I noticed in the PHB that when players make a melee attack with a light weapon in one hand, they can attack with a different light weapon in their other hand as a bonus action. However, it doesn't specify whether or not the weapon used for the bonus action can be the same type of weapon used for the initial attack. Can players use two of the same kind of weapon for two-weapon fighting?
Yes, as long as it's light (or if they have a feat or feature that lets them use different weapons). So you don't have to do like... a shortsword in one hand and a dagger in the other, you can go for two short swords.
The "different" is just to avoid someone arguing that transferring a single light weapon from one hand to the other qualifies for the bonus action attack.
Yes, as long as it's light (or if they have a feat or feature that lets them use different weapons). So you don't have to do like... a shortsword in one hand and a dagger in the other, you can go for two short swords.
The reason I asked is that I'm thinking of making a homebrew rule where players can wield the weapon in their mouth or their tail and I wanted to know precisely how the mechanic works. I got the idea from a YouTube video where someone made a one-armed lizardfolk character who wields a bow by holding it with one arm and drawing it with their tail.
Yes, as long as it's light (or if they have a feat or feature that lets them use different weapons). So you don't have to do like... a shortsword in one hand and a dagger in the other, you can go for two short swords.
The reason I asked is that I'm thinking of making a homebrew rule where players can wield the weapon in their mouth or their tail and I wanted to know precisely how the mechanic works. I got the idea from a YouTube video where someone made a one-armed lizardfolk character who wields a bow by holding it with one arm and drawing it with their tail.
That's a lot of homebrewing, unless there is a reference to that limb being particularly articulate. There is reason we use hands, rather than our mouths or feet to get things done. Also blows a pile of rule balance out of the water when you let characters dual wield while still using a shield and having a free hand for casting. Check out what thri-kreen can do with a actual feature, compared to what you want to hand out for free.
I'm still working on the details besides just the basic concept. I think I'll make it so players can only use weapons with their mouth or tail if at least one arm is lost or rendered permanently unusable.
Rorona Zorro (One Piece) Vibes. BUT: No race with "extra" appendages, namely Loxodon (trunk), Hadozee (Feet), and Plasmoid (Pseudopod) has the strength and accuracy to execute weapon attacks with it, only loxodon can use their trunk for an unarmed attack. Tails are in no way included in combat maneuvers, even the lizardfolk can only bite, despite having a massive tail.
If you make an extra homebrew is up to you, but you could also do this just as cool flavor for dual wield combat (and maybe literally cliffhangers).
The one-armed lizardfolk isn't homebrew at all, it's just reflavoring. First, you say he has one arm and then you make up all the ways he compensates for it until he is functionally identical to a lizardfolk with two arms.
Now if you want to let someone wield three swords or two swords and a shield, then yeah that's quite a significant change in the mechanics of the game and I'd advise against it unless you are a pretty seasoned homebrewer. There are a lot of potential consequences of allowing that.
The one-armed lizardfolk isn't homebrew at all, it's just reflavoring. First, you say he has one arm and then you make up all the ways he compensates for it until he is functionally identical to a lizardfolk with two arms.
Now if you want to let someone wield three swords or two swords and a shield, then yeah that's quite a significant change in the mechanics of the game and I'd advise against it unless you are a pretty seasoned homebrewer. There are a lot of potential consequences of allowing that.
Until a lizardfolk who hasn't lost a arm does all the training Lefty did, and now you either have a lizardfolk with two swords & a shield, or a stuttering GM. Um, well, yeah, uhm, you see, well, you can't because, well, ya see, umm, hold on, give me a minute...
Casual handwaving is kryptonite to suspension of disbelief.
See, when a player wants to come do some sort of cheesy rules-lawyering exploit like that, there's just one thing that a GM needs to remember: "no" is a complete sentence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The one-armed lizardfolk isn't homebrew at all, it's just reflavoring. First, you say he has one arm and then you make up all the ways he compensates for it until he is functionally identical to a lizardfolk with two arms.
Now if you want to let someone wield three swords or two swords and a shield, then yeah that's quite a significant change in the mechanics of the game and I'd advise against it unless you are a pretty seasoned homebrewer. There are a lot of potential consequences of allowing that.
Until a lizardfolk who hasn't lost a arm does all the training Lefty did, and now you either have a lizardfolk with two swords & a shield, or a stuttering GM. Um, well, yeah, uhm, you see, well, you can't because, well, ya see, umm, hold on, give me a minute...
Casual handwaving is kryptonite to suspension of disbelief.
As someone who was forced to learn a different language...I can tell you there is a definite difference between having to learn and wanting to.
Regardless, I'm very flexible with flavour, but as 6LG says...just say no to messing with mechanics. Anyone who finds that so disruptive is going to be a problem. They just have to accept that it's a game and mechanics have to be roughly balanced as well as be match expectations of realism. Allowing a disabled creature to flavour a tail as an additional limb to maintain mechanics is very different to allowing a fully capable creature to add the tail to boost their abilities. Just say no to the second.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I noticed in the PHB that when players make a melee attack with a light weapon in one hand, they can attack with a different light weapon in their other hand as a bonus action. However, it doesn't specify whether or not the weapon used for the bonus action can be the same type of weapon used for the initial attack. Can players use two of the same kind of weapon for two-weapon fighting?
Yes, as long as it's light (or if they have a feat or feature that lets them use different weapons). So you don't have to do like... a shortsword in one hand and a dagger in the other, you can go for two short swords.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
The "different" is just to avoid someone arguing that transferring a single light weapon from one hand to the other qualifies for the bonus action attack.
The reason I asked is that I'm thinking of making a homebrew rule where players can wield the weapon in their mouth or their tail and I wanted to know precisely how the mechanic works. I got the idea from a YouTube video where someone made a one-armed lizardfolk character who wields a bow by holding it with one arm and drawing it with their tail.
That's a lot of homebrewing, unless there is a reference to that limb being particularly articulate. There is reason we use hands, rather than our mouths or feet to get things done. Also blows a pile of rule balance out of the water when you let characters dual wield while still using a shield and having a free hand for casting. Check out what thri-kreen can do with a actual feature, compared to what you want to hand out for free.
I'm still working on the details besides just the basic concept. I think I'll make it so players can only use weapons with their mouth or tail if at least one arm is lost or rendered permanently unusable.
Rorona Zorro (One Piece) Vibes. BUT: No race with "extra" appendages, namely Loxodon (trunk), Hadozee (Feet), and Plasmoid (Pseudopod) has the strength and accuracy to execute weapon attacks with it, only loxodon can use their trunk for an unarmed attack. Tails are in no way included in combat maneuvers, even the lizardfolk can only bite, despite having a massive tail.
If you make an extra homebrew is up to you, but you could also do this just as cool flavor for dual wield combat (and maybe literally cliffhangers).
The one-armed lizardfolk isn't homebrew at all, it's just reflavoring. First, you say he has one arm and then you make up all the ways he compensates for it until he is functionally identical to a lizardfolk with two arms.
Now if you want to let someone wield three swords or two swords and a shield, then yeah that's quite a significant change in the mechanics of the game and I'd advise against it unless you are a pretty seasoned homebrewer. There are a lot of potential consequences of allowing that.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Until a lizardfolk who hasn't lost a arm does all the training Lefty did, and now you either have a lizardfolk with two swords & a shield, or a stuttering GM. Um, well, yeah, uhm, you see, well, you can't because, well, ya see, umm, hold on, give me a minute...
Casual handwaving is kryptonite to suspension of disbelief.
See, when a player wants to come do some sort of cheesy rules-lawyering exploit like that, there's just one thing that a GM needs to remember: "no" is a complete sentence.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As someone who was forced to learn a different language...I can tell you there is a definite difference between having to learn and wanting to.
Regardless, I'm very flexible with flavour, but as 6LG says...just say no to messing with mechanics. Anyone who finds that so disruptive is going to be a problem. They just have to accept that it's a game and mechanics have to be roughly balanced as well as be match expectations of realism. Allowing a disabled creature to flavour a tail as an additional limb to maintain mechanics is very different to allowing a fully capable creature to add the tail to boost their abilities. Just say no to the second.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.