Lizard Folk Dual Weld with bite?

[goremonger]

Could a Lizard Folk dual wield with a bite and a weapon in one hand, allowing them to also use a shield?

[DivisibleByZero]

Could a Lizard Folk dual wield with a bite and a weapon in one hand, allowing them to also use a shield?

Bite is not a weapon, so no.
It's a weapon attack, but only because it is not a spell attack. But it is not a weapon.
*your DM may rule otherwise

[Deox]

Bite is not a weapon, so no.
It's a weapon attack, but only because it is not a spell attack. But it is not a weapon.
*your DM may rule otherwise

This looks correct. As a DM, however, I would allow it.

[DivisibleByZero]

This looks correct. As a DM, however, I would allow it.

I wouldn't allow it as Dual Wielding. I might be persuaded to change the Bite attack from an Action into a Bonus Action instead. But I definitely wouldn't allow or consider it Dual Wielding or Two Weapon Fighting in any manner.

[Ferrin33]

I wouldn't allow it as Dual Wielding. I might be persuaded to change the Bite attack from an Action into a Bonus Action instead. But I definitely wouldn't allow or consider it Dual Wielding or Two Weapon Fighting in any manner.

I would remove the strength modifier to damage when used as a bonus action if you do. But then I'd also allow Lizardfolk that get a Fighting Style to get a special one that lets them add their strength or dex modifier to damage.

I agree that it's not dual wielding or two-weapon fighting and so shouldn't work with rules like that.

[Deox]

I wouldn't allow it as Dual Wielding. I might be persuaded to change the Bite attack from an Action into a Bonus Action instead. But I definitely wouldn't allow or consider it Dual Wielding or Two Weapon Fighting in any manner.

For clarification, this is what I agree with. I would not allow or consider it Dual Wielding / Two Weapon Fighting, but would allow the use of a Bonus Action to bite.

[Toofey]

I would use the exact same rules as it for and off hand attack and would probably allow a character capable of it to take a similar style, but the two would not cross over and the feat would not be available for it.

[Foxhound438]

two weapon fighting requires you wield a weapon in each hand, so technically no. You can, however, grapple a thing and use bite attacks against it while using a shield.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I don't have the book on hand right now but as I recall a lizardfolk's bite is considered an unarmed attack. So if you can dual wield with sword and fist you can dual wield with sword and tooth.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't have the book on hand right now but as I recall a lizardfolk's bite is considered an unarmed attack. So if you can dual wield with sword and fist you can dual wield with sword and tooth.

Pro Tip:
You can't dual wield with sword and fist.

[polymphus]

Yeah no this makes no sense. You can't dual-wield with a fist/sword even without a shield, and the bite works mechanically just like a fist. As weird as it sounds, a fist is not a Light weapon which means it can't be used in two-weapon fighting.

If you want an extra unarmed attack as a bonus action, go monk. Lizardfolk monk is actually quite viable.

What you're basically asking for is to get a monk class feature without MCing monk, and I'm not sure a DM would allow that.