Hi,

Curious thought that I had, but it seems that a Tiefling tail would make an excellent weapon.  They could fit the end of it with something akin to a spearhead, and it would be pretty deadly, essentially becoming a flexible spear that they could use as an additional melee weapon.  

Beyond that, if you're a Tiefling that has a thick heavy tail, you could use it in melee combat to slap about your opponent, making an additional unarmed attack, as well as your regular attacks.  Even if a thick heavy tail is not flexible enough to be bent round to the front of your body, you could still use it to make an unarmed attack and to fend off an attacker from behind.

Fitting metal armour to your tail would also make it into a heavy blunt weapon, especially if your tail is already thick and heavy In the first place.

At the very least, you could use your tail to trip up your enemies and send them flying, sprawling on the floor, or headfirst into walls and furniture and so forth.

So, can a Tiefling use its tail as a weapon, and if not, why not?

You can only use it to make an unarmed strike - because you can use pretty much any part of your body for an unarmed strike. You can't use it for weapon attacks because it would have to say if you could (and it doesn't say).

Your DM could always make exceptions, but as noted above it would be an unarmed strike. 

I had a tiefling monk for a while and I had some fun with her unarmed strikes, mixing in things like tail attacks and head butts in with the punches and kicks etc. 

I would be fine with a feat available to applicable races that gave them an upgraded unarmed attack with their tail. Certainly using it as well as you could wield a spear would require the kind of specialized training that are often covered by feats (or class training in the case of monks). As a base feature though it's a little much.

I don't thing tiefling tails are prehensile, so it would be difficult.

There's varying definitions of 'prehensile'.  Is a tiffle tail generally considered nimble enough to use as a manipulator?  No; most players absolutely flip schitts when someone suggests their character might have more than two manipulators.  Are tiffle tails frequently depicted in official art as being more than flexible enough to use as whips or bludgeons?  Absolutely.  I don't know how much force a tiffle tail slam could generate, that depends on body mechanics we simply don't have the ability to study, but it's plausible.

Arming and armoring a tail is an idea, but there's a reason relatively few weapons are strapped to your forearm rather than held in your hand.  The loss of dexterity is significant; hands are much better at manipulating things than tentacles are.  Tails can typically be dexterous or powerful, but not both.  A nimble, highly flexible tail that can act as a pseudo-manipulator doesn't have the mass or muscle strength to strike heavy blows; a heavy, powerfully muscled tail around a dense bone core is far too large and bulky to do anything but whack things.

'Course, a DM can decide whatever they like.  In my younger, dumber days, my very first D&D PC was a tiffle who had custom knives created with a set of paired rings in place of conventional grips, designed to allow him to thread the end of his tail through them and use them to lacerate foes as a desperate surprise maneuver.  The DM let me have it, though in retrospect he maybe shouldn't have.  It didn't break anything, though.  In almost any situation conventional weapons are a better idea - the whole 'armed tiffle tail' thing is best popped as a surprise option against enemies who have the upper hand on you.

Considering the restrictions on Two Weapon Fighting (light weapons only, and there is no Three Weapon Fighting), as well as the way Dual Wielder is written (the AC benefit would only be gained if you held three weapons, which is otherwise not much of an advantage), letting the tail count as a hand pretty much only seems to offer a significant benefit by allowing your second regular hand to hold a shield, be used for somatic components or brandishing a focus, or holding up a torch or something. There's some cute things you might try in terms of having three weapons with different properties ready, but that's so minor I wouldn't care. Seems like a pretty fair benefit to turn into a homebrew feat. It'd be a strong one, but arguably still less so than at least a handful existing ones. I'd allow that if a player asked. Three manipulators (thanks for the terminology, Yurei)  without some commensurate cost though, no - that'd be out. 

That doesn't look like it would work well as a weapon, at least to me.

Depends on how much speed she can generate and how tough the tissue at the tip of the tail is.  That tail looks to be at least as long as she is tall and is clearly very flexible, while the base has enough girth to it to indicate some pretty heavy musculature.  If that musculature can get the tip of the tail moving at significant speeds, she could absolutely deal painful welts and whip-like blows with it, though it'd probably hurt like a sonofa***** to try and bullwhip someone with your own spine.

I doubt there would be debilitating structural damage from Tiffle Tail Slapps, but there's a whole lot less material in a bullwhip and those are valid weapons in the PHB.  Any given DM's mileage varies on whether whips-as-serious-weapons breaks their verisimilitude or not, but a tiffle monk using Infernal Demon Ki to tail-whip someone makes as much sense as anything else a typical monk does. 

'Course, my Amateur Fight Nerd brain says the real value of a sturdy tail in a close-quarters fistbrawl is serving as a marvelous counterbalance for the sort of kicks tailless fighters have to use their torso to counterweight.  All that extra mass down there means tiffles would have their very own schools of kickboxing and other Feeties-based martial arts, and they'd potentially have an edge in avoiding prone since they could use their tails to rebalance as much as their arms or legs.  But yeah.  That tail means tiffles could throw some real mother****er kicks with less set-up and less risk of falling over than a comparable tailless fighter.  They can also get their tail broken, of course, and that's a lot of extra Tiffle Real Estate that's vulnerable to getting sliced off in an armed fight.  Cut close enough and they'll bleed out from their tail as much as someone else would from a severed leg, and the tail is much harder to armor than an arm or leg.

So, tradeoffs.  But it's a fun idea to consider.

Quote from Halfastbracegirdle >>

That doesn't look like it would work well as a weapon, at least to me.

A highly flexible appendage as thick as a leg and twice as long doesn't look like it would work well as a weapon? Agree to disagree. 

Quote from pangurjan >>

Three manipulators (thanks for the terminology, Yurei) 

I am definitely stealing this

PLAYERS

high fiving each other on a job well done

ME

Okay, everyone, manipulators at the ready!!!

PLAYERS

.....

ALSO ME

mwwwahhaaahaaaa

I mean... I have a player who has made a nude bugbear astral self monk that uses his [CENSORED] to make his unarmed strikes at a range of 20 feet so I don't see why a tiefling cant use their tail for unarmed strikes. (It is a theoretical character for a meme one off we are going to do)

As for wielding equipment, i feel like that would be something that would be specified in the race itself so I wouldn't be comfortable with allowing them to wield anything in combat, but outside of combat if they wanted to use it to manipulate things like mugs or chalk or the like I don't see why not.

Quote from TWForgeCleric >>

 

So, can a Tiefling use its tail as a weapon, and if not, why not?

 For anything else than as their standard unarmed attack? No, because the rules says so. As have been already mentioned, allowing a third appendage without some serious drawback isn't really balanced. Of course, if you and your DM don't care for that, you can always homebrew something.

Quote from scatterbraind >>

I would be fine with a feat available to applicable races that gave them an upgraded unarmed attack with their tail. Certainly using it as well as you could wield a spear would require the kind of specialized training that are often covered by feats (or class training in the case of monks). As a base feature though it's a little much.

I would also support the idea of having an applicable character (e.g., tiefling, dragonborn, etc.) gaining certain benefits with their tail via a feat versus just being a base feature. As scatterbraind (and some of the others) already mentioned, it would potentially unbalance the races if you suddenly allowed some of them to have extra capabilities and/or manipulators. As a quick and fairly rough example, such a feat might look something like this:

Tail Combatant 

Prerequisite: Must have a tail.

Through extensive training, you have learned how to use your tail more effectively during combat.

• Your tail helps provide counterbalance to the rest of your body. You gain advantage on Strength and Dexterity saving throws made against Effects that would knock you prone.
• You can strike at a target with your tail, which deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage on a hit and has the Reach property.
• If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swing your tail and roll a d6, applying the bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you.

First point is borrowing from Yurei's idea that the character gains some balance assistance from their tail, so advantage against being knocked prone. Second and third points are alterations from the Path of the Beast barbarian's tail. I decreased the d8's from Path of the Beast to a d4 and d6, since this character would always have a tail available versus only during a "rage" moment. Again, a quick and rough concept, so it probably needs some additional reworking for the sake of balance.

Quote from Javier_Phenergan >>

Quote from scatterbraind >>

I would be fine with a feat available to applicable races that gave them an upgraded unarmed attack with their tail. Certainly using it as well as you could wield a spear would require the kind of specialized training that are often covered by feats (or class training in the case of monks). As a base feature though it's a little much.

 

I would also support the idea of having an applicable character (e.g., tiefling, dragonborn, etc.) gaining certain benefits with their tail via a feat versus just being a base feature. As scatterbraind (and some of the others) already mentioned, it would potentially unbalance the races if you suddenly allowed some of them to have extra capabilities and/or manipulators. As a quick and fairly rough example, such a feat might look something like this:

Tail Combatant 

Prerequisite: Must have a tail.

Through extensive training, you have learned how to use your tail more effectively during combat.

• Your tail helps provide counterbalance to the rest of your body. You gain advantage on Strength and Dexterity saving throws made against Effects that would knock you prone.
• You can strike at a target with your tail, which deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage on a hit and has the Reach property.
• If a creature you can see within 10 feet of you hits you with an attack roll, you can use your reaction to swing your tail and roll a d6, applying the bonus to your AC equal to the number rolled, potentially causing the attack to miss you.

 

First point is borrowing from Yurei's idea that the character gains some balance assistance from their tail, so advantage against being knocked prone. Second and third points are alterations from the Path of the Beast barbarian's tail. I decreased the d8's from Path of the Beast to a d4 and d6, since this character would always have a tail available versus only during a "rage" moment. Again, a quick and rough concept, so it probably needs some additional reworking for the sake of balance.

 Giving the tail reach would mean that it would be at least 10 feet long. That is not a tiefling tail, comrade.

I like the idea of the Tail Combatant feat -- the concept that you have to train yourself with the tail, like you would any other limb, but once you do, you get some fairly reasonable combat advantages like balance or using it to swat attacks away.

As a DM I'd let you use it as an unarmed strike - but it's not "extra". Tieflings already have powerful racial bonuses so I wouldn't add more.

Using a feat similar to what Javier has put would be OK. You're using up your ASI to take it, so that keeps it balanced. Except maybe the possible +6 to AC as a free use - the mechanics of Rage class feature balance it for the Barb, granting it as unlimited use as a feat is not balanced. I'd lose that and bump the tail to 1d6 with a successful hit allowing you to use a bonus action to make a grapple attempt allowing you to grapple the opponent without needing a free hand. Something like that. This also means taking a Beast Barb would still be beneficial.

 Except maybe the possible +6 to AC as a free use - the mechanics of Rage class feature balance it for the Barb, granting it as unlimited use as a feat is not balanced. 

Yeah I thought that was maybe a little OP.

Grappling a weapon hand sounds like a good idea. Or maybe, limit this feature to once per battle or something.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

Using a feat similar to what Javier has put would be OK. You're using up your ASI to take it, so that keeps it balanced. Except maybe the possible +6 to AC as a free use - the mechanics of Rage class feature balance it for the Barb, granting it as unlimited use as a feat is not balanced. 

Mostly agree with the concept of dropping the "parry" ability of the tail, especially since it does tend to unbalance the feat a bit. I was also considering having it be a flat bonus (or scaling with proficiency), but that might be too close to the defensive duelist feat, which only grants one benefit (i.e., adding a parry bonus as a reaction). So, while I liked the idea of having the tail help run some interference in combat, I'd agree that dropping that item would be better for the sake of balance.

Quote from Lostwhilefishing >> 

Giving the tail reach would mean that it would be at least 10 feet long. That is not a tiefling tail, comrade.

Not sure if the physical tail would truly have to be 10+ feet long to qualify for the Reach aspect, but I would agree that the standard tiefling tail would probably not be long enough to extend that far. The "Reach" aspect was carried over from the Path of the Beast aspect that grants it to the barbarian with a tail. For sake of balance, I would be willing to remove it from this feat, which would further help keep the barbarian path beneficial.

Quote from Cyb3rM1nd >>

I'd lose that and bump the tail to 1d6 with a successful hit allowing you to use a bonus action to make a grapple attempt allowing you to grapple the opponent without needing a free hand. Something like that. This also means taking a Beast Barb would still be beneficial.

Thanks! I like these concepts as an alternative. Increasing the damage to 1d6 offsets losing the "parry" ability that we're dropping but still keeps it below the Path of the Beast barbarian ability. Would probably drop the Reach aspect as well (as noted above), which would further allow the barbarian to be better during a rage. Adding the grapple would be a nice third benefit that keeps the general flavor but doesn't provide too much strength. Maybe something along the lines of:

• When you hit a creature with your tail on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target. Since this grapple uses your tail, you do not need to have a free hand to make the attempt.

I like the grapple for the 3rd benefit.

Overall the reason I like this feat is that it is thematically and logically consistent -- the feat has to be taken upon leveling, which means you have to "train" it, and it represents that training in an appropriate way. The tail is doing things that make sense, and there is a benefit provided that is consistent with having spent an ASI to get the feat. You have to already have a tail to use the feat, which means not just tieflings can get it but any species with a tail (Lizardfolk, etc.). And it characterizes "tail fighting" reasonably well.

I am going to keep this in mind if I get a "tailed" PC in my game at some point.