I know RAW that the weapons require the light property, so RAW natural weapons aren't able to benefit from this, but I don't understand the logic behind this. Functionally, it's no different that wielding a pair of daggers or short swords. So, why the limitation against using natural weapons as a two-weapon fighting style? It seems really like a really dumb restriction IMO.
I have to think it was to favor specific weapons with an eye toward balance but my guess is as good as anyone... the reason why natural weapons or unarmed strike were designed imcompatible with Two-Weapon Fighting only the Devs know.
Natural weapons are not even in the revision of the core rules 2024.
It probably is a balance thing. After all, there are no d6 light simple weapons, so they probably want d6 dual-wielding to be restricted to martial classes, and Tabaxi have d6 claws, which would let anyone dual-wield extremely effectively.
It probably is a balance thing. After all, there are no d6 light simple weapons, so they probably want d6 dual-wielding to be restricted to martial classes, and Tabaxi have d6 claws, which would let anyone dual-wield extremely effectively.
The thing you have to realize is that most of the rules in 5e were made as a reaction to the insane theorycrafting that happened during 3e/3.5. There were builds in 3.5 that let you manipulate natural weapons and two-weapon fighting to give your character dozens of attacks. This led to an enormous gulf in play between new players (or players who just want to build a fun character) and players who had more experience/were more interested in traditional combat effectiveness. So with 5e, which is basically an attempt to make 3.5 simpler and more accessible, the devs removed or adjusted a lot of rules in reaction to the mechanics that were most commonly exploited by us forum gremlins. One such adjustment was limiting our ability to use natural attacks as part of dual wielding, for better or for worse.
It also bears mentioning that, as Plaguescarred mentioned, they have not released any species in the 2024 core rules that have natural attacks at the moment. It's not outside the realm of possibility that, when they get around to adding updated species, they'll adjust the language to say that the natural attacks act as weapons with the Light property or something like that. And I bet you the moment they do, there will be a dozen forum posts here and on reddit talking about how you can exploit that to do six hundred damage in a single round.
That said, the DM runs the table, and there's nothing that says that you can just rule that natural weapon attacks can count as offhand attacks for the purpose of dual wielding, or creating a "2024" version of a Tabaxi that treats their claws like Light weapons or a Multi-Attack Fighting Style Feat that gives you two attacks with your natural weapons. Just make sure you and your table exercise some common sense at the table and it should be fine.
[...] Natural weapons are not even in the revision of the core rules 2024.
That's true.
The only place I found that term is in the Alter Self spell, but it seems to be just a descriptive wording without mechanical meaning. And in any case, it's only relevant when you use your Unarmed Strike to deal damage.
[...] Natural weapons are not even in the revision of the core rules 2024.
That's true.
The only place I found that term is in the Alter Self spell, but it seems to be just a descriptive wording without mechanical meaning. And in any case, it's only relevant when you use your Unarmed Strike to deal damage.
Yeah this benefit's name is a carry over from the older version of Alter Self.
While it’s not a very big deal set of advantages, natural weapons can’t be dropped, you can’t be disarmed, they never need to be drawn or stowed, they can’t be lost or confiscated. So there are some definite advantages they have over non-natural weapons. Granted, most of them (outside of draw/stow) will come up somewhere between never and 1 or 2 times in a campaign. I doubt it would really be game breaking to let a player use them for that extra attack from two-weapon fighting. But I also think the devs seem to overvalue natural weapons generally, in terms of balancing the different species.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know RAW that the weapons require the light property, so RAW natural weapons aren't able to benefit from this, but I don't understand the logic behind this. Functionally, it's no different that wielding a pair of daggers or short swords. So, why the limitation against using natural weapons as a two-weapon fighting style? It seems really like a really dumb restriction IMO.
I have to think it was to favor specific weapons with an eye toward balance but my guess is as good as anyone... the reason why natural weapons or unarmed strike were designed imcompatible with Two-Weapon Fighting only the Devs know.
Natural weapons are not even in the revision of the core rules 2024.
Nothing prevent you from houseruling that they count, but some may be unbalanced.
It probably is a balance thing. After all, there are no d6 light simple weapons, so they probably want d6 dual-wielding to be restricted to martial classes, and Tabaxi have d6 claws, which would let anyone dual-wield extremely effectively.
The Handaxe is a d6 light simple weapon
The thing you have to realize is that most of the rules in 5e were made as a reaction to the insane theorycrafting that happened during 3e/3.5. There were builds in 3.5 that let you manipulate natural weapons and two-weapon fighting to give your character dozens of attacks. This led to an enormous gulf in play between new players (or players who just want to build a fun character) and players who had more experience/were more interested in traditional combat effectiveness. So with 5e, which is basically an attempt to make 3.5 simpler and more accessible, the devs removed or adjusted a lot of rules in reaction to the mechanics that were most commonly exploited by us forum gremlins. One such adjustment was limiting our ability to use natural attacks as part of dual wielding, for better or for worse.
It also bears mentioning that, as Plaguescarred mentioned, they have not released any species in the 2024 core rules that have natural attacks at the moment. It's not outside the realm of possibility that, when they get around to adding updated species, they'll adjust the language to say that the natural attacks act as weapons with the Light property or something like that. And I bet you the moment they do, there will be a dozen forum posts here and on reddit talking about how you can exploit that to do six hundred damage in a single round.
That said, the DM runs the table, and there's nothing that says that you can just rule that natural weapon attacks can count as offhand attacks for the purpose of dual wielding, or creating a "2024" version of a Tabaxi that treats their claws like Light weapons or a Multi-Attack Fighting Style Feat that gives you two attacks with your natural weapons. Just make sure you and your table exercise some common sense at the table and it should be fine.
That's true.
The only place I found that term is in the Alter Self spell, but it seems to be just a descriptive wording without mechanical meaning. And in any case, it's only relevant when you use your Unarmed Strike to deal damage.
Yeah this benefit's name is a carry over from the older version of Alter Self.
While it’s not a very big deal set of advantages, natural weapons can’t be dropped, you can’t be disarmed, they never need to be drawn or stowed, they can’t be lost or confiscated. So there are some definite advantages they have over non-natural weapons. Granted, most of them (outside of draw/stow) will come up somewhere between never and 1 or 2 times in a campaign.
I doubt it would really be game breaking to let a player use them for that extra attack from two-weapon fighting. But I also think the devs seem to overvalue natural weapons generally, in terms of balancing the different species.