Whats the point of having claws?

[Bloodyshadow1]

I was just wondering what the point is for having claws as a racial trait, they always seem kind of pointless since it just lets you do 1d4 + your strength mod (and juggernaut warforged Iron fists). Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see the point other than flavor. If I'm going to be using unarmed strikes in combat, I'm going to be a monk which gets 1d4+dex at level 1, I suppose you could be a strength monk but that's kind of pointless since dex is just so much more useful to have for everything else a monk gets. If I want to use strength to attack I'd use almost any weapon other than my hands because it's going to do more, usually a lot more.

I'm not saying it can't be fun to use your claws when you're a more bestial race, I just don't really see the point since it doesn't add much more to a character in combat.

[Sigreid]

It's a weapon equivalent of a dagger that isn't going to be taken from you. When you've gone to see the king and everyone is disarmed and then the grans vizier tries his coo, you've got something reasonably effective to fight with before you and your allies down a few opponents and get your self proper armed.

[PhantomSoul]

To scratch things!

Half-jokes aside, (a) flavour/style for the character to actually use, (b) flavour for the race even if unused, and (c) something to use even if you've otherwise been disarmed. (IIRC not all natural weapons from races are 1d4 -- I think there were 1d6 cases -- but that doesn't matter much in the end.)

Plus you're proficient with the weapon and it does damage equivalent to a dagger... so nice as a backup option. Flipping it around, why would a character ever use a dagger when other weapons exist?

[Protolisk]

For starters, rule of fun. Sometimes you just want to be a bestial creature instead of using civilized weapons.

Second, sometimes, you get disarmed, or thrown in prison. Suddenly, compared to other disarmed people dealing 1+ STR, you dealing 1d4+STR isn't too bad.

It is totally a niche benefit, but not devoid of purpose.

The real benefit is when it's a 1d6, though. They buff most any character that lacks good weapon proficiency, and even can buff Monk during the low levels. This is just Lizardfolk, I think.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I guess it's also a weapon you don't have to draw and doesn't occupy your hands.

[MaxWilson]

The real benefit is when it's a 1d6, though. They buff most any character that lacks good weapon proficiency, and even can buff Monk during the low levels. This is just Lizardfolk, I think.

I don't think there is any character which lacks at least a d8 weapon proficiency. Even wizards have quarterstaves.

The real benefit of Lizardfolk bites IMO is for when you want to grapple/prone an enemy, protect yourself with a shield, and still do d6+Str damage while still getting your proficiency-bonus to-hit. A non-Tavern Brawler human would be stuck whaling away with his shield for d4+Str at a greatly reduced chance to hit (though advantage helps compensate).

It's still pretty niche though, since a human could also spend their bonus feat on Warcaster instead, and then they could grapple/prone enemies while still blasting away with cantrips like Toll the Dead and Eldritch Blast. (Advantage for prone enemy cancels out disadvantage for using ranged cantrips when enemies are within 5'.)

[Chrizzt]

Minotaurs have d6 as well, as far as I know. Though there have been several official (or UA) version of it by know, I think.

[Damon_Tor]

I was just wondering what the point is for having claws as a racial trait, they always seem kind of pointless since it just lets you do 1d4 + your strength mod (and juggernaut warforged Iron fists). Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see the point other than flavor. If I'm going to be using unarmed strikes in combat, I'm going to be a monk which gets 1d4+dex at level 1, I suppose you could be a strength monk but that's kind of pointless since dex is just so much more useful to have for everything else a monk gets. If I want to use strength to attack I'd use almost any weapon other than my hands because it's going to do more, usually a lot more.

I'm not saying it can't be fun to use your claws when you're a more bestial race, I just don't really see the point since it doesn't add much more to a character in combat.

You're an archer fighter, shooting arrows. The wizard is behind you shooting brain bullets or whatever it is wizards do. Some goblin gets it in his head that because you don't have a melee weapon, he can run past you to get at the wizard. But when he tries, you sink your claws into him. You always have a melee weapon.

You're a polearm fighter with a glaive, and you're up in the face of an enemy archer. The archer thinks because you have a reach weapon, it's safe for it to step back 5 feet from you so it can get a shot off with its bow without taking disadvantage. But you have two weapons, one with reach and one without. When it leaves the reach of your claws it provokes an opportunity attack.

There are a number of situations where having an extra weapon always on your person is useful.

[Jerrykhor]

Monks can have their unarmed strikes deal slashing damage instead of bludgeoning.

[NNescio]

The real benefit of Lizardfolk bites IMO is for when you want to grapple/prone an enemy, protect yourself with a shield, and still do d6+Str damage while still getting your proficiency-bonus to-hit. A non-Tavern Brawler human would be stuck whaling away with his shield for d4+Str at a greatly reduced chance to hit (though advantage helps compensate).


Or vanilla Unarmed Strike (kick, headbutt, or if you really want, a pelvic/hip thrust) for 1 + Str bonus damage, but with prof (you are always considered proficient with Unarmed Strikes, regardless of class).

It doesn't count as a weapon though (it's still a melee weapon attack, regardless), which could be a major downside if you have any abilities or game effects that specify they only work with (melee) weapons. Then again most of the claw/bite/fist/slam 'racial natural weapon' options are basically Unarmed Strikes (but with an upgraded damage die) anyway, so this point is (usually) moot.

(Edit: Note that the "proficiency" and "doesn't count as a weapon" part are introduced by the errata [specifically, the update to the Combat → Melee Attack rules and the removal of Unarmed Strike from the weapons table]. In case anyone is stuck with an old print of the PHB and wondering where the rules are from.)


You're an archer fighter, shooting arrows. The wizard is behind you shooting brain bullets or whatever it is wizards do. Some goblin gets it in his head that because you don't have a melee weapon, he can run past you to get at the wizard. But when he tries, you sink your claws into him. You always have a melee weapon.

You're a polearm fighter with a glaive, and you're up in the face of an enemy archer. The archer thinks because you have a reach weapon, it's safe for it to step back 5 feet from you so it can get a shot off with its bow without taking disadvantage. But you have two weapons, one with reach and one without. When it leaves the reach of your claws it provokes an opportunity attack.

There are a number of situations where having an extra weapon always on your person is useful.

Unarmed Strike. Granted, it's less damage, but still.

--

Overall, the Bite/Claw attacks can be useful, but even in niche situations it's usually only a small upgrade over already-available options.

[Arkhios]

Well, considering that the normal Unarmed Strike damage is 1 + Strength, getting 1d4 + Strength is a big boost already. As a bonus, a 1d4 is multiplied on a critical hit, while a flat number isn't.

[NNescio]

Well, considering that the normal Unarmed Strike damage is 1 + Strength, getting 1d4 + Strength is a big boost already. As a bonus, a 1d4 is multiplied on a critical hit, while a flat number isn't.

On average that's less than 2 extra damage. With the crit factored in.

(Usually, assuming you have a ⩾30% chance of hitting.)

[Arkhios]

On average that's less than 2 extra damage. With the crit factored in.

(Usually, assuming you have a ⩾30% chance of hitting.)

It's still more than flat 1 + Str. :smallwink:

More is better than less, right?

Personally, I wipe my rear with the glorification of averages anyway. Average numbers weigh nothing in actual play (unless you actually use averages instead of rolling, which kills at least half the fun).

[ChildofLuthic]

It's still more than flat 1 + Str. :smallwink:

More is better than less, right?

Personally, I wipe my rear with the glorification of averages anyway. Average numbers weigh nothing in actual play (unless you actually use averages instead of rolling, which kills at least half the fun).

I think OP wasn't asking "is 1d4 bigger than 1" but rather "why would I use my natural weapons at 1d4+STR when theres so many weapons in the game that are better than that?"

And the answer is that it seems to me to be a ribbon ability more than anything else, unless you're playing the kind of game where it comes up.

[NaughtyTiger]

Monks can have their unarmed strikes deal slashing damage instead of bludgeoning.

surprised it took 8 answers to get this one.

yeah, damage versatility...

[Willie the Duck]

If I'm going to be using unarmed strikes in combat, I'm going to be a monk which gets 1d4+dex at level 1, I suppose you could be a strength monk but that's kind of pointless since dex is just so much more useful to have for everything else a monk gets. If I want to use strength to attack I'd use almost any weapon other than my hands because it's going to do more, usually a lot more.


If you are designing a character around being an unarmed combatant, then yes you would build a monk. This is distinct from (ex.) 3rd edition where there were multiple viable claw- or bite- based character concepts (outside of druids, which both editions have) that used unarmed claw attacks as a primary combat type. This, along with the Tavern Brawler feat, seem more designed to shore up vulnerabilities (being caught unarmed, or with your weapon being a ranged weapon). It's comparable to a Str-based warrior carrying a javelin than to a monk. It's worth noting that multiclassing into monk is a pretty big side-track for most builds, while picking lizardfolk or tabaxi or the like is frankly pretty reasonable if your picking a class where their stat bonuses support the build. A tabaxi valor bard, hexblade, or dexadin is perfectly reasonable regardless of how often you use your claws, as is a lizardfolk ranger or the like.

[PhantomSoul]

surprised it took 8 answers to get this one.

yeah, damage versatility...

I think it's because damage versatility between the typically non-magical damage types matters too rarely (unless the DM homebrews otherwise, which I encourage!). If it were that some race's punches deal Force damage, that would probably be quite different in terms of responses.

[Chronos]

Ah, yes, and doing slashing damage instead of bludgeoning would be critical if... um, maybe if you're fighting a... OK, help me out, here.

[PhantomSoul]

Ah, yes, and doing slashing damage instead of bludgeoning would be critical if... um, maybe if you're fighting a... OK, help me out, here.

The only case I'm coming up with... is a case where Bludgeoning is better. (Skeletons)
Thinking harder, I get the same thing. (Black Puddings, Ochre Jellies; unless you'd rather they split for better AoE damage)

[stoutstien]

Ah, yes, and doing slashing damage instead of bludgeoning would be critical if... um, maybe if you're fighting a... OK, help me out, here.

Treants. 😀

[Sparky McDibben]

It helps when you're trying open those damned gummy bear bags.

Seriously, they've got some benefits. For one, damage versatility can be beneficial, as anyone who's tried to attack a treant with a rapier can tell you. Not game-breaking, but a occasionally useful. Second, depending on how you codify it with the DM, they might be able to rip ropes up, helping in situations where you've been taken captive, or even score manacles. In worst case scenarios, maybe you go for the eyes and try to blind enemies. Maybe you can parlay them into a static bonus on Athletics checks to climb. Hell, you could have a wizard with claws use them to carve arcane runes into rock, making their magic circle spell very hard to disrupt. Just think, "If I had claws, what could I do with them?"

Then there's the nice dramatic benefits. For a finishing move, maybe your monk rips people's hearts out, which is why he's nicknamed Heartsbane. Maybe you scarify your skin with them, commemorating each kill your character made. Maybe you use them to help you carve bas-reliefs for fun (depending on how hard the DM rules your claws are). Or you could go comedic, and maybe you obsessively mark territory. That's why there's a scratching post in your room of your base.

[Damon_Tor]

And the answer is that it seems to me to be a ribbon ability more than anything else, unless you're playing the kind of game where it comes up.

It is a minor ability, yes. It isn't useless: there are plenty of uses noted here in this thread. To summarize:

Improvement over unarmed strikes for ranged attackers making opportunity attacks
Improvement over unarmed strikes for reach wielders who want to use opportunity attacks at 5ft
Gives monks and other unarmed attackers access to effects that require a weapon
Situations where slashing damage is required (cutting ropes or nets, applying poisons)
Situations where bludgeoning damage is resisted but slashing is not (Treants)
Immune to disarming effects

[PhantomSoul]

Treants. 😀

True -- Piercing and Bludgeoning both 'suffer', but Slashing is 'spared'!

[Damon_Tor]

True -- Piercing and Bludgeoning both 'suffer', but Slashing is 'spared'!

Axes cut down trees, I guess.

[Sparky McDibben]

Situations where slashing damage is required (cutting ropes or nets, applying poisons)[/LIST]

OH MY GOD YOU COULD HAVE POISONED FINGERNAILS THIS IS AMAZING!!!

This would be amazing for someone like a social rogue who wants to use an injury poison without actually attacking. "Oh, so sorry, did I get you?"

"Ye..yeah. I feel kind of funny."

"Yeah, drow poison does that. Night night!" *rummages through their belongings.*

I love weird little quirky threads like this. Just so much fun.

[MaxWilson]

Ah, yes, and doing slashing damage instead of bludgeoning would be critical if... um, maybe if you're fighting a... OK, help me out, here.

Wood woads are resistant to blunt and piercing damage (including magical weapons) but not slashing.

[Damon_Tor]

Wood woads are resistant to blunt and piercing damage (including magical weapons) but not slashing.

And the awakened tree as well.