I have a 3rd level Ratfolk Unchained Rogue character in a Pathfinder campaign who uses the Sharpclaw racial feat. He's currently dishing out D4+Dex+2D6 (avg 13.5) damage on a Sneak Attack using Finesse Training with each of his claws.
Our GM asks us to briefly describe what we are attempting to do in combat and how a kill is carried out just to add a bit of cinematic flair. Unfortunately, I am struggling to justify the fairly high damage my small (3'11"), weak (Strength 8) character armed only with his bare claws is able to do - particular to Undead, those in plate armour and so on which would seem largely impervious to those kinds of attacks.
So far I have been doing the following:
- Describing the use of improvised weapons where possible (e.g. smashing the orc in the face with a chamber pot).
- Using environmental factors in my descriptions (e.g. trip opponent up and send them flying down the stairs, knocking them out).
- Describing the use of combat actions that would normally be a separate skill entirely (e.g. disarming the opponent and stabbing them with their own blade).
- Describing the attack using a manufactured weapon (e.g. tailblade, dagger) even though I'm using natural weapon mechanics.
So, the question is: Are there any depictions or stories of how this fighting style (small creature with natural weapons against tough targets) works in the D&D setting or are there any good justifications for why the character can do as much damage as they do?
In the long run, if I can't think of an appropriate solution then I'm likely to switch over to using daggers and two-weapon fighting instead.