I’ve seen this pop up before. Since RAW calls explicitly for a light weapon in the off hand, that unarmed strikes do not qualify for the two weapon bonus attack. However, all these rulings are before the release of Tasha’s which adds Unarmed as a legitimate fighting style for fighters. I was wondering with that addition to the rules, if anything had changed.
The unarmed fighting style in no way changes that unarmed strikes are not made with weapons, and that two weapon fighting requires strikes with weapons that have the light property (Thus unarmed strike do not qualify as they are not weapons, and certainly do not have the light property).
That said, if you are a monk you get martial arts attacks as a bonus action anyways, with the notable bonus of adding your str / dex mod to the attacks.
In the exceptional circumstance that you have natural weapons (tabaxi, dragonborn with feat) AND the Dual Wielder feat (removing the light property requirement) and a liberal definition of the term "Wield" (typically means holding, however perhaps in natural weapons it could mean displayed for a lenient dm?) Then maybe your DM would consider two-weapon fighting as appropriate. (This is a lot of IF's)
In the exceptional circumstance that you have natural weapons (tabaxi, dragonborn with feat) AND the Dual Wielder feat (removing the light property requirement) and a liberal definition of the term "Wield" (typically means holding, however perhaps in natural weapons it could mean displayed for a lenient dm?) Then maybe your DM would consider two-weapon fighting as appropriate. (This is a lot of IF's)
I think this is where a lot of DMs would stop you.
Not all. "Wield" isn't well defined, is used both for holding and wearing, and it isn't a stretch to imagine that any weapon that is being "used" as a weapon is being "wielded". I don't see an intentional balance issue that would push for natural weapons to be non-wielded weapons, all that can really hope to do is exclude natural weapon users from their class features, doesn't seem like a desirable outcome to me.
All that being said? Unarmed Strikes still aren't weapons, even though they used to be, so RAW no using them in TWF even with Dual Wielder. But given that they used to be, and given that many races conflate natural weapons with unarmed strikes, I think "a lot of DMs" would let you gloss that over and use them as an offhand attack.
I've had this discussion before. To me, it is not the word wield which stops this working.
The TWF rules say "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand". The Dual Wielder feat removes the requirement for light weapons, but IMHO it still requires it to be a weapon you are holding in your hand. Natural weapons are not held in your hand so do not count.
This also applies to the OP: Regardless of whether it would count as a weapon, your hands/feet/elbows etc are not held in your hand.
This is the official answer, although always found it a bit ridiculous that an actual weapon is considered lighter and easier than carrying no weapon at all simply because said weapon has a 'light' designation.
Is the light property used for anything other than TWF? To me, the light property really means "suitable for using with TWF" more than "not weighing very much".
Also, as far as unarmed fighting goes, I am pretty sure you are not necessarily using your hands. You could be using your feet, your elbows, your head... Basically any part of your body. If so, and if allowed to be used with TWF, you would really have to allow 2 attacks in almost all situations, because it would be rare that a person didn't have at least 2 body parts free with which to make the attack. It would theoretically allow anyone with Dual Wielder to make an attack with a Greatsword and a bonus action attack with a knee or head, every time...
This is the official answer, although always found it a bit ridiculous that an actual weapon is considered lighter and easier than carrying no weapon at all simply because said weapon has a 'light' designation.
Is the light property used for anything other than TWF? To me, the light property really means "suitable for using with TWF" more than "not weighing very much".
Also, as far as unarmed fighting goes, I am pretty sure you are not necessarily using your hands. You could be using your feet, your elbows, your head... Basically any part of your body. If so, and if allowed to be used with TWF, you would really have to allow 2 attacks in almost all situations, because it would be rare that a person didn't have at least 2 body parts free with which to make the attack. It would theoretically allow anyone with Dual Wielder to make an attack with a Greatsword and a bonus action attack with a knee or head, every time...
You are making my point. If you can stab with a dagger in the left and follow up with one in the right, why could you not do the same without the daggers? "The old one-two" is a thing. Combination attacks exist in all forms of unarmed combat normally. It is also very common for animals with natural weaponry not to be limited to just one attack at a time.
If I remember correctly, an attack is not supposed to always be a single strike. Even a commoner would be able to strike multiple times in 6 seconds with, say, a dagger or their fists. The attack is supposed to represent all the possible total damage which could be done while armed with that weapon in a round. Therefore, it is entirely possible that said damage includes any made with other parts of the body during the round, so it is already factored in both for a weapon attack (punch/elbow thrown between stabs) and for unarmed strike (multiple strikes with various parts of the body).
Unarmed literally means "without weapons." That should be enough to draw the distinction between unarmed and armed fighting, let alone two weapon fighting.
Really? You try punching with any force once per second. But yes, commoners, real life people can actually fight with both arms. And if you want to say 'but it is the total of multiple blows' you are ignoring the many effects that do additional damage per hit.
It doesn't have to be with the same amount of power, and this would apply to punching with both hands too. You are as likely to be able to do the same amount of damage punching with the same hand twice in 6 seconds as once with each hand, or punching once and kicking once. This isn't super-speed Bruce Lee Wing Chun chain punches at several per second, it's 2 in 6 seconds...
As for ignoring effects which increase damage, I'm not sure I see how. If you are thinking they would apply to each individual blow, this is not the case if a single Hit (attack roll exceeding armour class) actually encompasses all of those strikes. The Hit which the bonus applies to is the success of the attack roll, not each individual blow, as they are all rolled up for the sake of the game.
However, the fact is that all this is irrelevant. I was trying to offer a real world justification for why the rules are written the way they are to make it "feel better" while playing. Accept them or not, the real reason why you cannot do a bonus action unarmed strike (or strike with a natural weapon) under TWF rules is because the rules say so. There are various ways to explain why, but whether you accept any of them or not, those are the rules. As I've been told in here, "it's a game, not a simulator".
And if you really don't like it... You can always house rule. There is nothing to stop you from saying that characters can use Unarmed Strikes or Natural Weapons with TWF.
Really? You try punching with any force once per second. But yes, commoners, real life people can actually fight with both arms. And if you want to say 'but it is the total of multiple blows' you are ignoring the many effects that do additional damage per hit.
It doesn't have to be with the same amount of power, and this would apply to punching with both hands too. You are as likely to be able to do the same amount of damage punching with the same hand twice in 6 seconds as once with each hand, or punching once and kicking once. This isn't super-speed Bruce Lee Wing Chun chain punches at several per second, it's 2 in 6 seconds...
As for ignoring effects which increase damage, I'm not sure I see how. If you are thinking they would apply to each individual blow, this is not the case if a single Hit (attack roll exceeding armour class) actually encompasses all of those strikes. The Hit which the bonus applies to is the success of the attack roll, not each individual blow, as they are all rolled up for the sake of the game.
However, the fact is that all this is irrelevant. I was trying to offer a real world justification for why the rules are written the way they are to make it "feel better" while playing. Accept them or not, the real reason why you cannot do a bonus action unarmed strike (or strike with a natural weapon) under TWF rules is because the rules say so. There are various ways to explain why, but whether you accept any of them or not, those are the rules. As I've been told in here, "it's a game, not a simulator".
And if you really don't like it... You can always house rule. There is nothing to stop you from saying that characters can use Unarmed Strikes or Natural Weapons with TWF.
So what is your explanation as to why someone with two short swords *can* get two such openings in when someone otherwise equally trained can only get in one punch?
Edit: Also we are talking about just a second, off hand blow, with no stat bonus on damage unless you have the necessary fighting style. So please, quit conflating this into massive numbers of attacks.
OK, you can't because the rules say you can't. Simple. I have an explanation which works for me which involves a single attack possible involving multiple blows, but you don't like it, so we are back to "because rules". Is that more satisfying for you?
Really? You try punching with any force once per second. But yes, commoners, real life people can actually fight with both arms. And if you want to say 'but it is the total of multiple blows' you are ignoring the many effects that do additional damage per hit.
It doesn't have to be with the same amount of power, and this would apply to punching with both hands too. You are as likely to be able to do the same amount of damage punching with the same hand twice in 6 seconds as once with each hand, or punching once and kicking once. This isn't super-speed Bruce Lee Wing Chun chain punches at several per second, it's 2 in 6 seconds...
As for ignoring effects which increase damage, I'm not sure I see how. If you are thinking they would apply to each individual blow, this is not the case if a single Hit (attack roll exceeding armour class) actually encompasses all of those strikes. The Hit which the bonus applies to is the success of the attack roll, not each individual blow, as they are all rolled up for the sake of the game.
However, the fact is that all this is irrelevant. I was trying to offer a real world justification for why the rules are written the way they are to make it "feel better" while playing. Accept them or not, the real reason why you cannot do a bonus action unarmed strike (or strike with a natural weapon) under TWF rules is because the rules say so. There are various ways to explain why, but whether you accept any of them or not, those are the rules. As I've been told in here, "it's a game, not a simulator".
And if you really don't like it... You can always house rule. There is nothing to stop you from saying that characters can use Unarmed Strikes or Natural Weapons with TWF.
So what is your explanation as to why someone with two short swords *can* get two such openings in when someone otherwise equally trained can only get in one punch?
Edit: Also we are talking about just a second, off hand blow, with no stat bonus on damage unless you have the necessary fighting style. So please, quit conflating this into massive numbers of attacks.
OK, you can't because the rules say you can't. Simple. I have an explanation which works for me which involves a single attack possible involving multiple blows, but you don't like it, so we are back to "because rules". Is that more satisfying for you?
Your explanation does not reconcile anything with two weapon fighting being a thing in the rules.
And I admitted 'because rules' in my first post in this thread.
My explanation does work, with just a literal lateral thinking. I will spell out the way I see it in detail, you can choose to agree or disagree.
A single Attack is accomplished using a single weapon. However, it could involve more than one blow. It would be highly unlikely that even a low level character would only be able to strike at an opponent only once in 6 seconds with any but the heaviest weapons. It is also possible that one or more of the blows could be made using your body rather than that weapon: an elbow strike as you move around, a kick to the knee. These probably wouldn't do the same damage as your weapon, but hey, you can roll a 1 for damage. These strikes are rolled up into the one attack with one roll to hit and one amount of damage.
However, with a second suitable weapon in hand, you are able to do more damage than without. This gets rolled as a second bonus action attack (which, again, could represent more than one strike with your off hand), and it ignores modifiers, which could be explained in many ways: You have less time to make these strikes with it being a bonus action, you can't use your offhand to help with your main hand so the average damage is reduced, etc. However, it can work with the explanation.
Taking an example:
A player attacks with a dagger. During the 6 seconds, he is moving around, causes damage twice with the dagger and once with an elbow strike. With a strength mod of +1, he rolls a 4, which can be accounted for as doing 2 damage with each dagger strike and 1 with the elbow for a total of 5.
The next round, he draws a club with his other hand. He manages to cause damage with 2 dagger strikes and a kick, rolling another 4+1 doing 2 per dagger plus 1 for the kick. However, he also hits with the club, causing damage with a single strike, rolling 1 with no modifier and so causing an extra one damage.
It takes a little mental gymnastics to see it, but it is much more satisfying for me than wondering what is going on to only let the character make one punch (or weapon strike) in an entire 6 second round. I mean, are these characters drunk and falling over or something?!
Yeah, it isn't perfect. However, nor are any off the explanations I've heard. Mine makes more sense to me, certainly more than "you must have a physical impairment because you can only punch or stab once in 6 seconds", and is definitely more satisfying an explanation to me than "because rules".
The reason is an additional attack roll, to me, is that it takes extra skill to involve an offhand weapon, and the reason it takes a bonus action would be because it takes extra effort and concentration to do so. However, again, this is me doing a little mental gymnastics to make something work in my head, instead of getting so unrealistic it breaks the suspension of disbelief.
If you are happy with the "because rules" explanation and the thought that a character can only make a single strike in 6 seconds seems acceptable to you, then fair enough. I'm not forcing anyone's to think my way, I was just trying to offer an alternative explanation because you seemed dissatisfied.
Yeah, “because the rules” is the only thing worth talking about on this. Nothing about 5E combat is simulation, no point debating the effort of unarmed vs. armed strikes etc.
Theres plenty to be said about wanting to tweak the system, either wholecloth or by redefining unarmed strikes as weapons, etc. But that’s a conversation to approach from the position of houseruling it to be more fun/intuitive, not one to make while arguing that the RAW does anything to allow unarmed TWF. Natural Weapons are arguable, unarmed strikes really aren’t.
Yeah I tried to very clearly point out that my idea of natural weapons an the two weapon fighting feat was really being flexible with the wielding terminology and stickler dms would likely balk at it. Although I think the case of dragonborn retractable claws feels pretty compelling that extending them is wielding them.
Yeah I tried to very clearly point out that my idea of natural weapons an the two weapon fighting feat was really being flexible with the wielding terminology and stickler dms would likely balk at it. Although I think the case of dragonborn retractable claws feels pretty compelling that extending them is wielding them.
Again, RAW, wielding doesn't really matter. I would agree that there is a good case for saying you are wielding natural weapons, but even so I would say you'd have to go way beyond natural language to say you are holding them in your hand.
That's not to say I would definitely disallow it at my table. If it came up, I'd evaluate the individual case. Some, I'd allow. Others not. For instance, the beast Barbarian can grow claws, and I would definitely disallow dual wielding with them for one reason: the rules already give an equivalent (but better) ability to dual wielding, which would make allowing TWF as well feel like double dipping.
I'd have to think about the Dragon Hide feat. While it seems like you could fairly easily justify their use for TWF with the Dual Wielder feat, the wording makes it clear that you are actually just increasing your unarmed strike damage (and changing its type). Strictly, this could apply to all unarmed strike damage, even if both hands are in use for other things, so it could enable a sword and board dual wielder. Also, as they are used to make unarmed strikes, it opens up the whole can of worms about why others can't dual wield with unarmed strikes... That's before we consider the impact on spellcasting or use of items. I'd need to think about it carefully and lay down some ground rules before I agreed.
I have to admit the extra extra attack for Beast Barbarian claws does seem a bit strange. They could just as easily have made that into a TWF function. How does that even interact with Extra Attack?
And why is TWF weapon only anyway? I really do not understand the play balance issue.
I think they did it that way, rather than making them light or specifically allowing TWF;
a) make it better than TWF (still adds strength mod, doesn't have to be other hand so can be used with a shield, not limited to light weapons), and
b) make it usable on the Barbarian's first turn, which they couldn't with TWF as they have already used their bonus action to rage.
Edit: As for interacting with Extra Attack, it still just adds a single additional melee weapon attack. So, basically, gives 3 attacks rather than 2, just like TWF would but without using your bonus action.
As for TWF being weapon only, I think it's likely because it would allow absolutely anyone with a free hand wielding a light weapon in the other to make a bonus action unarmed strike. This would dilute the value of other bonus actions, and slow down combat. That said, I'm only guessing.
But the off hand without TWF style only does one point damage.... no stat bonus. AND costs a bonus action.
Yeah, there is such a minimal mechanical benefit to it that it would not be unbalancing... But is it really worth allowing it at the table for that chance of a single extra point of damage, given the extra time it would take every round? I'd rather just house rule that, if you are using a light weapon in one hand and the other hand is free, you can add +1 to the damage by using your bonus action. It would be much faster and have pretty much the same effect.
And Barbarian Extra Attack says 'Attack twice instead of once' rather than 'one additional time.' With claws, you are already attacking twice, so RAW (not RAI, that is clarified by SA), so technically, by RAW, you are just sort of getting Extra Attack early with claws.
So, the way I would read that is that you get 2 attacks from your attack action, because "you can attack twice, instead of once". Thbat relates purely to the attack action, which would otherwise only grant a single attack. Even with the claws, the attack action itself is only allowing a single attack. Then, on top of that the claws say (more specific, specific beats general) "[o]nce on each of your turns when you attack with a claw using the Attack action, you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action", so you get yet another attack.
I think the intent is pretty clear, although there are potentially multiple RAW interpretations.
However, such a 'natural weapon' 'counts as a simple melee weapon for you,' which means that, unlike all other natural weapons, these are actually treated as weapons under the rules. So TWF feat should apply, as should Paladin Smite (which is similarly officially ruled to require an actual melee weapon) and anything else that requires a melee weapon.
This is why I made the point that TWF states:
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.
The Dual Wielder feat removes the light requirement, but you must still be holding both weapons in your hands. You are not holding your claws in you hands, they are part of your body. Technically speaking, you do not even have hands at that point, because "Each of your hands transforms into a claw". So no, I do not believe that RAW would allow it to count even though they are considered simple weapons.
The Dual Wielder feat removes the light requirement, but you must still be holding both weapons in your hands. You are not holding your claws in you hands, they are part of your body. Technically speaking, you do not even have hands at that point, because "Each of your hands transforms into a claw". So no, I do not believe that RAW would allow it to count even though they are considered simple weapons.
Someone else touched on this earlier, but NOTHING in Form of the Beast says anything about losing your normal manual dexterity. You DO still have hands. You can also still talk normally if you went for the bite attack. Based on your logic, none of the races with natural weaponry have hands.
There is nothing to say they they cannot manipulate things with their claws as if hands, but the text specifically says "Each of your hands transforms into a claw". Not "your hands grow claws".
However, you still are definitely not holding your claws, they are attached to and part of you.
It says 'wielding' not 'holding.' Even though the dictionary definition of wield is technically 'hold and use,' animals with natural weaponry are typically described in general use (news reports, scientific papers, etc) as wielding said natural weaponry
To me, Dual Wielder only overrides the light requirement. By definition, you are wielding the weapons you are attacking with which you are holding in your hands, so this is just directing you towards the weapon. It could be substituted for "using" or "attacking with", and in plain English it would have the same meaning. It makes no reference to holding. As it is just a modification to the TWF rules, if it doesn't say anything about holding, it doesn't change anything about that part of the rule.
I guess it would be possible to try to say that it overrode the entire line, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the line only affects the requirement for the weapons to be light. Do you get to make the bonus action if you didn't take the attack action, too, because that bullet point didn't repeat that it was required? You can be wielding a weapon and not take the attack action, so maybe it means you can Dash with your action and then make a bonus action attack? Or cast a spell, then make the bonus action attack?
As such, clearly 'built in' counts as 'holding' in natural English.
Would you really say that a crab was holding its claws? A deer was holding its antlers? A person was holding their fists? That's absurd! I don't think anyone would say that in plain/natural English. Ask anyone on the street if one of those three were true, and I seriously doubt that you would find anyone who thought it to be the case. Especially if you asked if they were holding them in their hands*, as TWF requires.
* I guess you should include any hand-like or similarly appendages, too. So, the questions would be:
Is a crab holding its claws in its claws?
Is a deer holding its antlers in its... hooves? mouth? That's difficult, seeing as deer don't have hand-like appendages with which to hold anything.
Is a person holding their fist in their hand?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’ve seen this pop up before. Since RAW calls explicitly for a light weapon in the off hand, that unarmed strikes do not qualify for the two weapon bonus attack. However, all these rulings are before the release of Tasha’s which adds Unarmed as a legitimate fighting style for fighters. I was wondering with that addition to the rules, if anything had changed.
The unarmed fighting style in no way changes that unarmed strikes are not made with weapons, and that two weapon fighting requires strikes with weapons that have the light property (Thus unarmed strike do not qualify as they are not weapons, and certainly do not have the light property).
That said, if you are a monk you get martial arts attacks as a bonus action anyways, with the notable bonus of adding your str / dex mod to the attacks.
In the exceptional circumstance that you have natural weapons (tabaxi, dragonborn with feat) AND the Dual Wielder feat (removing the light property requirement) and a liberal definition of the term "Wield" (typically means holding, however perhaps in natural weapons it could mean displayed for a lenient dm?) Then maybe your DM would consider two-weapon fighting as appropriate. (This is a lot of IF's)
The natural weapons are an interesting loop hole...
I think this is where a lot of DMs would stop you.
Not all. "Wield" isn't well defined, is used both for holding and wearing, and it isn't a stretch to imagine that any weapon that is being "used" as a weapon is being "wielded". I don't see an intentional balance issue that would push for natural weapons to be non-wielded weapons, all that can really hope to do is exclude natural weapon users from their class features, doesn't seem like a desirable outcome to me.
All that being said? Unarmed Strikes still aren't weapons, even though they used to be, so RAW no using them in TWF even with Dual Wielder. But given that they used to be, and given that many races conflate natural weapons with unarmed strikes, I think "a lot of DMs" would let you gloss that over and use them as an offhand attack.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I've had this discussion before. To me, it is not the word wield which stops this working.
The TWF rules say "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand". The Dual Wielder feat removes the requirement for light weapons, but IMHO it still requires it to be a weapon you are holding in your hand. Natural weapons are not held in your hand so do not count.
This also applies to the OP: Regardless of whether it would count as a weapon, your hands/feet/elbows etc are not held in your hand.
Is the light property used for anything other than TWF? To me, the light property really means "suitable for using with TWF" more than "not weighing very much".
Also, as far as unarmed fighting goes, I am pretty sure you are not necessarily using your hands. You could be using your feet, your elbows, your head... Basically any part of your body. If so, and if allowed to be used with TWF, you would really have to allow 2 attacks in almost all situations, because it would be rare that a person didn't have at least 2 body parts free with which to make the attack. It would theoretically allow anyone with Dual Wielder to make an attack with a Greatsword and a bonus action attack with a knee or head, every time...
If I remember correctly, an attack is not supposed to always be a single strike. Even a commoner would be able to strike multiple times in 6 seconds with, say, a dagger or their fists. The attack is supposed to represent all the possible total damage which could be done while armed with that weapon in a round. Therefore, it is entirely possible that said damage includes any made with other parts of the body during the round, so it is already factored in both for a weapon attack (punch/elbow thrown between stabs) and for unarmed strike (multiple strikes with various parts of the body).
Unarmed literally means "without weapons." That should be enough to draw the distinction between unarmed and armed fighting, let alone two weapon fighting.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It doesn't have to be with the same amount of power, and this would apply to punching with both hands too. You are as likely to be able to do the same amount of damage punching with the same hand twice in 6 seconds as once with each hand, or punching once and kicking once. This isn't super-speed Bruce Lee Wing Chun chain punches at several per second, it's 2 in 6 seconds...
As for ignoring effects which increase damage, I'm not sure I see how. If you are thinking they would apply to each individual blow, this is not the case if a single Hit (attack roll exceeding armour class) actually encompasses all of those strikes. The Hit which the bonus applies to is the success of the attack roll, not each individual blow, as they are all rolled up for the sake of the game.
However, the fact is that all this is irrelevant. I was trying to offer a real world justification for why the rules are written the way they are to make it "feel better" while playing. Accept them or not, the real reason why you cannot do a bonus action unarmed strike (or strike with a natural weapon) under TWF rules is because the rules say so. There are various ways to explain why, but whether you accept any of them or not, those are the rules. As I've been told in here, "it's a game, not a simulator".
And if you really don't like it... You can always house rule. There is nothing to stop you from saying that characters can use Unarmed Strikes or Natural Weapons with TWF.
OK, you can't because the rules say you can't. Simple. I have an explanation which works for me which involves a single attack possible involving multiple blows, but you don't like it, so we are back to "because rules". Is that more satisfying for you?
My explanation does work, with just a literal lateral thinking. I will spell out the way I see it in detail, you can choose to agree or disagree.
A single Attack is accomplished using a single weapon. However, it could involve more than one blow. It would be highly unlikely that even a low level character would only be able to strike at an opponent only once in 6 seconds with any but the heaviest weapons. It is also possible that one or more of the blows could be made using your body rather than that weapon: an elbow strike as you move around, a kick to the knee. These probably wouldn't do the same damage as your weapon, but hey, you can roll a 1 for damage. These strikes are rolled up into the one attack with one roll to hit and one amount of damage.
However, with a second suitable weapon in hand, you are able to do more damage than without. This gets rolled as a second bonus action attack (which, again, could represent more than one strike with your off hand), and it ignores modifiers, which could be explained in many ways: You have less time to make these strikes with it being a bonus action, you can't use your offhand to help with your main hand so the average damage is reduced, etc. However, it can work with the explanation.
Taking an example:
A player attacks with a dagger. During the 6 seconds, he is moving around, causes damage twice with the dagger and once with an elbow strike. With a strength mod of +1, he rolls a 4, which can be accounted for as doing 2 damage with each dagger strike and 1 with the elbow for a total of 5.
The next round, he draws a club with his other hand. He manages to cause damage with 2 dagger strikes and a kick, rolling another 4+1 doing 2 per dagger plus 1 for the kick. However, he also hits with the club, causing damage with a single strike, rolling 1 with no modifier and so causing an extra one damage.
It takes a little mental gymnastics to see it, but it is much more satisfying for me than wondering what is going on to only let the character make one punch (or weapon strike) in an entire 6 second round. I mean, are these characters drunk and falling over or something?!
Yeah, it isn't perfect. However, nor are any off the explanations I've heard. Mine makes more sense to me, certainly more than "you must have a physical impairment because you can only punch or stab once in 6 seconds", and is definitely more satisfying an explanation to me than "because rules".
The reason is an additional attack roll, to me, is that it takes extra skill to involve an offhand weapon, and the reason it takes a bonus action would be because it takes extra effort and concentration to do so. However, again, this is me doing a little mental gymnastics to make something work in my head, instead of getting so unrealistic it breaks the suspension of disbelief.
If you are happy with the "because rules" explanation and the thought that a character can only make a single strike in 6 seconds seems acceptable to you, then fair enough. I'm not forcing anyone's to think my way, I was just trying to offer an alternative explanation because you seemed dissatisfied.
Yeah, “because the rules” is the only thing worth talking about on this. Nothing about 5E combat is simulation, no point debating the effort of unarmed vs. armed strikes etc.
Theres plenty to be said about wanting to tweak the system, either wholecloth or by redefining unarmed strikes as weapons, etc. But that’s a conversation to approach from the position of houseruling it to be more fun/intuitive, not one to make while arguing that the RAW does anything to allow unarmed TWF. Natural Weapons are arguable, unarmed strikes really aren’t.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yeah I tried to very clearly point out that my idea of natural weapons an the two weapon fighting feat was really being flexible with the wielding terminology and stickler dms would likely balk at it. Although I think the case of dragonborn retractable claws feels pretty compelling that extending them is wielding them.
Again, RAW, wielding doesn't really matter. I would agree that there is a good case for saying you are wielding natural weapons, but even so I would say you'd have to go way beyond natural language to say you are holding them in your hand.
That's not to say I would definitely disallow it at my table. If it came up, I'd evaluate the individual case. Some, I'd allow. Others not. For instance, the beast Barbarian can grow claws, and I would definitely disallow dual wielding with them for one reason: the rules already give an equivalent (but better) ability to dual wielding, which would make allowing TWF as well feel like double dipping.
I'd have to think about the Dragon Hide feat. While it seems like you could fairly easily justify their use for TWF with the Dual Wielder feat, the wording makes it clear that you are actually just increasing your unarmed strike damage (and changing its type). Strictly, this could apply to all unarmed strike damage, even if both hands are in use for other things, so it could enable a sword and board dual wielder. Also, as they are used to make unarmed strikes, it opens up the whole can of worms about why others can't dual wield with unarmed strikes... That's before we consider the impact on spellcasting or use of items. I'd need to think about it carefully and lay down some ground rules before I agreed.
I think they did it that way, rather than making them light or specifically allowing TWF;
a) make it better than TWF (still adds strength mod, doesn't have to be other hand so can be used with a shield, not limited to light weapons), and
b) make it usable on the Barbarian's first turn, which they couldn't with TWF as they have already used their bonus action to rage.
Edit: As for interacting with Extra Attack, it still just adds a single additional melee weapon attack. So, basically, gives 3 attacks rather than 2, just like TWF would but without using your bonus action.
As for TWF being weapon only, I think it's likely because it would allow absolutely anyone with a free hand wielding a light weapon in the other to make a bonus action unarmed strike. This would dilute the value of other bonus actions, and slow down combat. That said, I'm only guessing.
Yeah, there is such a minimal mechanical benefit to it that it would not be unbalancing... But is it really worth allowing it at the table for that chance of a single extra point of damage, given the extra time it would take every round? I'd rather just house rule that, if you are using a light weapon in one hand and the other hand is free, you can add +1 to the damage by using your bonus action. It would be much faster and have pretty much the same effect.
So, the way I would read that is that you get 2 attacks from your attack action, because "you can attack twice, instead of once". Thbat relates purely to the attack action, which would otherwise only grant a single attack. Even with the claws, the attack action itself is only allowing a single attack. Then, on top of that the claws say (more specific, specific beats general) "[o]nce on each of your turns when you attack with a claw using the Attack action, you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action", so you get yet another attack.
I think the intent is pretty clear, although there are potentially multiple RAW interpretations.
This is why I made the point that TWF states:
The Dual Wielder feat removes the light requirement, but you must still be holding both weapons in your hands. You are not holding your claws in you hands, they are part of your body. Technically speaking, you do not even have hands at that point, because "Each of your hands transforms into a claw". So no, I do not believe that RAW would allow it to count even though they are considered simple weapons.
There is nothing to say they they cannot manipulate things with their claws as if hands, but the text specifically says "Each of your hands transforms into a claw". Not "your hands grow claws".
However, you still are definitely not holding your claws, they are attached to and part of you.
To me, Dual Wielder only overrides the light requirement. By definition, you are wielding the weapons you are attacking with which you are holding in your hands, so this is just directing you towards the weapon. It could be substituted for "using" or "attacking with", and in plain English it would have the same meaning. It makes no reference to holding. As it is just a modification to the TWF rules, if it doesn't say anything about holding, it doesn't change anything about that part of the rule.
I guess it would be possible to try to say that it overrode the entire line, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the line only affects the requirement for the weapons to be light. Do you get to make the bonus action if you didn't take the attack action, too, because that bullet point didn't repeat that it was required? You can be wielding a weapon and not take the attack action, so maybe it means you can Dash with your action and then make a bonus action attack? Or cast a spell, then make the bonus action attack?
Would you really say that a crab was holding its claws? A deer was holding its antlers? A person was holding their fists? That's absurd! I don't think anyone would say that in plain/natural English. Ask anyone on the street if one of those three were true, and I seriously doubt that you would find anyone who thought it to be the case. Especially if you asked if they were holding them in their hands*, as TWF requires.
* I guess you should include any hand-like or similarly appendages, too. So, the questions would be: