If a level 5 path of the Beast barbarian was wielding two shortswords would he be able to attack once with his shortsword, bonus action to attack with his offhand, then free object interaction to sheath a sword, use his second attack with a claw and then get the free extra claw attack?
If a level 5 path of the Beast barbarian was wielding two shortswords would he be able to attack once with his shortsword, bonus action to attack with his offhand, then free object interaction to sheath a sword, use his second attack with a claw and then get the free extra claw attack?
I believe so, but on a turn you can either draw or sheath your weapon as a free action, not both. On the next round you won't be able to do it.
If a level 5 path of the Beast barbarian was wielding two shortswords would he be able to attack once with his shortsword, bonus action to attack with his offhand, then free object interaction to sheath a sword, use his second attack with a claw and then get the free extra claw attack?
I believe so, but on a turn you can either draw or sheath your weapon as a free action, not both. On the next round you won't be able to do it.
I think, technically, you could: On the second round you would claw attack, free extra claw attack, object interaction draw sword, attack with one sword, bonus action attack with other sword.
However, I find both of these to be more like exploits than legitimate strategies. It's a ridiculous sequence of events to imagine, with a warrior continuously sheathing and drawing an offhand sword in the middle of a fight. I encourage my players to be imaginative and resourceful, but this is neither and would feel pretty stupid. I'd probably try to work with a player to find an alternative, but I think I would actively discourage doing things like this.
If a level 5 path of the Beast barbarian was wielding two shortswords would he be able to attack once with his shortsword, bonus action to attack with his offhand, then free object interaction to sheath a sword, use his second attack with a claw and then get the free extra claw attack?
I believe so, but on a turn you can either draw or sheath your weapon as a free action, not both. On the next round you won't be able to do it.
I think, technically, you could: On the second round you would claw attack, free extra claw attack, object interaction draw sword, attack with one sword, bonus action attack with other sword.
However, I find both of these to be more like exploits than legitimate strategies. It's a ridiculous sequence of events to imagine, with a warrior continuously sheathing and drawing an offhand sword in the middle of a fight. I encourage my players to be imaginative and resourceful, but this is neither and would feel pretty stupid. I'd probably try to work with a player to find an alternative, but I think I would actively discourage doing things like this.
Yeah, I think you're right. I wasn't thinking about it the right way. I also agree with you that it's an exploit, and it's really just a novel one. It isn't super powerful.
I would say no, when your claws are out, you are incapable of gripping a weapon. I'd say that you might be able to grip other things well enough to not drop them, but you could not grip a weapon well enough to wield it.
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 would say no, when your claws are out, you are incapable of gripping a weapon. I'd say that you might be able to grip other things well enough to not drop them, but you could not grip a weapon well enough to wield it.
I'll have to dig it up, but I looked up confirmation that you can attack with a Greatsword (two-handed weapon), and still attack with your claws.
That's also open to debate. The ability clearly says your hand turns into a claw. You are not going to grip a sword with a claw. That's what I would tell a player who asked if he could do that, after I finished laughing. If you assume that you can grip a sword with your claw, then sure, you could do it. If you don't make that assumption, you cannot.
My ruling would be claw or weapon, not both.
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.
That's also open to debate. The ability clearly says your hand turns into a claw. You are not going to grip a sword with a claw. That's what I would tell a player who asked if he could do that, after I finished laughing. If you assume that you can grip a sword with your claw, then sure, you could do it. If you don't make that assumption, you cannot.
My ruling would be claw or weapon, not both.
There's no debate, Sage Advice is the official ruling. Does your house rule apply to Tabaxis and Leonins as well?
That's also open to debate. The ability clearly says your hand turns into a claw. You are not going to grip a sword with a claw. That's what I would tell a player who asked if he could do that, after I finished laughing. If you assume that you can grip a sword with your claw, then sure, you could do it. If you don't make that assumption, you cannot.
My ruling would be claw or weapon, not both.
There's no debate, Sage Advice is the official ruling. Does your house rule apply to Tabaxis and Leonins as well?
To be completely fair, crzyhawk is perfectly entitled to house rule this how he sees fit, not matter what SA says. There are SA rulings which I disagree with which I rule differently to in my own games.
If someone tried to use an exploit on TWF with claws at my table, I tried to stop it, and they got belligerent, I may well break out "if you are going to be a **** about it, you no longer have hands so you can't wield any weapons with claws, end of. Do you really want that?"
That's also open to debate. The ability clearly says your hand turns into a claw. You are not going to grip a sword with a claw. That's what I would tell a player who asked if he could do that, after I finished laughing. If you assume that you can grip a sword with your claw, then sure, you could do it. If you don't make that assumption, you cannot.
My ruling would be claw or weapon, not both.
There's no debate, Sage Advice is the official ruling. Does your house rule apply to Tabaxis and Leonins as well?
To be completely fair, crzyhawk is perfectly entitled to house rule this how he sees fit, not matter what SA says. There are SA rulings which I disagree with which I role differently to in my own games.
If someone tried to use an exploit on TWF with claws at my table, I tried to stop it, and they got belligerent, I may well break out "if you are going to be a **** about it, you no longer have hands so you can't wield any weapons with claws, end of. Do you really want that?"
That's all fine and well, but just I'm just saying it IS a house rule. I would rule that you can't use two-weapon fighting and your claws, because sheathing/drawing your sword each turn is immersion breaking. But not being able to use any weapon/claw combo at all? No way.
I agree DM's can make any house rule they please. But they should at least know when they're making a house rule, and not confuse them with the actual rules.
If a level 5 path of the Beast barbarian was wielding two shortswords would he be able to attack once with his shortsword, bonus action to attack with his offhand, then free object interaction to sheath a sword, use his second attack with a claw and then get the free extra claw attack?
I believe so, but on a turn you can either draw or sheath your weapon as a free action, not both. On the next round you won't be able to do it.
I think, technically, you could: On the second round you would claw attack, free extra claw attack, object interaction draw sword, attack with one sword, bonus action attack with other sword.
However, I find both of these to be more like exploits than legitimate strategies. It's a ridiculous sequence of events to imagine, with a warrior continuously sheathing and drawing an offhand sword in the middle of a fight. I encourage my players to be imaginative and resourceful, but this is neither and would feel pretty stupid. I'd probably try to work with a player to find an alternative, but I think I would actively discourage doing things like this.
That was more of a base rule check. As far as not having a situation where the use of two weapon fighting and use of claws would make sense, I think that would depend on the creativity of the player. A player could just as easily dual wield hand axes, and be throwing one of the axes as part of the combo, and I think there are plenty of situations where a barbarian may want to toss a weapon at range before charging in.
Some people are forgetting, that all the manifested natural weapons, (bite, crawl and tail) are explicitly written as "simple weapons"
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.
Some people are forgetting, that all the manifested natural weapons, (bite, crawl and tail) are explicitly written as "simple weapons"
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.
I don't think anyone has forgotten that. It's been mentioned several times on several threads on this subject, and was mentioned at the start of this thread. It just isn't relevant to the discussion of whether TWF works with Beast Claws RAW.
Some people are forgetting, that all the manifested natural weapons, (bite, crawl and tail) are explicitly written as "simple weapons"
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.
Just to restate, the relevant text is that TWF requires you to be holding weapons in your hand. You neither have hands nor are you holding your claws. Your simple weapon claws are weapons only when they're not holding something by the feature's definition:
Each of your hands transforms into a claw, which you can use as a weapon if it’s empty.
As an aside, I'd argue that this wording strongly implies that the claws can still hold weapons, because it references them holding things but does not go on to say that holding things works any differently.
RAW at level 5 you could attack with a Greatsword then 2 claw attacks. Not a huge boost, but it works. Heavy weapons only require 2 hands while attacking, you can still hold them with 1 hand.
Longtooth Shifters can also use their Bonus Action to make another attack. Giving 3 attacks at level 3 and 4 attacks at level 5. About 41.5 damage 5d6+24.
RAW at level 5 you could attack with a Greatsword then 2 claw attacks. Not a huge boost, but it works. Heavy weapons only require 2 hands while attacking, you can still hold them with 1 hand.
Longtooth Shifters can also use their Bonus Action to make another attack. Giving 3 attacks at level 3 and 4 attacks at level 5. About 38 damage (1d6+6)x4.
This got me to look at Longtooth Shifter again. I had previously discounted them because previously they could only bite once they are shifted. This meant that you couldn't bite until round 3 because your first Bonus Action was Rage, then Shift, and finally Bite.
However the Monsters of the Multiverse version gets to make a bite attack as part of the shifting bonus action. Also you get to shift a number of times per long rest instead of once per short rest. This lines up with your number of rages per long rest you get very closely.
I don't think the intent was for the barbarian to lose his 'hands', but have more of a clawed hand. After all it doesn't mention that you can no longer drink potions (or interact with things) if you have the claws out. and I think you kinda need something hand-like enough to keep making use of that. So, unless the ability states that you can no longer make use of something that would require a hand, you don't lose the hand part for your claws IMO.
There's also the dragon hide feat that allows dragonborn to make claw-fingernail's grow. You could argue that that one specifies you keep your hand, but again the others don't specify that you lose them either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Definitely a valid interpretation. You have convinced me, not RAW.
Again, this is where the idea of gameplay vs game rules get super weird.
I mean, we got people here debating philosophical semantics. Literally asking “what is a hand?” and “what does it mean to ‘wield’?”
That's part of the fun :)
If a level 5 path of the Beast barbarian was wielding two shortswords would he be able to attack once with his shortsword, bonus action to attack with his offhand, then free object interaction to sheath a sword, use his second attack with a claw and then get the free extra claw attack?
I believe so, but on a turn you can either draw or sheath your weapon as a free action, not both. On the next round you won't be able to do it.
I think, technically, you could: On the second round you would claw attack, free extra claw attack, object interaction draw sword, attack with one sword, bonus action attack with other sword.
However, I find both of these to be more like exploits than legitimate strategies. It's a ridiculous sequence of events to imagine, with a warrior continuously sheathing and drawing an offhand sword in the middle of a fight. I encourage my players to be imaginative and resourceful, but this is neither and would feel pretty stupid. I'd probably try to work with a player to find an alternative, but I think I would actively discourage doing things like this.
Yeah, I think you're right. I wasn't thinking about it the right way. I also agree with you that it's an exploit, and it's really just a novel one. It isn't super powerful.
I would say no, when your claws are out, you are incapable of gripping a weapon. I'd say that you might be able to grip other things well enough to not drop them, but you could not grip a weapon well enough to wield it.
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'll have to dig it up, but I looked up confirmation that you can attack with a Greatsword (two-handed weapon), and still attack with your claws.
Edit: Here it is
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2020/01/18/path-of-the-beast-lot-of-debate-now-about-being-able-to-hold-a-weapon-and-use-the-claws/
That's also open to debate. The ability clearly says your hand turns into a claw. You are not going to grip a sword with a claw. That's what I would tell a player who asked if he could do that, after I finished laughing. If you assume that you can grip a sword with your claw, then sure, you could do it. If you don't make that assumption, you cannot.
My ruling would be claw or weapon, not both.
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
There's no debate, Sage Advice is the official ruling. Does your house rule apply to Tabaxis and Leonins as well?
To be completely fair, crzyhawk is perfectly entitled to house rule this how he sees fit, not matter what SA says. There are SA rulings which I disagree with which I rule differently to in my own games.
If someone tried to use an exploit on TWF with claws at my table, I tried to stop it, and they got belligerent, I may well break out "if you are going to be a **** about it, you no longer have hands so you can't wield any weapons with claws, end of. Do you really want that?"
That's all fine and well, but just I'm just saying it IS a house rule. I would rule that you can't use two-weapon fighting and your claws, because sheathing/drawing your sword each turn is immersion breaking. But not being able to use any weapon/claw combo at all? No way.
I agree DM's can make any house rule they please. But they should at least know when they're making a house rule, and not confuse them with the actual rules.
That was more of a base rule check. As far as not having a situation where the use of two weapon fighting and use of claws would make sense, I think that would depend on the creativity of the player. A player could just as easily dual wield hand axes, and be throwing one of the axes as part of the combo, and I think there are plenty of situations where a barbarian may want to toss a weapon at range before charging in.
Some people are forgetting, that all the manifested natural weapons, (bite, crawl and tail) are explicitly written as "simple weapons"
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.
I don't think anyone has forgotten that. It's been mentioned several times on several threads on this subject, and was mentioned at the start of this thread. It just isn't relevant to the discussion of whether TWF works with Beast Claws RAW.
Just to restate, the relevant text is that TWF requires you to be holding weapons in your hand. You neither have hands nor are you holding your claws. Your simple weapon claws are weapons only when they're not holding something by the feature's definition:
As an aside, I'd argue that this wording strongly implies that the claws can still hold weapons, because it references them holding things but does not go on to say that holding things works any differently.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
RAW at level 5 you could attack with a Greatsword then 2 claw attacks. Not a huge boost, but it works. Heavy weapons only require 2 hands while attacking, you can still hold them with 1 hand.
Longtooth Shifters can also use their Bonus Action to make another attack. Giving 3 attacks at level 3 and 4 attacks at level 5. About 41.5 damage 5d6+24.
2d6 Greatsword, 1d6(x2) claws, 1d6 bite.
+6 per attack (+4 STR, +2 Rage).
This got me to look at Longtooth Shifter again. I had previously discounted them because previously they could only bite once they are shifted. This meant that you couldn't bite until round 3 because your first Bonus Action was Rage, then Shift, and finally Bite.
However the Monsters of the Multiverse version gets to make a bite attack as part of the shifting bonus action. Also you get to shift a number of times per long rest instead of once per short rest. This lines up with your number of rages per long rest you get very closely.
I don't think the intent was for the barbarian to lose his 'hands', but have more of a clawed hand. After all it doesn't mention that you can no longer drink potions (or interact with things) if you have the claws out. and I think you kinda need something hand-like enough to keep making use of that. So, unless the ability states that you can no longer make use of something that would require a hand, you don't lose the hand part for your claws IMO.
There's also the dragon hide feat that allows dragonborn to make claw-fingernail's grow. You could argue that that one specifies you keep your hand, but again the others don't specify that you lose them either.