Ive been thinking about house ruling all the natural weapons to make them more viable as regular weapons you can build a character around, as opposed to just backup options.
Im thinking along the lines of giving tabaxxi a d8 with finesse, minotaurs a d10, aarakocra a d6 with finesse, and centaurs a d8. (lizardfolk can stay a d6, because they get a special effect with the temp hp)
Would there be any reason you guys can think of as to why this would be a bad idea?
Yeah, I view natural weapons as a backup your character is allowed to carry at all times so in emergencies they have that little extra room. But having an always-equipped weapon that's objectively better than many other purchasable weapons doesn't quite work for me. If a player is dead set on going that route, they should go for a class that allows them to. Monk is the obvious choice, but there are ways to deal additional unarmed damage in other ways.
Natural weapons on PC races aren't intended to be comparable to physical weapons for a lot of reasons, but I think the most important is the conceptual difference.
Yeah, I get that you might have really sharp talons, or a stronger-than-average bite force. That's great! Having a 1d4 or 1d6 attack that can't be disarmed is solid. That's equivalent to being stabbed by a Dagger or Shortsword.
Meanwhile, the 10 pounds of steel on a stick (Maul) that I'm smashing into someone's face is going to deal 2d6. It's not perfect, but relatively proportionate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I could see giving Tabaxi claws the Light property so they could attack twice and/or take advantage of Two Weapon Fighting and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. OrMinotaurs the Heavy property so they could take advantage of the GWM Feat.
I could see giving Tabaxi claws the Light property so they could attack twice and/or take advantage of Two Weapon Fighting and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. OrMinotaurs the Heavy property so they could take advantage of the GWM Feat.
Natural weapons are not actual weapons, in part for exactly this reason, and are not ever eligible to be used with TWF or GWM. This is on purpose.
There is a fighting style and feat currently in UA that specifically addresses these issues. IMO, it is currently way overpowered, but ought to be reasonably balanced if/when it is published.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I could see giving Tabaxi claws the Light property so they could attack twice and/or take advantage of Two Weapon Fighting and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. OrMinotaurs the Heavy property so they could take advantage of the GWM Feat.
Natural weapons are not actual weapons, in part for exactly this reason, and are not ever eligible to be used with TWF or GWM. This is on purpose.
There is a fighting style and feat currently in UA that specifically addresses these issues. IMO, it is currently way overpowered, but ought to be reasonably balanced if/when it is published.
I give all kinds of boons to PCs during gameplay. I don’t think those would be OP.
I mean, Two Weapon Fighting is just 1 extra Attack as a Bonus Action for a potential 1d4 slashing. The Two-Weapon Fighting Style would let them add their Strength Mod to that single bonus attack bringing the damage potential from 1-4 to 1-9. By no means game-breaking.
A lot of people simply saying they disagree but not really saying why.
The reason im considering making them as strong as standard weapons is so that players can use them AS a primary weapon. Sure, monk exists, and theres that UA stuff, but i have a minotaur barbarian player who uses his horns as his primary weapons, and is really handicapped by it. Hes punished for playing into his character, which is what inspired this.
Yeah, I view natural weapons as a backup your character is allowed to carry at all times so in emergencies they have that little extra room. But having an always-equipped weapon that's objectively better than many other purchasable weapons doesn't quite work for me. If a player is dead set on going that route, they should go for a class that allows them to. Monk is the obvious choice, but there are ways to deal additional unarmed damage in other ways.
Unable to be disarmed: Not true. I can have my mobs knock a lizardfolks teeth out or cut off the minotaurs horns, and if the player rolls nat 1 on their attack, the tabaxxi could rip some of their claws out or the the centaur could sprain its ankle. Counter point, Eldritch Knight can get 2d6/1d12 weapons that they cant be disarmed of, so i see the fact they cant be disarmed as a non-factor.
Monk: thats a whole lotta class levels for just a damage die. In low level campaigns, thats arguably to many class levels.
UA: while i could see this working for the claws, and maybe even the hooves if you stretch it, it can have no baring on the bite or horns.
Theyre better than other weapons: Not true. The tabaxxi claws are comparable to the rapier, but the rest are worse than their weapon equivalents. The Minotaur lacks bonus properties like reach that are present on other d10 weapons. The Aarakocra lacks the light property for their talons that other d6 weapons have. The Centaur is about as good as a flail (one of the worst weapons mechanically), and lacks the finesse property on other d8 weapons.
I could see giving Tabaxi claws the Light property so they could attack twice and/or take advantage of Two Weapon Fighting and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. OrMinotaurs the Heavy property so they could take advantage of the GWM Feat.
The heavy propery idea is cool, but the tabaxxi claws would need to be a d6 for light. Thank you for the suggestions.
So this is an interesting discussion, I think, because it gets at the heart of whether stats are there for flavor/roleplaying or for mechanical reasons, and how they interact.
Like, I can definitely imagine this in other contexts! Like, for example if I have a rogue, and my conception of this rogue is that she fights with a dagger, getting up close and stabby. But a dagger is only 1d4. Can I just have the dagger do 1d8, so it's not any worse than a rapier?
Or, maybe I have a fighter, and I'm envisioning him as one of those guards from who walks around with a spear on the walls. But I want him to have high AC, like if he had a sword and shield, so he can be a tank. Can I just say he's using a spear, using one end of it to block, and say that he has the same stats as if he was holding a shield for +2 and a longsword in the other hand?
And on one hand, the obvious answer is sure, let the player pick stats and mechanics independently. You want to have the stats of sword+shield but narrate it as stabbing and blocking with a spear, sure, why not! That's not broken, it's just the stats of a different weapon, it's balanced for sure!
...but on the other hand, the whole point of having a wide variety of weapons is so that there's lots of distinctions and subtle differences. And that gets lost when you just make stats and mechanics interchangeable. Like, my rogue that wants to wield a rapier but narrate it as a dagger. There's plenty of other differences between a rapier and a dagger! Dagger is easy to conceal, I could hide it in a boot. I could also throw it, or fight with a second one in my other hand for two-weapon fighting. Can't do that with a rapier. Or, my fighter that wants to pretend a spear is a sword+shield. Well, a shield takes an action to take off or put on, whereas a spear takes no time to drop. And could in principle use the sword+shield independently, but you can't do that with a spear. Do those distinctions matter, are they ever going to come up? Dunno. But the whole point of assigning different stats to different weapons is to make those different approaches PLAY DIFFERENTLY in various subtle ways.
Or, the example of the minotaur that wants to fight with his horns and do 1d10 damage, like he's wielding a two-handed weapon... does that mean that he gets to use both hands free, and thus have a shield (and something else too!) equipped while using his horns? Does that mean a minotaur monk could make a whole bunch of "unarmed" strikes that each are as powerful as a two-handed longsword strike? Does that give him a chance to be deceptive - like if someone tries to take him prisoner and says "drop your weapons!" he can drop anything he's holding and still be just as dangerous as if he were holding a glaive? I'm sure there are plenty of other situations where "holding a big two-handed weapon" is quite different than "holding no weapons".
And the whole point of having lots of options is to have tradeoffs. This choice is better at something, that choice is better at something else. If you just do it the other way around - take whatever option the player wants to pick, and automatically make that equal in all ways to the best other options available - it kind of decreases the point of making choices...
Idunno. I think it's not a good idea overall. You could make it work for specific players doing specific builds.
But maybe the minotaur should just pick up a pike. It's only 5gp. Surely he can afford that, if he wants to do 1d10 damage. (Or a halberd, if he would prefer 1d10 slashing instead of piercing. Or a longsword, if he would prefer to have the option to go to one hand rather than two to use it. Or...)
Now THATS the response I was hoping for, thank you.
The tabaxxi is a little more applicable because it's claws occupy it's hands. The issues you raise start to pop up with the others.
Perhaps an effect akin to the versatile property, we're one or both hands must be dedicated to counterbalance in order to yield the higher damage die?
But you have raised some good points about the weight of player choice and tradeoff.
Revisions based on feedback.
Minotaur has d6 with heavy, and can go to a d8 with one free hand dedicated to counterbalance, or a d10 with both hands free and dedicated to counterbalance.
Tabaxxi has d6 with light and finesse, and goes to a d8 if both claws are used for one attack. (Similar to UA)
Centaur has d6, and can go to d8 trading half movement to strike with 2 hooves.
I could see giving Tabaxi claws the Light property so they could attack twice and/or take advantage of Two Weapon Fighting and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. OrMinotaurs the Heavy property so they could take advantage of the GWM Feat.
The heavy propery idea is cool, but the tabaxxi claws would need to be a d6 for light. Thank you for the suggestions.
Tabaxi claws are currently 1d4. Daggers are currently 1d4 light weapons. What the heck are you talking about?
I could see giving Tabaxi claws the Light property so they could attack twice and/or take advantage of Two Weapon Fighting and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. OrMinotaurs the Heavy property so they could take advantage of the GWM Feat.
The heavy propery idea is cool, but the tabaxxi claws would need to be a d6 for light. Thank you for the suggestions.
Tabaxi claws are currently 1d4. Daggers are currently 1d4 light weapons. What the heck are you talking about?
My stance and point are that the natural weapons as they are right now cannot be the basis of a character build. My intention is to make them viable as primary weapons, and I'm looking counter arguments against my point. Seeing as tabaxxi claws cannot be thrown, having the same value as a shortsword doesn't seem to implausible.
I could see giving Tabaxi claws the Light property so they could attack twice and/or take advantage of Two Weapon Fighting and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. OrMinotaurs the Heavy property so they could take advantage of the GWM Feat.
The heavy propery idea is cool, but the tabaxxi claws would need to be a d6 for light. Thank you for the suggestions.
Tabaxi claws are currently 1d4. Daggers are currently 1d4 light weapons. What the heck are you talking about?
My stance and point are that the natural weapons as they are right now cannot be the basis of a character build. My intention is to make them viable as primary weapons, and I'm looking counter arguments against my point. Seeing as tabaxxi claws cannot be thrown, having the same value as a shortsword doesn't seem to implausible.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Create a 'weapon' (caps or something... horn thimbles) that fits over his horns. It is something that can be taken away, but while he has it, does more damage than plain horns and maybe does magical damage too while letting him roleplay fighting with the horns.
Create a 'weapon' (caps or something... horn thimbles) that fits over his horns. It is something that can be taken away, but while he has it, does more damage than plain horns and maybe does magical damage too while letting him roleplay fighting with the horns.
Voila, problem solved.
^This 100%
I don't mean to pick on you (OP) or anything, but it does seem like you made up your mind before you asked for advice. That's fine; you're the DM of your campaign, and you can do whatever you want. Making a homebrew magic weapon that enhances/replaces a PC's natural weapon sounds like the best solution: you & player get the interaction you want while acknowledging that actual weapons have more going on than just higher damage dice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I agree on this point... rather than completely restructure how natural weapons work, it would be easier to have some in-game mechanic to justify the increased damage for individual characters. It could be something that physically attaches to the character's natural weapons, or just a magical object that increases the power of their weapon. Maybe even homebrew a feat exclusive to each race that increases the power of their natural weapons, based on the idea that experience in battle has taught them how to use their natural weapons more efficiently. In the expanded Racial Feats there's already one that goes in the opposite direction, where, among other things, a Tortle character can increase their natural armor from 17 to 18... according to the flavor, it's not that their shell got any harder or anything, but rather that they simply have learned how to use their shell more efficiently for defense.
My recommendation would be to have the natural weapon start at level 1 at the value provided by the Racial description, but allow it to increase with character level per the monk's martial arts table. There's no reason to give races a headstart beyond what a comparable monk would be, but I could certainly see justifying saying that a minotaur or tabaxi or whatever learns how to make the most of their natural weapons as they become a more proficient character.
Not true. I can have my mobs knock a lizardfolks teeth out or cut off the minotaurs horns, and if the player rolls nat 1 on their attack, the tabaxxi could rip some of their claws out or the the centaur could sprain its ankle. Counter point, Eldritch Knight can get 2d6/1d12 weapons that they cant be disarmed of, so i see the fact they cant be disarmed as a non-factor.
RAW a 1 just misses and there is no further penalty. And so baring some extremely unusually circumstance, they cannot be disarmed.
In your game if that isn't the case its fine, just know that is the position that WotC is coming from.
I think the damage makes sense. Humanoids aren't as muscular as some monsters. Something like a cassowary's strength isn't something achievable by a human, unless they have a big enough weapon. Aarakocra having 1d4 for their claws seems reasonable, as I don't think that they sharpen them, and they can't have a super strong grip strength or momentum behind the hit. They don't even perch with their hands, I don't know about feet. Tabaxi having a decent natural weapon seems reasonable, as they have retractable claws, letting them not get dulled by every day activity, and they probably would sharpen them.
Ive been thinking about house ruling all the natural weapons to make them more viable as regular weapons you can build a character around, as opposed to just backup options.
Im thinking along the lines of giving tabaxxi a d8 with finesse, minotaurs a d10, aarakocra a d6 with finesse, and centaurs a d8. (lizardfolk can stay a d6, because they get a special effect with the temp hp)
Would there be any reason you guys can think of as to why this would be a bad idea?
Because giving any race an irremovable weapon that comes with default proficiency and is better than many other weapons is objectively strong.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Yeah, I view natural weapons as a backup your character is allowed to carry at all times so in emergencies they have that little extra room. But having an always-equipped weapon that's objectively better than many other purchasable weapons doesn't quite work for me. If a player is dead set on going that route, they should go for a class that allows them to. Monk is the obvious choice, but there are ways to deal additional unarmed damage in other ways.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Natural weapons on PC races aren't intended to be comparable to physical weapons for a lot of reasons, but I think the most important is the conceptual difference.
Yeah, I get that you might have really sharp talons, or a stronger-than-average bite force. That's great! Having a 1d4 or 1d6 attack that can't be disarmed is solid. That's equivalent to being stabbed by a Dagger or Shortsword.
Meanwhile, the 10 pounds of steel on a stick (Maul) that I'm smashing into someone's face is going to deal 2d6. It's not perfect, but relatively proportionate.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I could see giving Tabaxi claws the Light property so they could attack twice and/or take advantage of Two Weapon Fighting and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. OrMinotaurs the Heavy property so they could take advantage of the GWM Feat.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Natural weapons are not actual weapons, in part for exactly this reason, and are not ever eligible to be used with TWF or GWM. This is on purpose.
There is a fighting style and feat currently in UA that specifically addresses these issues. IMO, it is currently way overpowered, but ought to be reasonably balanced if/when it is published.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I give all kinds of boons to PCs during gameplay. I don’t think those would be OP.
I mean, Two Weapon Fighting is just 1 extra Attack as a Bonus Action for a potential 1d4 slashing. The Two-Weapon Fighting Style would let them add their Strength Mod to that single bonus attack bringing the damage potential from 1-4 to 1-9. By no means game-breaking.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A lot of people simply saying they disagree but not really saying why.
The reason im considering making them as strong as standard weapons is so that players can use them AS a primary weapon. Sure, monk exists, and theres that UA stuff, but i have a minotaur barbarian player who uses his horns as his primary weapons, and is really handicapped by it. Hes punished for playing into his character, which is what inspired this.
To address the concerns raised;
Unable to be disarmed:
Not true. I can have my mobs knock a lizardfolks teeth out or cut off the minotaurs horns, and if the player rolls nat 1 on their attack, the tabaxxi could rip some of their claws out or the the centaur could sprain its ankle. Counter point, Eldritch Knight can get 2d6/1d12 weapons that they cant be disarmed of, so i see the fact they cant be disarmed as a non-factor.
Monk:
thats a whole lotta class levels for just a damage die. In low level campaigns, thats arguably to many class levels.
UA:
while i could see this working for the claws, and maybe even the hooves if you stretch it, it can have no baring on the bite or horns.
Theyre better than other weapons:
Not true. The tabaxxi claws are comparable to the rapier, but the rest are worse than their weapon equivalents. The Minotaur lacks bonus properties like reach that are present on other d10 weapons. The Aarakocra lacks the light property for their talons that other d6 weapons have. The Centaur is about as good as a flail (one of the worst weapons mechanically), and lacks the finesse property on other d8 weapons.
`
In response to feedback;
The heavy propery idea is cool, but the tabaxxi claws would need to be a d6 for light. Thank you for the suggestions.
So this is an interesting discussion, I think, because it gets at the heart of whether stats are there for flavor/roleplaying or for mechanical reasons, and how they interact.
Like, I can definitely imagine this in other contexts! Like, for example if I have a rogue, and my conception of this rogue is that she fights with a dagger, getting up close and stabby. But a dagger is only 1d4. Can I just have the dagger do 1d8, so it's not any worse than a rapier?
Or, maybe I have a fighter, and I'm envisioning him as one of those guards from who walks around with a spear on the walls. But I want him to have high AC, like if he had a sword and shield, so he can be a tank. Can I just say he's using a spear, using one end of it to block, and say that he has the same stats as if he was holding a shield for +2 and a longsword in the other hand?
And on one hand, the obvious answer is sure, let the player pick stats and mechanics independently. You want to have the stats of sword+shield but narrate it as stabbing and blocking with a spear, sure, why not! That's not broken, it's just the stats of a different weapon, it's balanced for sure!
...but on the other hand, the whole point of having a wide variety of weapons is so that there's lots of distinctions and subtle differences. And that gets lost when you just make stats and mechanics interchangeable. Like, my rogue that wants to wield a rapier but narrate it as a dagger. There's plenty of other differences between a rapier and a dagger! Dagger is easy to conceal, I could hide it in a boot. I could also throw it, or fight with a second one in my other hand for two-weapon fighting. Can't do that with a rapier. Or, my fighter that wants to pretend a spear is a sword+shield. Well, a shield takes an action to take off or put on, whereas a spear takes no time to drop. And could in principle use the sword+shield independently, but you can't do that with a spear. Do those distinctions matter, are they ever going to come up? Dunno. But the whole point of assigning different stats to different weapons is to make those different approaches PLAY DIFFERENTLY in various subtle ways.
Or, the example of the minotaur that wants to fight with his horns and do 1d10 damage, like he's wielding a two-handed weapon... does that mean that he gets to use both hands free, and thus have a shield (and something else too!) equipped while using his horns? Does that mean a minotaur monk could make a whole bunch of "unarmed" strikes that each are as powerful as a two-handed longsword strike? Does that give him a chance to be deceptive - like if someone tries to take him prisoner and says "drop your weapons!" he can drop anything he's holding and still be just as dangerous as if he were holding a glaive? I'm sure there are plenty of other situations where "holding a big two-handed weapon" is quite different than "holding no weapons".
And the whole point of having lots of options is to have tradeoffs. This choice is better at something, that choice is better at something else. If you just do it the other way around - take whatever option the player wants to pick, and automatically make that equal in all ways to the best other options available - it kind of decreases the point of making choices...
Idunno. I think it's not a good idea overall. You could make it work for specific players doing specific builds.
But maybe the minotaur should just pick up a pike. It's only 5gp. Surely he can afford that, if he wants to do 1d10 damage. (Or a halberd, if he would prefer 1d10 slashing instead of piercing. Or a longsword, if he would prefer to have the option to go to one hand rather than two to use it. Or...)
Now THATS the response I was hoping for, thank you.
The tabaxxi is a little more applicable because it's claws occupy it's hands. The issues you raise start to pop up with the others.
Perhaps an effect akin to the versatile property, we're one or both hands must be dedicated to counterbalance in order to yield the higher damage die?
But you have raised some good points about the weight of player choice and tradeoff.
Revisions based on feedback.
Minotaur has d6 with heavy, and can go to a d8 with one free hand dedicated to counterbalance, or a d10 with both hands free and dedicated to counterbalance.
Tabaxxi has d6 with light and finesse, and goes to a d8 if both claws are used for one attack. (Similar to UA)
Centaur has d6, and can go to d8 trading half movement to strike with 2 hooves.
Aarakocra has d6 with finesse.
How do those sound?
Tabaxi claws are currently 1d4. Daggers are currently 1d4 light weapons. What the heck are you talking about?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My stance and point are that the natural weapons as they are right now cannot be the basis of a character build. My intention is to make them viable as primary weapons, and I'm looking counter arguments against my point. Seeing as tabaxxi claws cannot be thrown, having the same value as a shortsword doesn't seem to implausible.
Natural Weapon Build.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
D&D world problems.
Create a 'weapon' (caps or something... horn thimbles) that fits over his horns. It is something that can be taken away, but while he has it, does more damage than plain horns and maybe does magical damage too while letting him roleplay fighting with the horns.
Voila, problem solved.
Because some dinky claws should not do as much damage as 2&1/2 feet of steel.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
^This 100%
I don't mean to pick on you (OP) or anything, but it does seem like you made up your mind before you asked for advice. That's fine; you're the DM of your campaign, and you can do whatever you want. Making a homebrew magic weapon that enhances/replaces a PC's natural weapon sounds like the best solution: you & player get the interaction you want while acknowledging that actual weapons have more going on than just higher damage dice.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I agree on this point... rather than completely restructure how natural weapons work, it would be easier to have some in-game mechanic to justify the increased damage for individual characters. It could be something that physically attaches to the character's natural weapons, or just a magical object that increases the power of their weapon. Maybe even homebrew a feat exclusive to each race that increases the power of their natural weapons, based on the idea that experience in battle has taught them how to use their natural weapons more efficiently. In the expanded Racial Feats there's already one that goes in the opposite direction, where, among other things, a Tortle character can increase their natural armor from 17 to 18... according to the flavor, it's not that their shell got any harder or anything, but rather that they simply have learned how to use their shell more efficiently for defense.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
My recommendation would be to have the natural weapon start at level 1 at the value provided by the Racial description, but allow it to increase with character level per the monk's martial arts table. There's no reason to give races a headstart beyond what a comparable monk would be, but I could certainly see justifying saying that a minotaur or tabaxi or whatever learns how to make the most of their natural weapons as they become a more proficient character.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
RAW a 1 just misses and there is no further penalty. And so baring some extremely unusually circumstance, they cannot be disarmed.
In your game if that isn't the case its fine, just know that is the position that WotC is coming from.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
I think the damage makes sense. Humanoids aren't as muscular as some monsters. Something like a cassowary's strength isn't something achievable by a human, unless they have a big enough weapon. Aarakocra having 1d4 for their claws seems reasonable, as I don't think that they sharpen them, and they can't have a super strong grip strength or momentum behind the hit. They don't even perch with their hands, I don't know about feet. Tabaxi having a decent natural weapon seems reasonable, as they have retractable claws, letting them not get dulled by every day activity, and they probably would sharpen them.
Also known as CrafterB and DankMemer.
Here, have some homebrew classes! Subclasses to? Why not races. Feats, feats as well. I have a lot of magic items. Lastly I got monsters, fun, fun times.