A player of mine wants to make an homebrew race that has 4 arms with which to manipulate objects. I know the big thing would be having the twohanded weapon and using a shield, but I have specifically said no to that and the player is okay with it. They would still be able to duel wield two handed weapons but I don't know if there is any benefit or build for that sort of thing.
I'm looking for examples of when this would be OP or anything like that. Keep in mind that you CAN NOT engage in two weapon fighting with two handed weapons in any situation.
My recommendation is to not allow this, as two-weapon fighting currently limits you to two weapons that are 1d6 or 1d8 damage (with the Dual Wielder feat). This lets him jump all the way up to dual wielding with 2d6 damage weapons, a significant boost in power. That would, I think, be heavily unbalanced.
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.
I see nothing but benefits to dual-wielding two-handed weapons. As per RAW it's not permitted as dual-wield specifically states, as pavilionaire mentioned, that the weapons must have the Light property such as with the Dagger or Shortsword.
You ask if there is a benefit o being able to dual-wield two-handed weapons and I have to counter by asking what detriment could there be to being able to dual-wield two-handed weapons? They have a notably larger damage die than any weapon with the Light property and, going further than that, some of them even have the added benefit of having the Reach property.
I don't know if there is any benefit or build for that sort of thing.
There are only benefits to this. As far as I know there are no builds for something like this because, as per RAW, it's not allowed.
That said, you're free to homebrew as much as you want. I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong for allowing this, just answering the questions you posed.
They’d have to take the dual wielder feat, which technically says it allows for non-light weapons, and doesn’t forbid two-handed weapons (since it assumes the standard number of arms). So I guess that could include two-handed weapons.
One thing would be a bump in damage die from the d8 one handed weapons, to the d10 or 12 a two-handed weapon would allow. So they’d do more damage than a typical dual wielder could.
And it could allow for some other shenanigans around casting. Like having a two handed weapon (and dual wielding with a one handed weapon, even) and still having a free hand to cast. (So if they got a shield spell for example, they could have all these weapons out and still have a free hand to cast it) It wouldn’t give them extra actions, but it would really allow them more flexibility than anyone else would have under RAW.
This homebrew race sounds very much like the player just wanting to powergame and dominate combat. It smells like an ego issue to me. But if you're intent on allowing it, just use the standard Two-Weapon Fighting style rules along with the Dual Wielder feat rules and just ignore the usual weapon size restriction. Your player (aka Goro from Mortal Kombat) will be trivializing enemy combatants in no time.
I feel the same way as others about the fact it gives a significant bump in power for melee. Another potential way to get around it might be to limit the dual wielding to versatile weapons only (capping damage at d10), rather than allowing heavy weapons.
I would treat the extra set of arms like the loxodon trunk, only slightly more dexterous. Unable to wield weapons/shields but able to manipulate objects. It'd still be useful, but stops being it from being game breaking
Firstly, while this sounds really cool, it's going to be very difficult to get right and not leave a ridiculously overpowered PC.
However, if I were to do it, I would start variant human, but use one of the Feat slots (or possibly even both) for his extra arms. Note that the standard TWF rules would not work with 2 double-handed weapons: They would have to be light. If he wanted to use 2-handed weapons with TWF, he would need the Dual Wielder feat, and I would limit this to only a single 2h weapon, the other being a single handed. I'd probably make a shield take up 2 hand "slots", saying that it blocks the other arm. I'd allow using any and all free hands to grapple, coz that'd be really cool but not stupidly powerful.
I'd also look at some other restrictions. The race could be very rare by lore, and all armour could need to be custom made/modified at higher cost. Magic armour could need to be modified to fit (again, at high cost by a magical armourer). There may be others.
All of this would depend very much on the player's attitude. If the player accepted all this, and the proviso that this was "playtesting" I may unilaterally change things if he is overpowered, I think it could work out OK.
It's also worth considering the space required to wield a greatsword. Look up some videos and see the big, sweeping motions necessary to fight with these weapons. They specifically need 2 hands because they fight on both sides of the body and sing over the head. It would be impossible to effectively wield a greatsword with two hands on the same side of your body, and it also be an issue to wield one normally with an extra arm holding a shield on one side of you. To get the energy in the swings of a great weapon means a lot of swinging, and a shield would just get in the way.
I'd only allow it as manipulating hands, not wielding ones. no shields or weapons. Having 4 arms might give benefits for a magic-casting fighting class, with 2 hands full and still another hand to perform magic with. this is significantly less concerning than wielding a greatsword, a longsword (one handed) and a shield, all at once!
I think there has been a misunderstanding about my question. The only thing that I'm allowing for is having four arms (no shield)
As was previously mentioned two weapon fighting only works with light weapons and there are not any light two handed weapons (barring the light crossbow but that lacks the light property and only has light in the name), and the dual wielder feat specifically calls out that it only works with one handed melee weapons, and you only get the +1 to AC if you have a separate melee weapon in each hand excluding two handed weapons from that aswell.
That would mean that they wouldn't get any extra attacks with the second two handed weapon unless they had extra attack but that wouldn't stop them from doing it anyway. I know RAW it isn't allowed and that's why I don't think there is any benefit to doing so. I was mostly asking to see if anyone could find a RAW thing that are vague enough to be effected by duel wielding two handed weapons.
Also the race is insectoid not human, just incase people wanted to visualize it better. The player didn't bring up wanting to duel wield two handed weapons I just thought about it being a possibility within the game and wondered what benefit if any there would be. Presently I don't see any mechanical benefit.
I think there has been a misunderstanding about my question. The only thing that I'm allowing for is having four arms (no shield)
As was previously mentioned two weapon fighting only works with light weapons and there are not any light two handed weapons (barring the light crossbow but that lacks the light property and only has light in the name), and the dual wielder feat specifically calls out that it only works with one handed melee weapons, and you only get the +1 to AC if you have a separate melee weapon in each hand excluding two handed weapons from that aswell.
That would mean that they wouldn't get any extra attacks with the second two handed weapon unless they had extra attack but that wouldn't stop them from doing it anyway. I know RAW it isn't allowed and that's why I don't think there is any benefit to doing so. I was mostly asking to see if anyone could find a RAW thing that are vague enough to be effected by duel wielding two handed weapons.
Also the race is insectoid not human, just incase people wanted to visualize it better. The player didn't bring up wanting to duel wield two handed weapons I just thought about it being a possibility within the game and wondered what benefit if any there would be. Presently I don't see any mechanical benefit.
Ah, OK.
Benefits which they could gain, given what you have described, are basically limited to grappling, spellcasting and object interaction.
Logically speaking, there absolutely would be mechanical benefits to having four arms. But if you’re trying to find a balance between allowing this custom race (Dark Sun Thri-Kreen?) and sticking to RAW then you’re going to have to establish restrictions on your player’s character. There are no RAW that allow dual-wielding two-handed weapons. Period. So if you’re sticking to RAW, then don’t allow that for any reason. (It’s too OP, anyway.)
Here’s how I would handle it. In the same fashion as most humans are either right-handed or left-handed, the PC would choose a pair of arms to favor, let’s call them upper pair and lower pair and, for this example, let’s say the PC chooses to favor the upper pair. In most instances, including combat, the PC would use their upper pair (wielding weapons, holding a book and turning pages, drinking and eating, packing a satchel with gear, waving to someone, casting spells, etc). The lower pair would also be capable of doing untrained tasks, like eating and drinking, packing gear, etc, but it would be like a human doing those things with their unfavored hand. In other words, the PC would be clumsy and inaccurate with their lower pair. It’s very important here to distinguish between trained tasks and untrained tasks. Meaning, the PC would not be able to wield weapons or cast spells with their lower pair. By establishing this restriction, you’d be able to easily stick to RAW for this PC.
However, there are still unique benefits to this four-arm situation. I would rule that the PC is able to hold objects, including stand-by weapons, with their lower pair. Note, I’m saying hold objects, not wield objects. So the PC would effectively be able to swap weapons in combat with ease. This benefit would override the usual “draw or stow one weapon as part of your action” (or however it’s worded in the book.) So, for example, the PC could wield a one-handed weapon and shield with their upper pair while holding a bow and readied arrow with their lower pair and be able to freely swap between sets of weaponry but still only be able to properly and proficiently wield with their upper pair. Another example would be wielding a two-handed weapon with their upper pair while holding a hand-crossbow and a healing potion at the ready with their lower pair. Again, not able to wield the stand-by items from their lower pair but have them freely accessible on their turn. It may not sound like much but this ability to have items at the ready can make a huge difference in combat.
In purely RP situations, I would be much more lenient with the PC’s ability to utilize both pairs of arms because, for RP, it can create great scenes and narrative.
The biggest benefit I can think of is that it would allow for swapping between melee and ranged weapons without the usual hit to action economy that that would entail.
That’s something that many tables probably ignore anyway, but it’s something to consider if you value the fact that you have to either give up an action or spread the swap across two turns to switch from greatsword to longbow, for example.
The biggest benefit I can think of is that it would allow for swapping between melee and ranged weapons without the usual hit to action economy that that would entail.
That’s something that many tables probably ignore anyway, but it’s something to consider if you value the fact that you have to either give up an action or spread the swap across two turns to switch from greatsword to longbow, for example.
This, except wielding a onehanded weapon and a shield while also keeping a wand at the ready and using your 4th hand for somatic components.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If it is too op to be able to duel wield two handed weapons I want someone to give me an example. As far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing gained from duel wielding two handed weapons. You can't use it for two weapon fighting in any situation, you don't benefit from dual wielding feat, mechanically there is no difference for extra attack .
I am not looking for advice on how to run a 4 armed character, I am looking specifically for examples of when dual wielding two handed weapons would be overpowered (assuming that you still have to use two hands for each weapon).
Sorry if that seems abrasive, but I am trying to be very clear about what I'm looking for.
If it is too op to be able to duel wield two handed weapons I want someone to give me an example. As far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing gained from duel wielding two handed weapons. You can't use it for two weapon fighting in any situation, you don't benefit from dual wielding feat, mechanically there is no difference for extra attack .
I am not looking for advice on how to run a 4 armed character, I am looking specifically for examples of when dual wielding two handed weapons would be overpowered (assuming that you still have to use two hands for each weapon).
Sorry if that seems abrasive, but I am trying to be very clear about what I'm looking for.
The simple answer is No. There is no benefit to holding two Great Weapons if you don't allow the bonus action attack. It would allow them to switch between attacking with different weapon properties such as bludgeoning or slashing as well as magical properties. But that is about it.
If it is too op to be able to duel wield two handed weapons I want someone to give me an example. As far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing gained from duel wielding two handed weapons. You can't use it for two weapon fighting in any situation, you don't benefit from dual wielding feat, mechanically there is no difference for extra attack .
I am not looking for advice on how to run a 4 armed character, I am looking specifically for examples of when dual wielding two handed weapons would be overpowered (assuming that you still have to use two hands for each weapon).
Sorry if that seems abrasive, but I am trying to be very clear about what I'm looking for.
The simple answer is No. There is no benefit to holding two Great Weapons if you don't allow the bonus action attack. It would allow them to switch between attacking with different weapon properties such as bludgeoning or slashing as well as magical properties. But that is about it.
That was my thought too, but i wanted to see if the hivemind of the internet to see if someone could discover something that I wasn't thinking of.
I think the term “dual wielding” is what’s causing the confusion. It sounds like you don’t mean dual wielding at all. It sounds like you mean carrying. So, no, there would be no benefit to carrying two different two-handed weapons if the PC can only effectively WIELD one of them. Except, as mentioned, with regard to swapping between them.
Even though you didn’t ask for advice on how to run a four-armed character, it was a fun puzzle to unravel. 😃
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A player of mine wants to make an homebrew race that has 4 arms with which to manipulate objects. I know the big thing would be having the twohanded weapon and using a shield, but I have specifically said no to that and the player is okay with it. They would still be able to duel wield two handed weapons but I don't know if there is any benefit or build for that sort of thing.
I'm looking for examples of when this would be OP or anything like that. Keep in mind that you CAN NOT engage in two weapon fighting with two handed weapons in any situation.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Dual wield only works with light weapons. I’m not aware of any light two-handed weapons.
My recommendation is to not allow this, as two-weapon fighting currently limits you to two weapons that are 1d6 or 1d8 damage (with the Dual Wielder feat). This lets him jump all the way up to dual wielding with 2d6 damage weapons, a significant boost in power. That would, I think, be heavily unbalanced.
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.
I see nothing but benefits to dual-wielding two-handed weapons. As per RAW it's not permitted as dual-wield specifically states, as pavilionaire mentioned, that the weapons must have the Light property such as with the Dagger or Shortsword.
You ask if there is a benefit o being able to dual-wield two-handed weapons and I have to counter by asking what detriment could there be to being able to dual-wield two-handed weapons? They have a notably larger damage die than any weapon with the Light property and, going further than that, some of them even have the added benefit of having the Reach property.
There are only benefits to this. As far as I know there are no builds for something like this because, as per RAW, it's not allowed.
That said, you're free to homebrew as much as you want. I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong for allowing this, just answering the questions you posed.
They’d have to take the dual wielder feat, which technically says it allows for non-light weapons, and doesn’t forbid two-handed weapons (since it assumes the standard number of arms). So I guess that could include two-handed weapons.
One thing would be a bump in damage die from the d8 one handed weapons, to the d10 or 12 a two-handed weapon would allow. So they’d do more damage than a typical dual wielder could.
And it could allow for some other shenanigans around casting. Like having a two handed weapon (and dual wielding with a one handed weapon, even) and still having a free hand to cast. (So if they got a shield spell for example, they could have all these weapons out and still have a free hand to cast it) It wouldn’t give them extra actions, but it would really allow them more flexibility than anyone else would have under RAW.
This homebrew race sounds very much like the player just wanting to powergame and dominate combat. It smells like an ego issue to me. But if you're intent on allowing it, just use the standard Two-Weapon Fighting style rules along with the Dual Wielder feat rules and just ignore the usual weapon size restriction. Your player (aka Goro from Mortal Kombat) will be trivializing enemy combatants in no time.
I feel the same way as others about the fact it gives a significant bump in power for melee. Another potential way to get around it might be to limit the dual wielding to versatile weapons only (capping damage at d10), rather than allowing heavy weapons.
Please take a look at my homebrewed Spells, Magic Items, and Subclasses. Any feedback appreciated.
i think there isnt a bonus, instead, theres a DOWNGRADE. dual weilding two handed weapons makes ur speed - 10 ft and gives u encumbrance
I would treat the extra set of arms like the loxodon trunk, only slightly more dexterous. Unable to wield weapons/shields but able to manipulate objects. It'd still be useful, but stops being it from being game breaking
Firstly, while this sounds really cool, it's going to be very difficult to get right and not leave a ridiculously overpowered PC.
However, if I were to do it, I would start variant human, but use one of the Feat slots (or possibly even both) for his extra arms. Note that the standard TWF rules would not work with 2 double-handed weapons: They would have to be light. If he wanted to use 2-handed weapons with TWF, he would need the Dual Wielder feat, and I would limit this to only a single 2h weapon, the other being a single handed. I'd probably make a shield take up 2 hand "slots", saying that it blocks the other arm. I'd allow using any and all free hands to grapple, coz that'd be really cool but not stupidly powerful.
I'd also look at some other restrictions. The race could be very rare by lore, and all armour could need to be custom made/modified at higher cost. Magic armour could need to be modified to fit (again, at high cost by a magical armourer). There may be others.
All of this would depend very much on the player's attitude. If the player accepted all this, and the proviso that this was "playtesting" I may unilaterally change things if he is overpowered, I think it could work out OK.
It's also worth considering the space required to wield a greatsword. Look up some videos and see the big, sweeping motions necessary to fight with these weapons. They specifically need 2 hands because they fight on both sides of the body and sing over the head. It would be impossible to effectively wield a greatsword with two hands on the same side of your body, and it also be an issue to wield one normally with an extra arm holding a shield on one side of you. To get the energy in the swings of a great weapon means a lot of swinging, and a shield would just get in the way.
I'd only allow it as manipulating hands, not wielding ones. no shields or weapons. Having 4 arms might give benefits for a magic-casting fighting class, with 2 hands full and still another hand to perform magic with. this is significantly less concerning than wielding a greatsword, a longsword (one handed) and a shield, all at once!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I think there has been a misunderstanding about my question. The only thing that I'm allowing for is having four arms (no shield)
As was previously mentioned two weapon fighting only works with light weapons and there are not any light two handed weapons (barring the light crossbow but that lacks the light property and only has light in the name), and the dual wielder feat specifically calls out that it only works with one handed melee weapons, and you only get the +1 to AC if you have a separate melee weapon in each hand excluding two handed weapons from that aswell.
That would mean that they wouldn't get any extra attacks with the second two handed weapon unless they had extra attack but that wouldn't stop them from doing it anyway. I know RAW it isn't allowed and that's why I don't think there is any benefit to doing so. I was mostly asking to see if anyone could find a RAW thing that are vague enough to be effected by duel wielding two handed weapons.
Also the race is insectoid not human, just incase people wanted to visualize it better. The player didn't bring up wanting to duel wield two handed weapons I just thought about it being a possibility within the game and wondered what benefit if any there would be. Presently I don't see any mechanical benefit.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Ah, OK.
Benefits which they could gain, given what you have described, are basically limited to grappling, spellcasting and object interaction.
Logically speaking, there absolutely would be mechanical benefits to having four arms. But if you’re trying to find a balance between allowing this custom race (Dark Sun Thri-Kreen?) and sticking to RAW then you’re going to have to establish restrictions on your player’s character. There are no RAW that allow dual-wielding two-handed weapons. Period. So if you’re sticking to RAW, then don’t allow that for any reason. (It’s too OP, anyway.)
Here’s how I would handle it. In the same fashion as most humans are either right-handed or left-handed, the PC would choose a pair of arms to favor, let’s call them upper pair and lower pair and, for this example, let’s say the PC chooses to favor the upper pair. In most instances, including combat, the PC would use their upper pair (wielding weapons, holding a book and turning pages, drinking and eating, packing a satchel with gear, waving to someone, casting spells, etc). The lower pair would also be capable of doing untrained tasks, like eating and drinking, packing gear, etc, but it would be like a human doing those things with their unfavored hand. In other words, the PC would be clumsy and inaccurate with their lower pair. It’s very important here to distinguish between trained tasks and untrained tasks. Meaning, the PC would not be able to wield weapons or cast spells with their lower pair. By establishing this restriction, you’d be able to easily stick to RAW for this PC.
However, there are still unique benefits to this four-arm situation. I would rule that the PC is able to hold objects, including stand-by weapons, with their lower pair. Note, I’m saying hold objects, not wield objects. So the PC would effectively be able to swap weapons in combat with ease. This benefit would override the usual “draw or stow one weapon as part of your action” (or however it’s worded in the book.) So, for example, the PC could wield a one-handed weapon and shield with their upper pair while holding a bow and readied arrow with their lower pair and be able to freely swap between sets of weaponry but still only be able to properly and proficiently wield with their upper pair. Another example would be wielding a two-handed weapon with their upper pair while holding a hand-crossbow and a healing potion at the ready with their lower pair. Again, not able to wield the stand-by items from their lower pair but have them freely accessible on their turn. It may not sound like much but this ability to have items at the ready can make a huge difference in combat.
In purely RP situations, I would be much more lenient with the PC’s ability to utilize both pairs of arms because, for RP, it can create great scenes and narrative.
Hope this helps!
The biggest benefit I can think of is that it would allow for swapping between melee and ranged weapons without the usual hit to action economy that that would entail.
That’s something that many tables probably ignore anyway, but it’s something to consider if you value the fact that you have to either give up an action or spread the swap across two turns to switch from greatsword to longbow, for example.
This, except wielding a onehanded weapon and a shield while also keeping a wand at the ready and using your 4th hand for somatic components.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If it is too op to be able to duel wield two handed weapons I want someone to give me an example. As far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing gained from duel wielding two handed weapons. You can't use it for two weapon fighting in any situation, you don't benefit from dual wielding feat, mechanically there is no difference for extra attack .
I am not looking for advice on how to run a 4 armed character, I am looking specifically for examples of when dual wielding two handed weapons would be overpowered (assuming that you still have to use two hands for each weapon).
Sorry if that seems abrasive, but I am trying to be very clear about what I'm looking for.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
The simple answer is No. There is no benefit to holding two Great Weapons if you don't allow the bonus action attack. It would allow them to switch between attacking with different weapon properties such as bludgeoning or slashing as well as magical properties. But that is about it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That was my thought too, but i wanted to see if the hivemind of the internet to see if someone could discover something that I wasn't thinking of.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
I think the term “dual wielding” is what’s causing the confusion. It sounds like you don’t mean dual wielding at all. It sounds like you mean carrying. So, no, there would be no benefit to carrying two different two-handed weapons if the PC can only effectively WIELD one of them. Except, as mentioned, with regard to swapping between them.
Even though you didn’t ask for advice on how to run a four-armed character, it was a fun puzzle to unravel. 😃