[3.P] Penalty for using inappropriate extremity to wield a weapon

[ImperatorK]

If a creature that doesn't have humanoid hands (or does have them, but also has other extremities) wanted to wield a weapon, for example in its teeth or with its tentacle, what kind of penalty does it gain (or if there's nothing official, what penalty would you give it)? Note that I'm only asking about this specific penalty. Non-proficiency or inappropriate size of weapon is irrelevant here. Also, the creature still wouldn't be capable of taking Multiweapon Fighting.

[phaedrusxy]

I don't think it can at all. There is a specific weapon property (Mouthpick weapons) designed to allow weapons to be wielded in your teeth, and the Arms of the Naga is a magic item that is basically a set of prosthetic arms.

[ImperatorK]

Of course it can. It's just very bad at it. And I'm wondering how bad (how big penalty).
The Mouthpick and Arms of the Naga are there so you can use the weapons without penalties.

[sirpercival]

You can't say "of course it can" -- you're looking for a rules answer for something for which there are no rules.

I would have it be an improvised weapon, moving the onus from the creature to the object itself.  It's not a weapon which was designed to be used for that appendage, so the creature is improvising.

[Kajhera]

Also grell design weapons to be used by tentacles which I think are basically double the base price (reverse-engineered). The price of masterwork and magic enhancement does not increase for these, and they're really pretty sweet.
For me? Probably engage in some wild improv-houseruling-for-dramatic-effect. It'd be tricky to use in combat, but they could take a full-round action to line up a shot to hit an object in melee, like normal. Any attempt to coup de grace would also need to get lined up like this. Trying to use it in combat would probably take at least the -4 improvisation penalty, assuming it was the only thing they were doing, and reduce their reach by 5' or so, so many creatures would have to move into their target's space to attack at all with a barb held in their teeth, and much of the tentacle would be occupied trying to wind around a hilt not built for it. I also would probably restrict it to weapons that can be used in a grapple, at least if using something with unarmed strike reach or less, since this seems to be exactly what's going on during attacks in a grapple anyway (occupied limbs but still attacking with light weapons at -4 penalty). (For some reason employing two tentacles on a longspear doesn't particularly jar me, but I'd have to work that out.)

[ImperatorK]

You can't say "of course it can" -- you're looking for a rules answer for something for which there are no rules.

I wasn't talking about the rules. If you didn't notice I did say in the OP that if there aren't official rules then give your houserule ideas.

I would have it be an improvised weapon, moving the onus from the creature to the object itself.  It's not a weapon which was designed to be used for that appendage, so the creature is improvising.

What if the creature is actually proficient in the weapon?

[Kajhera]

You can't say "of course it can" -- you're looking for a rules answer for something for which there are no rules.

I wasn't talking about the rules. If you didn't notice I did say in the OP that if there aren't official rules then give your houserule ideas.

I would have it be an improvised weapon, moving the onus from the creature to the object itself.  It's not a weapon which was designed to be used for that appendage, so the creature is improvising.

What if the creature is actually proficient in the weapon?

I think a better question would be what if the creature is not proficient in the weapon. 

But seriously, I'm proficient with a kama with my hands, but not with my mouth.

[sirpercival]

But seriously, I'm proficient with a kama with my hands, but not with my mouth.

This, basically.  You can know how to use a weapon generally, but not with every part of your body.  If you know how to use it with your tentacles, then why would there be a penalty at all?

[ImperatorK]

That's why Improvised Weapon rule isn't the answer. I am using an actual weapon. It's not the weapons fault. It's my limb. So if anything there would be an Improvised Limb rule for such occasion. What penalty would you suggest?

[Kajhera]

-4, the same as for using a weapon in a grapple (which again is a similar situation - not having ideal control of it), and -5 feet of reach, because inappropriate limbs have to contort more to use a weapon. I guess if you use a weapon you're not proficient with in an inappropriate limb the penalty would increase to -8 with this ruling.

[ImperatorK]

I don't think the -5 ft. is necessary. IIRC creatures that have reach can normally grapple opponents all the way up to their reach (or maybe they need the Grab ability, but generally tentacle monsters have it), and I think grappling a creature requires more contortion than grappling a handle.

[Kajhera]

On the contrary: "Maintain Grapple. To maintain the grapple for later rounds, you must move into the target’s space."
You can initiate a grapple at your reach, but you can't stay there. Even with Grab, generally.
Now obviously this is just how I'd handle it, not the appropriate way to handle it, and is in fact not inside the rules at all.
Another option is to provoke an AoO from attacks with it rather than reducing reach, as if you're using an unarmed strike. Or treat it as an improvised weapon. Or just take -4 nonimprovised penalty as per grapple, either way -4 seems to be the most appropriate number.

[sirpercival]

That's why Improvised Weapon rule isn't the answer. I am using an actual weapon. It's not the weapons fault. It's my limb. So if anything there would be an Improvised Limb rule for such occasion. What penalty would you suggest?

It's the weapon's fault in that it wasn't designed for that limb.

Or, if it makes you feel better, have a rule called "Improvised Limb" which carries exactly the same penalty as an improvised weapon.

[ImperatorK]

It's the weapon's fault in that it wasn't designed for that limb.

No, it's the limbs fault for not being appropriate for the weapon.

Or, if it makes you feel better, have a rule called "Improvised Limb"

I am, as stated in the post quoted by you.

[NunoM]

Not sure if i'm late for the discussion, but here go my two 2 cents...

A character of mine once had his Iron Bands of Bilarro at his feet and tried to throw them by kicking them towards an enemy 20ft away. The DM applied a -4 penalty for "using a weapon in an improvised manner" + -2 penalties for each 10ft (although the iron bands don't specify increments).

I found it a good ruling, and if i was using a really awkward body part or action to do the same (ex.: kick it up to my head and headbutt it, like a football (er... soccer ball?)), i'd agree with an even higher penalty.

Summing up, it all comes down to the limb being used... if the limb is dextrous enough to use, i'd apply the improvised weapon/usage penalty of -4. The penalty can be greater still, if the action is possible but really hard... if not, i'd simply negate the usage altogether (ex.: you can't really expect to be able to attack an armored foe properly with a dagger in your mouth, can you?**), or apply an "impossible" penalty (ex.: -20 to attack or something like that)...

**This, of course, depends on the size of the mouth and the daggers... I could probably give a fair penalty to a beholder spitting a dagger made for medium characters, for example...

...hope this helps.

[nijineko]

Opposable: Even a creature that lacks the proper hands for weapon use can wield an opposable weapon.
This enchantment creates one or more thumblike projections on the weapon. These artificial "thumbs" fold around the appropriate limb of the wielder to allow proper use. To wield an opposable weapon, a creature must be corporeal, have limbs, have proficiency with the weapon, and be able to stand without the limb(s) that wield the opposable weapon.
Caster Level: 6th ; Prerequisites : Craft Magic Arms and Armor, greater magic fang; Market Price: +1 bonus.

how about this to end run, and remove, the penalty?

[ImperatorK]

You're asking me?

[nijineko]

i guess. not really answering the asked question, but it does essentially remove the issue, which may be of benefit depending on the motivation and desired outcome behind the question.

[ImperatorK]

I asked the question to get an answer. I prefer answers to my questions. If I wanted the issue removed I would have asked that, but I didn't, so...

[nijineko]

i don't assume. i'll try to remember that you at least are specific for a reason.