The only argument that makes sense to refute this is the Claw attack is not an attack made with the attack action, but instead made with. Class feature. Except it says, “you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.”
so it’s part of the action and a Claw attack is an attack
The only argument that makes sense to refute this is the Claw attack is not an attack made with the attack action, but instead made with. Class feature. Except it says, “you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.”
so it’s part of the action and a Claw attack is an attack
So I’d let the Claw attack be a grapple.
I wouldn't. I would say a claw attack is being used specifically to indicate use of the claw natural weapon (and specifically the one granted by the Beast ability). Grappling is not using the natural weapon, it's a special melee attack which doesn't use a weapon.
I'd say that the intent of the rule is clear, and even RAW it would be difficult to argue a sound reason that grappling counts as a "claw attack". If you want to grapple (below level 5), that uses your main attack and you don't get your "additional claw attack".
The only argument that makes sense to refute this is the Claw attack is not an attack made with the attack action, but instead made with. Class feature. Except it says, “you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.”
so it’s part of the action and a Claw attack is an attack
So I’d let the Claw attack be a grapple.
I wouldn't. I would say a claw attack is being used specifically to indicate use of the claw natural weapon (and specifically the one granted by the Beast ability). Grappling is not using the natural weapon, it's a special melee attack which doesn't use a weapon.
I'd say that the intent of the rule is clear, and even RAW it would be difficult to argue a sound reason that grappling counts as a "claw attack". If you want to grapple (below level 5), that uses your main attack and you don't get your "additional claw attack".
It's a weapon attack used as part of the attack action. It has all the qualifications for being replaced.
If a feature that grants an extra attack limits what an attack can be used for, it can only be replaced by something that qualifies for those limits.
Source? Are there any other abilities that grant an extra attack limited by use to compare it against?
Ordinary grammar? But yes, there are certainly things that grant use-limited attacks, though generally not as part of the attack action; you certainly can't replace out the attacks granted by Booming Blade or a monster's Multiattack action.
You can't swap out Multiattack attacks because they aren't the Attack action, and a Grapple is something you swap into an Attack. Same with [Tooltip Not Found]. So, not seeing how that's at all relevant to what you can do with attacks within Attack.
You can't swap out Multiattack attacks because they aren't the Attack action, and a Grapple is something you swap into an Attack. Same with Cast a Spell. So, not seeing how that's at all relevant to what you can do with attacks within Attack.
The special attack from beast barbarian claws is not an attack granted by the attack action, it's an attack granted by the feature.
The special attack from beast barbarian claws is not an attack granted by the attack action, it's an attack granted by the feature.
There's no such thing as an "attack granted by the Attack action," and I don't know where you're finding that requirement? If hovering over Grapple is too hard, here it is quoted again:
Grappling
When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them...
Has a monster using Multiattacktaken the Attack action? No, so no grapple.
Has a character using Booming Blade taken the Attack action? No (not usually), so no grapple.
Has a Beast Barbarian making claw attacks taken the Attack action? yes!
...Once 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.
Attack action? Check. Multiple attacks with that action available? Check. That (and at least one hand free to make the Grapple) is all that Grapple asks for on its side of the equation.
Now is it possible that there's something on the Barbarian side of the equation that says that the "one additional claw attack" must remain a claw attack, and can't be replaced with a Grapple? Sure, it could be a specific exception to Grapple's usual rules. But I don't accept that that limit is obvious or clearly expressed, so I'm asking you to identify any rule that would suggest that limit, or any other similar feature that grants an additional attack within Attack action that clearly can't be used to Grapple. I'd suspect there isn't one.
Now is it possible that there's something on the Barbarian side of the equation that says that the "one additional claw attack" must remain a claw attack
Yes, the fact that it says "one additional claw attack" means it must remain a claw attack. If it meant "one additional attack with no restrictions" it would say that.
I accept that the "one additional claw attack" can't be made with an axe, right? But Grapple feels to me like an omnivore that is happy to replace any kind of attack within the Attack, be it unrestricted or specific.
Convoluted analogy time: at a carnival, there are a bunch of rides which cost different types of tokens (dagger tokens, sword tokens, claw tokens, etc.): those rides are attacks you make with axes, daggers, claws, etc. etc. There's also a ride that says it accepts any kind of token, that's grapple. While the claw ride only accepts claw tokens, and you can't spend a claw token to take the axe ride, the grapple ride is happy to accept claw tokens, axe tokens, whatever you've got to spend.
That's how I see Grapple interacting with the claw-only extra attack granted by Claws. It's happy to replace any type of attack that you're able to make as part of the Attack action.
Now is it possible that there's something on the Barbarian side of the equation that says that the "one additional claw attack" must remain a claw attack
Yes, the fact that it says "one additional claw attack" means it must remain a claw attack. If it meant "one additional attack with no restrictions" it would say that.
Exactly how I would see it too. It isn't granting an additional attack, it is specifically granting an additional claw attack. There is a specific restriction on this attack.
I accept that the "one additional claw attack" can't be made with an axe, right? But Grapple feels to me like an omnivore that is happy to replace any kind of attack within the Attack, be it unrestricted or specific.
I see it as absolutely identical to replacing the claw attack with an axe attack.
As a side note, I don't see any particular balance problems with allowing replacing it with a grapple. It's just not how the rules are written.
I accept that the "one additional claw attack" can't be made with an axe, right? But Grapple feels to me like an omnivore that is happy to replace any kind of attack within the Attack, be it unrestricted or specific.
I see it as absolutely identical to replacing the claw attack with an axe attack.
I don't think that's an unreasonable way to read it. I'm just not sure if it's the right/only way. Either claw attack is a specific exception to Grapple (ordinarily you can swap any attack for a Grapple, but not this attack because it must be claw) or Grapple is a specific exception to claws (ordinarily you only attack with a claw, unless you Grapple to replace the attack entirely), and I think there isn't enough guidance to tell me explicitly which one is King. So, because allowing the attack to be used for Grapple is more permissive to players, it's my preferred reading, because I don't favor limiting player choices with rulings that could go either way.
I accept that the "one additional claw attack" can't be made with an axe, right? But Grapple feels to me like an omnivore that is happy to replace any kind of attack within the Attack, be it unrestricted or specific.
Convoluted analogy time: at a carnival, there are a bunch of rides which cost different types of tokens (dagger tokens, sword tokens, claw tokens, etc.): those rides are attacks you make with axes, daggers, claws, etc. etc. There's also a ride that says it accepts any kind of token, that's grapple. While the claw ride only accepts claw tokens, and you can't spend a claw token to take the axe ride, the grapple ride is happy to accept claw tokens, axe tokens, whatever you've got to spend.
That's how I see Grapple interacting with the claw-only extra attack granted by Claws. It's happy to replace any type of attack that you're able to make as part of the Attack action.
I'm not quite sure I see them logic in that. What you are saying leads to a situation where a magical sword which granted an additional attack with itself would allow someone to drop/sheath it and grapple.
To me, as specific beats general and the rules pertaining to the beast's claw attacks are far more specific than the general grappling rules, the limitation of using the claw stops grapple being used.
I accept that the "one additional claw attack" can't be made with an axe, right? But Grapple feels to me like an omnivore that is happy to replace any kind of attack within the Attack, be it unrestricted or specific.
I see it as absolutely identical to replacing the claw attack with an axe attack.
I don't think that's an unreasonable way to read it. I'm just not sure if it's the right/only way. Either claw attack is a specific exception to Grapple (ordinarily you can swap any attack for a Grapple, but not this attack because it must be claw) or Grapple is a specific exception to claws (ordinarily you only attack with a claw, unless you Grapple to replace the attack entirely), and I think there isn't enough guidance to tell me explicitly which one is King. So, because allowing the attack to be used for Grapple is more permissive to players, it's my preferred reading, because I don't favor limiting player choices with rulings that could go either way.
Using an attack to grapple is just a special attack that is available as part of the attack action, it's not a special case of "this can replace attacks in general". In any case, Attack (including the ability to use a grapple) is a general rule, whereas beast barbarian is a specific rule, and specific beats general.
I really do see your logic. But I just can't get away from "a claw attack is an attack, and a grapple replaces an attack" as being a persuasive logical statement.
The only argument that makes sense to refute this is the Claw attack is not an attack made with the attack action, but instead made with. Class feature.
Except it says, “you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.”
so it’s part of the action and a Claw attack is an attack
So I’d let the Claw attack be a grapple.
I wouldn't. I would say a claw attack is being used specifically to indicate use of the claw natural weapon (and specifically the one granted by the Beast ability). Grappling is not using the natural weapon, it's a special melee attack which doesn't use a weapon.
I'd say that the intent of the rule is clear, and even RAW it would be difficult to argue a sound reason that grappling counts as a "claw attack". If you want to grapple (below level 5), that uses your main attack and you don't get your "additional claw attack".
It's a weapon attack used as part of the attack action. It has all the qualifications for being replaced.
If a feature that grants an extra attack limits what an attack can be used for, it can only be replaced by something that qualifies for those limits.
Source? Are there any other abilities that grant an extra attack limited by use to compare it against?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ordinary grammar? But yes, there are certainly things that grant use-limited attacks, though generally not as part of the attack action; you certainly can't replace out the attacks granted by Booming Blade or a monster's Multiattack action.
You can't swap out Multiattack attacks because they aren't the Attack action, and a Grapple is something you swap into an Attack. Same with [Tooltip Not Found]. So, not seeing how that's at all relevant to what you can do with attacks within Attack.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The special attack from beast barbarian claws is not an attack granted by the attack action, it's an attack granted by the feature.
There's no such thing as an "attack granted by the Attack action," and I don't know where you're finding that requirement? If hovering over Grapple is too hard, here it is quoted again:
Has a monster using Multiattack taken the Attack action? No, so no grapple.
Has a character using Booming Blade taken the Attack action? No (not usually), so no grapple.
Has a Beast Barbarian making claw attacks taken the Attack action? yes!
Attack action? Check. Multiple attacks with that action available? Check. That (and at least one hand free to make the Grapple) is all that Grapple asks for on its side of the equation.
Now is it possible that there's something on the Barbarian side of the equation that says that the "one additional claw attack" must remain a claw attack, and can't be replaced with a Grapple? Sure, it could be a specific exception to Grapple's usual rules. But I don't accept that that limit is obvious or clearly expressed, so I'm asking you to identify any rule that would suggest that limit, or any other similar feature that grants an additional attack within Attack action that clearly can't be used to Grapple. I'd suspect there isn't one.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yes, the fact that it says "one additional claw attack" means it must remain a claw attack. If it meant "one additional attack with no restrictions" it would say that.
I accept that the "one additional claw attack" can't be made with an axe, right? But Grapple feels to me like an omnivore that is happy to replace any kind of attack within the Attack, be it unrestricted or specific.
Convoluted analogy time: at a carnival, there are a bunch of rides which cost different types of tokens (dagger tokens, sword tokens, claw tokens, etc.): those rides are attacks you make with axes, daggers, claws, etc. etc. There's also a ride that says it accepts any kind of token, that's grapple. While the claw ride only accepts claw tokens, and you can't spend a claw token to take the axe ride, the grapple ride is happy to accept claw tokens, axe tokens, whatever you've got to spend.
That's how I see Grapple interacting with the claw-only extra attack granted by Claws. It's happy to replace any type of attack that you're able to make as part of the Attack action.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Exactly how I would see it too. It isn't granting an additional attack, it is specifically granting an additional claw attack. There is a specific restriction on this attack.
I see it as absolutely identical to replacing the claw attack with an axe attack.
As a side note, I don't see any particular balance problems with allowing replacing it with a grapple. It's just not how the rules are written.
I don't think that's an unreasonable way to read it. I'm just not sure if it's the right/only way. Either claw attack is a specific exception to Grapple (ordinarily you can swap any attack for a Grapple, but not this attack because it must be claw) or Grapple is a specific exception to claws (ordinarily you only attack with a claw, unless you Grapple to replace the attack entirely), and I think there isn't enough guidance to tell me explicitly which one is King. So, because allowing the attack to be used for Grapple is more permissive to players, it's my preferred reading, because I don't favor limiting player choices with rulings that could go either way.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm not quite sure I see them logic in that. What you are saying leads to a situation where a magical sword which granted an additional attack with itself would allow someone to drop/sheath it and grapple.
To me, as specific beats general and the rules pertaining to the beast's claw attacks are far more specific than the general grappling rules, the limitation of using the claw stops grapple being used.
Using an attack to grapple is just a special attack that is available as part of the attack action, it's not a special case of "this can replace attacks in general". In any case, Attack (including the ability to use a grapple) is a general rule, whereas beast barbarian is a specific rule, and specific beats general.
I really do see your logic. But I just can't get away from "a claw attack is an attack, and a grapple replaces an attack" as being a persuasive logical statement.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Is the grappler thread the longest thread on DNDBeyond yet?
Is it the most disgruntled?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/tips-tactics?sort=-commentcount
Wow, I wouldn't have expected it to rank so high! Tips got nothing on Rule & Game Mechanics forum I guess :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.