bodily/natural weaponry

[Funnimane]

talking about stuff like claws and horns, does a character have to actually be shown to use them for the ability to be listed or do they just need to have them?

 

[FinePoint]

Similar question: if we know from lore that someone has the ability to manipulate fire, but they choose not to and never do, do they get fire manipulation?

The precedent would say: yes.
Assuming the claws and horns could be used as a viable weapon, and aren't just cute like Eri.
Them being sharp I think would be a requirement for assuming they could be used without feats.
We don't give humans bodily weaponry for having hands which are technically useable as weapons, for example.

 

[FinePoint]

Though, I suppose there's the problem of evidence. Just having a horn doesn't mean the horn is a viable weapon.
If we don't know enough about their physiology, then it seems like a leap to assume the horn wouldn't break or bend or something.

 

[SamanPatou]

I'd say it should apply only to what is either used for or adapted to combat purposes.

 

[FinePoint]

I'd say it should apply only to what is either used for or adapted to combat purposes.

What about, say, an anthropomorphic rhino who has a large sharp horn, but has never used it in a fight, despite having been in a fight?

 

[SamanPatou]

If it's adapted to combat then it's fine, it doesn't necessarily have to be used by the character.