monster wielding a greatsword > all of their natural attacks combined?

[newguydude1]

i noticed that monsters that wield a greatsword even at a -4 proficiency penalty (which is negated by greater magic weapon bonus) outperforms their own natural attacks.

so against a creature with 10 dr, the correct greatsword gets to ignore that, the creature gets to add 1.5 str modifier to the greatsword, the greatsword does more base damage than their own natural weapons, and they get iterative attacks due to their high base attack.

nightwalker for example.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nightshade.htm
+24 2 slams at 2d6+16 is a total of 46 average damage total, 26 damage against 10dr.
assuming a greater magic weapon greatsword for +3 enhancement bonus
+23/+18 greatsword at 4d6+24 is 76 average damage total and the same against 10dr.

colossal animated object
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm
+25 1 slam at 4d6+13 which is 27 average damage total, 17 against 10dr
give it a +3 greatsword and
+24/+19/+14/+9 at 8d6+16 which is 44 x 4 = 176 damage total.

pit fiend
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm
sum of all his natural attacks is 96 average damage, against 10dr its 36 damage.
with a +3 greatsword
+33/+28/+23/+18 at 3d6+22 is 128 average damage

so it seems like to make a monster tougher, all the dm (or player) needs to do is give it a greatsword. i cant see a reason to ever use natural attacks over greatsword. at least at higher levels.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It's a very general observation and leaves out rider effects like poison or the fact that some creatures (like Animated Objects) do not have limbs capable of holding a weapon, but generally accurate, yes.
But the fact that two-handed weapon is generally the strongest melee option in 3.5 isn't exactly news. There's no reason that wouldn't apply to monsters as well as PC's.

Do note that giving a pit fiend a greatsword would only replace his claw attacks, letting him use his wings, bite and tail slap as secondary natural weapons in addition to his iteratives.
For creatures without arms there's also the option to use a mouthpick weapon if they have bite. Also worth considering if your claws have poison or energy drain.

[newguydude1]

It's a very general observation and leaves out rider effects like poison or the fact that some creatures (like Animated Objects) do not have limbs capable of holding a weapon, but generally accurate, yes.

animated objects look like anything, including statues. even if one didn't, a snake can hold a weapon by wrapping itself around the base. so why not an animated object? the official art shows a candlebra twisting and making a loop out of its own bronze body.

[Biggus]

The natural attacks of creatures with damage reduction/magic are treated as magical for the purposes of overcoming DR, such as the Nightwalker, and the Pit Fiend's natural weapons are treated as evil and lawful.

Also, none of the above monsters have the ability to cast GMW, so you have to assume they have an ally who can cast it on them. If you're doing that, why not assume they also have one who can cast Greater Magic Fang on them?

So your calculation is true if

a) their natural weapons don't overcome the relevant DR

b) they have a greatsword which does

c) they have a friend to cast GMW on them

d) they don't have a friend to cast GMF on them.

That's quite a lot of if's.

So in some circumstances a greatsword is better, others not.

[sleepyphoenixx]

animated objects look like anything, including statues.
Yes, and most things that aren't statues can't wield weapons. Some can, sure, but giving your animated wagon a greatsword probably won't work very well.


a snake can hold a weapon by wrapping itself around the base.
For a very loose definition of "hold", sure. And without a way to effectively use it for its intended purpose.
If you want it to actually wield a sword in combat that way you need it to qualify for and take the Prehensile Tail feat or have a special ability with a similar effect, because otherwise it can't.

[newguydude1]

The natural attacks of creatures with damage reduction/magic are treated as magical for the purposes of overcoming DR, such as the Nightwalker, and the Pit Fiend's natural weapons are treated as evil and lawful.

Also, none of the above monsters have the ability to cast GMW, so you have to assume they have an ally who can cast it on them. If you're doing that, why not assume they also have one who can cast Greater Magic Fang on them?

So your calculation is true if

a) their natural weapons don't overcome the relevant DR

b) they have a greatsword which does

c) they have a friend to cast GMW on them

d) they don't have a friend to cast GMF on them.

That's quite a lot of if's.

So in some circumstances a greatsword is better, others not.

if you look at the numbers, even when not blocked by dr its still inferior. and most of the time its gonna be because a greatsword is changeable depending on the situation. the monsters alignment is not.


For a very loose definition of "hold", sure. And without a way to effectively use it for its intended purpose.
If you want it to actually wield a sword in combat that way you need it to qualify for and take the Prehensile Tail feat or have a special ability with a similar effect, because otherwise it can't.

girallons blessing also gives a creature primary limbs if it didnt have one before.

but i dont see why a greatsword ao cant just grab another greatsword like a rope would and swing it around.

[sleepyphoenixx]

but i dont see why a greatsword ao cant just grab another greatsword like a rope would and swing it around.

There's a massive difference between being able to hold a weapon by wrapping a rope around it and moving it around that way and using said weapon effectively in combat with that hold.
Especially a two-handed one, which requires two limbs to control effectively no matter how strong you are.

[newguydude1]

There's a massive difference between being able to hold a weapon by wrapping a rope around it and moving it around that way and using said weapon effectively in combat with that hold.
Especially a two-handed one, which requires two limbs to control effectively no matter how strong you are.

its just grip and manipulation. wrapping and tying a rope around the handle so that it doesnt slip is a grip. the ao moves the rope precisely accurately and perfectly because it is the rope. it has the strength to wield it because its strength score is high.

you have a point about wielding a twohanded thing one handed, but i dont see why a rope ao or a sword ao cant grip and wield a onehanded weapon with ease. grip, strength, precision.

[animewatcha]

Where does it say that a monster that holds anything in it's hand seals off its claw attacks in general? I know there are specific entries with some claw attacks that account for ( if you have a weapon in x hand ), but not all of them.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Most of the greatsword damage is from iterative attacks, many of which won't hit. Your colossal animated object's 2 slams at +25 are almost guaranteed to hit, but four greatsword attacks at +24/+19/+14/+9 will seldom land the fourth one, even the third one could miss often.

The colossal animated object is CR 10. A Cleric 10 with Divine Spell Power or a Bead of Karma for Magic Vestment +3 on his armor and shield, using mithral full plate and a heavy shield with a +1 Ring of Protection has an AC of 30.

The animated object's slam attacks hit on 5-20 (80%), and miss on a 1-4 (20%), so each 4d6+13 is assumed to do 80% damage over the course of the fight. That's 21.6 damage per attack, for 43.2 damage per full attack on average.

Its greatsword iterative attacks hit 75%/50%/25%/5% of the time, so multiply its average damage by that: 33+22+11+2.2=68.2 damage per full attack on average.

If we give its natural attacks the same +3 enhancement as you've given the greatsword, it becomes a 95% chance to hit at 4d6+16 for 57 damage per full attack on average. DR will easily put this above the greatsword in damage per round.

[H_H_F_F]

It's correct that a two handed weapon is often superior to natural weapons. It's perfectly reasonable that it's that way. Nightwalkers like making unarmed disarm attempts, and Pit Fiends may have some cultural reservations, but sure, give them a weapon. Others may have poison or negative energy they do not wish to lose, or may not be cultured enough to use a weapon.

However, the point you made about an animated bedframe using a sword or whatever is not compatible with any serious campaign. This isn't how swords work, it isn't how any weapon works. Have you ever fought a person? Imagine trying to ward someone off with a sword tied by a rope to your hips. Come on.

[newguydude1]

Most of the greatsword damage is from iterative attacks, many of which won't hit. Your colossal animated object's 2 slams at +25 are almost guaranteed to hit, but four greatsword attacks at +24/+19/+14/+9 will seldom land the fourth one, even the third one could miss often.

The colossal animated object is CR 10. A Cleric 10 with Divine Spell Power or a Bead of Karma for Magic Vestment +3 on his armor and shield, using mithral full plate and a heavy shield with a +1 Ring of Protection has an AC of 30.

The animated object's slam attacks hit on 5-20 (80%), and miss on a 1-4 (20%), so each 4d6+13 is assumed to do 80% damage over the course of the fight. That's 21.6 damage per attack, for 43.2 damage per full attack on average.

Its greatsword iterative attacks hit 75%/50%/25%/5% of the time, so multiply its average damage by that: 33+22+11+2.2=68.2 damage per full attack on average.

If we give its natural attacks the same +3 enhancement as you've given the greatsword, it becomes a 95% chance to hit at 4d6+16 for 57 damage per full attack on average. DR will easily put this above the greatsword in damage per round.

animated object has 1 slam attack. and colossal greatsword is 8d6+13. so its 41 damage per attack not 33. +3 for enhancement for 44.


However, the point you made about an animated bedframe using a sword or whatever is not compatible with any serious campaign. This isn't how swords work, it isn't how any weapon works. Have you ever fought a person? Imagine trying to ward someone off with a sword tied by a rope to your hips. Come on.

the sword is as bendy as the rope is. you dont need rope. sword will wrap/grip around the 2nd sword and swing that around.

a tentacle can do this. so whats all the hubbub with the sword doing what a tentacle can? an animated sword is a tentacle.

[Drelua]

animated object has 1 slam attack. and colossal greatsword is 8d6+13. so its 41 damage per attack not 33. +3 for enhancement for 44.

the sword is as bendy as the rope is. you dont need rope. sword will wrap/grip around the 2nd sword and swing that around.

a tentacle can do this. so whats all the hubbub with the sword doing what a tentacle can? an animated sword is a tentacle.

A tentacle is generally attached to a larger creature that has a few of them. Wrapping a limb around a weapon isn't really comparable to wrapping your entire body around a weapon. Sure, an animated sword or a snake could wrap itself around a weapon, and if it's a constrictor you'd have a hell of a challenge taking the weapon away if it doesn't want you to. That doesn't mean it could swing it effectively.

[newguydude1]

A tentacle is generally attached to a larger creature that has a few of them. Wrapping a limb around a weapon isn't really comparable to wrapping your entire body around a weapon. Sure, an animated sword or a snake could wrap itself around a weapon, and if it's a constrictor you'd have a hell of a challenge taking the weapon away if it doesn't want you to. That doesn't mean it could swing it effectively.

that "not effectively" is the -4 proficiency. its still a tentacle with 28 str.

lets settle this. severed hand. can a severed arm with hand grab a sword and wield it? y/n. if y then so can animated greatsword. if n then it cant. the arm with hand cannot fly in anyway at all and must crawl and hop on the ground.

theres also weapons that do have "hands". a katar has two prongs that help prevent your wrist from bending sideways. them prongs could be arms. some katars are also 3 pronged blades. two of those could be "arms".
a club could be statue-shaped. so its a statue. but i feel like this is cheesy for some reason.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

animated object has 1 slam attack. and colossal greatsword is 8d6+13. so its 41 damage per attack not 33. +3 for enhancement for 44.

The rolled average is 44, but if the first attack only hits 75% of the time then that attack actually averages out to 33 damage over the course of the encounter. If you make four attacks for 44 damage each, but only three hit, it's (44*3)/4=33.

[Drelua]

that "not effectively" is the -4 proficiency. its still a tentacle with 28 str.

lets settle this. severed hand. can a severed arm with hand grab a sword and wield it? y/n. if y then so can animated greatsword. if n then it cant. the arm with hand cannot fly in anyway at all and must crawl and hop on the ground.

theres also weapons that do have "hands". a katar has two prongs that help prevent your wrist from bending sideways. them prongs could be arms. some katars are also 3 pronged blades. two of those could be "arms".
a club could be statue-shaped. so its a statue. but i feel like this is cheesy for some reason.

So if the -4 is enough of a penalty for not being equipped to do the thing, what happens if they take weapon proficiency? Animated objects don't get feats, but snakes do. Can they take the feat, and then use the weapon just as effectively as a person? There's just no way to have any sort of a stance while wrapping your entire body around a weapon and flailing around. I've done a little martial arts, you can't get any power into a swing without a good stance. Using a weapon as a tentacle, or an arm, is completely different from using a weapon with a tentacle or an arm.

Yeah, a reanimated medium person's arm can probably hold a tiny longsword for 1d4 damage. Because it has a hand. It would look silly and not be very threatening, but it could at least bend at the elbow to move while holding a weapon. Holding a thing with a hand is not comparable to holding a thing by wrapping your body around it. So a greatsword wrapped around another greatsword. How does it swing it? There's no way to do that. And also, keep in mind that they only have a constrict attack if they're "A flexible animated object such as a rope, vine, or rug." (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) An animated sword doesn't have the ability to constrict, no matter what the picture of a candelabra is doing. Pictures aren't rules.

[InvisibleBison]

If all objects become super flexible when animated, why don't all objects gain the constrict special attack? That attack is explicitly granted to "flexible" objects, so if a 20-foot long iron rod becomes so fluid of form as to be able to grip a weapon, surely it can also grip an enemy? Since the rules don't let an animated iron rod use the constrict attack, clearly the rod isn't becoming flexible. And since objects don't become flexible, they don't automatically gain the ability to wield weapons.

Also, pictures aren't rules.

[newguydude1]

The rolled average is 44, but if the first attack only hits 75% of the time then that attack actually averages out to 33 damage over the course of the encounter. If you make four attacks for 44 damage each, but only three hit, it's (44*3)/4=33.

sorry. i read that part but i guess it didnt sink in. half asleep but thats no excuse. sorry.


Yeah, a reanimated medium person's arm can probably hold a tiny longsword for 1d4 damage.

not tiny, a longsword as long as the arm. were talking about a greatsword wielding a bastard sword so near identical length of arm/hand and the bastard sword, not tiny.

anyways you guys make a fair point. i think i am stretching the "rules" quite a bit by saying a greatsword is as flexible as something with constrict yet dont have the constrict ability. girallons blessing it is i guess.

thanks you guys been most helpful.

edit: how about a club thats carved like a totem pole that has "arms"? or a statue posing in a way that makes it a club. can those "weapons" wield another weapon?

[InvisibleBison]

edit: how about a club thats carved like a totem pole that has "arms"? or a statue posing in a way that makes it a club. can those "weapons" wield another weapon?

I'd say it could, yes. Animated statues can wield weapons (though they wouldn't be proficient with them), and the club you're describing is basically a tiny statue with a handle.

[Drelua]

not tiny, a longsword as long as the arm. were talking about a greatsword wielding a bastard sword so near identical length of arm/hand and the bastard sword, not tiny.

anyways you guys make a fair point. i think i am stretching the "rules" quite a bit by saying a greatsword is as flexible as something with constrict yet dont have the constrict ability. girallons blessing it is i guess.

thanks you guys been most helpful.

edit: how about a club thats carved like a totem pole that has "arms"? or a statue posing in a way that makes it a club. can those "weapons" wield another weapon?

A medium sized person's arm wouldn't be a medium creature though, they'd probably be two size categories smaller. So, using the rules for innappropriately sized weapons, a medium creature's dagger would go up two steps to two-handed. Since they only have 1 hand, they can't use any weapons made for a medium creature. Also, here are the rules for using one or two handed weapons:


One-handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand.
Two-handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.

Two-handed couldn't be clearer on needing hands to wield, and I would say it's the same for one-handed. If an animated object has hands, I'd probably allow it. It's probably more effective, but you also have to spend the money to get the sword made for whatever size, which would add up if you're getting different special materials.

Side note: now I really want to have an adventuring group with a permanently animated gargantuan wagon. They never get tired, so it could move at a speed of 50' 24/7. Just make sure someone's there to tell it what to do or it will run over/into anything or anyone that gets in front of it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

A 2-handed gauntlet (see Savage Species) designed to go on the feet would allow for iterative attacks with double the Str bonus AND a full natural attack routine.

[Particle_Man]

How does that work with a monk wielding a great sword at minus four versus their unarmed strikes? Does the level of the monk make a difference?

[Drelua]

How does that work with a monk wielding a great sword at minus four versus their unarmed strikes? Does the level of the monk make a difference?

They could mix unarmed strikes and greatsword attacks, they'd make the same number of attacks and could choose between the two weapons for each swing. Not if they're flurrying though, then I believe all of their attacks have to be with monk weapons or unarmed.

[Particle_Man]

So would it be better for a monk to do an unarmed flurry or to use a great sword they are not proficient in? And would that change with level?

[sleepyphoenixx]

So would it be better for a monk to do an unarmed flurry or to use a great sword they are not proficient in? And would that change with level?

You should use a twohanded weapon you are proficient in. Doesn't really matter if it's a monk weapon because flurry only ever adds 1x Str bonus so you won't want to use it anyway.
The main benefit of a greatsword isn't its 2d6 base damage, it's the fact that you add 1,5x Str (and double Power Attack bonus). That applies to any two handed weapon.

How effective it is depends on your strength score and if you have Power Attack (possible with extra multipliers like Leap Attack or a Valorous weapon).
But for any strength-based melee THF is generally the superior option from level 1 and only gets better as you level.

[Elysiume]

Are you just theorizing about whether various monsters would, in a white-room scenario, have higher DPR if they used a weapon instead of their natural attacks, or are you trying to make the argument that they would/should use such weapons in-universe? Somewhere in the middle?

[newguydude1]

Are you just theorizing about whether various monsters would, in a white-room scenario, have higher DPR if they used a weapon instead of their natural attacks, or are you trying to make the argument that they would/should use such weapons in-universe? Somewhere in the middle?

im optimizing my own simulacrum and i noticed giving them a greatsword was better than using their natural attacks. so i made a thread about it.

[Drelua]

For a monk, it would very rarely be worth losing the extra attacks from the flurry. For it to be worth it, the damage difference would have to be a lot more than 1.5x STR. This thread doesn't really apply to monks even with a 2 handed monk weapon because monks don't multiply their strength when they're flurrying.

[Darg]

Where does it say that a monster that holds anything in it's hand seals off its claw attacks in general? I know there are specific entries with some claw attacks that account for ( if you have a weapon in x hand ), but not all of them.

Nothing says it actually does, but claws are generally a replacement for/on the tips of fingers which would be folded around the weapon itself. Logically, the claws would be useless unless the creature drops the weapon it's holding as a free action (quick draw feat would be good here). If you don't use the rules compendium, letting go with one hand to perform an attack and then transferring the weapon to the other hand is a non-action. if letting go of a weapon with one hand and re-gripping it isn't an action then the reverse should also be true.

That said it's the only example I recall that actually shows that kind of interaction between weapon and natural attacks other than slam attacks (which doesn't make sense because legs are appendages too and wouldn't be occupied with holding a THWeapon)