Hello all. So I have a haling barabr ices wanted to play forever. A duel wield combatant that thanks to beast seems possible. So I have a few questions
Can I make a duel wield unarmed combatant with beast and what do I need.
RAW, in order to twf with the claws, you need two short swords and Extra Attack, so you can claw twice and sword twice (once with each sword). The dual wielder feat will let you use two longswords and two claws, for a negligible increase in damage. Because the short swords deal claw damage, I recommend asking your DM to skip the RAW rigmarole and just let you twf with your claws directly.
I'm not following your other questions about an "mc" or "beast ability alone", but in terms of optimizing, didn't you already say you wanted to be a halfling? So there's no point discussing races. What do you want advice on? Feats? If you're a halfling, take bountiful luck.
This discussion has come up before. Short version: You'll need to talk to your DM.
RAW you cannot use TWF with your claws. With the Dual Wielder feat, there are arguments that it becomes possible, but it is certainly not clear cut. There are exploits involving drawing and sheathing swords mid-turn which can work, RAW, to give you the bonus action attack.
In my own games, I don't allow it. The exploits with swords are just too ridiculous, and my belief (inferred from the rules) is that claws were given their own enhanced version of TWF because they were intended to be incompatible. However, because it isn't clear cut, it is going to vary from DM to DM, so you'll need to discuss it with them.
This discussion has come up before. Short version: You'll need to talk to your DM.
RAW you cannot use TWF with your claws. With the Dual Wielder feat, there are arguments that it becomes possible, but it is certainly not clear cut. There are exploits involving drawing and sheathing swords mid-turn which can work, RAW, to give you the bonus action attack.
In my own games, I don't allow it. The exploits with swords are just too ridiculous, and my belief (inferred from the rules) is that claws were given their own enhanced version of TWF because they were intended to be incompatible. However, because it isn't clear cut, it is going to vary from DM to DM, so you'll need to discuss it with them.
It's worth noting that without allowing twf on the claws, which as you said is RAW using a shortsword, beast barbarians are a bad subclass. Allowing a fourth attack with a bonus action is the only way to make the beast weapons have a purpose - otherwise, you just end up not having access to GWM or PAM while being allegedly designed for more damage than a standard barbarian, and you have no real access to acquiring magic weapons. That's why no-one even bothers discussing the bite or the tail, really.
This discussion has come up before. Short version: You'll need to talk to your DM.
RAW you cannot use TWF with your claws. With the Dual Wielder feat, there are arguments that it becomes possible, but it is certainly not clear cut. There are exploits involving drawing and sheathing swords mid-turn which can work, RAW, to give you the bonus action attack.
In my own games, I don't allow it. The exploits with swords are just too ridiculous, and my belief (inferred from the rules) is that claws were given their own enhanced version of TWF because they were intended to be incompatible. However, because it isn't clear cut, it is going to vary from DM to DM, so you'll need to discuss it with them.
It's worth noting that without allowing twf on the claws, which as you said is RAW using a shortsword, beast barbarians are a bad subclass. Allowing a fourth attack with a bonus action is the only way to make the beast weapons have a purpose - otherwise, you just end up not having access to GWM or PAM while being allegedly designed for more damage than a standard barbarian, and you have no real access to acquiring magic weapons. That's why no-one even bothers discussing the bite or the tail, really.
Not really
The natural weapons are always available, any time you rage, even if you have been disarmed. There is flexibility, allowing you to choose which weapon to use at any time. They also become instantly magical at level 6.
Claws get the additional attack from round one, without using your bonus action, and it includes your strength modifier which TWF wouldn't. It also works with a shield, or when you a grappling. It even works when wielding another weapon, so you can do 1d8 from a battleaxe or longsword plus 2 x 1d6 from claws.
Tail gives you a 1d8 reach weapon without using your hands at all. You could grapple 2 enemies and still make 2 x 1d8 attacks against someone 10ft away from you. You could wield a great axe or great sword while still having it available, or a shield and another weapon. Plus, it allows you to knock incoming attacks away from you. 1d10, like in the UA, would have been nicer but it's still pretty impressive.
The bite, they nerfed far too much in my view. By only allowing it to regain you HP when you are less than half health, it is only really worth it if your are already low on health. Otherwise, one of the other 2 is more likely to stop you getting down to half health so you don't need it.
You could argue that 1 level monk would be decent...but would not use the claws as a BA unless the DM allowed it. And I would only do after 5th level.
You would:
Attack! (of course)
Attack once with short sword Attack once with claw...which allows you to attack again with claw
BA Martial Arts you would get an unarmed strike. So 4 attacks at 6th level while you are raging with the claws. 1 would be with a sword, 2 with the claw, 1 unarmed strike. They would all receive benefits from the rage damage though so that's nice.
You could argue that 1 level monk would be decent...but would not use the claws as a BA unless the DM allowed it. And I would only do after 5th level.
You would:
Attack! (of course)
Attack once with short sword Attack once with claw...which allows you to attack again with claw
BA Martial Arts you would get an unarmed strike. So 4 attacks at 6th level while you are raging with the claws. 1 would be with a sword, 2 with the claw, 1 unarmed strike. They would all receive benefits from the rage damage though so that's nice.
I think I would actually allow claws themselves (and tail and bite) to count as monk weapons. In fact, RAW I think they do, and it makes some sense. They count as simple melee weapons, and have neither the heavy nor the two handed properties, and the monk abilities say nothing about holding them in your hands. So there would be no need for the short sword in that arrangement.
saddly raw its split into martal, simple, unarmed, and natral weapons.
True, however:
Form of the Beast
3rd-level Path of the Beast feature
When you enter your rage, you can transform, revealing the bestial power within you. Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you, and you add your Strength modifier to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with it, as normal.
saddly raw its split into martal, simple, unarmed, and natral weapons.
True, however:
Form of the Beast
3rd-level Path of the Beast feature
When you enter your rage, you can transform, revealing the bestial power within you. Until the rage ends, you manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you, and you add your Strength modifier to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with it, as normal.
Good Point!
I certainly would rule this way then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello all. So I have a haling barabr ices wanted to play forever. A duel wield combatant that thanks to beast seems possible. So I have a few questions
Can I make a duel wield unarmed combatant with beast and what do I need.
Should I stick to the beast ability alone
Whats mc works well here
And lastly how can I optimize this ideap
RAW, in order to twf with the claws, you need two short swords and Extra Attack, so you can claw twice and sword twice (once with each sword). The dual wielder feat will let you use two longswords and two claws, for a negligible increase in damage. Because the short swords deal claw damage, I recommend asking your DM to skip the RAW rigmarole and just let you twf with your claws directly.
I'm not following your other questions about an "mc" or "beast ability alone", but in terms of optimizing, didn't you already say you wanted to be a halfling? So there's no point discussing races. What do you want advice on? Feats? If you're a halfling, take bountiful luck.
This discussion has come up before. Short version: You'll need to talk to your DM.
RAW you cannot use TWF with your claws. With the Dual Wielder feat, there are arguments that it becomes possible, but it is certainly not clear cut. There are exploits involving drawing and sheathing swords mid-turn which can work, RAW, to give you the bonus action attack.
In my own games, I don't allow it. The exploits with swords are just too ridiculous, and my belief (inferred from the rules) is that claws were given their own enhanced version of TWF because they were intended to be incompatible. However, because it isn't clear cut, it is going to vary from DM to DM, so you'll need to discuss it with them.
It's worth noting that without allowing twf on the claws, which as you said is RAW using a shortsword, beast barbarians are a bad subclass. Allowing a fourth attack with a bonus action is the only way to make the beast weapons have a purpose - otherwise, you just end up not having access to GWM or PAM while being allegedly designed for more damage than a standard barbarian, and you have no real access to acquiring magic weapons. That's why no-one even bothers discussing the bite or the tail, really.
Not really
The natural weapons are always available, any time you rage, even if you have been disarmed. There is flexibility, allowing you to choose which weapon to use at any time. They also become instantly magical at level 6.
Claws get the additional attack from round one, without using your bonus action, and it includes your strength modifier which TWF wouldn't. It also works with a shield, or when you a grappling. It even works when wielding another weapon, so you can do 1d8 from a battleaxe or longsword plus 2 x 1d6 from claws.
Tail gives you a 1d8 reach weapon without using your hands at all. You could grapple 2 enemies and still make 2 x 1d8 attacks against someone 10ft away from you. You could wield a great axe or great sword while still having it available, or a shield and another weapon. Plus, it allows you to knock incoming attacks away from you. 1d10, like in the UA, would have been nicer but it's still pretty impressive.
The bite, they nerfed far too much in my view. By only allowing it to regain you HP when you are less than half health, it is only really worth it if your are already low on health. Otherwise, one of the other 2 is more likely to stop you getting down to half health so you don't need it.
How viable would it be to add ranger?
You could argue that 1 level monk would be decent...but would not use the claws as a BA unless the DM allowed it. And I would only do after 5th level.
You would:
Attack! (of course)
Attack once with short sword
Attack once with claw...which allows you to attack again with claw
BA Martial Arts you would get an unarmed strike. So 4 attacks at 6th level while you are raging with the claws. 1 would be with a sword, 2 with the claw, 1 unarmed strike. They would all receive benefits from the rage damage though so that's nice.
I think I would actually allow claws themselves (and tail and bite) to count as monk weapons. In fact, RAW I think they do, and it makes some sense. They count as simple melee weapons, and have neither the heavy nor the two handed properties, and the monk abilities say nothing about holding them in your hands. So there would be no need for the short sword in that arrangement.
saddly raw its split into martal, simple, unarmed, and natral weapons.
True, however:
Good Point!
I certainly would rule this way then.