How many attacks can you make with Path of the Beast using claws at level 5? (Action: Attack, Extra Attack, Class Feature Additional Claw Attack; Bonus Action: Claw Attack) More specifically, can you make an attack with Path of the Beast as a bonus action?
I've written this post because I've seen a lot of people arguing RAW you can't get off a bonus action 4th attack... I agree RAW doesn't allow it but should you allow it is the question. The RAW argument relies on 1) the class feature does not label the claws "Light" allowing them to be used as a bonus action; and 2) Dual Wielder Feat would normally overcome the "light" weapon requirement but it uses the language of being "wielded." A good example is the Armblade. It contains express language that "While it is extended, you can use the weapon as if you were holding it, and you can't use that hand for other purposes."
So I would agree the RAW arguments are, in fact correct... but they shouldn't be (in my opinion). You can work around to get the four attacks as mentioned below. The real question is should you have to work around it by being an even bigger rules lawyer. This is where you work with your DM. I think you should just treat the Class feature as if it said the same language quoted above for the Armblade. You either treat the Claws as if they can't be used for another purpose or they can. If they can't, you can use the bonus action with the dual wielder feat (if your DM doesn't allow you to call them "Light").
TLDR: RAW Allows A Bonus Action Attack with A Certain Action Economy, But Not With The Claw Itself
If you want to use your bonus action while dual wielding...
Setup: Barbarian with two (2) Short Swords and is raging.
Attack 1 (Action): Short Sword 1d6+Str+Rage
Drop 1 Short Sword (Free Action)
Attack 2, Extra (Action) Claw 1d6+Str+Rage
Attack 3, Class Feature (Action) Claw 1d6+Str+Rage
Pickup 1 Short Sword (Interact With Object)
Attack 4, Offhand (Bonus) Short Sword 1d6+Rage *Take Fighting Style for +Str
This does the exact same thing as if you just called it claws rather than short sword except it uses your Free Action and Interact With Object. (Sage Advice)
Two Weapon Fighting
Take attack action (Yes)
and attack (singular) with a light melee weapon holding in one hand (Yes)
Attack with a different light melee weapon holding in the other hand (Yes)
DW Feat
+1 AC while wielding separate melee weapon in each hand. You lose the +1 AC for a brief moment while clawing during turn but it goes back after your turn.
The removal of the light requirement allows you to actually substitute two of the 1d6's for 1d8's.
The being able to draw two weapons is unnecessary because you only drop one... but it makes some situations easier.
If you just want comparable damage to three claw attacks (1d6+Str+Rage) and a BA Claw Attack (1d6+Rage), then RAW you could use a Heavy Weapon:
Setup: Barbarian with Great Sword and Claws and is raging.
Attack 1 (Action): Great Sword 2d6+Str+Rage
Attack 2, Extra (Action) Claw 1d6+Str+Rage
Attack 3, Class Feature (Action) Claw 1d6+Str+Rage
Here you simply exchanged your 1d6 BA Claw into the extra damage provided by the Great Sword... you miss out on the BA Rage Damage (+2) and potentially a chance to crit on 1d6 BA.
Definitions and Mechanics
So if RAW allows it if you jump through hoops, the rest of this is to explain why other ways don't allow it by RAW but suggest why RAI it should be permitted.
Path of the Beast 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.
Claws. Each of your hands transforms into a claw, which you can use as a weapon if it’s empty. It deals 1d6 slashing damage on a hit. Once on each of your turns when you attack with a claw using the Attack action, you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.
Two Weapon Fighting (PHB)
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack
Dual Wielder Feat
Dual Wielder You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand. You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light. You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
So your claws count as a "Simple Melee Weapon"... just like a club or a dagger.
Note that it never says you have to use both claws to make all three attacks.
If you want to use a Bonus Action to make an attack, it either needs to be a Light Weapon or you need the Dual Wielder Feat.
If you want to add your Strength Modifier to the Bonus Action attack, you need the Fighting Style Two Weapon Fighting (either through a 1 level Fighter dip or feat)
Two obstacles are whether your claws are "Light Weapons" and if you are "Wielding" your claws. If they aren't light weapons, you need the dual wielder feat. If the claws that have extended from your hand are not considered to be "wielded" by you, then they don't qualify under the Dual Wielder Feat.
Are your Claws Light Weapons?
The PHB defines Light Weapons:
Light. A light weapon is small and easy to handle, making it ideal for use when fighting with two weapons. See the rules for two-weapon fighting in chapter 9.
Short answer is RAW Claws are not Light Weapons because the barbarian feature does not label them as light.
Practically speaking, Claws extending from your fingernails are about as small and easy to handle as you can get. It doesn't get more "light" than claws for a simple weapon. So RAW, it is not labeled "Light", but claws arguably fit the definition of "Light"... something to consider but it doesn't overturn RAW.
It is important to note that the "list" in the PHB is not an exhaustive list of weapons. As stated in the PHB before the tables, "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess." I would submit its not a stretch of the imagination to allow it.
Are your Claws being "Wielded"?
Mentions of "Wield" on PHB combat section:
A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time
Whether you favor a longsword or a longbow, your weapon and your ability to wield it effectively can mean the difference between life and death while adventuring.
An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
This is what RAW will direct your attention to for DW Feat, that your claws are not "carried." The strange part is that Path of the Beast Claws are not unarmed strikes... they are simple weapons (as explained below). So they are simple weapons that you aren't holding... its a very unique RAW classification.
Are Your Claws "Natural Weapons" Like Alter Self and Unarmed Strikes?
Yes and no. The Path of the Beast weapons state they are "natural weapons." However, the next sentence states they "count as Simple Weapons." The spell Alter Self states they count as "Unarmed Strikes." Unarmed strikes operate differently than Simple Weapons.
Monk Weapon and Monk Multiclass
What does the PHB say about Monk Weapons?
Martial Arts
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your unarmed strikes and monk weapons.
You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn.
Certain monasteries use specialized forms of the monk weapons. For example, you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama). Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game statistics provided for the weapon in the Weapons section.
So with a one level dip into monk, you would be allowed to make the Attack, Extra Attack, and Class Feature Extra Claw attack (3 attacks), but could you make a bonus action with the Path of the Beast Claw Attack? Above, it says while the attacks can be with a monk weapon (which your Path of the Beast Claws are), the bonus action has to be an unarmed strike.
What is silly is if you have the claws from Alter Self, they are unarmed strikes and would qualify for Martial Arts... but with Path of the Beast your Claws are Simple Weapons... so Path of the Beast Claws don't get the benefit of Unarmed Attack but also don't get the benefit of being a "wielded" weapon...the terminology places you in a strange limbo where you are effectively neither... while definitively you have a simple weapon.
Ok My Head Hurts, What Are The Solutions?
If you want RAW, see the beginning of the Post... there is not a way that I can think of to use the Claw as a Bonus Action Attack... but you can get a bonus action attack other ways while still getting off an attack, extra attack, and class feature additional attack.
1+ Monk / X Barbarian AND Fighter's "Unarmed Fighting" Technique (1 level dip fighter or Tasha's "Fighting Initiate" Feat)
This combo unlocks Bonus Actions for Unarmed Strikes after using Monk Weapons (Claw Attack).
Unarmed Fighting Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren’t wielding any weapons or a shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8. At the start of each of your turns, you can deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage to one creature grappled by you.
Ironically, your fist does a 1d8 with the Optional Fighting Style and your claws only do a 1d6... the trade off is (assuming level 5 and 20 Strength, 2 rage damage)... not using Claws (1d8+7; 1d8+7; 1d8+7) versus using Claws (1d6+7;1d6+7;1d6+7;1d8+7)...
*Completely random side note. If someone tells you, well your hand can't switch from being a Path of Beast Claw (Simple Weapon) to Fist (Unarmed Strike).... first that is moot because an unarmed strike can be any part of your character's body (eg. headbutt, kick) but I think that's an interesting counter-point when it is argued a Claw is not being "wielded"... effectively.
Barbarian Path of the Beast AS IS
As Is, the question is whether your Claw is a "Light Weapon" that can be swung as a bonus action without strength modifier (1d6 only+Rage). RAW, your Claw is NOT a light weapon. Again, I believe it justifiably should be due to the discussion above, but that is opinion. It is NOT an unarmed strike... its a simple weapon... my ruling is you would be wielding it for purposes of PHB Two Weapon Fighting.
To perform this RAW, you will need to hold the two light weapons as explained at the beginning and drop/sheath your weapon to claw then pickup/draw it. If your DM makes you do this, see if they will allow you to reflavor (visually) the short swords as claws.
Barbarian Path of the Beast with Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting (Fighter, Ranger, or Feat)
If your DM does is going to require RAW, then this will not work without the action economy laid out at the beginning of this post.
You make 3 claw attacks and to make your bonus action a 1d6+Str+Rage... if you want to add your strength modifier... you will need the Two Weapon Fighting Style (either a dip into Fighter or the feat) and if you need it for "non-light" weapons you will need the Dual Wielding Feat.
(Wielding Two Light Weapons in your Hand): Bonus Action: Attack -> Free Action: Drop Light Weapon -> Action: 3 Claw Attacks -> Interact With Object: Pickup Light Weapon
That seems really dumb compared to just saying you make another attack with your claw.... this is why I would allow the bonus action 1d6+Rage.
Does The Math Make Allowing It Worth Arguing Over?
Does possibly having 4x(1d6+7) claw attacks during your limited rages seem overpowered? Compare it to a fighter at level 5 who can take the dual wielder feat for 3x(1d8+5) infinitely. Also this is the main mechanic of Barbarian Path of the Beast... compared to the example above where you could add on Battlemaster Maneuver Die to your attacks every short rest.
Compare:
Path of the Beast: 3x(1d6+Str+Rage) + 1d6+Rage (Arguing over whether 1d6 can be added or whether it can be 1d6+Str with Two Weapon Fighting Style Feat/Fighter Dip)
Path of the Zealot: 2x(1d12+Str+Rage) +1d6 + Half Barb level (No BA, Can also use Heavy Weapon Master and/or Polearm Master)
Path of the Storm Herald: 2x(1d12+Str+Rage) + 1d6 (Scaling/save) (Can also use HWM or PAM)
Fighter: 2x(1d12+Str) + Battle Master Die (Short Rest cooldown)... Can Also use Action Surge to be 4x (Can also use Heavy Weapon Master and/or Polearm Master)
In my opinion, it seems pretty ridiculous to say you can't make the extra 1d6 or 1d6+Str with a feat investment to me in conjunction with the distinctions previously discussed.
This post is to allow you to come to your own opinion on whether you want to adhere strictly to RAW, or step in as a DM and make your own determination. Just make sure you work it out with your player in advance. This is also very niche as it is a very particular play style... so it may not even come up.
The claws are incompatible with TWF. Not only do they lack the Light property, even if you circumvent that with the Dual Wielder feat the Two-Weapon Fighting rules require you to hold two melee weapons. That's why they already come with a free attack built in.
The claws are incompatible with TWF. Not only do they lack the Light property, even if you circumvent that with the Dual Wielder feat the Two-Weapon Fighting rules require you to hold two melee weapons. That's why they already come with a free attack built in.
Respectfully, I think you missed the point of the entire post where this is addressed and this comment is why I made the post. I discuss the issue with Wielding (not "holding") and Light. The point of the Post is to show the gaps in the RAW and why its probably fine to allow it.
But to throw a different perspective at it, here is something RAW:
Setup: Barbarian with two (2) Short Swords and is raging.
Attack 1 (Action): Short Sword 1d6+Str+Rage
Drop 1 Short Sword (Free Action)
Attack 2, Extra (Action) Claw 1d6+Str+Rage
Attack 3, Class Feature (Action) Claw 1d6+Str+Rage
Pickup 1 Short Sword (Interact With Object)
Attack 4, Offhand (Bonus) Short Sword 1d6+Rage *Take Fighting Style for +Str
This does the exact same thing as if you just called it claws rather than short sword except it uses your Free Action and Interact With Object. (Sage Advice)
Two Weapon Fighting
Take attack action (Yes)
and attack (singular) with a light melee weapon holding in one hand (Yes)
Attack with a different light melee weapon holding in the other hand (Yes)
DW Feat
+1 AC while wielding separate melee weapon in each hand. You lose the +1 AC for a brief moment while clawing during turn but it goes back after your turn.
The removal of the light requirement allows you to actually substitute two of the 1d6's for 1d8's.
The being able to draw two weapons is unnecessary because you only drop one... but it makes some situations easier.
This is the difference between RAW and RAI and being too strict in a game of imagination... I see no reason why you can't just call them "claws" rather than "short swords"... yes you could agree to tax them their free action and interact with object to call it the same...
Claws extending from your fingernails are about as small and easy to handle as you can get. It doesn't get more "light" than claws for a simple weapon. However, there are those that would say if the claws were intended to be classified as "light", then it would have said so in the description of the Path of the Beast weapons.
It is important to note that the "list" in the PHB is not an exhaustive list of weapons. As stated in the PHB before the tables, "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess."
This line of reasoning really weakens your whole post. They're not light unless it says they're light. The wording on features like this is very precise for the express purpose of defeating these kinds of interactions. They get two terms: natural and simple. That's all you get. And really, it's all you need. I've built several of these guys lately and they perform just fine as written.
Think of it as that extra attack being your DW off-hand attack for free. If you want to get fancy, there are plenty of other fun things you can do with your BA that don't require a 5-page thesis arguing why the thing you want to do might work.
This is the difference between RAW and RAI and being too strict in a game of imagination... I see no reason why you can't just call them "claws" rather than "short swords"... yes you could agree to tax them their free action and interact with object to call it the same...
This is like saying if you don't give me a huge anime sword that does 3d12 damage you're being too strict in a game of imagination. The rules exist for a reason, and be honest - you are not deprived of any roleplaying purposes by only being able to make 3 attacks instead of 4.
If you want to do your short sword trick, go ahead - but it's not the same as claws. There are several cases where that sword would not be so easy to pick up after you drop it, especially considering that climbing on walls and ceilings is kind of your schtick. And if someone tries to bust out the "I tie my sword to my wrist" thing I'm just going to break out the DM blue lightning and end it right there. There's finding fun rule loopholes and then there's willfully bending reality to try to get what you want. This feels a lot more like the latter.
This has been covered several times, and the rules as written unfortunately do not allow it.
TWF: "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand"
I don't think you can reasonably claim that you are holding your claws in one hand, especially seeing as you do not even have hands at this point. The Claw rules say "Each of your hands transforms into a claw, which you can use as a weapon if it’s empty".
TWF Fighting Style: "When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack."
You are not engaged in two-weapon fighting, as shown above, so it doesn't apply.
Dual Wielder Feat:
"You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand." You do not have hands, so RAW this doesn't apply.
"You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light." This just removes the light requirement, IMHO. The weapons still need to be in your hands, and you do not have hands.
"You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one." You don't draw or stow your natural weapons.
Now, that's RAW. I think I would allow the AC bonus from Dual Wielder to apply, and I might, possibly, allow a player with the Dual Wielder to get away with using tail or bite as a one handed weapon for the purposes of getting a bonus action attack, but they would definitely be house rules. However, you are already getting an additional attack from the claws, and I feel that is intended to cover the fact that you are effectively dual wielding them (as well as being better than TWF), so would not grant the bonus action.
Claws extending from your fingernails are about as small and easy to handle as you can get. It doesn't get more "light" than claws for a simple weapon. However, there are those that would say if the claws were intended to be classified as "light", then it would have said so in the description of the Path of the Beast weapons.
It is important to note that the "list" in the PHB is not an exhaustive list of weapons. As stated in the PHB before the tables, "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess."
This line of reasoning really weakens your whole post. They're not light unless it says they're light. The wording on features like this is very precise for the express purpose of defeating these kinds of interactions. They get two terms: natural and simple. That's all you get. And really, it's all you need. I've built several of these guys lately and they perform just fine as written.
Think of it as that extra attack being your DW off-hand attack for free. If you want to get fancy, there are plenty of other fun things you can do with your BA that don't require a 5-page thesis arguing why the thing you want to do might work.
This is the difference between RAW and RAI and being too strict in a game of imagination... I see no reason why you can't just call them "claws" rather than "short swords"... yes you could agree to tax them their free action and interact with object to call it the same...
This is like saying if you don't give me a huge anime sword that does 3d12 damage you're being too strict in a game of imagination. The rules exist for a reason, and be honest - you are not deprived of any roleplaying purposes by only being able to make 3 attacks instead of 4.
If you want to do your short sword trick, go ahead - but it's not the same as claws. There are several cases where that sword would not be so easy to pick up after you drop it, especially considering that climbing on walls and ceilings is kind of your schtick. And if someone tries to bust out the "I tie my sword to my wrist" thing I'm just going to break out the DM blue lightning and end it right there. There's finding fun rule loopholes and then there's willfully bending reality to try to get what you want. This feels a lot more like the latter.
First, the "line of reasoning" is the point in that I understand RAW, I spell that out that RAW it does not say they are light... but it fits within the definition of light so it is illuminating those distinctions.
Setup: Barbarian with two (2) Short Swords and is raging.
Attack 1 (Action): Short Sword 1d6+Str+Rage
Drop 1 Short Sword (Free Action)
Attack 2, Extra (Action) Claw 1d6+Str+Rage
Attack 3, Class Feature (Action) Claw 1d6+Str+Rage
Pickup 1 Short Sword (Interact With Object)
Attack 4, Offhand (Bonus) Short Sword 1d6+Rage *Take Fighting Style for +Str
Second, the second quote and your comment kind of proves my point. "The Rules exist for a reason." The context in which that statement was made was showing you RAW does allow it with the weapon dropping (see above). So if you are going to argue strict compliance with RAW, I believe you have to allow it.
If you want to do your short sword trick, go ahead - but it's not the same as claws. There are several cases where that sword would not be so easy to pick up after you drop it, especially considering that climbing on walls and ceilings is kind of your schtick. And if someone tries to bust out the "I tie my sword to my wrist" thing I'm just going to break out the DM blue lightning and end it right there. There's finding fun rule loopholes and then there's willfully bending reality to try to get what you want. This feels a lot more like the latter.
Its problematic to cling to RAW when you want to adjudicate it one way then claim it a "loophole" when it goes another way, it seems dismissive and arbitrary. That's the entire point of the post... when you interpreted my comment on RAW and RAI in a game of imagination... I think you interpreted that as an excuse to expand rule structure.... its not... its saying its an opportunity to fill the gaps created within RAW.
I guess its the lawyer in me that just has a problem with if someone is going to be the type of DM that says RAW ONLY(which is fine in and of itself) but then call certain aspects of RAW "loopholes"... then the point of the post is to show RAW does in fact allow it. This is essentially the "legal" argument (RAW).The other part of the post is equity (RAI), in that RAW allows it but others, like yourself, are uncomfortable with it. That's kind of the point, if you don't strictly adhere to RAW, then it becomes subjective. This post is to navigate the subjective.
Also to your point that "it's not the same as claws"... this is not disputed. You can get magical weapons that add +1, +2, +3 to attack while the claws do not, the weapons by default do not get the level 6 bonus for magical weapons... etc. But you can sheath the sword rather than drop it... I just chose to write "drop it". So your claim that if someone tries to tie it to their wrist I'm breaking out the DM blue lighting and end it really doesn't make sense as they can just sheath it.
Ironically I don't use the Claw Attacks, I use tail or bite to free up my characters hands to grapple.... but I felt like posting this for those that are into using the claws. Thank you for your input.
I guess its the lawyer in me that just has a problem with if someone is going to be the type of DM that... call certain aspects of RAW "loopholes"
In this, I will pretty much agree. There is no such thing as a loophole in RAW. The rules are written, they mean exactly what they say and not a word more or less, whether they make sense or not, and whether this is the intent or not.
Loopholes only appear when you try to look at RAI. If the exact wording says one thing, but there is an interpretation which makes it behave differently than intended or a missing word/phrase which allows unintended behaviour, this is a loophole.
I follow the technical side of Formula One. Generally, this follows the system of "anything which is not prohibited is allowed", and this frames my PoV on rules in general. Most of the time, when a team gains an advantage, it is because they have spotted a gap in the rules or a different interpretation of them. The intent of the rules doesn't really matter, the letter of them does. I'm aware that D&D is not quite the same (being a non-competitive framework rather than a technical competition), but this is always my first point of reference when looking at any rule.
That said, in this instance the precise wording does stop all the TWF rules from working with claws RAW, as I expressed above.
I discuss the issue with Wielding (not "holding") and Light.
You did not address the requirement for the weapons to be held at all. That's explicitly written in the TWF rules. Your reasoning for the weapons being light is also dubious at best; while the PH equipment list is not exhaustive, that doesn't mean you get to make up properties for weapons that aren't on the list. The rules for the weapon tell you how to handle it, and the light property was deliberately not included.
The point of the Post is to show the gaps in the RAW and why its probably fine to allow it.
The game's not going to break if someone were to allow it, just like it probably wouldn't break if you let wizards swing great swords. But to call it a gap in the RAW is a stretch.
But to throw a different perspective at it, here is something RAW:
Setup: Barbarian with two (2) Short Swords and is raging.
Attack 1 (Action): Short Sword 1d6+Str+Rage
Drop 1 Short Sword (Free Action)
Attack 2, Extra (Action) Claw 1d6+Str+Rage
Attack 3, Class Feature (Action) Claw 1d6+Str+Rage
Pickup 1 Short Sword (Interact With Object)
Attack 4, Offhand (Bonus) Short Sword 1d6+Rage *Take Fighting Style for +Str
This does the exact same thing as if you just called it claws rather than short sword except it uses your Free Action and Interact With Object. (Sage Advice)
Your argument is basically that because a loophole lets you do silly things like drop and pick up a weapon every turn to get around other limitations imposed by the rules, other equally silly things should also be allowed. For a DM the solution to this is simple: disallow the original shenanigans. In hindsight, listing "picking up a dropped axe" as an example of a free object interaction was a bad call on the part of the Player's Handbook authors, and the object interaction rules allow the DM to require a whole action when interacting with an object if they see fit.
It's plenty clear the game's designers intended TWF to work with held weapons only, which is why natural weapons and the monk class's martial arts never use those rules. It's also plenty clear they want at most 1 free attack on top of whatever your Attack action can do. Every way of getting even more attacks round after round in the Player's Handbook uses your bonus action (e.g. Frenzy, Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, Two-Weapon Fighting, Martial Arts.) Anything that would let you go over that limit is a limited resource (e.g. the monk's Flurry of Blows uses ki.)
Over time they've realized this isn't a great approach for classes that already have iconic features tied to their bonus action. If they made the free claw attack a bonus action you wouldn't be able to use it on the same turn you rage, so they built the free attack into the Attack action instead. They did the same thing with the Ranger's new Favored Foe feature; if they'd made it a bonus action it'd get in the way of TWF so instead they made marking an enemy part of your attack.
1) You are correct I've edited the post to be clear that RAW they are not Light... it was a long post and I'm sitting here with COVID... not an excuse I went back and made it clear as I agree RAW it is ultimately not "Light" if it does not say it is in the Class Feature... My post is to show gaps in the RAW... essentially RAI... this is subjective and is not meant to be viewed as advocating RAW... My writing is not an argument as to why it should be ruled RAW... its why its not blasphemous to allow it as there are gaps. What RAW does allow is the drop/sheathing of the weapon... the post is to say why its ok to just "allow" the bonus action with 1d6+Rage... which the latter is opinion.
2) I think you are making a false dichotomy. I'm not advocating for Wizards getting Greatswords as you've extrapolated. There is a difference in pointing out gaps within RAW as opposed to just stacking on new privileges/rules onto the framework. The post was to navigate through this. If you believe it is still stacking, that is your opinion you are entitled to as I have no greater authority than anyone else on these subjects.
3) The "Loopehole" argument is kind of the entire point. If you kneel before RAW as objective truth, then to then chip away at it as having "Loopholes" makes it subjective. Once you step away from RAW as objective truth, then picking and choosing makes it subjective... It is fine if you rule that way, I just want you to recognize you are making a subjective decision... just like someone who leans the other way of what I have put in my post. Its when people call something a "loophole" but don't recognize they are, in fact, deviating from RAW when they say this.
I also think its interesting "its pretty clear they want at most 1 free attack on top of whatever your attack action can do"? Really, where are you getting this from? Class features allow for unique exceptions. Gloomstalker Rangers get an additional attack on their first round and could get three more attacks on top of that... The point is there is a limitation on it... Gloom Stalker gets once at the beginning of every combat... Barbarians only get it equal to their number of their limited number of rages. There are pros and cons to each depending on how many combats or how generous your DM is with long rests (most of the time my campaigns have long rests very spread out to balance short rests and long rest characters).
A hardline rule I have as a DM is if one adjudication, ruling, or magic item infringes upon features/powers of another class, its a big no-no. I will acknowledge I am not well versed on Monk. If this usurps a Monk's utility entirely, then I would not allow it. However, I am aware that Monk's operate on short rests and there are other features....
I mean I guess technically your drop sword - pick up sword juggling technique works to milk out an extra attack. But that is some grade A cheese. You'd get a hardy laugh from my group and then the DM would tell you no. That is some excessive rules lawyering that completely lacks an identity as a choice outside of mechanics. You're never going to convince anyone that is your character's "fighting style" the way you would describe a fencer to your party. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
If you want a bonus action attack on a beast barb just be an elf and wield a double-bladed scimitar. Or dip into monk.
I think you would have been better served not discussing RAI at all. I think it only serves to bifurcate the discussion around two very different concerns. Either it's a subjective argument about personal opinions on what a natural weapon should be, or it's about factual interpretations of the rules as written. The two are working against each other to muddle the discussion.
I have researched the hell out of this and I have only found two ways to get a bonus action attack.
1. Be the Shifter Longtooth race, which can shift (as a bonus action) once per short rest, and has a 1D6 bite attack as a bonus action. The upside to this is you also get some temporary hit points when you shift, and it’s thematic and flavorful. The downside is it is once per short rest, and it will take two rounds to go into rage, and then shift, and only then can you make four attacks.
2. Double-bladed scimitar. This is a great option, but the downside is it’s DM dependent, if you’re not an elf that’s another factor (look up the weapon for details), and also eventually you’ll want a magic version for weapon resistance.
Essentiallly, the absolute best solution is a very special weapon.
Alternatively, holding a shield AND making three attacks makes outclass any normal sword and board Barbarian or Fighter. And you can always take the Shield Master Feat for a bonus action shove prone. Aside from others getting advantage on the prone foe, if you couple this with the Slasher feat, by the time they get up they have 5 feet of movement left.
I mean I guess technically your drop sword - pick up sword juggling technique works to milk out an extra attack. But that is some grade A cheese. You'd get a hardy laugh from my group and then the DM would tell you no. That is some excessive rules lawyering that completely lacks an identity as a choice outside of mechanics. You're never going to convince anyone that is your character's "fighting style" the way you would describe a fencer to your party. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
If you want a bonus action attack on a beast barb just be an elf and wield a double-bladed scimitar. Or dip into monk.
I think you would have been better served not discussing RAI at all. I think it only serves to bifurcate the discussion around two very different concerns. Either it's a subjective argument about personal opinions on what a natural weapon should be, or it's about factual interpretations of the rules as written. The two are working against each other to muddle the discussion.
The point of mentioning the "technique" is not to justify it standing on its own... the point is in fact to say it is the result of following RAW as form over substance... it results in you, the decision maker, to decide RAW needs to be intervened by the DM... here you argue "then the DM would tell you no". Its RAW, so the DM has deviated from RAW... the point of spelling it out in detail is why I believe that subjective decision can just as easily be to allow it.
You say, "That is some excessive rules lawyering that lacks an identity of choice outside of mechanics." Exactly. You draw that line at my combination above. It's RAW, but that is where you draw the line to not adhere to RAW (which is fine). Many others would draw your same conclusion at not calling claws "Light" and not saying you are "Wielding" them. The combo is just as valid RAW as the arguments Light/Wielding arguments. Whether you draw the line in the sand at Light/Wielding for the Claws or at stopping the aforementioned Combo... that line drawing in the sand is subjectively turning against RAW. You've really emphasized the point I'm trying to make.
Dipping into Monk allows you to make an unarmed strike, but the claws are not an unarmed strike (unlike Alter Self)... it would require further investment as mentioned in the post. Its a lot of hoops to jump through.
The discussion is bifurcated, and it does muddle the discussion (I agree)... but I wanted to provide those definitions to allow people, in one post without having to bounce around, see why people argue one way or another and come to their own conclusion.
I have researched the hell out of this and I have only found two ways to get a bonus action attack.
1. Be the Shifter Longtooth race, which can shift (as a bonus action) once per short rest, and has a 1D6 bite attack as a bonus action. The upside to this is you also get some temporary hit points when you shift, and it’s thematic and flavorful. The downside is it is once per short rest, and it will take two rounds to go into rage, and then shift, and only then can you make four attacks.
2. Double-bladed scimitar. This is a great option, but the downside is it’s DM dependent, if you’re not an elf that’s another factor (look up the weapon for details), and also eventually you’ll want a magic version for weapon resistance.
Essentiallly, the absolute best solution is a very special weapon.
Alternatively, holding a shield AND making three attacks makes outclass any normal sword and board Barbarian or Fighter. And you can always take the Shield Master Feat for a bonus action shove prone. Aside from others getting advantage on the prone foe, if you couple this with the Slasher feat, by the time they get up they have 5 feet of movement left.
Thanks for letting me know those other two! I also agree the utility in having the Shield Master Feat with simply the three attacks.
I do not see a situation where I would want to make four attacks with the Claws. I personally run mine with a the Bite/Tail using the Piercer feat allowing both hands to either Shield + Grapple/Shove or Grapple/Shove two opponents. I also want to 3 level dip into Rune Fighter to allow for a size change to grapple huge creatures. I usually prefer a more utility/defensive play style to setup teammates.
I only made this post because I see a lot of people who want to be able to make the four attacks... but I see responses handwaving its not allowed while others have said they would allow it. I just wanted to create a resource for people to look it up, see the RAW, then come to their own decision.
When I look at it, my reading of the intent is that they knew claws wouldn't allow TWF so, instead, they gave you an equivalent but better version. You get the additional attack, without using your bonus action or losing your ability modifier on the damage, and with no requirement to use both hands (so leaving the other to be used for a shield, weapon, or something else). Given that, and the fact that a RAW reading would almost certainly disallow it, would lead me to rule against.
As for the sword dropping shenanigans, I appreciate it as an exercise in creative rules lawyering and exploitation. However, if a player actually tried to use that while I was DMing and I allowed it, it wouldn't be long before the enemies started kicking the sword away or finding other methods of disrupting the exploit.
When I look at it, my reading of the intent is that they knew claws wouldn't allow TWF so, instead, they gave you an equivalent but better version. You get the additional attack, without using your bonus action or losing your ability modifier on the damage, and with no requirement to use both hands (so leaving the other to be used for a shield, weapon, or something else). Given that, and the fact that a RAW reading would almost certainly disallow it, would lead me to rule against.
As for the sword dropping shenanigans, I appreciate it as an exercise in creative rules lawyering and exploitation. However, if a player actually tried to use that while I was DMing and I allowed it, it wouldn't be long before the enemies started kicking the sword away or finding other methods of disrupting the exploit.
I think those are all fair points and I think if you are the DM it is within your decision making power to come to that opinion and decision. My opinion in this post that I would allow it, is just that, an opinion. Hopefully this post allows people to weigh the decision on their opinions.
Or better yet have an official ruling.
I would enjoy the look on the players face when the monster held its action to grab the weapon ;) ... the jig is up! " It would be matched by the look on the DM's face when they heard, "I draw my backup sword!" It gets into the realm of ridiculous :p
Dipping monk is just another way to gain A bonus action attack. Not a bonus action attack with a claw. Just the same as the double bladed scimitar.
You say, "That is some excessive rules lawyering that lacks an identity of choice outside of mechanics." Exactly. You draw that line at my combination above. It's RAW, but that is where you draw the line to not adhere to RAW (which is fine). Many others would draw your same conclusion at not calling claws "Light" and not saying you are "Wielding" them. The combo is just as valid RAW as the arguments Light/Wielding arguments. Whether you draw the line in the sand at Light/Wielding for the Claws or at stopping the aforementioned Combo... that line drawing in the sand is subjectively turning against RAW. You've really emphasized the point I'm trying to make.
This is an incredibly subjective sentence. The word valid is dangerous. Your argument is that RAW and logic have equal footing when it comes to decision making in DnD. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't anywhere close to being objectively true. I think how hard you have been trying to make that point has only worked against you here. It has nothing to do with creating a resource for beast barb bonus actions. A simple list of RAW options, and then RAI options would suffice.
And to be clear, I have no problem with discussing the logic (or lack thereof) in how the rules work. I just think it should have been made a separate thread.
2) I think you are making a false dichotomy. I'm not advocating for Wizards getting Greatswords as you've extrapolated. There is a difference in pointing out gaps within RAW as opposed to just stacking on new privileges/rules onto the framework.
I'm not. You can try to justify almost anything as being a "gap within the RAW." I chose the wizards-with-greatswords example because 1) it's harmless enough that you can make the case it could be allowed but 2) it still obviously goes against what the game's designers intended. It's no different from insisting Beast Barbarians ought to be able to get yet another free attack with their claws despite the rules not supporting it. The only difference between the two examples is that you're inclined to believe one was an error of omission.
3) The "Loopehole" argument is kind of the entire point. If you kneel before RAW as objective truth, then to then chip away at it as having "Loopholes" makes it subjective. Once you step away from RAW as objective truth, then picking and choosing makes it subjective...
I'm not picking and choosing. The intent behind the rules is clear in both cases. The claws are intended to give you one additional attack and the object interaction rules were not intended to be paired with deliberately dropping your weapon for action economy shenanigans. That's a valid thing for me to do when you're trying to make the case that the claws are intended to be light, TWF-compatible weapons.
I also think its interesting "its pretty clear they want at most 1 free attack on top of whatever your attack action can do"? Really, where are you getting this from? Class features allow for unique exceptions.
I listed pretty much everything in the Player's Handbook that gives you an additional attack and that isn't a limited resource; all of them are mutually exclusive. The game's lead rules designer has also said many times they don't want action economy bloat, which is why the limit of 1 bonus action per turn is so important and why nearly everything that gives you something extra to do on your turn is tied to a bonus action. Dread Ambusher doesn't contradict my point - while it stacks with other sources of additional attacks it's a once-per-combat deal. You don't get to do it over and over again.
My point boils down to this: there's absolutely no reason to think a bonus action claw attack is intended and a whole bunch of reasons to think it's not. There are no natural weapons or unarmed strikes that use the TWF rules; the Tabaxi race's claws don't, the claws from Alter Self don't and neither do the Path of the Beast's claws. Heck, not even the Soulknife's Psychic Blades use the TWF rules and those actually have weapon properties (finesse and thrown.) The one free attack the feature gives you when using both hands is perfectly in line with the TWF rules, martial arts and psychic blade rules. By what stretch of the imagination is a raging barbarian which gets a damage bonus to strength-based hit entitled to yet another attack beyond that?
A side note, I don't mean to sound offensive but dropping your weapon and picking it up every turn to shoehorn a bonus attack into the rules is lame. It would also destroy the weapon constantly being dropped.
Dipping monk is just another way to gain A bonus action attack. Not a bonus action attack with a claw. Just the same as the double bladed scimitar.
You say, "That is some excessive rules lawyering that lacks an identity of choice outside of mechanics." Exactly. You draw that line at my combination above. It's RAW, but that is where you draw the line to not adhere to RAW (which is fine). Many others would draw your same conclusion at not calling claws "Light" and not saying you are "Wielding" them. The combo is just as valid RAW as the arguments Light/Wielding arguments. Whether you draw the line in the sand at Light/Wielding for the Claws or at stopping the aforementioned Combo... that line drawing in the sand is subjectively turning against RAW. You've really emphasized the point I'm trying to make.
This is an incredibly subjective sentence. The word valid is dangerous. Your argument is that RAW and logic have equal footing when it comes to decision making in DnD. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't anywhere close to being objectively true. I think how hard you have been trying to make that point has only worked against you here. It has nothing to do with creating a resource for beast barb bonus actions. A simple list of RAW options, and then RAI options would suffice.
And to be clear, I have no problem with discussing the logic (or lack thereof) in how the rules work. I just think it should have been made a separate thread.
The whole purpose of RAW is objectivity. Saying something is "valid RAW" is literally the opposite of subjective.
I don't establish that individual logic and RAW have equal footing. I established that by RAW you can make four attacks work. It demonstrates a threshold issue for those that cling to RAW to the extent RAW becomes form over substance. From there, it discusses definitions and comparisons to help navigate where DMs want to draw a line in the sand.
If you believe it should have been written in a particular or different way, please feel free to do so and I'm happy to link to it as an additional resource. Thanks!
I have a feeling though, at some point, Jeremy Crawford will make a tweet ruling on it... Making all of this moot :)
Question
How many attacks can you make with Path of the Beast using claws at level 5? (Action: Attack, Extra Attack, Class Feature Additional Claw Attack; Bonus Action: Claw Attack) More specifically, can you make an attack with Path of the Beast as a bonus action?
I've written this post because I've seen a lot of people arguing RAW you can't get off a bonus action 4th attack... I agree RAW doesn't allow it but should you allow it is the question. The RAW argument relies on 1) the class feature does not label the claws "Light" allowing them to be used as a bonus action; and 2) Dual Wielder Feat would normally overcome the "light" weapon requirement but it uses the language of being "wielded." A good example is the Armblade. It contains express language that "While it is extended, you can use the weapon as if you were holding it, and you can't use that hand for other purposes."
So I would agree the RAW arguments are, in fact correct... but they shouldn't be (in my opinion). You can work around to get the four attacks as mentioned below. The real question is should you have to work around it by being an even bigger rules lawyer. This is where you work with your DM. I think you should just treat the Class feature as if it said the same language quoted above for the Armblade. You either treat the Claws as if they can't be used for another purpose or they can. If they can't, you can use the bonus action with the dual wielder feat (if your DM doesn't allow you to call them "Light").
TLDR: RAW Allows A Bonus Action Attack with A Certain Action Economy, But Not With The Claw Itself
If you want to use your bonus action while dual wielding...
Setup: Barbarian with two (2) Short Swords and is raging.
This does the exact same thing as if you just called it claws rather than short sword except it uses your Free Action and Interact With Object. (Sage Advice)
If you just want comparable damage to three claw attacks (1d6+Str+Rage) and a BA Claw Attack (1d6+Rage), then RAW you could use a Heavy Weapon:
Setup: Barbarian with Great Sword and Claws and is raging.
Here you simply exchanged your 1d6 BA Claw into the extra damage provided by the Great Sword... you miss out on the BA Rage Damage (+2) and potentially a chance to crit on 1d6 BA.
Definitions and Mechanics
So if RAW allows it if you jump through hoops, the rest of this is to explain why other ways don't allow it by RAW but suggest why RAI it should be permitted.
Path of the Beast 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.
Claws. Each of your hands transforms into a claw, which you can use as a weapon if it’s empty. It deals 1d6 slashing damage on a hit. Once on each of your turns when you attack with a claw using the Attack action, you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.
Two Weapon Fighting (PHB)
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting (Fighter, Ranger, Fighting Initiate Feat)
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack
Dual Wielder Feat
Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
So your claws count as a "Simple Melee Weapon"... just like a club or a dagger.
Note that it never says you have to use both claws to make all three attacks.
If you want to use a Bonus Action to make an attack, it either needs to be a Light Weapon or you need the Dual Wielder Feat.
If you want to add your Strength Modifier to the Bonus Action attack, you need the Fighting Style Two Weapon Fighting (either through a 1 level Fighter dip or feat)
Two obstacles are whether your claws are "Light Weapons" and if you are "Wielding" your claws. If they aren't light weapons, you need the dual wielder feat. If the claws that have extended from your hand are not considered to be "wielded" by you, then they don't qualify under the Dual Wielder Feat.
Are your Claws Light Weapons?
The PHB defines Light Weapons:
Light. A light weapon is small and easy to handle, making it ideal for use when fighting with two weapons. See the rules for two-weapon fighting in chapter 9.
Short answer is RAW Claws are not Light Weapons because the barbarian feature does not label them as light.
Practically speaking, Claws extending from your fingernails are about as small and easy to handle as you can get. It doesn't get more "light" than claws for a simple weapon. So RAW, it is not labeled "Light", but claws arguably fit the definition of "Light"... something to consider but it doesn't overturn RAW.
It is important to note that the "list" in the PHB is not an exhaustive list of weapons. As stated in the PHB before the tables, "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess." I would submit its not a stretch of the imagination to allow it.
Are your Claws being "Wielded"?
Mentions of "Wield" on PHB combat section:
A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time
Whether you favor a longsword or a longbow, your weapon and your ability to wield it effectively can mean the difference between life and death while adventuring.
An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
This is what RAW will direct your attention to for DW Feat, that your claws are not "carried." The strange part is that Path of the Beast Claws are not unarmed strikes... they are simple weapons (as explained below). So they are simple weapons that you aren't holding... its a very unique RAW classification.
Are Your Claws "Natural Weapons" Like Alter Self and Unarmed Strikes?
Yes and no. The Path of the Beast weapons state they are "natural weapons." However, the next sentence states they "count as Simple Weapons." The spell Alter Self states they count as "Unarmed Strikes." Unarmed strikes operate differently than Simple Weapons.
Monk Weapon and Monk Multiclass
What does the PHB say about Monk Weapons?
Martial Arts
At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property.
You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren’t wearing armor or wielding a shield:
Certain monasteries use specialized forms of the monk weapons. For example, you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama). Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game statistics provided for the weapon in the Weapons section.
So with a one level dip into monk, you would be allowed to make the Attack, Extra Attack, and Class Feature Extra Claw attack (3 attacks), but could you make a bonus action with the Path of the Beast Claw Attack? Above, it says while the attacks can be with a monk weapon (which your Path of the Beast Claws are), the bonus action has to be an unarmed strike.
What is silly is if you have the claws from Alter Self, they are unarmed strikes and would qualify for Martial Arts... but with Path of the Beast your Claws are Simple Weapons... so Path of the Beast Claws don't get the benefit of Unarmed Attack but also don't get the benefit of being a "wielded" weapon...the terminology places you in a strange limbo where you are effectively neither... while definitively you have a simple weapon.
Ok My Head Hurts, What Are The Solutions?
If you want RAW, see the beginning of the Post... there is not a way that I can think of to use the Claw as a Bonus Action Attack... but you can get a bonus action attack other ways while still getting off an attack, extra attack, and class feature additional attack.
1+ Monk / X Barbarian AND Fighter's "Unarmed Fighting" Technique (1 level dip fighter or Tasha's "Fighting Initiate" Feat)
This combo unlocks Bonus Actions for Unarmed Strikes after using Monk Weapons (Claw Attack).
Unarmed Fighting
Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier on a hit. If you aren’t wielding any weapons or a shield when you make the attack roll, the d6 becomes a d8.
At the start of each of your turns, you can deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage to one creature grappled by you.
Ironically, your fist does a 1d8 with the Optional Fighting Style and your claws only do a 1d6... the trade off is (assuming level 5 and 20 Strength, 2 rage damage)... not using Claws (1d8+7; 1d8+7; 1d8+7) versus using Claws (1d6+7;1d6+7;1d6+7;1d8+7)...
*Completely random side note. If someone tells you, well your hand can't switch from being a Path of Beast Claw (Simple Weapon) to Fist (Unarmed Strike).... first that is moot because an unarmed strike can be any part of your character's body (eg. headbutt, kick) but I think that's an interesting counter-point when it is argued a Claw is not being "wielded"... effectively.
Barbarian Path of the Beast AS IS
As Is, the question is whether your Claw is a "Light Weapon" that can be swung as a bonus action without strength modifier (1d6 only+Rage). RAW, your Claw is NOT a light weapon. Again, I believe it justifiably should be due to the discussion above, but that is opinion. It is NOT an unarmed strike... its a simple weapon... my ruling is you would be wielding it for purposes of PHB Two Weapon Fighting.
To perform this RAW, you will need to hold the two light weapons as explained at the beginning and drop/sheath your weapon to claw then pickup/draw it. If your DM makes you do this, see if they will allow you to reflavor (visually) the short swords as claws.
Barbarian Path of the Beast with Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting (Fighter, Ranger, or Feat)
If your DM does is going to require RAW, then this will not work without the action economy laid out at the beginning of this post.
You make 3 claw attacks and to make your bonus action a 1d6+Str+Rage... if you want to add your strength modifier... you will need the Two Weapon Fighting Style (either a dip into Fighter or the feat) and if you need it for "non-light" weapons you will need the Dual Wielding Feat.
(Wielding Two Light Weapons in your Hand): Bonus Action: Attack -> Free Action: Drop Light Weapon -> Action: 3 Claw Attacks -> Interact With Object: Pickup Light Weapon
That seems really dumb compared to just saying you make another attack with your claw.... this is why I would allow the bonus action 1d6+Rage.
Does The Math Make Allowing It Worth Arguing Over?
Does possibly having 4x(1d6+7) claw attacks during your limited rages seem overpowered? Compare it to a fighter at level 5 who can take the dual wielder feat for 3x(1d8+5) infinitely. Also this is the main mechanic of Barbarian Path of the Beast... compared to the example above where you could add on Battlemaster Maneuver Die to your attacks every short rest.
Compare:
Path of the Beast: 3x(1d6+Str+Rage) + 1d6+Rage (Arguing over whether 1d6 can be added or whether it can be 1d6+Str with Two Weapon Fighting Style Feat/Fighter Dip)
Path of the Zealot: 2x(1d12+Str+Rage) +1d6 + Half Barb level (No BA, Can also use Heavy Weapon Master and/or Polearm Master)
Path of the Storm Herald: 2x(1d12+Str+Rage) + 1d6 (Scaling/save) (Can also use HWM or PAM)
Fighter: 2x(1d12+Str) + Battle Master Die (Short Rest cooldown)... Can Also use Action Surge to be 4x (Can also use Heavy Weapon Master and/or Polearm Master)
In my opinion, it seems pretty ridiculous to say you can't make the extra 1d6 or 1d6+Str with a feat investment to me in conjunction with the distinctions previously discussed.
This post is to allow you to come to your own opinion on whether you want to adhere strictly to RAW, or step in as a DM and make your own determination. Just make sure you work it out with your player in advance. This is also very niche as it is a very particular play style... so it may not even come up.
The claws are incompatible with TWF. Not only do they lack the Light property, even if you circumvent that with the Dual Wielder feat the Two-Weapon Fighting rules require you to hold two melee weapons. That's why they already come with a free attack built in.
Respectfully, I think you missed the point of the entire post where this is addressed and this comment is why I made the post. I discuss the issue with Wielding (not "holding") and Light. The point of the Post is to show the gaps in the RAW and why its probably fine to allow it.
But to throw a different perspective at it, here is something RAW:
Setup: Barbarian with two (2) Short Swords and is raging.
This does the exact same thing as if you just called it claws rather than short sword except it uses your Free Action and Interact With Object. (Sage Advice)
This is the difference between RAW and RAI and being too strict in a game of imagination... I see no reason why you can't just call them "claws" rather than "short swords"... yes you could agree to tax them their free action and interact with object to call it the same...
This line of reasoning really weakens your whole post. They're not light unless it says they're light. The wording on features like this is very precise for the express purpose of defeating these kinds of interactions. They get two terms: natural and simple. That's all you get. And really, it's all you need. I've built several of these guys lately and they perform just fine as written.
Think of it as that extra attack being your DW off-hand attack for free. If you want to get fancy, there are plenty of other fun things you can do with your BA that don't require a 5-page thesis arguing why the thing you want to do might work.
This is like saying if you don't give me a huge anime sword that does 3d12 damage you're being too strict in a game of imagination. The rules exist for a reason, and be honest - you are not deprived of any roleplaying purposes by only being able to make 3 attacks instead of 4.
If you want to do your short sword trick, go ahead - but it's not the same as claws. There are several cases where that sword would not be so easy to pick up after you drop it, especially considering that climbing on walls and ceilings is kind of your schtick. And if someone tries to bust out the "I tie my sword to my wrist" thing I'm just going to break out the DM blue lightning and end it right there. There's finding fun rule loopholes and then there's willfully bending reality to try to get what you want. This feels a lot more like the latter.
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
This has been covered several times, and the rules as written unfortunately do not allow it.
TWF: "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand"
I don't think you can reasonably claim that you are holding your claws in one hand, especially seeing as you do not even have hands at this point. The Claw rules say "Each of your hands transforms into a claw, which you can use as a weapon if it’s empty".
TWF Fighting Style: "When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack."
You are not engaged in two-weapon fighting, as shown above, so it doesn't apply.
Dual Wielder Feat:
"You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand." You do not have hands, so RAW this doesn't apply.
"You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light." This just removes the light requirement, IMHO. The weapons still need to be in your hands, and you do not have hands.
"You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one." You don't draw or stow your natural weapons.
Now, that's RAW. I think I would allow the AC bonus from Dual Wielder to apply, and I might, possibly, allow a player with the Dual Wielder to get away with using tail or bite as a one handed weapon for the purposes of getting a bonus action attack, but they would definitely be house rules. However, you are already getting an additional attack from the claws, and I feel that is intended to cover the fact that you are effectively dual wielding them (as well as being better than TWF), so would not grant the bonus action.
First, the "line of reasoning" is the point in that I understand RAW, I spell that out that RAW it does not say they are light... but it fits within the definition of light so it is illuminating those distinctions.
Second, the second quote and your comment kind of proves my point. "The Rules exist for a reason." The context in which that statement was made was showing you RAW does allow it with the weapon dropping (see above). So if you are going to argue strict compliance with RAW, I believe you have to allow it.
Its problematic to cling to RAW when you want to adjudicate it one way then claim it a "loophole" when it goes another way, it seems dismissive and arbitrary. That's the entire point of the post... when you interpreted my comment on RAW and RAI in a game of imagination... I think you interpreted that as an excuse to expand rule structure.... its not... its saying its an opportunity to fill the gaps created within RAW.
I guess its the lawyer in me that just has a problem with if someone is going to be the type of DM that says RAW ONLY(which is fine in and of itself) but then call certain aspects of RAW "loopholes"... then the point of the post is to show RAW does in fact allow it. This is essentially the "legal" argument (RAW).The other part of the post is equity (RAI), in that RAW allows it but others, like yourself, are uncomfortable with it. That's kind of the point, if you don't strictly adhere to RAW, then it becomes subjective. This post is to navigate the subjective.
Also to your point that "it's not the same as claws"... this is not disputed. You can get magical weapons that add +1, +2, +3 to attack while the claws do not, the weapons by default do not get the level 6 bonus for magical weapons... etc. But you can sheath the sword rather than drop it... I just chose to write "drop it". So your claim that if someone tries to tie it to their wrist I'm breaking out the DM blue lighting and end it really doesn't make sense as they can just sheath it.
Ironically I don't use the Claw Attacks, I use tail or bite to free up my characters hands to grapple.... but I felt like posting this for those that are into using the claws. Thank you for your input.
In this, I will pretty much agree. There is no such thing as a loophole in RAW. The rules are written, they mean exactly what they say and not a word more or less, whether they make sense or not, and whether this is the intent or not.
Loopholes only appear when you try to look at RAI. If the exact wording says one thing, but there is an interpretation which makes it behave differently than intended or a missing word/phrase which allows unintended behaviour, this is a loophole.
I follow the technical side of Formula One. Generally, this follows the system of "anything which is not prohibited is allowed", and this frames my PoV on rules in general. Most of the time, when a team gains an advantage, it is because they have spotted a gap in the rules or a different interpretation of them. The intent of the rules doesn't really matter, the letter of them does. I'm aware that D&D is not quite the same (being a non-competitive framework rather than a technical competition), but this is always my first point of reference when looking at any rule.
That said, in this instance the precise wording does stop all the TWF rules from working with claws RAW, as I expressed above.
You did not address the requirement for the weapons to be held at all. That's explicitly written in the TWF rules. Your reasoning for the weapons being light is also dubious at best; while the PH equipment list is not exhaustive, that doesn't mean you get to make up properties for weapons that aren't on the list. The rules for the weapon tell you how to handle it, and the light property was deliberately not included.
The game's not going to break if someone were to allow it, just like it probably wouldn't break if you let wizards swing great swords. But to call it a gap in the RAW is a stretch.
Your argument is basically that because a loophole lets you do silly things like drop and pick up a weapon every turn to get around other limitations imposed by the rules, other equally silly things should also be allowed. For a DM the solution to this is simple: disallow the original shenanigans. In hindsight, listing "picking up a dropped axe" as an example of a free object interaction was a bad call on the part of the Player's Handbook authors, and the object interaction rules allow the DM to require a whole action when interacting with an object if they see fit.
It's plenty clear the game's designers intended TWF to work with held weapons only, which is why natural weapons and the monk class's martial arts never use those rules. It's also plenty clear they want at most 1 free attack on top of whatever your Attack action can do. Every way of getting even more attacks round after round in the Player's Handbook uses your bonus action (e.g. Frenzy, Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, Two-Weapon Fighting, Martial Arts.) Anything that would let you go over that limit is a limited resource (e.g. the monk's Flurry of Blows uses ki.)
Over time they've realized this isn't a great approach for classes that already have iconic features tied to their bonus action. If they made the free claw attack a bonus action you wouldn't be able to use it on the same turn you rage, so they built the free attack into the Attack action instead. They did the same thing with the Ranger's new Favored Foe feature; if they'd made it a bonus action it'd get in the way of TWF so instead they made marking an enemy part of your attack.
Thank you for the post, Urth, you were more concise than me :P
I would ask though on one of your comments:
"You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one." You don't draw or stow your natural weapons.
Just to be clear, if I wasn't, you aren't drawing or stowing the claws, you are drawing/stowing the weapons being wielded (eg. shortsword).
Thank you InquisitiveCoder for the reply.
On your three points:
1) You are correct I've edited the post to be clear that RAW they are not Light... it was a long post and I'm sitting here with COVID... not an excuse I went back and made it clear as I agree RAW it is ultimately not "Light" if it does not say it is in the Class Feature... My post is to show gaps in the RAW... essentially RAI... this is subjective and is not meant to be viewed as advocating RAW... My writing is not an argument as to why it should be ruled RAW... its why its not blasphemous to allow it as there are gaps. What RAW does allow is the drop/sheathing of the weapon... the post is to say why its ok to just "allow" the bonus action with 1d6+Rage... which the latter is opinion.
2) I think you are making a false dichotomy. I'm not advocating for Wizards getting Greatswords as you've extrapolated. There is a difference in pointing out gaps within RAW as opposed to just stacking on new privileges/rules onto the framework. The post was to navigate through this. If you believe it is still stacking, that is your opinion you are entitled to as I have no greater authority than anyone else on these subjects.
3) The "Loopehole" argument is kind of the entire point. If you kneel before RAW as objective truth, then to then chip away at it as having "Loopholes" makes it subjective. Once you step away from RAW as objective truth, then picking and choosing makes it subjective... It is fine if you rule that way, I just want you to recognize you are making a subjective decision... just like someone who leans the other way of what I have put in my post. Its when people call something a "loophole" but don't recognize they are, in fact, deviating from RAW when they say this.
I also think its interesting "its pretty clear they want at most 1 free attack on top of whatever your attack action can do"? Really, where are you getting this from? Class features allow for unique exceptions. Gloomstalker Rangers get an additional attack on their first round and could get three more attacks on top of that... The point is there is a limitation on it... Gloom Stalker gets once at the beginning of every combat... Barbarians only get it equal to their number of their limited number of rages. There are pros and cons to each depending on how many combats or how generous your DM is with long rests (most of the time my campaigns have long rests very spread out to balance short rests and long rest characters).
A hardline rule I have as a DM is if one adjudication, ruling, or magic item infringes upon features/powers of another class, its a big no-no. I will acknowledge I am not well versed on Monk. If this usurps a Monk's utility entirely, then I would not allow it. However, I am aware that Monk's operate on short rests and there are other features....
Thank you again for your thoughts and input.
I mean I guess technically your drop sword - pick up sword juggling technique works to milk out an extra attack. But that is some grade A cheese. You'd get a hardy laugh from my group and then the DM would tell you no. That is some excessive rules lawyering that completely lacks an identity as a choice outside of mechanics. You're never going to convince anyone that is your character's "fighting style" the way you would describe a fencer to your party. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
If you want a bonus action attack on a beast barb just be an elf and wield a double-bladed scimitar. Or dip into monk.
I think you would have been better served not discussing RAI at all. I think it only serves to bifurcate the discussion around two very different concerns. Either it's a subjective argument about personal opinions on what a natural weapon should be, or it's about factual interpretations of the rules as written. The two are working against each other to muddle the discussion.
I have researched the hell out of this and I have only found two ways to get a bonus action attack.
1. Be the Shifter Longtooth race, which can shift (as a bonus action) once per short rest, and has a 1D6 bite attack as a bonus action. The upside to this is you also get some temporary hit points when you shift, and it’s thematic and flavorful. The downside is it is once per short rest, and it will take two rounds to go into rage, and then shift, and only then can you make four attacks.
2. Double-bladed scimitar. This is a great option, but the downside is it’s DM dependent, if you’re not an elf that’s another factor (look up the weapon for details), and also eventually you’ll want a magic version for weapon resistance.
Essentiallly, the absolute best solution is a very special weapon.
Alternatively, holding a shield AND making three attacks makes outclass any normal sword and board Barbarian or Fighter. And you can always take the Shield Master Feat for a bonus action shove prone. Aside from others getting advantage on the prone foe, if you couple this with the Slasher feat, by the time they get up they have 5 feet of movement left.
The point of mentioning the "technique" is not to justify it standing on its own... the point is in fact to say it is the result of following RAW as form over substance... it results in you, the decision maker, to decide RAW needs to be intervened by the DM... here you argue "then the DM would tell you no". Its RAW, so the DM has deviated from RAW... the point of spelling it out in detail is why I believe that subjective decision can just as easily be to allow it.
You say, "That is some excessive rules lawyering that lacks an identity of choice outside of mechanics." Exactly. You draw that line at my combination above. It's RAW, but that is where you draw the line to not adhere to RAW (which is fine). Many others would draw your same conclusion at not calling claws "Light" and not saying you are "Wielding" them. The combo is just as valid RAW as the arguments Light/Wielding arguments. Whether you draw the line in the sand at Light/Wielding for the Claws or at stopping the aforementioned Combo... that line drawing in the sand is subjectively turning against RAW. You've really emphasized the point I'm trying to make.
Dipping into Monk allows you to make an unarmed strike, but the claws are not an unarmed strike (unlike Alter Self)... it would require further investment as mentioned in the post. Its a lot of hoops to jump through.
The discussion is bifurcated, and it does muddle the discussion (I agree)... but I wanted to provide those definitions to allow people, in one post without having to bounce around, see why people argue one way or another and come to their own conclusion.
Thanks for letting me know those other two! I also agree the utility in having the Shield Master Feat with simply the three attacks.
I do not see a situation where I would want to make four attacks with the Claws. I personally run mine with a the Bite/Tail using the Piercer feat allowing both hands to either Shield + Grapple/Shove or Grapple/Shove two opponents. I also want to 3 level dip into Rune Fighter to allow for a size change to grapple huge creatures. I usually prefer a more utility/defensive play style to setup teammates.
I only made this post because I see a lot of people who want to be able to make the four attacks... but I see responses handwaving its not allowed while others have said they would allow it. I just wanted to create a resource for people to look it up, see the RAW, then come to their own decision.
When I look at it, my reading of the intent is that they knew claws wouldn't allow TWF so, instead, they gave you an equivalent but better version. You get the additional attack, without using your bonus action or losing your ability modifier on the damage, and with no requirement to use both hands (so leaving the other to be used for a shield, weapon, or something else). Given that, and the fact that a RAW reading would almost certainly disallow it, would lead me to rule against.
As for the sword dropping shenanigans, I appreciate it as an exercise in creative rules lawyering and exploitation. However, if a player actually tried to use that while I was DMing and I allowed it, it wouldn't be long before the enemies started kicking the sword away or finding other methods of disrupting the exploit.
I think those are all fair points and I think if you are the DM it is within your decision making power to come to that opinion and decision. My opinion in this post that I would allow it, is just that, an opinion. Hopefully this post allows people to weigh the decision on their opinions.
Or better yet have an official ruling.
I would enjoy the look on the players face when the monster held its action to grab the weapon ;) ... the jig is up! " It would be matched by the look on the DM's face when they heard, "I draw my backup sword!" It gets into the realm of ridiculous :p
Dipping monk is just another way to gain A bonus action attack. Not a bonus action attack with a claw. Just the same as the double bladed scimitar.
This is an incredibly subjective sentence. The word valid is dangerous. Your argument is that RAW and logic have equal footing when it comes to decision making in DnD. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't anywhere close to being objectively true. I think how hard you have been trying to make that point has only worked against you here. It has nothing to do with creating a resource for beast barb bonus actions. A simple list of RAW options, and then RAI options would suffice.
And to be clear, I have no problem with discussing the logic (or lack thereof) in how the rules work. I just think it should have been made a separate thread.
I'm not. You can try to justify almost anything as being a "gap within the RAW." I chose the wizards-with-greatswords example because 1) it's harmless enough that you can make the case it could be allowed but 2) it still obviously goes against what the game's designers intended. It's no different from insisting Beast Barbarians ought to be able to get yet another free attack with their claws despite the rules not supporting it. The only difference between the two examples is that you're inclined to believe one was an error of omission.
I'm not picking and choosing. The intent behind the rules is clear in both cases. The claws are intended to give you one additional attack and the object interaction rules were not intended to be paired with deliberately dropping your weapon for action economy shenanigans. That's a valid thing for me to do when you're trying to make the case that the claws are intended to be light, TWF-compatible weapons.
I listed pretty much everything in the Player's Handbook that gives you an additional attack and that isn't a limited resource; all of them are mutually exclusive. The game's lead rules designer has also said many times they don't want action economy bloat, which is why the limit of 1 bonus action per turn is so important and why nearly everything that gives you something extra to do on your turn is tied to a bonus action. Dread Ambusher doesn't contradict my point - while it stacks with other sources of additional attacks it's a once-per-combat deal. You don't get to do it over and over again.
My point boils down to this: there's absolutely no reason to think a bonus action claw attack is intended and a whole bunch of reasons to think it's not. There are no natural weapons or unarmed strikes that use the TWF rules; the Tabaxi race's claws don't, the claws from Alter Self don't and neither do the Path of the Beast's claws. Heck, not even the Soulknife's Psychic Blades use the TWF rules and those actually have weapon properties (finesse and thrown.) The one free attack the feature gives you when using both hands is perfectly in line with the TWF rules, martial arts and psychic blade rules. By what stretch of the imagination is a raging barbarian which gets a damage bonus to strength-based hit entitled to yet another attack beyond that?
A side note, I don't mean to sound offensive but dropping your weapon and picking it up every turn to shoehorn a bonus attack into the rules is lame. It would also destroy the weapon constantly being dropped.
The whole purpose of RAW is objectivity. Saying something is "valid RAW" is literally the opposite of subjective.
I don't establish that individual logic and RAW have equal footing. I established that by RAW you can make four attacks work. It demonstrates a threshold issue for those that cling to RAW to the extent RAW becomes form over substance. From there, it discusses definitions and comparisons to help navigate where DMs want to draw a line in the sand.
If you believe it should have been written in a particular or different way, please feel free to do so and I'm happy to link to it as an additional resource. Thanks!
I have a feeling though, at some point, Jeremy Crawford will make a tweet ruling on it... Making all of this moot :)