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.
It is lame, that's the point! Its RAW, but its lame. Kind of like RAW being Claws are not Light Weapons and are not "Wielded." I think its lame. Hence, the discussion.
A forum discussing the speculation of non-official opinions (including my own) on an ambiguity created in a hobby of collective imagination dictated by a third party source.... is not going to offend lol. Your insight is welcomed and will not offend :) Besides, as a litigation attorney I get argued with all day... I would only be offended if I had a value stake in my position... which I don't. Its an opinion... if it is later invalidated by an official source... great, carry on! lol. Either I follow it or homebrew it... that's the beauty of D&D.
This question is nothing... the question that keeps me up at night is if you multiclass and get Extra Attack and can wild shape into a Rhinoceros... do you apply the charge damage to the second attack!?!?!? lol (I'm kidding... kind of... but that was my first "I don't know /shrug" moment in D&D)
This is why D&D has an advantage over something like a computer game: there is a human being to make judgements.
RAW is a starting point. However, if there is any ambiguity, or if the rules don't seem to make sense in a situation, or if there is a way to play which is more fun, the DM (with the support of the group) can do things differently.
Discussions like this are necessary because:
1) you need to know the starting point. It's like my music composition teacher used to say: you need to know the rules to know when you can break them.
2) Some groups (like AL, as far as I am aware) stick strictly to RAW (which is a perfectly acceptable choice) so need to know exactly what RAW is.
3) Discussing the rules can help people understand the reasons behind them and details hidden within them, which can be useful in deciding how to handle your own house rules or home brew.
That would be SUPER lame, though, to literally set people up for something in what is essentially a sales pitch for the book and then have it be something you can't do in-game
That would be SUPER lame, though, to literally set people up for something in what is essentially a sales pitch for the book and then have it be something you can't do in-game
This is the nature of ambiguities. There's no malice or malicious intent in that author's writing, it was what he believed and/or would rule on. Maybe he would rule differently upon further reading, maybe he wouldn't.
I wrote this post to try and consolidate the definitions so people could make their own decision.
I, personally, think its lame and no doubt would allow someone to just make the bonus action claw attack... I as the DM can always increase the difficulty if it was that big a deal to pair with their experience/damage output. I go so far as to say they are light weapons knowing they are not, RAW, as they are not labeled "light" in the class description... because in my mind I fill that gap by saying 1) they fit the definition provided in the PHB for light; and 2) its not a material difference.
Allowing on Round 2+ of combat (first round they use BA to rage) for a limited number of combats to their rage to have 1d6+2 damage is not a big deal a material factor. My combats also don't usually last more than 3-5 rounds... so its not material in my games... but that's just my games.
I get that calling them "light" is on the further end of the spectrum in deciding this... but the closer decision of whether they are wielding for purposes of DW Feat is harder for me to grasp. I can't get not allowing someone to do 1d6+2 damage with a Feat Investment. To say if someone foregoes ASI and invests a Feat (Dual Wielder Feat)... that they still can't use their BA in round 2+ for like 3 combats per long rest to do 1d6+2 damage because they define "wield" as to "hold" versus to "use" even though its not expressly defined? Keep in mind to compare this Feat investment to Barbarians who spend it on feats like Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master...
Again, this is for just 1d6+2 damage (assuming level 5 with rage)... Remember they don't have the Fighting Style to add their Strength modifier... that would take yet another feat or multi-class dip...
Other DMs will rule it can't be done because they are trying to adhere to the rules framework constructed by the official rule maker to the best of their ability to make sure the game is fair for all players... and that's fine too. I sincerely doubt there are any DMs out there (that keep players at their table) that tell a player "No" because they enjoy telling them no...everyone gets together to have fun. That DM would likely try to work with their player to make it work...
eg. Use a Greatsword (2d6+Str+Rage), then extra attack Claw (1d6+Str+Rage), then Class Feature Claw (1d6+Str+Rage)
Here you simply exchanged your 1d6 BA Claw into the extra damage provided by the Greatsword... you miss out on the BA Rage Damage (+2) and potentially a chance to crit on 1d6 BA... again we are splitting hairs here (again why I as a DM would allow them to just structure it as a BA if they want to just use claws only... not the Heavy weapon and BA). And that comes back to the issue of "wielding"... If someone says you can't wield a Greatsword with your Claws because they are simple weapons and you can only wield one weapon, then you are wielding the Claws... I digress this will spiral into a tangent...
Nobody is wrong here... I'm not wrong and the people who disagree with me aren't wrong. Everyone gets to run their game their way. Everyone is just trying to find the RAW baseline though to make those decisions... I'm sure Sage Advice will address it specifically at some point.
"Everyone is just trying to find the RAW baseline though"
Yep. None of this is about saying that you can't do something or you are wrong to do so. It's about trying to figure out the starting point, that being what the rules say and mean, so people can go forward from there on an informed manner.
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 am late to reply, but want to point out that I was not being arbitrary - I was allowing all of RAW. I am not being subjective here. Which is why I went ahead to list some cases in which your sword trick would have issues when you really follow through with how it would work in a game - I can think of several more really, especially when you're dropping a nice +3 magic weapon around intelligent enemies.
Also, you are incorrect that your sword trick works without dropping. Sheathing a sword requires your object interaction, so then you don't have it to draw your sword later. We tend to think of draws as free with your attack, but they are actually using that interaction. So the trick only works if you drop it. What's not RAW is people's attempt to get around this by declaring they tie their weapon to their wrist or belt so they can have the same effect as sheathing without actually sheathing. That is what I ban because it is neither RAW or RAI.
I think the designers wanted to make the claws work without giving the character proficiency in unarmed attacks (for some reason). Having Path of the Beast claws interact terribly with every other feature in the game was a huge mistake. That said, I think the RAW ruling that you can't make an unarmed attack as a bonus action with a free hand is stupid as well (it stretches credibility that I can make two attacks with the two daggers in my hands, but somehow I can't just punch the guy instead if my offhand is empty). This really is a problem with how two weapon fighting works, and not how Path of the Beast works. PotB just sort of exposes the existing flaws in the system. Ironically, if the TWF rules worked to allow unarmed strikes, it STILL wouldn't work as RAW, since PotB claws are not listed as unarmed attacks. They probably didn't do this because the aforementioned Monk multiclass would be able to use the tail as a reach weapon with flurry of blows... but honestly… why didn't they just allow this? It's not even that good given that pure monks get d8s and higher later anyway. The reason they weren't listed as 'Light' probably is because the Tail and the Muzzle make less sense as 'light'.
As is, you need a ruling from a kind DM to do this in your game.
One somewhat more flavourful way to play this is to just take Thrown Weapon Fighter (from Tashas), and then you can draw and throw two hand axes (one as a bonus action), then use your now free hands to make two attacks. Honestly I don't see the point though unless you really have nothing to do with your bonus action, since the offhand attack lacks your strength bonus anyway. In this case I would argue that just pulling a greataxe and swinging it as the second non-claw attack is just easier, then you don't need to jump through hoops to get a fighting style, and you can use your bonus action to do other stuff, (like shifting, because honestly who is taking Path of the Beast and isn't a Shifter?).
On a side note, the way the claws of PotB are defined makes it impossible to parse how the Path of the Beast claws interact with the Order of the Lycan claws if you multiclass (From Critical Role content). Do the bonuses of the Order of the Lycan apply to my Beast claws? (by RAW no because they are not unarmed attacks), but do I now have two different types of claws then? Or can I not make unarmed attacks with my 'hands' anymore because they are now 'claws' that count as a simple melee weapon? When the Order of the Lycan claws get +bonus to attacks and become a d8, do I now get a d8 when I choose 'unarmed attack', but only d6 and no bonus when I choose 'beast claw' attack? (I guess by RAW you now have to make your unarmed attacks by kicking or headbutting, but they do 'slashing' damage so were clearly meant to be claw attacks). It's dumb. And all because they for some reason didn't want the beast natural weapons to count as unarmed strikes. Good news though! The Order of the Lycan specifically lets you use a bonus action to attack with an unarmed strike (don't you be using those claws though, they aren't unarmed!).
Ideally the fix to this would be that Path of the Beast natural weapons are listed as unarmed attacks, and that two weapon fighting can be done with a free hand (or both hands free if you want to double punch) so long as the other hand is free or carrying a light weapon.
I think the designers wanted to make the claws work without giving the character proficiency in unarmed attacks (for some reason). Having Path of the Beast claws interact terribly with every other feature in the game was a huge mistake. That said, I think the RAW ruling that you can't make an unarmed attack as a bonus action with a free hand is stupid as well (it stretches credibility that I can make two attacks with the two daggers in my hands, but somehow I can't just punch the guy instead if my offhand is empty). This really is a problem with how two weapon fighting works, and not how Path of the Beast works. PotB just sort of exposes the existing flaws in the system.
This has been discussed elsewhere. I think it is supposed to specifically work differently.
Another point to remember is that an unarmed strike does not need a free hand. If you are holding a shield and a light weapon, you can still make an unarmed strike. Therefore, if unarmed strikes were allowed for the bonus action attack, it would be difficult to argue against someone wielding a shortsword in one hand and a shield in the other, but using "TWF" to kick as a bonus action. If that kick benefits from increased unarmed strike damage.
Ironically, if the TWF rules worked to allow unarmed strikes, it STILL wouldn't work as RAW, since PotB claws are not listed as unarmed attacks. They probably didn't do this because the aforementioned Monk multiclass would be able to use the tail as a reach weapon with flurry of blows... but honestly… why didn't they just allow this? It's not even that good given that pure monks get d8s and higher later anyway. The reason they weren't listed as 'Light' probably is because the Tail and the Muzzle make less sense as 'light'.
Given that the only advantage that light weapons gain is the ability to use them with TWF, this is even more evidence to me that they were never intended to be usable with TWF. Like I've mentioned before, they give you TWF-plus anyway (additional attack, but including your modifier and available on the turn where you Rage because it doesn't use you bonus action).
As is, you need a ruling from a kind DM to do this in your game.
Or you could just accept that you've already been given something which is equivalent to but better than TWF and stop being greedy 😝😂
On a side note, the way the claws of PotB are defined makes it impossible to parse how the Path of the Beast claws interact with the Order of the Lycan claws if you multiclass (From Critical Role content). Do the bonuses of the Order of the Lycan apply to my Beast claws? (by RAW no because they are not unarmed attacks), but do I now have two different types of claws then? Or can I not make unarmed attacks with my 'hands' anymore because they are now 'claws' that count as a simple melee weapon? When the Order of the Lycan claws get +bonus to attacks and become a d8, do I now get a d8 when I choose 'unarmed attack', but only d6 and no bonus when I choose 'beast claw' attack? (I guess by RAW you now have to make your unarmed attacks by kicking or headbutting, but they do 'slashing' damage so were clearly meant to be claw attacks). It's dumb. And all because they for some reason didn't want the beast natural weapons to count as unarmed strikes. Good news though! The Order of the Lycan specifically lets you use a bonus action to attack with an unarmed strike (don't you be using those claws though, they aren't unarmed!).
Firstly, as Critical Role content is not official, it is not surprising that new official content will not always fit with it. There's little reason for WotC to plan for a multiclass between a subclass they are releasing and subclass from an unofficial, virtually homebrew, class released elsewhere.
For this, RAW you could still use your Lycan subclass unarmed strike. I can't see anywhere describing it as a claw, but you could have claws on your feet to kick with I guess. RAW, they definitely wouldn't interact with the PotB claws, so you would have to choose between Lycan Unarmed Strike or PotB claws. I'd be tempted to allow an interaction, myself, so you got the increased Lycan damage dice for your PotB claws (but maybe not for the additional attack it grants, only for your "normal" attacks with them).
Ideally the fix to this would be that Path of the Beast natural weapons are listed as unarmed attacks, and that two weapon fighting can be done with a free hand (or both hands free if you want to double punch) so long as the other hand is free or carrying a light weapon.
Personally, I don't feel either is necessary. PotB already gets TWF++, and think of how much combat would slow down if everyone wielding a light weapon could make a bonus action attack for 1 damage... Especially as it would be difficult to justify refusing someone taking a bonus action kick or headbutt with both hands full. If this was really an issue for someone, I might consider house ruling a +1 bludgeoning damage to another hit by using you bonus action if you were wielding a light weapon and the other hand was free. I really don't see the point, unless you have a feature which increases your unarmed strike damage, in which case you start having to consider whether it is balanced to allow it... Remember, that free hand can be used to interact with things or for somatic components of spells, or even to grapple, without having to stow a weapon as you would with TWF.
I think the designers wanted to make the claws work without giving the character proficiency in unarmed attacks (for some reason). Having Path of the Beast claws interact terribly with every other feature in the game was a huge mistake. That said, I think the RAW ruling that you can't make an unarmed attack as a bonus action with a free hand is stupid as well (it stretches credibility that I can make two attacks with the two daggers in my hands, but somehow I can't just punch the guy instead if my offhand is empty). This really is a problem with how two weapon fighting works, and not how Path of the Beast works. PotB just sort of exposes the existing flaws in the system. Ironically, if the TWF rules worked to allow unarmed strikes, it STILL wouldn't work as RAW, since PotB claws are not listed as unarmed attacks. They probably didn't do this because the aforementioned Monk multiclass would be able to use the tail as a reach weapon with flurry of blows... but honestly… why didn't they just allow this? It's not even that good given that pure monks get d8s and higher later anyway. The reason they weren't listed as 'Light' probably is because the Tail and the Muzzle make less sense as 'light'.
As is, you need a ruling from a kind DM to do this in your game.
One somewhat more flavourful way to play this is to just take Thrown Weapon Fighter (from Tashas), and then you can draw and throw two hand axes (one as a bonus action), then use your now free hands to make two attacks. Honestly I don't see the point though unless you really have nothing to do with your bonus action, since the offhand attack lacks your strength bonus anyway. In this case I would argue that just pulling a greataxe and swinging it as the second non-claw attack is just easier, then you don't need to jump through hoops to get a fighting style, and you can use your bonus action to do other stuff, (like shifting, because honestly who is taking Path of the Beast and isn't a Shifter?).
On a side note, the way the claws of PotB are defined makes it impossible to parse how the Path of the Beast claws interact with the Order of the Lycan claws if you multiclass (From Critical Role content). Do the bonuses of the Order of the Lycan apply to my Beast claws? (by RAW no because they are not unarmed attacks), but do I now have two different types of claws then? Or can I not make unarmed attacks with my 'hands' anymore because they are now 'claws' that count as a simple melee weapon? When the Order of the Lycan claws get +bonus to attacks and become a d8, do I now get a d8 when I choose 'unarmed attack', but only d6 and no bonus when I choose 'beast claw' attack? (I guess by RAW you now have to make your unarmed attacks by kicking or headbutting, but they do 'slashing' damage so were clearly meant to be claw attacks). It's dumb. And all because they for some reason didn't want the beast natural weapons to count as unarmed strikes. Good news though! The Order of the Lycan specifically lets you use a bonus action to attack with an unarmed strike (don't you be using those claws though, they aren't unarmed!).
Ideally the fix to this would be that Path of the Beast natural weapons are listed as unarmed attacks, and that two weapon fighting can be done with a free hand (or both hands free if you want to double punch) so long as the other hand is free or carrying a light weapon.
While punching as well might be possible. There can be issues with it even in the practical world. I can make arguments for such things if I really wanted to but I also understand some fundamental flaws with it as well.
If you need a visual representation on a basic level why you can't punch and wield a weapon for an attack and a bonus action attack go out and get yourself a good sized stick. Now hold that stick out in front of you in one hand. And hold out your other hand that would be punching in the other. You'll find that one has a lot greater range when trying to strike things than the other. If you do this in front of a mirror you get the effect of facing a weapon wielding opponent. Something dangerous has a certain amount of reach that your wanting to avoid to some extent. The easier way to avoid this... is to try to stay outside of it's range while getting your own stick just enough in range to hit them. The harder way is to try to get close enough that their weapon is less effective but this comes with the danger of passing thorugh the most effective range of their weapon and the issue that they might just back up when you start getting to close making that range hard to get into. It's only in this much harder to reach closer range where the secondary attack of the punch works. So while in practical application something like an unarmed strike might actually be used. It's not going to be used enough to count as two weapon fighting and many fighters aren't even going to try for it unless forced to or given an obvious opening where does so serves some purpose that simply attacking with your weapon wouldn't do better.
As for the multi-class you bring up. Here's the problem. WotC mostly stays away from any clarifications or rules involving the multi-class possibilities past the basic ones in the book. Or ones necessary such as introducing the artificer and they even stated in the PHB that's not something they focused on or give much support, It's not necessarily balanced, and it's entirely optional. This holds true even if Blood Hunter was an official class of the game. They'd be very uninclined to solve the interaction issue between them.
But there is another problem with this mash up. They completely conflict. They are trying to change the same things but in different ways. They do not work together. One is going to have to entirely give way for the other. Since they are not compatible any attempts to mash them together is going to be entirely home brew because your not just choosing which one to use on a given attack. You end up in the rare but hated grounds of you have to choose which one even takes effect or the DM has to choose for you.
But there is another problem with this mash up. They completely conflict. They are trying to change the same things but in different ways. They do not work together. One is going to have to entirely give way for the other. Since they are not compatible any attempts to mash them together is going to be entirely home brew because your not just choosing which one to use on a given attack. You end up in the rare but hated grounds of you have to choose which one even takes effect or the DM has to choose for you.
Depends if you are trying to optimise. Personally I love the idea of "You haven't even seen my final form!", where you shift, then rage, then transform with Order of the Lycan. In all seriousness though, it's a pretty silly multiclass, and it uses its bonus action for literally everything; basically rendering the question of this thread entirely moot.
As for what others have said, I can appreciate that unarmed attacks are not supposed to be used with TWF, there are reasonable arguments regarding that choice in design.
I still find it a bit silly that these are not listed as unarmed attacks, when literally every other natural weapon given to PCs is (whether from alter self or from a race that has natural weapons). Mostly it means that your attacks with the path of the beast don't benefit from the Unarmed fighting style, and can't be used with monk flurries which is a bit silly and I can't think why this would be intentional.
Also, and this is a complete aside, can we just appreciate how awesome Wildhunt Shifter+Path of the Beast Barbarian is? You get to play a Lycanthrope from level 1, you get to have loads of extra temp HP, and the shifting feature means that you can recklessly attack all day with little to no downside (opponents are not allowed to have advantage against you). So fun!
There's a lot of talk about dropping weapons in this thread, and I don't see why there is a need for that.
Round 1, starting with 2 short swords drawn: Attack with sword1 Bonus attack with sword2 Sheath sword2 Claw x2
Round 2, starting with 1 short sword drawn: Claw x2 Draw sword2 Attack with sword1 Bonus attack with sword2
Personally I don't like the flavour of this, but I think it's consistent with RAW.
Many have brought this option up already. You are correct, it is consistent with RAW*, but it's a fairly blatant exploit and would be immersion-breaking to me (I can see any warriors on the battlefield realistically sheathing and unsheathing weapons all the time).
* note that I think this conflicts with a tweet from JC, which specifies that the attack action must be complete before the bonus action attack may be used. Personally, I dislike this ruling and don't use it, but many take JCs word as gospel.
There's a lot of talk about dropping weapons in this thread, and I don't see why there is a need for that.
Round 1, starting with 2 short swords drawn: Attack with sword1 Bonus attack with sword2 Sheath sword2 Claw x2
Round 2, starting with 1 short sword drawn: Claw x2 Draw sword2 Attack with sword1 Bonus attack with sword2
Personally I don't like the flavour of this, but I think it's consistent with RAW.
Many have brought this option up already. You are correct, it is consistent with RAW*, but it's a fairly blatant exploit and would be immersion-breaking to me (I can see any warriors on the battlefield realistically sheathing and unsheathing weapons all the time).
* note that I think this conflicts with a tweet from JC, which specifies that the attack action must be complete before the bonus action attack may be used. Personally, I dislike this ruling and don't use it, but many take JCs word as gospel.
1. If said warriors had magic weapons that required a cooldown or charge-up to be effective, would you then allow switching weapons? If they threw the light weapons (which you may do with TWF), would you then allow it? If you have an issue with flavour and immersion, then I think the better solution is to reflavour to taste, rather than banning and/or punishing players for it. Balance-wise I see no issues here.
1. If said warriors had magic weapons that required a cooldown or charge-up to be effective, would you then allow switching weapons? If they threw the light weapons (which you may do with TWF), would you then allow it? If you have an issue with flavour and immersion, then I think the better solution is to reflavour to taste, rather than banning and/or punishing players for it. Balance-wise I see no issues here.
I dislike the accusation that I would be punishing the player. Just because the letter of the rule allows something doesn't mean it should always be allowed. We have DMs so they can interpret the rules, and that sometimes includes saying "I know the rules say X, but that doesn't feel right here so I'll overrule it". It's not a computer game.
The question of whether I would allow switching weapons would depend very much on the weapon and circumstances. Note that there would be few situations where you could switch weapons every turn without using your action anyway. Throwing one and then drawing another is a different circumstance, as a) that feels pretty natural, and b) you only have a limited supply of throwing weapons anyway (unless it magically returns, which would make it clearly the intent).
Telling me to "reflavour to taste" is saying "We know this is completely unrealistic and stupid, but just imagine that it's something which isn't". So, I can ignore how the rules are described and come up with my own situation which may roughly fit.... My answer is: "You're admitting it's stupid, so just don't do it".
As for balance, if there is no balance issue in allowing it, there is no balance issue in disallowing it.
As mentioned before, it seems pretty clear to me that the claw benefits provide a better version of TWF. This points strongly to the designers knowing that TWF would not apply. Coming up with an immersion breaking sequence which is more likely to have enemies rolling on the floor laughing than anything else just to gain the TWF bonus action?
The sequence isn't immersion-breaking to anyone familiar with anime physics. It just ends up feeling like an anime over-emphasizing iaijutsu.
Except that Anime physics would work more like what you got with the power and less like the bonus action. But we'll ignore that I suppose since your not getting as many attacks wielding claws like a single weapon like most anime creatures with claws do where they almost always get two claw attacks in when they make a single attack rather than them being two seperate attacks made. Only making 1 attack when it's Thematic and the story calls for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is lame, that's the point! Its RAW, but its lame. Kind of like RAW being Claws are not Light Weapons and are not "Wielded." I think its lame. Hence, the discussion.
A forum discussing the speculation of non-official opinions (including my own) on an ambiguity created in a hobby of collective imagination dictated by a third party source.... is not going to offend lol. Your insight is welcomed and will not offend :) Besides, as a litigation attorney I get argued with all day... I would only be offended if I had a value stake in my position... which I don't. Its an opinion... if it is later invalidated by an official source... great, carry on! lol. Either I follow it or homebrew it... that's the beauty of D&D.
This question is nothing... the question that keeps me up at night is if you multiclass and get Extra Attack and can wild shape into a Rhinoceros... do you apply the charge damage to the second attack!?!?!? lol (I'm kidding... kind of... but that was my first "I don't know /shrug" moment in D&D)
Thanks again for the insight!
This is why D&D has an advantage over something like a computer game: there is a human being to make judgements.
RAW is a starting point. However, if there is any ambiguity, or if the rules don't seem to make sense in a situation, or if there is a way to play which is more fun, the DM (with the support of the group) can do things differently.
Discussions like this are necessary because:
1) you need to know the starting point. It's like my music composition teacher used to say: you need to know the rules to know when you can break them.
2) Some groups (like AL, as far as I am aware) stick strictly to RAW (which is a perfectly acceptable choice) so need to know exactly what RAW is.
3) Discussing the rules can help people understand the reasons behind them and details hidden within them, which can be useful in deciding how to handle your own house rules or home brew.
4) Debate can be fun :)
The Path of the Beast article says it works.
The author could be wrong, just like any one of us.
Very true ans very reasonable
That would be SUPER lame, though, to literally set people up for something in what is essentially a sales pitch for the book and then have it be something you can't do in-game
This is the nature of ambiguities. There's no malice or malicious intent in that author's writing, it was what he believed and/or would rule on. Maybe he would rule differently upon further reading, maybe he wouldn't.
I wrote this post to try and consolidate the definitions so people could make their own decision.
I, personally, think its lame and no doubt would allow someone to just make the bonus action claw attack... I as the DM can always increase the difficulty if it was that big a deal to pair with their experience/damage output. I go so far as to say they are light weapons knowing they are not, RAW, as they are not labeled "light" in the class description... because in my mind I fill that gap by saying 1) they fit the definition provided in the PHB for light; and 2) its not a material difference.
Allowing on Round 2+ of combat (first round they use BA to rage) for a limited number of combats to their rage to have 1d6+2 damage is not a big deal a material factor. My combats also don't usually last more than 3-5 rounds... so its not material in my games... but that's just my games.
I get that calling them "light" is on the further end of the spectrum in deciding this... but the closer decision of whether they are wielding for purposes of DW Feat is harder for me to grasp. I can't get not allowing someone to do 1d6+2 damage with a Feat Investment. To say if someone foregoes ASI and invests a Feat (Dual Wielder Feat)... that they still can't use their BA in round 2+ for like 3 combats per long rest to do 1d6+2 damage because they define "wield" as to "hold" versus to "use" even though its not expressly defined? Keep in mind to compare this Feat investment to Barbarians who spend it on feats like Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master...
Again, this is for just 1d6+2 damage (assuming level 5 with rage)... Remember they don't have the Fighting Style to add their Strength modifier... that would take yet another feat or multi-class dip...
Other DMs will rule it can't be done because they are trying to adhere to the rules framework constructed by the official rule maker to the best of their ability to make sure the game is fair for all players... and that's fine too. I sincerely doubt there are any DMs out there (that keep players at their table) that tell a player "No" because they enjoy telling them no...everyone gets together to have fun. That DM would likely try to work with their player to make it work...
eg. Use a Greatsword (2d6+Str+Rage), then extra attack Claw (1d6+Str+Rage), then Class Feature Claw (1d6+Str+Rage)
Here you simply exchanged your 1d6 BA Claw into the extra damage provided by the Greatsword... you miss out on the BA Rage Damage (+2) and potentially a chance to crit on 1d6 BA... again we are splitting hairs here (again why I as a DM would allow them to just structure it as a BA if they want to just use claws only... not the Heavy weapon and BA). And that comes back to the issue of "wielding"... If someone says you can't wield a Greatsword with your Claws because they are simple weapons and you can only wield one weapon, then you are wielding the Claws... I digress this will spiral into a tangent...
Nobody is wrong here... I'm not wrong and the people who disagree with me aren't wrong. Everyone gets to run their game their way. Everyone is just trying to find the RAW baseline though to make those decisions... I'm sure Sage Advice will address it specifically at some point.
"Everyone is just trying to find the RAW baseline though"
Yep. None of this is about saying that you can't do something or you are wrong to do so. It's about trying to figure out the starting point, that being what the rules say and mean, so people can go forward from there on an informed manner.
I am late to reply, but want to point out that I was not being arbitrary - I was allowing all of RAW. I am not being subjective here. Which is why I went ahead to list some cases in which your sword trick would have issues when you really follow through with how it would work in a game - I can think of several more really, especially when you're dropping a nice +3 magic weapon around intelligent enemies.
Also, you are incorrect that your sword trick works without dropping. Sheathing a sword requires your object interaction, so then you don't have it to draw your sword later. We tend to think of draws as free with your attack, but they are actually using that interaction. So the trick only works if you drop it. What's not RAW is people's attempt to get around this by declaring they tie their weapon to their wrist or belt so they can have the same effect as sheathing without actually sheathing. That is what I ban because it is neither RAW or RAI.
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
I think the designers wanted to make the claws work without giving the character proficiency in unarmed attacks (for some reason). Having Path of the Beast claws interact terribly with every other feature in the game was a huge mistake. That said, I think the RAW ruling that you can't make an unarmed attack as a bonus action with a free hand is stupid as well (it stretches credibility that I can make two attacks with the two daggers in my hands, but somehow I can't just punch the guy instead if my offhand is empty). This really is a problem with how two weapon fighting works, and not how Path of the Beast works. PotB just sort of exposes the existing flaws in the system.
Ironically, if the TWF rules worked to allow unarmed strikes, it STILL wouldn't work as RAW, since PotB claws are not listed as unarmed attacks. They probably didn't do this because the aforementioned Monk multiclass would be able to use the tail as a reach weapon with flurry of blows... but honestly… why didn't they just allow this? It's not even that good given that pure monks get d8s and higher later anyway.
The reason they weren't listed as 'Light' probably is because the Tail and the Muzzle make less sense as 'light'.
As is, you need a ruling from a kind DM to do this in your game.
One somewhat more flavourful way to play this is to just take Thrown Weapon Fighter (from Tashas), and then you can draw and throw two hand axes (one as a bonus action), then use your now free hands to make two attacks. Honestly I don't see the point though unless you really have nothing to do with your bonus action, since the offhand attack lacks your strength bonus anyway. In this case I would argue that just pulling a greataxe and swinging it as the second non-claw attack is just easier, then you don't need to jump through hoops to get a fighting style, and you can use your bonus action to do other stuff, (like shifting, because honestly who is taking Path of the Beast and isn't a Shifter?).
On a side note, the way the claws of PotB are defined makes it impossible to parse how the Path of the Beast claws interact with the Order of the Lycan claws if you multiclass (From Critical Role content). Do the bonuses of the Order of the Lycan apply to my Beast claws? (by RAW no because they are not unarmed attacks), but do I now have two different types of claws then? Or can I not make unarmed attacks with my 'hands' anymore because they are now 'claws' that count as a simple melee weapon? When the Order of the Lycan claws get +bonus to attacks and become a d8, do I now get a d8 when I choose 'unarmed attack', but only d6 and no bonus when I choose 'beast claw' attack? (I guess by RAW you now have to make your unarmed attacks by kicking or headbutting, but they do 'slashing' damage so were clearly meant to be claw attacks). It's dumb. And all because they for some reason didn't want the beast natural weapons to count as unarmed strikes. Good news though! The Order of the Lycan specifically lets you use a bonus action to attack with an unarmed strike (don't you be using those claws though, they aren't unarmed!).
Ideally the fix to this would be that Path of the Beast natural weapons are listed as unarmed attacks, and that two weapon fighting can be done with a free hand (or both hands free if you want to double punch) so long as the other hand is free or carrying a light weapon.
This has been discussed elsewhere. I think it is supposed to specifically work differently.
Another point to remember is that an unarmed strike does not need a free hand. If you are holding a shield and a light weapon, you can still make an unarmed strike. Therefore, if unarmed strikes were allowed for the bonus action attack, it would be difficult to argue against someone wielding a shortsword in one hand and a shield in the other, but using "TWF" to kick as a bonus action. If that kick benefits from increased unarmed strike damage.
Given that the only advantage that light weapons gain is the ability to use them with TWF, this is even more evidence to me that they were never intended to be usable with TWF. Like I've mentioned before, they give you TWF-plus anyway (additional attack, but including your modifier and available on the turn where you Rage because it doesn't use you bonus action).
Or you could just accept that you've already been given something which is equivalent to but better than TWF and stop being greedy 😝😂
Firstly, as Critical Role content is not official, it is not surprising that new official content will not always fit with it. There's little reason for WotC to plan for a multiclass between a subclass they are releasing and subclass from an unofficial, virtually homebrew, class released elsewhere.
For this, RAW you could still use your Lycan subclass unarmed strike. I can't see anywhere describing it as a claw, but you could have claws on your feet to kick with I guess. RAW, they definitely wouldn't interact with the PotB claws, so you would have to choose between Lycan Unarmed Strike or PotB claws. I'd be tempted to allow an interaction, myself, so you got the increased Lycan damage dice for your PotB claws (but maybe not for the additional attack it grants, only for your "normal" attacks with them).
Personally, I don't feel either is necessary. PotB already gets TWF++, and think of how much combat would slow down if everyone wielding a light weapon could make a bonus action attack for 1 damage... Especially as it would be difficult to justify refusing someone taking a bonus action kick or headbutt with both hands full. If this was really an issue for someone, I might consider house ruling a +1 bludgeoning damage to another hit by using you bonus action if you were wielding a light weapon and the other hand was free. I really don't see the point, unless you have a feature which increases your unarmed strike damage, in which case you start having to consider whether it is balanced to allow it... Remember, that free hand can be used to interact with things or for somatic components of spells, or even to grapple, without having to stow a weapon as you would with TWF.
There's a lot of talk about dropping weapons in this thread, and I don't see why there is a need for that.
Round 1, starting with 2 short swords drawn:
Attack with sword1
Bonus attack with sword2
Sheath sword2
Claw x2
Round 2, starting with 1 short sword drawn:
Claw x2
Draw sword2
Attack with sword1
Bonus attack with sword2
Personally I don't like the flavour of this, but I think it's consistent with RAW.
-retracted post because somebody else made this point but I had missed it-
While punching as well might be possible. There can be issues with it even in the practical world. I can make arguments for such things if I really wanted to but I also understand some fundamental flaws with it as well.
If you need a visual representation on a basic level why you can't punch and wield a weapon for an attack and a bonus action attack go out and get yourself a good sized stick. Now hold that stick out in front of you in one hand. And hold out your other hand that would be punching in the other. You'll find that one has a lot greater range when trying to strike things than the other. If you do this in front of a mirror you get the effect of facing a weapon wielding opponent. Something dangerous has a certain amount of reach that your wanting to avoid to some extent. The easier way to avoid this... is to try to stay outside of it's range while getting your own stick just enough in range to hit them. The harder way is to try to get close enough that their weapon is less effective but this comes with the danger of passing thorugh the most effective range of their weapon and the issue that they might just back up when you start getting to close making that range hard to get into. It's only in this much harder to reach closer range where the secondary attack of the punch works. So while in practical application something like an unarmed strike might actually be used. It's not going to be used enough to count as two weapon fighting and many fighters aren't even going to try for it unless forced to or given an obvious opening where does so serves some purpose that simply attacking with your weapon wouldn't do better.
As for the multi-class you bring up. Here's the problem. WotC mostly stays away from any clarifications or rules involving the multi-class possibilities past the basic ones in the book. Or ones necessary such as introducing the artificer and they even stated in the PHB that's not something they focused on or give much support, It's not necessarily balanced, and it's entirely optional. This holds true even if Blood Hunter was an official class of the game. They'd be very uninclined to solve the interaction issue between them.
But there is another problem with this mash up. They completely conflict. They are trying to change the same things but in different ways. They do not work together. One is going to have to entirely give way for the other. Since they are not compatible any attempts to mash them together is going to be entirely home brew because your not just choosing which one to use on a given attack. You end up in the rare but hated grounds of you have to choose which one even takes effect or the DM has to choose for you.
Depends if you are trying to optimise. Personally I love the idea of "You haven't even seen my final form!", where you shift, then rage, then transform with Order of the Lycan. In all seriousness though, it's a pretty silly multiclass, and it uses its bonus action for literally everything; basically rendering the question of this thread entirely moot.
As for what others have said, I can appreciate that unarmed attacks are not supposed to be used with TWF, there are reasonable arguments regarding that choice in design.
I still find it a bit silly that these are not listed as unarmed attacks, when literally every other natural weapon given to PCs is (whether from alter self or from a race that has natural weapons). Mostly it means that your attacks with the path of the beast don't benefit from the Unarmed fighting style, and can't be used with monk flurries which is a bit silly and I can't think why this would be intentional.
Also, and this is a complete aside, can we just appreciate how awesome Wildhunt Shifter+Path of the Beast Barbarian is? You get to play a Lycanthrope from level 1, you get to have loads of extra temp HP, and the shifting feature means that you can recklessly attack all day with little to no downside (opponents are not allowed to have advantage against you). So fun!
Many have brought this option up already. You are correct, it is consistent with RAW*, but it's a fairly blatant exploit and would be immersion-breaking to me (I can see any warriors on the battlefield realistically sheathing and unsheathing weapons all the time).
* note that I think this conflicts with a tweet from JC, which specifies that the attack action must be complete before the bonus action attack may be used. Personally, I dislike this ruling and don't use it, but many take JCs word as gospel.
1. If said warriors had magic weapons that required a cooldown or charge-up to be effective, would you then allow switching weapons? If they threw the light weapons (which you may do with TWF), would you then allow it? If you have an issue with flavour and immersion, then I think the better solution is to reflavour to taste, rather than banning and/or punishing players for it. Balance-wise I see no issues here.
2. "if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X". Two-weapon fighting requires an "attack with a light melee weapon" (during the attack action). Since JC allows it for Shield Master (which requires the attack action), the same should absolutely go for two-weapon fighting. "As DM, I allow the bonus action of Shield Master to happen after you make at least one attack with the Attack action, since making one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows."
I dislike the accusation that I would be punishing the player. Just because the letter of the rule allows something doesn't mean it should always be allowed. We have DMs so they can interpret the rules, and that sometimes includes saying "I know the rules say X, but that doesn't feel right here so I'll overrule it". It's not a computer game.
The question of whether I would allow switching weapons would depend very much on the weapon and circumstances. Note that there would be few situations where you could switch weapons every turn without using your action anyway. Throwing one and then drawing another is a different circumstance, as a) that feels pretty natural, and b) you only have a limited supply of throwing weapons anyway (unless it magically returns, which would make it clearly the intent).
Telling me to "reflavour to taste" is saying "We know this is completely unrealistic and stupid, but just imagine that it's something which isn't". So, I can ignore how the rules are described and come up with my own situation which may roughly fit.... My answer is: "You're admitting it's stupid, so just don't do it".
As for balance, if there is no balance issue in allowing it, there is no balance issue in disallowing it.
As mentioned before, it seems pretty clear to me that the claw benefits provide a better version of TWF. This points strongly to the designers knowing that TWF would not apply. Coming up with an immersion breaking sequence which is more likely to have enemies rolling on the floor laughing than anything else just to gain the TWF bonus action?
The sequence isn't immersion-breaking to anyone familiar with anime physics. It just ends up feeling like an anime over-emphasizing iaijutsu.
Except that Anime physics would work more like what you got with the power and less like the bonus action. But we'll ignore that I suppose since your not getting as many attacks wielding claws like a single weapon like most anime creatures with claws do where they almost always get two claw attacks in when they make a single attack rather than them being two seperate attacks made. Only making 1 attack when it's Thematic and the story calls for it.