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.
I highlighted the relevant part - the attack MUST be with a light melee weapon for two weapon fighting to work.
The Dual Wielder feat changes the requirements slightly and specifies:
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
That might work - I'm not 100% sure a natural weapon attack from Alter Self counts, but I would personally allow it if the player had the ability to alter self and the dual wielder feat.
Please note that Jeremy Crawford has clarified many times that unarmed attacks CANNOT be used as part of two weapon fighting.
I'm not a rules authority, so don't quote me to anyone as if I am. :)
Personally I allow two weapon fighting with natural weapons without a feat. It's illegal RAW, but does not provide a significant advantage and makes logical sense. Most people use both hands to punch and boxing with both hands is more natural than using a dagger in each hand, but only the later is allowed.
I figured it would be a no go, but i wasn't sure if there was a space that expanded more details on 'natural weapons'. It's hard to argue that an innate set of claws are more cumbersome to wield / heavier than any weapon. But the rules are written as they are!
The reason that it is clearly stated that weapons are required is probably to maintain Monk viability. If anybody can use natural weapons or fists "dual wield" then Monks no longer have a special feature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
at low levels sure... natural weapon might compete with monk but monk has scaling damage with martial arts. claws, steel fists, etc are d4 forever few exceptions like Minotaur horns or alter self are d6 but there are other constraints on their use. two weapon fighting with natural weapons also has limitations monk does not have to concern itself with in how to combat resistance. if there is no weapon how can it be a magic weapon, can a caster cast magic weapon on fists? there are other issues to worry about. your dm has to help you out with Insignia of Claws for something many other classes can overcome with built in features. I love the flavor personally I get tired of having to bend over backwards with compromises and work around to dirty up a monk into a brawler. I was looking around because i am thinking about talking my DM into allowing the BRUTE fighter which is a legitimate threat to the monk. and to make it fight with fists or natural weapons it is a handicap you are putting on yourself because every time you swing a natural weapon you could be swinging short swords. If your fist is not a light 1 handed weapon then nothing is. natural weapons should also be finesse but we all know rogue tabaxi sneak attacking with claws and ripping out a throat or heart is just to cool to be allowed. I say why not let them work their way to inventing fist weapons Roll of copper coins> punchdagger/brass knuckles> cestus/katar a packed fist full of coins a simple club whats the difference weight cost durability probably all similar its just flavor.
Personally I allow two weapon fighting with natural weapons without a feat. It's illegal RAW, but does not provide a significant advantage and makes logical sense. Most people use both hands to punch and boxing with both hands is more natural than using a dagger in each hand, but only the later is allowed.
I think the way to see an unarmed attack roll isn't to see a single punch or claw attack every 6 seconds, but more like feints and small strikes with both hands made to test the enemy's defense, until you make a proper attempt at a strike, whose success is determined by the roll.
I haven't had a player use Alter Self at my table yet, but I think I would probably say yes in the moment, then think about it for my definitive ruling. The fact that the claws are +1 weapons means that even the bonus attack would get that bonus. On the other hand, being a Sor/Wiz spell means that the caster probably has subpar Str/Dex (if you even allow them to use Dex, which by RAW doesn't seem like you should ?)
Per the Site Rules & Guidelines, section 2f, please create a new thread rather than posting to one that has not been updated in over 6 months. This thread will be locked.
Thank you!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
i can’t find much detail on natural weapons.
could alter self permit 2 weapon fighting with the natural weapons?
The rules on Two Weapon Fighting state:
I highlighted the relevant part - the attack MUST be with a light melee weapon for two weapon fighting to work.
The Dual Wielder feat changes the requirements slightly and specifies:
That might work - I'm not 100% sure a natural weapon attack from Alter Self counts, but I would personally allow it if the player had the ability to alter self and the dual wielder feat.
Please note that Jeremy Crawford has clarified many times that unarmed attacks CANNOT be used as part of two weapon fighting.
I'm not a rules authority, so don't quote me to anyone as if I am. :)
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I agree, it’s against the rules but if someone uses a feat I’d allow it. But feats are expensive!
Professional computer geek
Personally I allow two weapon fighting with natural weapons without a feat. It's illegal RAW, but does not provide a significant advantage and makes logical sense. Most people use both hands to punch and boxing with both hands is more natural than using a dagger in each hand, but only the later is allowed.
I figured it would be a no go, but i wasn't sure if there was a space that expanded more details on 'natural weapons'. It's hard to argue that an innate set of claws are more cumbersome to wield / heavier than any weapon. But the rules are written as they are!
The reason that it is clearly stated that weapons are required is probably to maintain Monk viability. If anybody can use natural weapons or fists "dual wield" then Monks no longer have a special feature.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
at low levels sure... natural weapon might compete with monk but monk has scaling damage with martial arts. claws, steel fists, etc are d4 forever few exceptions like Minotaur horns or alter self are d6 but there are other constraints on their use. two weapon fighting with natural weapons also has limitations monk does not have to concern itself with in how to combat resistance. if there is no weapon how can it be a magic weapon, can a caster cast magic weapon on fists? there are other issues to worry about. your dm has to help you out with Insignia of Claws for something many other classes can overcome with built in features. I love the flavor personally I get tired of having to bend over backwards with compromises and work around to dirty up a monk into a brawler. I was looking around because i am thinking about talking my DM into allowing the BRUTE fighter which is a legitimate threat to the monk. and to make it fight with fists or natural weapons it is a handicap you are putting on yourself because every time you swing a natural weapon you could be swinging short swords. If your fist is not a light 1 handed weapon then nothing is. natural weapons should also be finesse but we all know rogue tabaxi sneak attacking with claws and ripping out a throat or heart is just to cool to be allowed. I say why not let them work their way to inventing fist weapons Roll of copper coins> punchdagger/brass knuckles> cestus/katar a packed fist full of coins a simple club whats the difference weight cost durability probably all similar its just flavor.
I think the way to see an unarmed attack roll isn't to see a single punch or claw attack every 6 seconds, but more like feints and small strikes with both hands made to test the enemy's defense, until you make a proper attempt at a strike, whose success is determined by the roll.
I haven't had a player use Alter Self at my table yet, but I think I would probably say yes in the moment, then think about it for my definitive ruling. The fact that the claws are +1 weapons means that even the bonus attack would get that bonus. On the other hand, being a Sor/Wiz spell means that the caster probably has subpar Str/Dex (if you even allow them to use Dex, which by RAW doesn't seem like you should ?)
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
Good morning everyone!
Per the Site Rules & Guidelines, section 2f, please create a new thread rather than posting to one that has not been updated in over 6 months. This thread will be locked.
Thank you!