I want to make a Tabaxi Rogue. I've already seen threads exploring whether Tabaxi natural weapons can be used for two-weapon fighting (RAW - No, because claws aren't explicitly one-handed). What I want to know is whether the +1 bonus to AC from the Dual Wielder feat applies. I'd argue they are separate, and they are melee weapons (you certainly can't use them at range).

Tabaxi Racial Trait

Cat's Claws. Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.

Dual Wielder Feat

You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:

I would argue no because although your claws are natural weapons, you are not wielding them - your hands are still empty. The +1 AC it grants can be taken from you enemies that manage to disarm you as there are actions, spells and features around disarming. That ability to be disarmed to lose the AC bonus is part of the feat balancing. By allowing it with your claws your AC bonus is now protected because short of taking several rounds/minutes to bind your hands or chopping your hands and feet off - you're immune to being disarmed of the bonus. 

And it even seems your deliberate intent is to get the benefit without the drawback that balances it. An understandable, but not forgivable, desire. 

By the wording, by RAI, by balance: No.

Just a note that you're using the legacy Tabaxi rules from "Volo's Guide to Monster's". The new rules from "Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse" note that the Tabaxi's claws make "unarmed strikes" and doesn't call them "natural weapons", preventing them from performing any function restricted to actual "weapons" as opposed to function that can work with any melee attack.

Thanks for the response. I'd accept a DM ruling either way, but yeah - it is intentional to be getting a benefit even when disarmed of held weapons, because that's part of the point of having natural weapons - this character's hands are dangerous even if you take their swords away. But you could argue the flavor either way too - no AC bonus because they can't parry/defend with claws - or yes AC bonus because they can still defend with slashing attacks that make opponents reluctant to be in melee range.

As for being empty-handed - that would seem to be a prerequisite (even if not explicit in rules) to wield claw natural weapons, you can't slash with them while also holding swords in your hands.

ACEspinz: Thanks for that, I don't have MPMM so wasn't aware of that change. I suppose I could just use the reskin from a previous character that had 'claws' - functionally shortswords in every way, vulnerable to being disarmed 'claws too damaged to use for now' and so on. But for narrative purposes, claws.