I think it is rude to say that it is clear to anyone that isn't a munchkin and a bit insulting when no one else on here has been insulting.
That being said, there are people here arguing about the fact that wield means held and the claws are wielded, about what the definition of in is, and about how hold relates to claws that are modified to count as simple melee weapons for the purpose of rules. Further, I could literally hold my hands together and then slash repeatedly since they're now simple melee weapons being held. That doesn't even get into the fact that RAW I could be holding a shortsword, attack twice with my claws, free interaction draw a second short sword, attack one with the short sword and bonus action attack again with the short sword for the exact same damage.
Look, if you want to say it is ambiguous, then I'm fine with agreeing with that. I'm not fine with you trying to state their is no ambiguity here when this is a repeatedly argued topic that that clearly doesn't have an agreed upon answer.
As I have already said and shown, there is no ambiguity, the meaning is very clear. Pretty much everyone posting here is in agreement that by RAW this does not work - even the game designers say it does not work. [REDACTED]
Its not a bonus action, because then it'd conflict with activating Barbarian Rage. Having to wait an entire turn to use the claw attack is pretty bad design.
There is a lot that feels a bit rushed or poorly explained. Don't get me started on the Item enchanting 'rules' .... and they have had two tries regarding those....
Seems pretty well thought out and explained well to me. The only question here is "can natural weapons be used for TWF with the Dual Wielder feat" and that question has been around for so long that its pretty much deliberate silence on at this point and has nothing to do with Tasha's.
There is a lot that feels a bit rushed or poorly explained. Don't get me started on the Item enchanting 'rules' .... and they have had two tries regarding those....
Seems pretty well thought out and explained well to me. The only question here is "can natural weapons be used for TWF with the Dual Wielder feat" and that question has been around for so long that its pretty much deliberate silence on at this point and has nothing to do with Tasha's.
There's also no explicit quantity of gauntlets specified and the implicit quantity, admittedly depending on your reading, is imho "at least two and as many as you like". Which, I think, backs up Kotath's implied point that Tasha's rules aren't as well thought-out as they could be, so a GM is particularly justified in "fixing" them with house rules.
Its not a bonus action, because then it'd conflict with activating Barbarian Rage. Having to wait an entire turn to use the claw attack is pretty bad design.
Plus I REALLY enjoy a shield master Beast Barb, really under the radar and heavily underrated IMO. It would kill that build.
Seems pretty well thought out and explained well to me. The only question here is "can natural weapons be used for TWF with the Dual Wielder feat" and that question has been around for so long that its pretty much deliberate silence on at this point and has nothing to do with Tasha's.
Agreed. The Beast Barbarian's claws are no more or less eligible for two-weapon fighting/Dual Wielder than natural weapons always have been.
The difference between a Beast Barbarian's claws and other claws are:
The claws of PC races like Tabaxi are both Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strikes, but are not Simple Weapons.
The claws of monsters are Natural Weapons but not Unarmed Strikes and not Simple Weapons.
The claws of the Barbarian are Natural Weapons and Simple Weapons, but are not not Unarmed Strikes
The unarmed strikes of a transormed Lycan Bloodunter are Unarmed Strikes, but not Natural Weapons and not Simple Weapons
There may be features that treat one or more of those classes as different from the others, but TWF isn't that feature.
Seems pretty well thought out and explained well to me. The only question here is "can natural weapons be used for TWF with the Dual Wielder feat" and that question has been around for so long that its pretty much deliberate silence on at this point and has nothing to do with Tasha's.
Agreed. The Beast Barbarian's claws are no more or less eligible for two-weapon fighting/Dual Wielder than natural weapons always have been.
The difference between a Beast Barbarian's claws and other claws are:
The claws of PC races like Tabaxi are both Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strikes, but are not Simple Weapons.
The claws of monsters are Natural Weapons but not Unarmed Strikes and not Simple Weapons.
The claws of the Barbarian are Natural Weapons and Simple Weapons, but are not not Unarmed Strikes
The unarmed strikes of a transormed Lycan Bloodunter are Unarmed Strikes, but not Natural Weapons and not Simple Weapons
There may be features that treat one or more of those classes as different from the others, but TWF isn't that feature.
This issue is....
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
Yes, I agree, "holding in one hand" is the start and end to why non-held weapons (Natural Weapons, and Unarmed Strikes before they were pointlessly nerfed in 2016 into not being weapons at all) have never been TWF eligible.
The counting as simple weapons for the claw, tail, and jaw attack, i'd assume, would be so that you could add your proficiency bonus to attacks made with them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ooh, good catch! Never noticed that “only” before!!!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think it is rude to say that it is clear to anyone that isn't a munchkin and a bit insulting when no one else on here has been insulting.
That being said, there are people here arguing about the fact that wield means held and the claws are wielded, about what the definition of in is, and about how hold relates to claws that are modified to count as simple melee weapons for the purpose of rules. Further, I could literally hold my hands together and then slash repeatedly since they're now simple melee weapons being held. That doesn't even get into the fact that RAW I could be holding a shortsword, attack twice with my claws, free interaction draw a second short sword, attack one with the short sword and bonus action attack again with the short sword for the exact same damage.
Look, if you want to say it is ambiguous, then I'm fine with agreeing with that. I'm not fine with you trying to state their is no ambiguity here when this is a repeatedly argued topic that that clearly doesn't have an agreed upon answer.
[REDACTED]
As I have already said and shown, there is no ambiguity, the meaning is very clear. Pretty much everyone posting here is in agreement that by RAW this does not work - even the game designers say it does not work. [REDACTED]
I'm a tad surprised they didn't just make it a bonus action attack in the first place, but guess that would have seemed weak.
I'm glad they didn't. If they made it a bonus action that would definitely be a big nerf.
Its not a bonus action, because then it'd conflict with activating Barbarian Rage. Having to wait an entire turn to use the claw attack is pretty bad design.
Seems pretty well thought out and explained well to me. The only question here is "can natural weapons be used for TWF with the Dual Wielder feat" and that question has been around for so long that its pretty much deliberate silence on at this point and has nothing to do with Tasha's.
To bring this back on topic, I'll point out that an Artificer Armorer can use the Dual Wielder feat on their Thunderer Gauntlets by taking the gauntlets off and wielding them like this: https://media1.tenor.com/images/c580bf47ca08302e6c940b81de5e888b/tenor.gif?itemid=11190804
There's also no explicit quantity of gauntlets specified and the implicit quantity, admittedly depending on your reading, is imho "at least two and as many as you like". Which, I think, backs up Kotath's implied point that Tasha's rules aren't as well thought-out as they could be, so a GM is particularly justified in "fixing" them with house rules.
Plus I REALLY enjoy a shield master Beast Barb, really under the radar and heavily underrated IMO. It would kill that build.
Agreed. The Beast Barbarian's claws are no more or less eligible for two-weapon fighting/Dual Wielder than natural weapons always have been.
The difference between a Beast Barbarian's claws and other claws are:
There may be features that treat one or more of those classes as different from the others, but TWF isn't that feature.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This issue is....
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
Yes, I agree, "holding in one hand" is the start and end to why non-held weapons (Natural Weapons, and Unarmed Strikes before they were pointlessly nerfed in 2016 into not being weapons at all) have never been TWF eligible.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The counting as simple weapons for the claw, tail, and jaw attack, i'd assume, would be so that you could add your proficiency bonus to attacks made with them.