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?
Perhaps mentioning "punishing players" was unnecessary, and it may have been a misinterpretation on my part. Sorry about that.
I think we are considering this from different viewpoints. I've been considering how the claw plays compared to the tail in particular. If you choose the tail I think it's perfectly fine to either wield a big two-handed weapon, or dual wield and get a bonus action. At the same time you have a reach weapon available, as well as a defensive reaction. Whether the natural weapons you get are claws, bite or tail is pretty much flavour imo. If anything the fact that the claws require free hands is a drawback compared to the other options.
Another point for allowing a bonus action attack imo is that not doing so pigeonholes the claw wielder into either using a shield or a big heavy-hitting weapon along with their claws, at least if the player wants to be as efficient as they can be. Thematically on the other hand I think a frenzied beast attacking with both hands would be both suitable and evocative.
Just to add a little bit to the whole holding and wielding discussion.
To wield is to hold and use (a weapon or tool). (nothing in there excludes Beast Barbarians claws)
To hold is to grasp, carry, or support with one's hands. (BBC´s can´t be excluded due to semantics since they are supported by hands and count as simple weapons, you need the DW feat though)
You definitely support and wield your claws with your hands, therefor you can use DW and TWF if you take the relevant feat and fighting style.
Much respect to the thread starter. I enjoyed reading these thoughts.
I've been thinking about Path of the Beast and Bonus Action recently and it annoys me too that RAW doesn't let you use your BA to attack with claws. But, I guess - and forgive me if someone already said it - the extra claw attack you get to do is conceivably from the other hand. Makes me wonder why they didn't just forego the extra claw attack and write, "you can now do a BA claw attack with the other hand".
In a similar vain, for a Totem Barb, I was thinking of going for a 1 level dip in Monk and Fighter to pick up BA unarmed strike and 1d8 unarmed damage from the relevant Fighting Style... kind of makes me sad though that my barbarian won't get the level 20 capatone of +4 STR and CON. Also, in my campaign we are using Standard array and my barb does not have the mimimum WIS (13) score to multiclass Monk, so the idea is moot. 😁
Much respect to the thread starter. I enjoyed reading these thoughts.
I've been thinking about Path of the Beast and Bonus Action recently and it annoys me too that RAW doesn't let you use your BA to attack with claws. But, I guess - and forgive me if someone already said it - the extra claw attack you get to do is conceivably from the other hand. Makes me wonder why they didn't just forego the extra claw attack and write, "you can now do a BA claw attack with the other hand".
In a similar vain, for a Totem Barb, I was thinking of going for a 1 level dip in Monk and Fighter to pick up BA unarmed strike and 1d8 unarmed damage from the relevant Fighting Style... kind of makes me sad though that my barbarian won't get the level 20 capatone of +4 STR and CON. Also, in my campaign we are using Standard array and my barb does not have the mimimum WIS (13) score to multiclass Monk, so the idea is moot. 😁
Giving you an extra claw attack as a main action is much more optimal. You can wield a shield and still make two claw attacks (or three at level five). If you're holding a greatsword and you get GWM, you can do 2 claw attack + 1 sword attack, and if you crit (which is often with 3 attacks with advantage), you still have your bonus attack available.
Giving you an extra claw attack as a main action is much more optimal. You can wield a shield and still make two claw attacks (or three at level five). If you're holding a greatsword and you get GWM, you can do 2 claw attack + 1 sword attack, and if you crit (which is often with 3 attacks with advantage), you still have your bonus attack available.
Yeah good point!
I was just thinking about the wording of the double claw attack and how I find it frustrating.
I want to explore the example you've outlined. I like it. I agree with it, but there's something about it for me that breaks RP immersion...
So let's say, your PC's main hand is its right hand and you have GWM, a greatsword and obviously your PC is Path of the Beast, and at least 5th level, and you raged last turn, so your BA is free...
You hold the greatsword with both hands and attack with it as your action. You then drop the greatsword, which is free to do, your hands are now empty,. But you've got claws, and you haven't used Extra Attack, so now with your right hand's claw you attack. Finally, since you've now attacked with a claw, you can attack one more time with a claw, so again you do that (probably right hand still? Maybe left since in my version of the example the left hand is empty too). You are now free to use a BA.
So, that's great. It's better to do 2d6 + 1d6 + 1d6 damage than 1d6 + 1d6 + 1d6 damage. I'm all for a little optimising. But... there's this piece of me that feels like there's no way in reality, that a person would drop a sword and then next round pick it up as a free action, rinse repeat. It's great optimisation (and I'd be very tempted to do it), but it sort of breaks immersion for me. There's probably a real world argument for dropping a big weapon when you are in very close combat and claws/daggers would be better, but the whole dropping the sword and picking it back up thing - opponent directly in front of you - it makes the RP side of my brain win out over the optimising side.
What are your thoughts? Obviously correct my example, if parts of it are wrong.
Giving you an extra claw attack as a main action is much more optimal. You can wield a shield and still make two claw attacks (or three at level five). If you're holding a greatsword and you get GWM, you can do 2 claw attack + 1 sword attack, and if you crit (which is often with 3 attacks with advantage), you still have your bonus attack available.
Yeah good point!
I was just thinking about the wording of the double claw attack and how I find it frustrating.
I want to explore the example you've outlined. I like it. I agree with it, but there's something about it for me that breaks RP immersion...
So let's say, your PC's main hand is its right hand and you have GWM, a greatsword and obviously your PC is Path of the Beast, and at least 5th level, and you raged last turn, so your BA is free...
You hold the greatsword with both hands and attack with it as your action. You then drop the greatsword, which is free to do, your hands are now empty,. But you've got claws, and you haven't used Extra Attack, so now with your right hand's claw you attack. Finally, since you've now attacked with a claw, you can attack one more time with a claw, so again you do that (probably right hand still? Maybe left since in my version of the example the left hand is empty too). You are now free to use a BA.
So, that's great. It's better to do 2d6 + 1d6 + 1d6 damage than 1d6 + 1d6 + 1d6 damage. I'm all for a little optimising. But... there's this piece of me that feels like there's no way in reality, that a person would drop a sword and then next round pick it up as a free action, rinse repeat. It's great optimisation (and I'd be very tempted to do it), but it sort of breaks immersion for me. There's probably a real world argument for dropping a big weapon when you are in very close combat and claws/daggers would be better, but the whole dropping the sword and picking it back up thing - opponent directly in front of you - it makes the RP side of my brain win out over the optimising side.
What are your thoughts? Obviously correct my example, if parts of it are wrong.
You don't have to drop it. You only have to attack with both hands. You can hold it in your offhand while you attack with your claws.
Well that's interesting. Helps me with the immersion, if you don't need to drop the greatsword. I still feel no one would choose to not use the greatsword 2 more times, if it wasn't for a mechanism in game that allows 3 attacks, but 2 of them have to be with claws.
Well that's interesting. Helps me with the immersion, if you don't need to drop the greatsword. I still feel no one would choose to not use the greatsword 2 more times, if it wasn't for a mechanism in game that allows 3 attacks, but 2 of them have to be with claws.
That's an immersion that easy to get on board. A greatsword is big and heavy. One big swing, and then you follow up with two quick claw swipes. The greatsword is too heavy to swing it two more times. So you can swing it once more, or you can claw attack twice in the same time.
Note that, with RAW, once you hit level 5, you CAN hit something with a greataxe on your first attack, let go with one hand to make a claw attack, then make an additional claw attack as per the feature. So you'd be doing 1d12 + STR + 2, 1D6 + STR +2, and 1D6 + STR + 2, and that leaves you your BA to do whatever you want.
Note that, with RAW, once you hit level 5, you CAN hit something with a greataxe on your first attack, let go with one hand to make a claw attack, then make an additional claw attack as per the feature. So you'd be doing 1d12 + STR + 2, 1D6 + STR +2, and 1D6 + STR + 2, and that leaves you your BA to do whatever you want.
This is correct. The Claws are definitely a damage buff, especially if you go Shield & Claw instead of Sword and Board. It's just unfortunate that there are so few build options to optimize it. No fighting style or feats, and for magic items there's only a lone tattoo in Tasha's, Edlritch Claw Tattoo. Very DM dependent to get that one. But nice if you do.
Note that, with RAW, once you hit level 5, you CAN hit something with a greataxe on your first attack, let go with one hand to make a claw attack, then make an additional claw attack as per the feature. So you'd be doing 1d12 + STR + 2, 1D6 + STR +2, and 1D6 + STR + 2, and that leaves you your BA to do whatever you want.
This is correct. The Claws are definitely a damage buff, especially if you go Shield & Claw instead of Sword and Board. It's just unfortunate that there are so few build options to optimize it. No fighting style or feats, and for magic items there's only a lone tattoo in Tasha's, Edlritch Claw Tattoo. Very DM dependent to get that one. But nice if you do.
The claws are considered simple weapons, so the Magical Strikes part of Edlritch Claw Tattoo won't be of much use.
Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.
The PHB does not state anywhere that a weapon with the heavy property must be held with two hands.
Heavy. Creatures that are Small or Tiny have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon's size and bulk make it too large for a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively.
A bit late and it may have already been addressed but Free action and Interact with Object are the same type of action classified as an and you only get one per turn so you cannot do two (dropping and picking up).
Your Turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move. You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take Your Turn. You can also interact with one object or feature of the Environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to Attack. If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other SpecialObjects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions. The GM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs Special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the GM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.
A bit late and it may have already been addressed but Free action and Interact with Object are the same type of action classified as an and you only get one per turn so you cannot do two (dropping and picking up).
Dropping an held item is not intended to count as an item interaction as per the Devs.
ah i see thanks for that bit fair enough; although i would still argue on the very first turn at the very least drawing your second sword would be considered ur free action if were assuming ur allowed to draw one blade to start off the encounter with most reasonable DMs, as you can only draw one weapon at the start of combat, unless the character walks around with both blades drawn at all times. if uv got a harsher DM and you dont say youve drawn ur blade to begin an initiative roll then drawing ur first blade would be considered the free action (which leads to one of the draws for dual wielder feat)
Perhaps mentioning "punishing players" was unnecessary, and it may have been a misinterpretation on my part. Sorry about that.
I think we are considering this from different viewpoints. I've been considering how the claw plays compared to the tail in particular. If you choose the tail I think it's perfectly fine to either wield a big two-handed weapon, or dual wield and get a bonus action. At the same time you have a reach weapon available, as well as a defensive reaction. Whether the natural weapons you get are claws, bite or tail is pretty much flavour imo. If anything the fact that the claws require free hands is a drawback compared to the other options.
Another point for allowing a bonus action attack imo is that not doing so pigeonholes the claw wielder into either using a shield or a big heavy-hitting weapon along with their claws, at least if the player wants to be as efficient as they can be. Thematically on the other hand I think a frenzied beast attacking with both hands would be both suitable and evocative.
Just to add a little bit to the whole holding and wielding discussion.
To wield is to hold and use (a weapon or tool). (nothing in there excludes Beast Barbarians claws)
To hold is to grasp, carry, or support with one's hands. (BBC´s can´t be excluded due to semantics since they are supported by hands and count as simple weapons, you need the DW feat though)
You definitely support and wield your claws with your hands, therefor you can use DW and TWF if you take the relevant feat and fighting style.
Much respect to the thread starter. I enjoyed reading these thoughts.
I've been thinking about Path of the Beast and Bonus Action recently and it annoys me too that RAW doesn't let you use your BA to attack with claws. But, I guess - and forgive me if someone already said it - the extra claw attack you get to do is conceivably from the other hand. Makes me wonder why they didn't just forego the extra claw attack and write, "you can now do a BA claw attack with the other hand".
In a similar vain, for a Totem Barb, I was thinking of going for a 1 level dip in Monk and Fighter to pick up BA unarmed strike and 1d8 unarmed damage from the relevant Fighting Style... kind of makes me sad though that my barbarian won't get the level 20 capatone of +4 STR and CON. Also, in my campaign we are using Standard array and my barb does not have the mimimum WIS (13) score to multiclass Monk, so the idea is moot. 😁
Giving you an extra claw attack as a main action is much more optimal. You can wield a shield and still make two claw attacks (or three at level five). If you're holding a greatsword and you get GWM, you can do 2 claw attack + 1 sword attack, and if you crit (which is often with 3 attacks with advantage), you still have your bonus attack available.
Yeah good point!
I was just thinking about the wording of the double claw attack and how I find it frustrating.
I want to explore the example you've outlined. I like it. I agree with it, but there's something about it for me that breaks RP immersion...
So let's say, your PC's main hand is its right hand and you have GWM, a greatsword and obviously your PC is Path of the Beast, and at least 5th level, and you raged last turn, so your BA is free...
You hold the greatsword with both hands and attack with it as your action. You then drop the greatsword, which is free to do, your hands are now empty,. But you've got claws, and you haven't used Extra Attack, so now with your right hand's claw you attack. Finally, since you've now attacked with a claw, you can attack one more time with a claw, so again you do that (probably right hand still? Maybe left since in my version of the example the left hand is empty too). You are now free to use a BA.
So, that's great. It's better to do 2d6 + 1d6 + 1d6 damage than 1d6 + 1d6 + 1d6 damage. I'm all for a little optimising. But... there's this piece of me that feels like there's no way in reality, that a person would drop a sword and then next round pick it up as a free action, rinse repeat. It's great optimisation (and I'd be very tempted to do it), but it sort of breaks immersion for me. There's probably a real world argument for dropping a big weapon when you are in very close combat and claws/daggers would be better, but the whole dropping the sword and picking it back up thing - opponent directly in front of you - it makes the RP side of my brain win out over the optimising side.
What are your thoughts? Obviously correct my example, if parts of it are wrong.
You don't have to drop it. You only have to attack with both hands. You can hold it in your offhand while you attack with your claws.
Well that's interesting. Helps me with the immersion, if you don't need to drop the greatsword. I still feel no one would choose to not use the greatsword 2 more times, if it wasn't for a mechanism in game that allows 3 attacks, but 2 of them have to be with claws.
That's an immersion that easy to get on board. A greatsword is big and heavy. One big swing, and then you follow up with two quick claw swipes. The greatsword is too heavy to swing it two more times. So you can swing it once more, or you can claw attack twice in the same time.
Note that, with RAW, once you hit level 5, you CAN hit something with a greataxe on your first attack, let go with one hand to make a claw attack, then make an additional claw attack as per the feature. So you'd be doing 1d12 + STR + 2, 1D6 + STR +2, and 1D6 + STR + 2, and that leaves you your BA to do whatever you want.
This is correct. The Claws are definitely a damage buff, especially if you go Shield & Claw instead of Sword and Board. It's just unfortunate that there are so few build options to optimize it. No fighting style or feats, and for magic items there's only a lone tattoo in Tasha's, Edlritch Claw Tattoo. Very DM dependent to get that one. But nice if you do.
The claws are considered simple weapons, so the Magical Strikes part of Edlritch Claw Tattoo won't be of much use.
pretty sure you can't hold a heavy two handed weapon with one hand. I'd need to verify but i think SA already covered that somewhere.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137390-weretouched-beasthide
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137424-weretouched-longtooth
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137431-weretouched-razorclaw
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137461-weretouched-swiftstride
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137646-weretouched-wildhunt
Sage Advice already confirms you can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2-weapon-casting/
The PHB explicitly states the same.
Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.
The PHB does not state anywhere that a weapon with the heavy property must be held with two hands.
Heavy. Creatures that are Small or Tiny have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon's size and bulk make it too large for a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively.
A bit late and it may have already been addressed but Free action and Interact with Object are the same type of action classified as an and you only get one per turn so you cannot do two (dropping and picking up).
Other Activity on Your Turn
Your Turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.
You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take Your Turn.
You can also interact with one object or feature of the Environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to Attack.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other Special Objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
The GM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs Special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the GM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.
Dropping an held item is not intended to count as an item interaction as per the Devs.
ah i see thanks for that bit fair enough; although i would still argue on the very first turn at the very least drawing your second sword would be considered ur free action if were assuming ur allowed to draw one blade to start off the encounter with most reasonable DMs, as you can only draw one weapon at the start of combat, unless the character walks around with both blades drawn at all times. if uv got a harsher DM and you dont say youve drawn ur blade to begin an initiative roll then drawing ur first blade would be considered the free action (which leads to one of the draws for dual wielder feat)
Yeah drawing a second weapon on your turn requires the Use an Object action unless you have the Dual Welder feat or a lenient DM.