Either way, Sage Advice already clarified it as being only with the claws. So he probably, like any reasonable person, doesn't think it needs further clarification after "it can be an attack with your claws and nothing else".
Sage advice is also rulings. Not rules. And is not raw.
things that are actual rules, and raw, get added as errata.
so, his opinion, is as much effecting the raw as yours or mine. As you insult me and call me unreasonable.
If I was insulting someone, "unreasonable" is not on the list of words I would use.
Ultimately all the rules are just opinions, but he's the designer of the subclass so his opinion and ruling is germane to the question if whether or not you can use the 3rd attack to hit with a weapon instead of the claws. Even if you want to continue using the wording to defend the position, it's pointless.
But to be technical to the nth power, the wording says "your hands transform into claws" not "you grow claws on your hands". So by that wording, you don't have a way to hold a weapon anymore because you now have claws, not hands.
....
okay. Forget defending the position. Let’s explain what CLAWS are:
an eagle has claws. It can lift and pick things up.
crabs and lobsters have claws. They can grab things.
I believe the fundamental issue here is the lack of biological knowledge, possibly by the creator of the subclass this is all germane to, about biological anatomy and what “claws” are.
i believe, going off his “clarification” and your defense thus far. That the both of you are thinking of claws as only a nail. Like on the fictional velociraptors of Jurassic Park. When the reality in nature of claws, is drastically different.
cats have claws. Have you never seen a cat pick things up? eagles have claws, have you never seen them pick things up? bears? lobsters? Crabs?
i could go on and on.
the facts still remain. Raw. Is based off the wording of how things are written. And based off of the census agreed upon definition of a word.
most people do not think of a claw as being only fingernails. But I could be mistaken about the younger generations. 🤷🏼♂️. Most people do not think with and using mean the same thing. Ex: “I’m with my gf.” Vs “I’m using my gf”. Or “I’ll be with my boat” vs “I’ll be using my boat”. “I’ll be with my phone” vs “I’ll be using my phone”.
the guy doesn’t clarify things further. He seems overly defensive of it. And as pointed out by other people here in this very thread. The damage die with it doesn’t scale well enough to be useful for mid game or late game levels anyways. So it’s entirely flavor based, or for low levels.
so... if it’s entirely flavor based like that, why would it make sense to shoot down raw interpretations, that add flavor, to a flavor thing to begin with? Not what he INTENDED. Rai. Not raw. He has a vision for it, and he’s defensive about it. Human nature.
OMG dude. unless the claws your hands transform into are assumed to have opposing digits, then you would not have paws, digits, or opposing talons such as a crab, cat, or eagle. Really this whole idea just reinforces the point. yes, some animals with opposing claws can grab things, but thats it. they can't manipulate handles that were built for humanoid hands.
Also, it's not for adding flavor, it's trying to find a way to gain an advantage that isn't there. If a DM allowed this, then a player could use dual wielder to potentially deal more damage than he could otherwise.
As written it's playtest material anyway and not set rules, but taking your argument and using it in actual sentences related to weapons, it changes. Words, as you say, matter and the verb, as well as the object of the preposition, matters in determining the meaning of the sentence and the relative meaning of the preposition itself. Grammatically, instances exist in which the two words are interchangeable and have the same meaning. You specifically chose dissimilar usages to support your position even though they are incongruous to the argument. However, here are some sentences using a similar sentence structure in order to show how the two words at times can be interchanged depending on the context of the sentence.
I am digging a hole with a spade...I am digging a hole using a spade.
I am writing this with a pen...I am writing this using a pen
I attack with my claws...I attack using my claws
it's already been clarified "it can be an attack with your claws and nothing else" and beat to death to be the same thing in this instance. so lets look at a potential conversation at the table.
player: "the rule says literally 'you can make one additional attack using your claws as part of the same action' so i can use my claws to hold a greataxe and hit with it."
dm: "no. it says you can make an attack using your claws. it doesn't say you can wield a weapon using your claws to attack."
player: "but the rule doesn't say i can't do that as part of this"
dm:
dm:
dm: "the answer is no. it says you can attack 'using your claws' not 'using your claws to wield a greataxe'".
You are incorrect in thinking it can be used this way. If you allow it, fine. If your DM allows it, fine. But thats not what it is and you'd be knowingly using it incorrectly in order to gain a bigger weapon damage dice and hiding it under the guise of flavor and I'd tell you to take your rocks and get off my table if you tried to pull something like that because it's obviously just trying to powergame the rule.
OMG dude. unless the claws your hands transform into are assumed to have opposing digits, then you would not have paws, digits, or opposing talons such as a crab, cat, or eagle. Really this whole idea just reinforces the point. yes, some animals with opposing claws can grab things, but thats it. they can't manipulate handles that were built for humanoid hands.
Also, it's not for adding flavor, it's trying to find a way to gain an advantage that isn't there. If a DM allowed this, then a player could use dual wielder to potentially deal more damage than he could otherwise.
As written it's playtest material anyway and not set rules, but taking your argument and using it in actual sentences related to weapons, it changes. Words, as you say, matter and the verb, as well as the object of the preposition, matters in determining the meaning of the sentence and the relative meaning of the preposition itself. Grammatically, instances exist in which the two words are interchangeable and have the same meaning. You specifically chose dissimilar usages to support your position even though they are incongruous to the argument. However, here are some sentences using a similar sentence structure in order to show how the two words at times can be interchanged depending on the context of the sentence.
I am digging a hole with a spade...I am digging a hole using a spade.
I am writing this with a pen...I am writing this using a pen
I attack with my claws...I attack using my claws
it's already been clarified "it can be an attack with your claws and nothing else" and beat to death to be the same thing in this instance. so lets look at a potential conversation at the table.
player: "the rule says literally 'you can make one additional attack using your claws as part of the same action' so i can use my claws to hold a greataxe and hit with it."
dm: "no. it says you can make an attack using your claws. it doesn't say you can wield a weapon using your claws to attack."
player: "but the rule doesn't say i can't do that as part of this"
dm:
dm:
dm: "the answer is no. it says you can attack 'using your claws' not 'using your claws to wield a greataxe'".
You are incorrect in thinking it can be used this way. If you allow it, fine. If your DM allows it, fine. But thats not what it is and you'd be knowingly using it incorrectly in order to gain a bigger weapon damage dice and hiding it under the guise of flavor and I'd tell you to take your rocks and get off my table if you tried to pull something like that because it's obviously just trying to powergame the rule.
[REDACTED]
2. Your example even shows its RAI vs RAW which is hard for you to grasp.
I don't see anything in that post that even remotely resembles a racial slur. Also, there's a zero percent chance that I would /ever/ allow someone to rules lawyer using your "claws" . It says "Your hands transform into claws, which deal 1d6 slashing damage on a hit." My ruling would be that you no longer have fingers with which to grip your greataxe. Not "you grow claws from your fingers", it's "your hands turn into claws". I'd say the ability does exactly what it says it does, and much like a druid in beast form cannot use it's equipment, the beast path barb would have the same problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I believe the fundamental issue here is the lack of biological knowledge,
I don't think that is the fundamental issue here…
As to the original question, it needs to be stressed that this is UA material. By definition it is unpolished, unfinished, and unchecked (to some extent). Part of the reason that WOTC publish it is so that the D&D community (us :-) can act as spelling and grammar checkers as well as game testers.
We shouldn't be parsing every word and sentence fragment - it wasn't written by lawyers and it wasn't written to be precise and exact. We should be trying the UA rules in our game and giving feedback. So, in your game, try out allowing a weapon attack as part of Form of the Beast. Let us know how you got on. Was it OP? UP? Just right?
I believe the fundamental issue here is the lack of biological knowledge,
I don't think that is the fundamental issue here…
As to the original question, it needs to be stressed that this is UA material. By definition it is unpolished, unfinished, and unchecked (to some extent). Part of the reason that WOTC publish it is so that the D&D community (us :-) can act as spelling and grammar checkers as well as game testers.
We shouldn't be parsing every word and sentence fragment - it wasn't written by lawyers and it wasn't written to be precise and exact. We should be trying the UA rules in our game and giving feedback. So, in your game, try out allowing a weapon attack as part of Form of the Beast. Let us know how you got on. Was it OP? UP? Just right?
And yet people’s understanding of what claws are keeps coming up without being right.
your last paragraph is the key point though. And 1 I whole heartedly agree with. And have even commented on. When the discussion hasn’t been taken off topic.
the claws are mostly flavor. The entire ability is less effective than just using weapons normally like a barbarian. Whether you use the claws for improvised flavor stuff. Or go crazy and use weapons for the mechanic advantage. It’s still overall UP compared to most other Barbarians and their abilities.
I have tried it. Both the Bite and the Tail are significantly better than the claws.
at 10th level sure using the claws gives you 1 extra attack total For your infectious fury that the enemy has to save against you to avoid a possible 2d12 psychic damage. But this feature can only be used as many times as your con mod. So 1-7 times per LONG rest.
Compared to the bite which does better damage. Heals you a tiny bit of hp (1-7). Or the tail, which has reach to start. And 2nd is a d12 vs d6 of the claws.
There’s a lot about it that needs reworking and rewording. But the creator, again as evidenced above, is a pretty defensive guy about this.
Edit: tail is essentially 3x the max damage possible of a whip. And is still rage weapon. And unlike the lance which is 2 handed and has side effects. The tail can be used with a shield.
1d12 +str + rage 10ft reach. That’s nice. Like a bugbear with a great axe. But this is a weapon always there.
the bite. Heals on hits Once on each turn. That adds up. And since Barbarians *typically* rage and take half damage. This allows them once a turn to get some Hp back for if they want to go crit fishing by going reckless more often. With less of a risk of going down.
by comparison the claws d6 with an extra attack one time per round... is very very paltry.
I’d say the bite and tail are potentially op and need to be toned down rather than making the claws better. Claws are equivalent to a short sword or scimitar which is about what I’d expect a bonus action attack to balance as.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think you can attack with them as a bonus action as well. The feature refers to them as "natural melee weapons" and nowhere in that does it mention unarmed strikes. Since they are considered melee weapons, then technically you would be dual wielding them. So, 3 attacks at lvls 1-4, and 4 attacks at lvl 5.
I think you can attack with them as a bonus action as well. The feature refers to them as "natural melee weapons" and nowhere in that does it mention unarmed strikes. Since they are considered melee weapons, then technically you would be dual wielding them. So, 3 attacks at lvls 1-4, and 4 attacks at lvl 5.
being natural weapons rules them out of twf. there is a requirement for twf of being a "light" weapon and natural weapons do not have the "light" property.
Could be cheeky and take to dual wielder feat, removes the "light" requirement, though probably still doesn't meet the requirement of one handed melee weapon unfortunately.
What if the Dual Wielder feat was taken? That removes the need for them to be light. Would that give the bonus action attack? Also, the weretoutched links all refer to the attacks as unarmed strikes, while the Path of the Beast's are not unarmed strikes, and are therefore melee weapon attacks.
EDIT: I am now realizing that the claws don't need the bonus action attack to be on par or better than a barb with dual wielder d8 weapons. Having the cap at 3 attacks makes sense because the ability modifier and rage damage is added on to all of the attacks. It's probably more balanced to not have the Dual Wielder feat work with these based on sheer damage output.
Granting advantage on claw attacks isn’t the issue here. The issue is that at later levels, your claws won’t do nearly as much damage as magical weapons and items players would normally find. Besides, granting advantage to hit with claws is pretty redundant when the Reckless Attack feature already exists.
But it says the claw attack is part of the same action. So wouldn't I be able to attack twice with claws, then use my extra attack for 3, then as a bonus action I can use a light weapon? Maybe the claws
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
....
okay. Forget defending the position. Let’s explain what CLAWS are:
https://www.britannica.com/science/claw
an eagle has claws. It can lift and pick things up.
crabs and lobsters have claws. They can grab things.
I believe the fundamental issue here is the lack of biological knowledge, possibly by the creator of the subclass this is all germane to, about biological anatomy and what “claws” are.
i believe, going off his “clarification” and your defense thus far. That the both of you are thinking of claws as only a nail. Like on the fictional velociraptors of Jurassic Park. When the reality in nature of claws, is drastically different.
cats have claws. Have you never seen a cat pick things up? eagles have claws, have you never seen them pick things up? bears? lobsters? Crabs?
i could go on and on.
the facts still remain. Raw. Is based off the wording of how things are written. And based off of the census agreed upon definition of a word.
most people do not think of a claw as being only fingernails. But I could be mistaken about the younger generations. 🤷🏼♂️. Most people do not think with and using mean the same thing. Ex: “I’m with my gf.” Vs “I’m using my gf”. Or “I’ll be with my boat” vs “I’ll be using my boat”. “I’ll be with my phone” vs “I’ll be using my phone”.
the guy doesn’t clarify things further. He seems overly defensive of it. And as pointed out by other people here in this very thread. The damage die with it doesn’t scale well enough to be useful for mid game or late game levels anyways. So it’s entirely flavor based, or for low levels.
so... if it’s entirely flavor based like that, why would it make sense to shoot down raw interpretations, that add flavor, to a flavor thing to begin with? Not what he INTENDED. Rai. Not raw. He has a vision for it, and he’s defensive about it. Human nature.
Blank
OMG dude. unless the claws your hands transform into are assumed to have opposing digits, then you would not have paws, digits, or opposing talons such as a crab, cat, or eagle. Really this whole idea just reinforces the point. yes, some animals with opposing claws can grab things, but thats it. they can't manipulate handles that were built for humanoid hands.
Also, it's not for adding flavor, it's trying to find a way to gain an advantage that isn't there. If a DM allowed this, then a player could use dual wielder to potentially deal more damage than he could otherwise.
As written it's playtest material anyway and not set rules, but taking your argument and using it in actual sentences related to weapons, it changes. Words, as you say, matter and the verb, as well as the object of the preposition, matters in determining the meaning of the sentence and the relative meaning of the preposition itself. Grammatically, instances exist in which the two words are interchangeable and have the same meaning. You specifically chose dissimilar usages to support your position even though they are incongruous to the argument. However, here are some sentences using a similar sentence structure in order to show how the two words at times can be interchanged depending on the context of the sentence.
I am digging a hole with a spade...I am digging a hole using a spade.
I am writing this with a pen...I am writing this using a pen
I attack with my claws...I attack using my claws
it's already been clarified "it can be an attack with your claws and nothing else" and beat to death to be the same thing in this instance. so lets look at a potential conversation at the table.
player: "the rule says literally 'you can make one additional attack using your claws as part of the same action' so i can use my claws to hold a greataxe and hit with it."
dm: "no. it says you can make an attack using your claws. it doesn't say you can wield a weapon using your claws to attack."
player: "but the rule doesn't say i can't do that as part of this"
dm:
dm:
dm: "the answer is no. it says you can attack 'using your claws' not 'using your claws to wield a greataxe'".
You are incorrect in thinking it can be used this way. If you allow it, fine. If your DM allows it, fine. But thats not what it is and you'd be knowingly using it incorrectly in order to gain a bigger weapon damage dice and hiding it under the guise of flavor and I'd tell you to take your rocks and get off my table if you tried to pull something like that because it's obviously just trying to powergame the rule.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137390-weretouched-beasthide
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137424-weretouched-longtooth
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137431-weretouched-razorclaw
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137461-weretouched-swiftstride
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137646-weretouched-wildhunt
[REDACTED]
2. Your example even shows its RAI vs RAW which is hard for you to grasp.
3. You have been ignored for racial slurs.
[REDACTED]
Blank
1. If you use Google search, the very first example is the spade.
https://www.google.com/search?q=with or using&oq=with&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i60j69i61j69i60.1031j0j7&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/155829/using-versus-with
I was quoting it. Done and done.
2. My example shows the two words mean the same thing depending on context.
3. Good. I'd rather not have discussions with someone who, when challenged, resorts to calling me racist instead of staying on topic.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137390-weretouched-beasthide
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137424-weretouched-longtooth
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137431-weretouched-razorclaw
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137461-weretouched-swiftstride
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137646-weretouched-wildhunt
I don't see anything in that post that even remotely resembles a racial slur. Also, there's a zero percent chance that I would /ever/ allow someone to rules lawyer using your "claws" . It says "Your hands transform into claws, which deal 1d6 slashing damage on a hit." My ruling would be that you no longer have fingers with which to grip your greataxe. Not "you grow claws from your fingers", it's "your hands turn into claws". I'd say the ability does exactly what it says it does, and much like a druid in beast form cannot use it's equipment, the beast path barb would have the same problem.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I don't think that is the fundamental issue here…
As to the original question, it needs to be stressed that this is UA material. By definition it is unpolished, unfinished, and unchecked (to some extent). Part of the reason that WOTC publish it is so that the D&D community (us :-) can act as spelling and grammar checkers as well as game testers.
We shouldn't be parsing every word and sentence fragment - it wasn't written by lawyers and it wasn't written to be precise and exact. We should be trying the UA rules in our game and giving feedback. So, in your game, try out allowing a weapon attack as part of Form of the Beast. Let us know how you got on. Was it OP? UP? Just right?
And yet people’s understanding of what claws are keeps coming up without being right.
your last paragraph is the key point though. And 1 I whole heartedly agree with. And have even commented on. When the discussion hasn’t been taken off topic.
the claws are mostly flavor. The entire ability is less effective than just using weapons normally like a barbarian. Whether you use the claws for improvised flavor stuff. Or go crazy and use weapons for the mechanic advantage. It’s still overall UP compared to most other Barbarians and their abilities.
I have tried it. Both the Bite and the Tail are significantly better than the claws.
at 10th level sure using the claws gives you 1 extra attack total For your infectious fury that the enemy has to save against you to avoid a possible 2d12 psychic damage. But this feature can only be used as many times as your con mod. So 1-7 times per LONG rest.
Compared to the bite which does better damage. Heals you a tiny bit of hp (1-7). Or the tail, which has reach to start. And 2nd is a d12 vs d6 of the claws.
There’s a lot about it that needs reworking and rewording. But the creator, again as evidenced above, is a pretty defensive guy about this.
Edit: tail is essentially 3x the max damage possible of a whip. And is still rage weapon. And unlike the lance which is 2 handed and has side effects. The tail can be used with a shield.
1d12 +str + rage 10ft reach. That’s nice. Like a bugbear with a great axe. But this is a weapon always there.
the bite. Heals on hits Once on each turn. That adds up. And since Barbarians *typically* rage and take half damage. This allows them once a turn to get some Hp back for if they want to go crit fishing by going reckless more often. With less of a risk of going down.
by comparison the claws d6 with an extra attack one time per round... is very very paltry.
Blank
I’d say the bite and tail are potentially op and need to be toned down rather than making the claws better. Claws are equivalent to a short sword or scimitar which is about what I’d expect a bonus action attack to balance as.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I think you can attack with them as a bonus action as well. The feature refers to them as "natural melee weapons" and nowhere in that does it mention unarmed strikes. Since they are considered melee weapons, then technically you would be dual wielding them. So, 3 attacks at lvls 1-4, and 4 attacks at lvl 5.
being natural weapons rules them out of twf. there is a requirement for twf of being a "light" weapon and natural weapons do not have the "light" property.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137390-weretouched-beasthide
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137424-weretouched-longtooth
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137431-weretouched-razorclaw
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137461-weretouched-swiftstride
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137646-weretouched-wildhunt
Could be cheeky and take to dual wielder feat, removes the "light" requirement, though probably still doesn't meet the requirement of one handed melee weapon unfortunately.
Good Evening,
This is a place for Civil discourse, please keep it as such.
Thanks!
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] - [ Homebrew Rules ] - [ D&D Beyond FAQ ] - [ Homebrew FAQ ] - [ Homebrew Video Tutorials ]
Standard "free" content is restricted to the D&D 5th Edition Basic Rules, SRD, and other free content.
Lol what happened?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137390-weretouched-beasthide
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137424-weretouched-longtooth
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137431-weretouched-razorclaw
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137461-weretouched-swiftstride
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137646-weretouched-wildhunt
Guessing the stuff with eightpackilla up above.
What if the Dual Wielder feat was taken? That removes the need for them to be light. Would that give the bonus action attack? Also, the weretoutched links all refer to the attacks as unarmed strikes, while the Path of the Beast's are not unarmed strikes, and are therefore melee weapon attacks.
EDIT: I am now realizing that the claws don't need the bonus action attack to be on par or better than a barb with dual wielder d8 weapons. Having the cap at 3 attacks makes sense because the ability modifier and rage damage is added on to all of the attacks. It's probably more balanced to not have the Dual Wielder feat work with these based on sheer damage output.
yep.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137390-weretouched-beasthide
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137424-weretouched-longtooth
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137431-weretouched-razorclaw
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137461-weretouched-swiftstride
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137646-weretouched-wildhunt
Granting advantage on claw attacks isn’t the issue here. The issue is that at later levels, your claws won’t do nearly as much damage as magical weapons and items players would normally find. Besides, granting advantage to hit with claws is pretty redundant when the Reckless Attack feature already exists.
So at level 5 can I attack 4 times with my claws?
RAW, no. Max is 2 claws, 2 shortswords/scimitars. With a feat, you can go to 2 claws, 2 rapiers.
But it says the claw attack is part of the same action. So wouldn't I be able to attack twice with claws, then use my extra attack for 3, then as a bonus action I can use a light weapon? Maybe the claws