikes would not be proficient with omnoms, but I'd just keep the rule simple.

Because if we head down that road, we start breaking things down further. What's the difference between biting with fangs, front teeth, back teeth, baby teeth? What about talons, claws, or fingernails? What if they've been manicured? Filed to a point? What's the difference between fingernails or toenails? What if they're your dad's toenails?

Keep it simple. Call it an unarmed strike, then point out that the moron who wants to claw without claws is carrying a knife made out of metal designed to pierce flesh. (This happened in one of my early groups. Because apparently a PC who gets mad also gets incredibly stupid.)

[Jellyface]

I'm on the unarmed strike bandwagon. An unarmed strike is basically an attack with a part of the body that isn't specifically designated as a natural weapon. So, fists, elbows, knees, maybe a headbutt, all good. By that same logic (or by stretching it) you could argue that an attack with any part of your body that isn't specifically a natural weapon should use your unarmed strike proficiency and damage. So, biting somebody without fangs, or clawing them without claws, would just be a different version of your unarmed strike. If you wanted more "realism," you could reduce the damage die or make it nonlethal, and certainly a person who isn't proficient with unarmed strikes would not be proficient with omnoms, but I'd just keep the rule simple.

Because if we head down that road, we start breaking things down further. What's the difference between biting with fangs, front teeth, back teeth, baby teeth? What about talons, claws, or fingernails? What if they've been manicured? Filed to a point? What's the difference between fingernails or toenails? What if they're your dad's toenails?

Keep it simple. Call it an unarmed strike, then point out that the moron who wants to claw without claws is carrying a knife made out of metal designed to pierce flesh. (This happened in one of my early groups. Because apparently a PC who gets mad also gets incredibly stupid.)

Great post but just a note: unarmed strikes already do nonlethal damage. (Edit: so 'making it nonlethal' wouldn't be 'adding realism'...obv I think making it lethal is more realistic anyway.)

Sorry for second edit, I know it's not good form, but Curmudgeon made a really good point about this already: unarmed strikes are bludgeoning. Which doesn't make sense for biting (pierce) or scratching (slash). Though you could just say, hey it's not bludgeoning anymore. I think unarmed strike is a fine simple way to go about it but really not the best.

Context would be amazing for this.

[Flashkannon]

Okay, so, for context, my character is paranoid about being imprisoned and can't rely on her magic to get her out because anybody competent would have antimagic spheres. Thus, she has to have some way to smuggle something mundane into prison that they wouldn't take from her that would help her escape. I instantly thought of putting a coating of adamantine over her nails and/or teeth, but my DM says it won't fly unless he has concrete rules for the base versions of those attacks.

[Jellyface]

Okay, so, for context, my character is paranoid about being imprisoned and can't rely on her magic to get her out because anybody competent would have antimagic spheres. Thus, she has to have some way to smuggle something mundane into prison that they wouldn't take from her that would help her escape. I instantly thought of putting a coating of adamantine over her nails and/or teeth, but my DM says it won't fly unless he has concrete rules for the base versions of those attacks.

I love it! Adamantine teeth. I can't post links or images because I'm such a n00b (seriously its gitp policy: "To be able to post links or images your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 6 posts.") but just google james bond jaws.

Tbh if your character is paranoid about it I think it's something your character should try to reckon with--your character is actually afraid of losing her magic because she relies so heavily on it or because she thinks she is nothing without it. (Taking a level in a nonmagic class could get her past that, but I don't think that's what you're aiming for. Still, I think trying to get past that paranoia would make the character more compelling.)

I'm sure no one wants to go there but your character would be better off smuggling something into prison by virtue of a not oft searched bodily cavity... .... ... I mean, you could get a sap in if you had too. A sling would be easy to smuggle in if not all your clothes are taken off during a search.

If going to prison means you lose all your clothes and all your dignity, I would just go with unarmed strikes (not teeth or nails) because even with what I've suggested already I don't think a bite should be more powerful than a punch, even if I think it should be lethal. Your first suggestion was 1d2-1 and that is less powerful than an unarmed strike. \

Unless you want to chew through the bars, then there isn't a point for adamantine. If you are going to make a case to your dm for having adamantine coating on your teeth, then I agree with others about unarmed strike: just say to treat it as an unarmed strike to keep it simple. (And make the same arguments as already presented, to boot!)

I think your dm is trying to tell you, without telling you, that he doesn't want you to have adamantine coating on your teeth. Probably for him the point of putting you into prison is to gain control of the scenario.

I say if you're bada** enough to dip your hands into molten adamantine, then you deserve improved unarmed strike for free.

[Flashkannon]

Tbh if your character is paranoid about it I think it's something your character should try to reckon with--your character is actually afraid of losing her magic because she relies so heavily on it or because she thinks she is nothing without it. (Taking a level in a nonmagic class could get her past that, but I don't think that's what you're aiming for. Still, I think trying to get past that paranoia would make the character more compelling.)
It's more that she's in a mainly Lawful Good party where literally everyone else looked at a feast put on for them by a demon queen and just dug in without even so much as checking for poison. This is actually a thing that happened. One time, our sorcerer got kidnapped by some nonmagical mooks with a nonmagical sack, the fact that the sorcerer was drunk at the time notwithstanding. In short, my Wizard is the only person in the party who consistently displays healthy levels of adventurer paranoia.


Unless you want to chew through the bars, then there isn't a point for adamantine. If you are going to make a case to your dm for having adamantine coating on your teeth, then I agree with others about unarmed strike: just say to treat it as an unarmed strike to keep it simple. (And make the same arguments as already presented, to boot!) That is in fact exactly what I want it for. Well, that and chewing through restraints, gags, etc.


I think your dm is trying to tell you, without telling you, that he doesn't want you to have adamantine coating on your teeth. Probably for him the point of putting you into prison is to gain control of the scenario. That's probably it. I'll be honest, the last time he tried to put us in prison in like the second or third session after I joined the party, my character just immediately teleported out and freed everyone. He hasn't tried again since then, but I'm starting to feel like he's trying to lull us into a false sense of security, so I'm getting prepared.

But yeah, I think those are pretty good rules for biting/clawing and I'm going to pitch them to my DM next time we meet. Hopefully he'll like them too.