So, there's a yet-to-be settled discussion and debate about whether the Duel Wielder feat allows the Beast Barbarian to use its claws as a bonus action attack. Let's open up another can of worms :)
Let's say you want go sword and board - and when you Rage it becomes sword and claw (counts as a simple melee weapon). The Dueling Fighting Style states:
Dueling
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
So the thing is - both of your hands become weapons. But if one of them is tucked behind a shield, it seems you reasonably argue that you're only "wielding" one. Do you agree, do you think it would not work, or do you think interpretations can go either way?
This seems like yet another effective way to go for the Beast Barbarian. +2 damage is mathematically equivalent to turning your 1d6 claws into 1d10 claws, and you're benefiting from a shield. In terms of integrating your subclass features into your choice of armament and feats, the flexibility of the Beast subclass is rivaled by no other.
So the thing is - both of your hands become weapons. But if one of them is tucked behind a shield, it seems you reasonably argue that you're only "wielding" one. Do you agree, do you think it would not work, or do you think interpretations can go either way?
I agree that the claw that's holding the shield isn't being wielded; it's not capable of being used as a weapon until you leave it empty. I don't think you'll get any pushback there.
The issue here is that Dueling very strongly implies you need to be holding one weapon to get the benefit ("wielding a melee weapon in one hand".) In fact I'd argue the feature's notion of wielding is intended to be entirely hand-centric. The "and no other weapons" at the end of the sentence implies you're not wielding other weapons in the same manner (i.e in a hand) and a Tabaxi fighter ought to be able to benefit from Dueling while wielding a sword even if their second hand (which has claws that are also natural weapons) is empty. If you interpret "wield" more broadly - having any other weapon ready to strike - Minotaurs and Lizardfolk would never be able to benefit from Dueling since they can always use their horns or bites, nor would a Path of the Beast Barbarian with fangs or a tail.
So I don't believe you can apply Dueling to a claw under any circumstance, but you could apply it to a battleaxe wielded one-handed and still make two claw attacks. That's a pretty sensible outcome since you're not able to pair Dueling with TWF or the bonus attack from Martial Arts either.
So, there's a yet-to-be settled discussion and debate about whether the Duel Wielder feat allows the Beast Barbarian to use its claws as a bonus action attack. Let's open up another can of worms :)
Let's say you want go sword and board - and when you Rage it becomes sword and claw (counts as a simple melee weapon). The Dueling Fighting Style states:
So the thing is - both of your hands become weapons. But if one of them is tucked behind a shield, it seems you reasonably argue that you're only "wielding" one. Do you agree, do you think it would not work, or do you think interpretations can go either way?
This seems like yet another effective way to go for the Beast Barbarian. +2 damage is mathematically equivalent to turning your 1d6 claws into 1d10 claws, and you're benefiting from a shield. In terms of integrating your subclass features into your choice of armament and feats, the flexibility of the Beast subclass is rivaled by no other.
I agree that the claw that's holding the shield isn't being wielded; it's not capable of being used as a weapon until you leave it empty. I don't think you'll get any pushback there.
The issue here is that Dueling very strongly implies you need to be holding one weapon to get the benefit ("wielding a melee weapon in one hand".) In fact I'd argue the feature's notion of wielding is intended to be entirely hand-centric. The "and no other weapons" at the end of the sentence implies you're not wielding other weapons in the same manner (i.e in a hand) and a Tabaxi fighter ought to be able to benefit from Dueling while wielding a sword even if their second hand (which has claws that are also natural weapons) is empty. If you interpret "wield" more broadly - having any other weapon ready to strike - Minotaurs and Lizardfolk would never be able to benefit from Dueling since they can always use their horns or bites, nor would a Path of the Beast Barbarian with fangs or a tail.
So I don't believe you can apply Dueling to a claw under any circumstance, but you could apply it to a battleaxe wielded one-handed and still make two claw attacks. That's a pretty sensible outcome since you're not able to pair Dueling with TWF or the bonus attack from Martial Arts either.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Good points, InquisitiveCover 👍