I'm pretty sure that doesn't allow my cat to grasp the weapon.
Are you only pretty sure? Have you tried it?
Cats in D&D aren't cats IRL anyways. A cat in D&D can lift freaking 45 pounds. That's enough for a cat to bench press. The game was never a 1-1 simulation and I think it's fine to embrace the quirks the system has. It's not like it makes any sense for a skeleton to wield weapons with any form of proficiency either.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't allow my cat to grasp the weapon.
Are you only pretty sure? Have you tried it?
Cats in D&D aren't cats IRL anyways. A cat in D&D can lift freaking 45 pounds. That's enough for a cat to bench press. The game was never a 1-1 simulation and I think it's fine to embrace the quirks the system has. It's not like it makes any sense for a skeleton to wield weapons with any form of proficiency either.
The rules don't say your animal companion can use a weapon, so...it can't. It can only do exactly what it's powers say it can.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
The rules don't say your animal companion can use a weapon, so...it can't. It can only do exactly what it's powers say it can.
By that logic, a wizard can't use a sword either, because it isn't in his features. In general, anything can use a weapon, a zombie, skeleton, or Dragon.
There is nothing that says they can't use a weapon, therefore they can by RAW. By your logic, a fighter can't use a weapon because there isn't anything saying that they can't.
Specific beats General, yet there is no specific rule saying they can't wield a weapon. It would be different if the feature said "The companion can't use weapons."
The Fighter's Proficiency section states that they are proficient in all Simple and Martial weapons.
Class Features
As a fighter, you gain the following class features.
Hit Points
Hit Dice: 1d10 per fighter level Hit Points at 1st Level: 10 + your Constitution modifier Hit Points at Higher Levels: 1d10 (or 6) + your Constitution modifier per fighter level after 1st
The Fighter's Proficiency section states that they are proficient in all Simple and Martial weapons.
Class Features
As a fighter, you gain the following class features.
Hit Points
Hit Dice: 1d10 per fighter level Hit Points at 1st Level: 10 + your Constitution modifier Hit Points at Higher Levels: 1d10 (or 6) + your Constitution modifier per fighter level after 1st
That just means they're proficient. Where's the feature that says they can use them? And a wizard can't use a longsword at all, unless they're proficient? What's the point of using a nonproficient weapon if you can't use it in the first place?
Rav, is that you trolling under another different account again?
Uh, don't know who Rav is and I don't see how I'm trolling when you've yet to make a serious point against my claims.
Okay, how the heck is a kitty cat gonna hold a Longsword? It has no thumbs. You explain to me the logistics of how a cat is gonna hold, much less swing a sword, and I’ll start to consider thinking about possibly giving your idea any merit whatsoever.
Rav, is that you trolling under another different account again?
Uh, don't know who Rav is and I don't see how I'm trolling when you've yet to make a serious point against my claims.
Okay, how the heck is a kitty cat gonna hold a Longsword? It has no thumbs. You explain to me the logistics of how a cat is gonna hold, much less swing a sword, and I’ll start to consider thinking about possibly giving your idea any merit whatsoever.
Well, firstly the burden of proof lies on you since you're trying to disprove my claim.
Secondly, cat can't use a longsword by RAW. It's a versatile weapon which requires 1 or 2 hands to use. Have you read my first post or are you just that spiteful against the image of Puss in Boots?
Tbf to me, I did say in this thread to put aside your own opinions
Then why ask us? If you just want your opinion to be echoed, then don't ask for our ideas on the matter. Sorry, but you have to accept that most people don't agree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
No. It's just an animal. An owned dog is not magical, and a stray isn't either. The only difference is that it has formed a bond with you. Most familiars are smarter than an animal companion (6 or higher intelligence). It's not magical. Just a wolf that loves and guards you. So no.
It's trained to fight alongside you. It's not just a pet. The bond it formed is magical, and even the attacks are.
Other than that, is a dog with a sword in it's mouth that abrasive to the story? Or do you just think it's too powerful?
You just keep changing your question and argument until you hear what you want to hear but, most people aren't going to give you that satisfaction. Short answer, do what you want. Will most people back your idea? No. What more do you want?
Tbf to me, I did say in this thread to put aside your own opinions
Then why ask us? If you just want your opinion to be echoed, then don't ask for our ideas on the matter. Sorry, but you have to accept that most people don't agree.
I asked specifically for RAW, I'm sure. I just wanted a "Yes, it works RAW" or a "No, it can't because p.g. ### says all weapons must be wielded in a hand" or something to that effect.
I got "Yeah, it works RAW but no because I specifically don't want it to." Which isn't what I asked. Anyone can place Gritty Realism in their games and that's fine and more realistic, but the standard way to play is the standard RAW.
No. It's just an animal. An owned dog is not magical, and a stray isn't either. The only difference is that it has formed a bond with you. Most familiars are smarter than an animal companion (6 or higher intelligence). It's not magical. Just a wolf that loves and guards you. So no.
It's trained to fight alongside you. It's not just a pet. The bond it formed is magical, and even the attacks are.
Other than that, is a dog with a sword in it's mouth that abrasive to the story? Or do you just think it's too powerful?
You just keep changing your question and argument until you hear what you want to hear but, most people aren't going to give you that satisfaction. Short answer, do what you want. Will most people back your idea? No. What more do you want?
I was never looking for any opinion one way or the other. I can justify in my head either rule, but I'm looking for whether it's RAW or not.
You pick an animal companion of 1/4 and the stat block tells you the abilities the animal has, skills and attacks/actions included. Your Beastmaster features tell you how this information is modified. If you find somewhere in the stat block that says your Wolf can wield a sword, then go ahead. If you are a DM and you think you have a great idea, then go ahead. If you are a player and your DM thinks you have a great idea, then go ahead. RAW doesn't really support or dispute your idea as it's not a normal train of thought to pursue. The absence of anything exspressly forbidding an idea, does not make it automatically acceptable by RAW.
You pick an animal companion of 1/4 and the stat block tells you the abilities the animal has, skills and attacks/actions included. Your Beastmaster features tell you how this information is modified. If you find somewhere in the stat block that says your Wolf can wield a sword, then go ahead. If you are a DM and you think you have a great idea, then go ahead. If you are a player and your DM thinks you have a great idea, then go ahead. RAW doesn't really support or dispute your idea as it's not a normal train of thought to pursue. The absence of anything exspressly forbidding an idea, does not make it automatically acceptable by RAW.
That would mean that you couldn't equip an animated skeleton or a familiar can't use a bonus action since they can only use Actions as normal.
Rav, is that you trolling under another different account again?
Uh, don't know who Rav is and I don't see how I'm trolling when you've yet to make a serious point against my claims.
Okay, how the heck is a kitty cat gonna hold a Longsword? It has no thumbs. You explain to me the logistics of how a cat is gonna hold, much less swing a sword, and I’ll start to consider thinking about possibly giving your idea any merit whatsoever.
Well, firstly the burden of proof lies on you since you're trying to disprove my claim.
Secondly, cat can't use a longsword by RAW. It's a versatile weapon which requires 1 or 2 hands to use. Have you read my first post or are you just that spiteful against the image of Puss in Boots?
First, I have no burden of proof. You are the one trying to say it is possible, the burden of proof falls on you.
Second, any weapon that lacks either the versatile or two-handed is a “one-handed weapon” as referred to countless times including but not limited to: The Crossbow Expert and Dual Wielder feats:
Crossbow Expert
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits:
You ignore the loading property of crossbows with which you are proficient.
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding.
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.
If you intend to argue that the PHB does not list any specifically designated “one-handed weapons” and so therefore they don’t exist, then you have just invalidated entire bullet points from two of the most popular feats in the game.
Therefore, any weapon that is neither Versatile nor Two-Handed must be assumed to be a “one-handed weapon.”
Since a cat has 0 hands, it can also not wield a “one-handed weapon,” and since nothing in any of the books anywhere makes any reference to a “zero-handed/no-handed weapon,” basically the answer is “No, not possible RAW.”
Rav, is that you trolling under another different account again?
Uh, don't know who Rav is and I don't see how I'm trolling when you've yet to make a serious point against my claims.
Okay, how the heck is a kitty cat gonna hold a Longsword? It has no thumbs. You explain to me the logistics of how a cat is gonna hold, much less swing a sword, and I’ll start to consider thinking about possibly giving your idea any merit whatsoever.
Well, firstly the burden of proof lies on you since you're trying to disprove my claim.
Secondly, cat can't use a longsword by RAW. It's a versatile weapon which requires 1 or 2 hands to use. Have you read my first post or are you just that spiteful against the image of Puss in Boots?
First, I have no burden of proof. You are the one trying to say it is possible, the burden of proof falls on you.
Second, any weapon that lacks either the versatile or two-handed is a “one-handed weapon” as referred to countless times including but not limited to: The Crossbow Expert and Dual Wielder feats:
Crossbow Expert
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits:
You ignore the loading property of crossbows with which you are proficient.
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding.
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.
If you intend to argue that the PHB does not list any specifically designated “one-handed weapons” and so therefore they don’t exist, then you have just invalidated entire bullet points from two of the most popular feats in the game.
Therefore, any weapon that is neither Versatile nor Two-Handed must be assumed to be a “one-handed weapon.”
Since a cat has 0 hands, it can also not wield a “one-handed weapon,” and since nothing in any of the books anywhere makes any reference to a “zero-handed/no-handed weapon,” basically the answer is “No, not possible RAW.”
Okay, that's fair.
I actually also found this clause in the DMG: If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, you can replace it with a different one. That probably means monsters without manufactured weapons can't use manufactured weapons, unless I'm mistaken.
Are you only pretty sure? Have you tried it?
Cats in D&D aren't cats IRL anyways. A cat in D&D can lift freaking 45 pounds. That's enough for a cat to bench press. The game was never a 1-1 simulation and I think it's fine to embrace the quirks the system has. It's not like it makes any sense for a skeleton to wield weapons with any form of proficiency either.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The rules don't say your animal companion can use a weapon, so...it can't. It can only do exactly what it's powers say it can.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
By that logic, a wizard can't use a sword either, because it isn't in his features. In general, anything can use a weapon, a zombie, skeleton, or Dragon.
There is nothing that says they can't use a weapon, therefore they can by RAW. By your logic, a fighter can't use a weapon because there isn't anything saying that they can't.
Specific beats General, yet there is no specific rule saying they can't wield a weapon. It would be different if the feature said "The companion can't use weapons."
The Fighter's Proficiency section states that they are proficient in all Simple and Martial weapons.
See^^
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That just means they're proficient. Where's the feature that says they can use them? And a wizard can't use a longsword at all, unless they're proficient? What's the point of using a nonproficient weapon if you can't use it in the first place?
Rav, is that you trolling under another different account again?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Uh, don't know who Rav is and I don't see how I'm trolling when you've yet to make a serious point against my claims.
Okay, how the heck is a kitty cat gonna hold a Longsword? It has no thumbs. You explain to me the logistics of how a cat is gonna hold, much less swing a sword, and I’ll start to consider thinking about possibly giving your idea any merit whatsoever.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, firstly the burden of proof lies on you since you're trying to disprove my claim.
Secondly, cat can't use a longsword by RAW. It's a versatile weapon which requires 1 or 2 hands to use. Have you read my first post or are you just that spiteful against the image of Puss in Boots?
Tbf to me, I did say in this thread to put aside your own opinions
Then why ask us? If you just want your opinion to be echoed, then don't ask for our ideas on the matter. Sorry, but you have to accept that most people don't agree.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
You just keep changing your question and argument until you hear what you want to hear but, most people aren't going to give you that satisfaction. Short answer, do what you want. Will most people back your idea? No. What more do you want?
I asked specifically for RAW, I'm sure. I just wanted a "Yes, it works RAW" or a "No, it can't because p.g. ### says all weapons must be wielded in a hand" or something to that effect.
I got "Yeah, it works RAW but no because I specifically don't want it to." Which isn't what I asked. Anyone can place Gritty Realism in their games and that's fine and more realistic, but the standard way to play is the standard RAW.
I was never looking for any opinion one way or the other. I can justify in my head either rule, but I'm looking for whether it's RAW or not.
I think most of us where saying raw. Though not directly.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
You pick an animal companion of 1/4 and the stat block tells you the abilities the animal has, skills and attacks/actions included. Your Beastmaster features tell you how this information is modified. If you find somewhere in the stat block that says your Wolf can wield a sword, then go ahead. If you are a DM and you think you have a great idea, then go ahead. If you are a player and your DM thinks you have a great idea, then go ahead. RAW doesn't really support or dispute your idea as it's not a normal train of thought to pursue. The absence of anything exspressly forbidding an idea, does not make it automatically acceptable by RAW.
That would mean that you couldn't equip an animated skeleton or a familiar can't use a bonus action since they can only use Actions as normal.
First, I have no burden of proof. You are the one trying to say it is possible, the burden of proof falls on you.
Second, any weapon that lacks either the versatile or two-handed is a “one-handed weapon” as referred to countless times including but not limited to: The Crossbow Expert and Dual Wielder feats:
If you intend to argue that the PHB does not list any specifically designated “one-handed weapons” and so therefore they don’t exist, then you have just invalidated entire bullet points from two of the most popular feats in the game.
Therefore, any weapon that is neither Versatile nor Two-Handed must be assumed to be a “one-handed weapon.”
Since a cat has 0 hands, it can also not wield a “one-handed weapon,” and since nothing in any of the books anywhere makes any reference to a “zero-handed/no-handed weapon,” basically the answer is “No, not possible RAW.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Okay, that's fair.
I actually also found this clause in the DMG: If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, you can replace it with a different one. That probably means monsters without manufactured weapons can't use manufactured weapons, unless I'm mistaken.
That's all I need, thanks.
Finally, we got to the end.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!