Advancing Natural Attacks

[Blue Jay]

Falontani mentioned something in the LA Reassignment thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23787986&postcount=331) a few days ago about the Improved Natural Attack feat being usable with a wider range of Extraordinary monster abilities than I had personally imagined before.

This raised some thoughts in my mind about how natural attacks are treated by the rules. One of the common themes in the Reassignment project is that monsters that rely on the natural attacks are often underwhelming for PCs relative to monsters that can wield manufactured weapons or do other things. And even monster special attacks are generally seen as pretty unimpressive (with the possible exception of Pounce). And many monster special attacks are actually complete dead ends, without even any basic means of advancement.

I noticed the other day that the Rules Compendium has the terminology a bit different from what I had always assumed: the have a section titled "Natural Attacks," and they identify two types of Natural Attacks: natural weapons and special attacks. I had never really considered the possibility that "natural attack" and "natural weapon" might be different things. So, using RC terminology, it seems like Falontani might actually be right about Improved Natural Attack: although the actual feat does seem to use "natural attack" and "natural weapon" interchangeably, I think there's enough ambiguity there that it could feasibly be applied to special attacks like Poison or Burn or whatever.

So, I was hoping to get feedback from the Playground on this. Maybe as a way to stimulate discussion, here's a list of "natural attacks" (using RC terminology) and other attack forms from SRD monsters. Which of these do you think Improved Natural Attack should apply to? Which would you allow it to apply to at your table?

Bite (crocodile (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/crocodile.htm))
Breath Weapon (winter wolf (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/winterWolf.htm))
Burn (fire elemental (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm#fireElemental))
Constrict (monstrous scorpion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousScorpion.htm))
Electric Ray (arrowhawk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/arrowhawk.htm))
Incorporeal Touch (shadow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/shadow.htm))
Light Ray (lantern archon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/archon.htm#lanternArchon))
Poison (nagas (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/naga.htm))
Quills (Howler (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/howler.htm))
Rake (griffin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/griffon.htm))
Trample (treant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/treant.htm))

And as a broader point of discussion, does anyone play with any house rules that help advance natural attacks, or at least alleviate some of the inherent limitations? Do you think they need it? What specific aspects of natural attacks do you think need help?

I tried to homebrew a series of 5-level prestige classes that improve and advance monster attacks, but they feel pretty lame and uninspired to me, and I don't have enough experience to know exactly what they need or what would be most useful/interesting/entertaining.

What has anyone else tried, if anything?

[Falontani]

Bite (crocodile (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/crocodile.htm))
Breath Weapon (winter wolf (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/winterWolf.htm))
Burn (fire elemental (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm#fireElemental))
Constrict (monstrous scorpion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousScorpion.htm))
Electric Ray (arrowhawk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/arrowhawk.htm))
Incorporeal Touch (shadow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/shadow.htm))
Light Ray (lantern archon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/archon.htm#lanternArchon))
Poison (nagas (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/naga.htm))
Quills (Howler (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/howler.htm))
Rake (griffin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/griffon.htm))
Trample (treant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/treant.htm))


Bite is an obvious yes.
Burn, constrict, quills, rake, and trample I would allow.
Light ray and poison I personally allow and thought worked, but apparently there is contention.

Incorporeal touch attack is a supernatural attack, but one that feels like a natural attack. My personal rules say no, but my gut feeling says yes.

Electric ray from the arrow hawk was a supernatural ability wasn't it? If so right out.

Breath weapon would be a no from me.

[Telonius]

For Naga's Poison, I don't think it would apply. Poison damage doesn't increase based on the size of the creature doing the poisoning unless it's specifically mentioned, like with a Scorpion. (Some poison, like Viper poison, has no such progression). So Improved Natural Attack wouldn't do anything. (Even if it did, this particular attack doesn't deal damage anyway, just makes the target sleep for a duration).

Similar thing with Burn. The effect is that the character catches on fire. The amount of damage from this is a set amount (1d6), and doesn't change depending on how large the fire is.

My gut says no for Incorporeal Touch (and other things that deal ability damage) as well. It seems to me that Improved Natural Attack was just talking about hit point damage, not ability damage or drain. There would be no reason to make "Greater Shadow" be a thing, either, if you could just give Improved Natural Attack to a regular Shadow and advance it from there.

Electricity ray is indeed a (Su) ability, as is Winter Wolf's breath weapon.

For Quills, that's a tougher one. I think that Improved Natural Attack would probably make the 1d6 damage (as well as the 1d6 damage upon removal) increase a step. No other effect, since nothing else does any damage.

Rake, trample, and bite, absolutely yes.

[Blue Jay]

Bite is an obvious yes.
Burn, constrict, quills, rake, and trample I would allow.
Light ray and poison I personally allow and thought worked, but apparently there is contention.

Incorporeal touch attack is a supernatural attack, but one that feels like a natural attack. My personal rules say no, but my gut feeling says yes.

Electric ray from the arrow hawk was a supernatural ability wasn't it? If so right out.

Breath weapon would be a no from me.

Yeah, I tried to include a range of different attacks, including an obvious "yes" and what I consider an obvious "no." But, I probably shouldn't have lumped them all as "natural attacks," because it's clear that RC probably doesn't consider all of these things "natural attacks." I'll amend for clarity.

But, now I'm looking again, and it doesn't look like RC completely excludes Su abilities from being natural attacks. Three of the specific things they list under "Special Attacks" are supernatural (aligned strike, epic strike and magic strike), so I'm not sure where they drew the lines.

I think the only point where you and I disagree is the electric ray: by RAW, I don't think it's a valid attack for the feat, but I would probably allow it, just because I don't know of any advancement options anywhere that would apply to an attack like that. So, I would invoke a mercy clause.

[liquidformat]

Powerful Charge should also be added to the list, I have standardly gone with Bite, constrict, claw, quills, powerful charge, gore, rake, rend, slam, stomp, tail whip, tentacle, and trample (might have forgot a couple there are some goofy ones in fiend folio). Some of those are on virtue of themselves where as others are stacked in with each other, for example some rend abilities say double claw damage in which case you can take INA [Claw] but not INA [Rend]; whereas I have seen others where Rend has its own specific damage in which case INA [Rend] can be taken.

I haven't really thought about applying it to other things like burn and poison but could see an argument for it. In this case contrary to Telonius' statement of being bigger wouldn't change anything I disagree, it is possible that bigger means burning more intensely therefore more damage. Similarly we do have some RAW support for poison damage increase with size just only on specific creatures like spiders, scorpions, and centipedes. So for riders I think it is reasonable, this also helps give rider ability some support so they stay more relevant as you progress.

Similarly I think there is a reasonable argument for things like Electric Ray even though it is an SU ability. First it is introduced under attacks as a main attack of the arrow hawk. Secondly we already have damage progression based on size inside the stat block. Third, how else will you be able to utilize this ability down the road?

For Breath Weapons in particular I would say no for two reasons. First they have enough support already. Secondly they are not a natural attack they are a special attack. So winter wolf's freezing bite yes, winter wolf's breath weapon no.

[Blue Jay]

Powerful Charge should also be added to the list...

Oh, I just picked a few to start the discussion. I wasn't trying to be exhaustive, or anything.


Some of those are on virtue of themselves where as others are stacked in with each other, for example some rend abilities say double claw damage in which case you can take INA [Claw] but not INA [Rend]; whereas I have seen others where Rend has its own specific damage in which case INA [Rend] can be taken.

Yeah, that's another good point. A lot of monsters just give a set damage value for their Constrict or Powerful Charge or Trample ability. It's usually kind of obvious that they're using a formula with one of the base attacks, but they don't say it outright, so an anal DM might rule that it's a set value. I prefer to set a standard formula for a given type of special attack, and use that universally.

Like, I've always viewed Powerful Charge as a multiplier rather than a separate attack, and I think it's easier to work with that way. Most monsters with a Powerful Charge ability just get 2 x (gore + Str mod) or the equivalent, so I prefer to just rule that all of the monsters use that formula. Then, you can't take INA (Powerful Charge), but you can take INA (gore), which improves your Powerful Charge anyway. But, you'd probably get better numbers out of INA (Powerful Charge) because of the exponential increases.


I haven't really thought about applying it to other things like burn and poison but could see an argument for it. In this case contrary to Telonius' statement of being bigger wouldn't change anything I disagree, it is possible that bigger means burning more intensely therefore more damage. Similarly we do have some RAW support for poison damage increase with size just only on specific creatures like spiders, scorpions, and centipedes. So for riders I think it is reasonable, this also helps give rider ability some support so they stay more relevant as you progress.

Yeah, even though I posted a dissenting vote about Poison in the Reassignment thread, I think I've come over to y'all's side on this one. I would prefer to be judicious with the attacks that deal ability damage, just because of the increased potential for one-hit kills (not that I'm opposed to one-hit kills: just that it's something to consider before implementing), but I have noticed that it's very difficult to advance a Poison attack beyond +1 or +2 boosts to the save DC. The spitting feats and venomfire spell are just about the only other options I can think of fight now.


For Breath Weapons in particular I would say no for two reasons. First they have enough support already. Secondly they are not a natural attack they are a special attack. So winter wolf's freezing bite yes, winter wolf's breath weapon no.

I definitely agree here. Non-dragons can sometimes have a harder time accessing the support options for breath weapons, so there's a chance I'd bend on this for, like a fire mephit or even the winter wolf; but I think offering a continued damage progression makes more sense than allowing INA.

[liquidformat]

Yeah, that's another good point. A lot of monsters just give a set damage value for their Constrict or Powerful Charge or Trample ability. It's usually kind of obvious that they're using a formula with one of the base attacks, but they don't say it outright, so an anal DM might rule that it's a set value. I prefer to set a standard formula for a given type of special attack, and use that universally.

Like, I've always viewed Powerful Charge as a multiplier rather than a separate attack, and I think it's easier to work with that way. Most monsters with a Powerful Charge ability just get 2 x (gore + Str mod) or the equivalent, so I prefer to just rule that all of the monsters use that formula. Then, you can't take INA (Powerful Charge), but you can take INA (gore), which improves your Powerful Charge anyway. But, you'd probably get better numbers out of INA (Powerful Charge) because of the exponential increases.

It does help to standardize these things, Rake = claw damage, rend = 2x claw damage, powerful charge 2 x gore, constrict is normally its own special thing... I find the interaction between powerful charge (ex), powerful charge feat, and greater powerful charge feat pretty good if you add in that powerful charge (ex) is based on gore then you have a decent feat chain for optimization though it is still worse than pounce most of the time.


Yeah, even though I posted a dissenting vote about Poison in the Reassignment thread, I think I've come over to y'all's side on this one. I would prefer to be judicious with the attacks that deal ability damage, just because of the increased potential for one-hit kills (not that I'm opposed to one-hit kills: just that it's something to consider before implementing), but I have noticed that it's very difficult to advance a Poison attack beyond +1 or +2 boosts to the save DC. The spitting feats and venomfire spell are just about the only other options I can think of fight now.

Ya I often get frustrated with things like snakes and other creatures that really rest their power on riders, it makes them crap out quickly in threat between magic items to increase ability scores and levels to increase saves. It doesn't help that Venomfire is often auto-banned for being too powerful making poison either crap out quickly or too op, trying to find a happy middle ground is a struggle.



I definitely agree here. Non-dragons can sometimes have a harder time accessing the support options for breath weapons, so there's a chance I'd bend on this for, like a fire mephit or even the winter wolf; but I think offering a continued damage progression makes more sense than allowing INA.

Ya in general WotC didn't do a great job at setting rules down for scaling, honestly across the board there could be an overhaul to fix the lack of scaling which could make a lot of creatures not so horrible. Changing DCs and SR from set number with ability mod to x+ECL+ability mod really does a lot to make monsters work well.

[Blue Jay]

It does help to standardize these things, Rake = claw damage, rend = 2x claw damage, powerful charge 2 x gore, constrict is normally its own special thing...

A lot of the design choices for Constrict and such don't really meet my expectations of verisimilitude. Like, a constrictor snake does Constrict damage equal to its bite attack, which I find to be rather disappointing and also rather odd. If anybody deserves to have a good Constrict attack, it ought to be the real-life animal that the attack was named after, you know?

I also wonder if they couldn't have done something with the suffocation rules instead of the hit-point damage (even though suffocation isn't exactly what a boa or python does, either). But, I'm not sure I really like the suffocation rules, so... hm.


I find the interaction between powerful charge (ex), powerful charge feat, and greater powerful charge feat pretty good if you add in that powerful charge (ex) is based on gore then you have a decent feat chain for optimization though it is still worse than pounce most of the time.

Yeah, it's definitely interesting from an optimization point of view. I can't say that I'm really a fan of how all the melee power options seem to be gated through charge attacks. I'd like to see something done to make other attack forms appealing, so there'd be a little more diversity among melee characters.


Ya I often get frustrated with things like snakes and other creatures that really rest their power on riders, it makes them crap out quickly in threat between magic items to increase ability scores and levels to increase saves. It doesn't help that Venomfire is often auto-banned for being too powerful making poison either crap out quickly or too op, trying to find a happy middle ground is a struggle.

I'll try to get some of my homebrew ideas up sometime for critiques and other people's input. The one I made for Poison attacks was called the "Stinger." It's a 5-level PrC, and I decided to have it scale Poison by simply adding your class level to your Poison damage: I figured that was a decent compromise between stagnant damage and a rogue-like damage di. The class also let you choose a second type of poison (same damage, but different ability score), then a third; and you get a limited-use "Double Dose" ability that lets you either deal double poison damage or deliver a single dose of two poisons at once.


Ya in general WotC didn't do a great job at setting rules down for scaling, honestly across the board there could be an overhaul to fix the lack of scaling which could make a lot of creatures not so horrible. Changing DCs and SR from set number with ability mod to x+ECL+ability mod really does a lot to make monsters work well.

This would be a welcome addition. Note that, with swarms (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#swarmSubtype), there is a damage progression for the basic swarm attack that scales with HD, and something like that would be really easy to implement as a DM. I bet you could mostly implement a single rule that covers a wide swathe of things, like: "If you're playing a monster that has a single-target special attack (Ex or Su) that deals hit-point damage, your damage increases by 1 die for every 5 HD you have, and you can take Improved Natural Attack with your special attack, which increases your damage dice by one die size (max d12)."

I have a homebrew class designed for monsters with energy-based attacks, too. It's called the "Blazer." Yes, they all have generic one-word names like that.

I don't know if you're familiar with Oslecamo's homebrew project? Most of his monsters' special attacks have scaling damage, as well. I'm not really an Oslecamo fan anymore, but this is one case where he had the right idea.

[Telonius]

I'll try to get some of my homebrew ideas up sometime for critiques and other people's input. The one I made for Poison attacks was called the "Stinger." It's a 5-level PrC, and I decided to have it scale Poison by simply adding your class level to your Poison damage: I figured that was a decent compromise between stagnant damage and a rogue-like damage di. The class also let you choose a second type of poison (same damage, but different ability score), then a third; and you get a limited-use "Double Dose" ability that lets you either deal double poison damage or deliver a single dose of two poisons at once.


If you're interested in some homebrew, I wrote up a PrC and some feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?89314-3-5-Poison-Feats-and-PrC) for poisoners back near the dawn of time.

[Blue Jay]

Another house rule I like for natural weapons involves primary and secondary attacks. I don't mind the distinction between primary and secondary attacks, but I don't like the lack of flexibility. I like to allow a monster to choose which weapon to trear as primary in any given round, so no attackis constitutively secondary: they're only secondary when used in a full attack and a different weapon is chosen as primary.