Beast barbarian and BA attacks

[J-H]

The Beast barbarian claws give an extra attack when the Attack action is taken, but they require at least one empty hand to use.
Theoretically, you could attack with your big weapon with GWM, then twice with your claws, and hope to reduce an enemy to 0 or crit with it for a BA attack.
With PAM, you could attack once with a one-handed spear, then twice with your claws, and then with the butt of the spear as a Bonus Action. It looks like this reliably gives a 4-attack routine at level 5: Spear, Claw/Claw, Butt of Spear. You then also get a reaction attack when someone comes in range.

Any other ways to get a bonus action attack with Beast claws?

4-5 attacks per round at level 5 looks perhaps a bit OP. Sure, they are 1d6 base damage, but with rage and 18 STR, that's 4d6+24 damage on the barbarian's turn, struck with advantage if desired, and then perhaps another 1d6+6 as a reaction.

[Unoriginal]

Any other ways to get a bonus action attack with Beast claws?

Technically, the Dual Wielder feat.



4-5 attacks per round at level 5 looks perhaps a bit OP.

Monks can do that, though.

[Ir0ns0ul]

Multiclass Monk is an exotic way to get BA attack as well.

[J-H]

Multiclassing is meh.

I think you're right about Dual Wielder.

When the barbarian rages "You manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you."
Claws specifically affects both hands.
Unless you parse the grammar excessively, it should meet the requirement of "while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand."
They also are not light, which Dual Wielder fixes.
So there you go, Claws x4 and even +1 AC out of the deal.

Settled.

A magic weapon could even be used for one of the four attacks if you find a good one... but with +damage from rage and str, the extra hits make up for even a 2d6 elemental damage weapon.

This should be really good for a low magic campaign, like Dark Sun or something.

[Ir0ns0ul]

Multiclassing is meh.

I think you're right about Dual Wielder.

When the barbarian rages "You manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you."
Claws specifically affects both hands.
Unless you parse the grammar excessively, it should meet the requirement of "while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand."
They also are not light, which Dual Wielder fixes.
So there you go, Claws x4 and even +1 AC out of the deal.

Except that the BA attack will not add your STR mod unless you get the Fighting Style.

[JackPhoenix]

Unless you parse the grammar excessively, it should meet the requirement of "while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand."


That's not the requirement for TWF, though. The requirement is "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."

You aren't holding your claws.

[Rara1212]

Polearm master works. Take 1 attack with the polearm & the bonus action attack. Then take your second attack with the claws, and get a free claw attack. For cheese, have a shield & spear/quarterstaff. When your turn starts, drop your weapon(if you had it drawn) attack 1 time with claws and one time for free with claws. Pick up your weapon, do your 2nd attack with it, then do your bonus action attack.

Edit: Missed the only part of PAM

[da newt]

I think PAM is your best bet.
If you dip fighter you can add Dueling FS for extra damage w/ staff/spear (and later action surge and BM maneuvers).
If you go Bugbear you can make all your attacks on your turn at 10' and then when the badguy closes to melee range they trigger your OpAtt too.
You could also go PAM w/ GWM (but that's a bunch of feats and if you are going reckless GWM you probably don't want to waste a GWM chance on 2 claw attacks)

[ATHATH]

When the barbarian rages "You manifest a natural weapon. It counts as a simple melee weapon for you."
Does this mean that it counts as a Monk weapon?

[ATHATH]

With PAM, you could attack once with a one-handed spear, then twice with your claws, and then with the butt of the spear as a Bonus Action.

When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals bludgeoning damage.
You're not attacking with ONLY a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear, so you don't get the BA melee attack.

While you did dismiss multiclassing earlier, I feel like it bears repeating that a Monk dip should let you get a BA attack each turn (which doesn't pierce resistance to nonmagical B/P/S, sadly, even if you play a Tabaxi and use your claws for your unarmed strikes (the level 6 Beast Barbarian feature only applies to the natural weapons from the subclass...) and is pretty on-theme. You could still take PAM for the reaction attack, I suppose, especially if you go for bugbear as your race (as da newt mentioned), but the logistics of it are gonna be a bit awkward if you want to use a shield, a spear, and your claws AND want to attack multiple spread out enemies in a single turn (which can make dropping your spear problematic).

[ATHATH]

Actually, instead of taking a Monk dip (which could become obsolete at later levels when more and more things start getting resistance to nonmagical B/P/S), could you just take the Dual Wielder feat and "dual wield" your claws?

[JackPhoenix]

Actually, instead of taking a Monk dip (which could become obsolete at later levels when more and more things start getting resistance to nonmagical B/P/S), could you just take the Dual Wielder feat and "dual wield" your claws?

No. You aren't holding your natural weapons, making claws ineligible for TWF. See above.

[JNAProductions]

No. You aren't holding your natural weapons, making claws ineligible for TWF. See above.

Ask your DM. That might be true RAW, but as a DM, I'd certainly have no issue with you TWFing with your claws with the Dual Wielder feat. I imagine many DMs would feel the same.

[sophontteks]

Ask your DM. That might be true RAW, but as a DM, I'd certainly have no issue with you TWFing with your claws with the Dual Wielder feat. I imagine many DMs would feel the same.
The problem is that the feature is already emulating TWF with the extra attack, and the request is to game the mechanics to basically get two offhand attacks.

I'm pretty confident they were aware of dual-wielding when they wrote this out and made sure the two couldnt be combined.

[Valmark]

The problem is that the feature is already emulating TWF with the extra attack, and the request is to game the mechanics to basically get two offhand attacks.

I'm pretty confident they were aware of dual-wielding when they wrote this out and made sure the two couldnt be combined.

Tbh if the designers worried that barbarians getting one bonus attack instead of two would break the game they really should double check their priorities.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it works for the reasons other presented but I'd have an hard time unbalancing anything with that house rule.

[Zhorn]

I agree with JNAProductions that you should check with your DM first before investing levels/feats into this expecting it to work, because as JackPhoenix and J-H have brought up a strict parsing of what's written is going to bring up questions of 'holding in hand' vs 'hands as weapons'.
It's more of a grey area for the time being as we haven't had an official sage advice clarifying it as intended to work or not, but for what it is worth;
Dan Dillon (who Jeremy Crawford has confirmed as involved in the original design of the beast barbarian in the earlier UA version here (https://youtu.be/23XuKIV9J8E?t=197)) has only ruled out claw not working for baseline TWF for lacking the light property here (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2020/01/15/barbarian-path-of-the-beast-claws-since-it-doesnt-have-the-light-property-i-cant-two-weapon-fighting-correct/), and has further stated mixing weapon attacks with extra attack and using your bonus action for anything else is still valid here (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2020/01/18/path-of-the-beast-lot-of-debate-now-about-being-able-to-hold-a-weapon-and-use-the-claws/).
James Haeck (who's done writing for WotC on a few books) has suggested here (https://youtu.be/yKL17cF9wl4?t=205) that the Dual Wielder feat should be a viable method of getting an additional bonus action claw attack and getting the +1 AC benefit while at it.
Now being that you can get the bonus action attack via:
a monk dip (the claws being simple weapons will qualify for using martial arts)
using the Dual Wielder feat to draw two weapons and attack with the Extra Attack and Bonus Action attack after making the first claw followed by the free claw attack* allows for the combination TWF with the use of non-light-d8 weapons for heavier hits
be wielding a light weapon in one hand, do the two claw attack, draw the off-hand light weapon and Extra Attack and Bonus Action attack with two d6 attack without a feat
I don't see disallowing Dual Wielder claws as being a hill worth dying on (especially since it would need 1-2 feats invested to get proper mileage out of it, being Dual Wielder for the bonus action attack, and Fighting Initiate feat to get Two Weapon Fighting Style, or a multiclass dip of the fighting style to get the +modifier to damage on that bonus action attack).

*note for sophontteks: the feature does not specify that the free claw attack is an off-hand attack and both can be done with the same claw.

[sophontteks]

Tbh if the designers worried that barbarians getting one bonus attack instead of two would break the game they really should double check their priorities.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it works for the reasons other presented but I'd have an hard time unbalancing anything with that house rule.

They aren't worried. They just didn't intent for it to be combined with dual wielding. I think the concept was that the two claws are dual wielding, so the combined concepts doesn't make sense with what they were designing. They were pretty flexible with what you can do with the offhand though.

[Zhorn]

They just didn't intent for it to be combined with dual wielding.
Citation needed.
At this point in time I have not heard anything official on what their intent was.
The closest I have found so far I have linked above. If you have anything more recent or explicitly stating intent I'm eager for you to share your source.

[sophontteks]

Citation needed.
At this point in time I have not heard anything official on what their intent was.
The closest I have found so far I have linked above. If you have anything more recent or explicitly stating intent I'm eager for you to share your source.
I wasn't arguing RAW, just the idea of it being house ruled. I was assuming the original arguments were right.

So, here's something I did find. Dan dillon, the person cited above, also says they don't work with two-weapon fighting for an additional reason. Interesting argument. It specifies that these are weapons being held, not just weapons.

I'll add that Dillon never said that the light property is a reason in the original citation. He just straight said it doesn't work. The person he was talking to made that assumption.

www.sageadvice.eu/2020/01/19/path-of-the-beastdoes-the-attack-from-form-of-the-beast-have-to-be-from-your-attack-action/amp/

[Zhorn]

I wasn't arguing RAW, just the idea of it being house ruled. I was assuming the original arguments were right.

So, here's something I did find. Dan dillon, the person cited above, also says they don't work with two-weapon fighting for an additional reason. Interesting argument. It specifies that these are weapons being held, not just weapons.

www.sageadvice.eu/2020/01/19/path-of-the-beastdoes-the-attack-from-form-of-the-beast-have-to-be-from-your-attack-action/amp/

Note the date of that response being Jan 18th 2020, being in response to the Unearth Arcana version of the subclass, which at that point didn't have the "It counts as a simple melee weapon for you" qualifier that came with the official Tasha's release.

[sophontteks]

Note the date of that response being Jan 18th 2020, being in response to the Unearth Arcana version of the subclass, which at that point didn't have the "It counts as a simple melee weapon for you" qualifier that came with the official Tasha's release.
This doesn't change his argument regarding it being held.

Note the date of the original citation. This is the followup.

[Zhorn]

IF that is the case still, I'd be interested in hearing a follow up confirmation post-Tasha's via either an interview or Crawford addressing the question on sage advice.
Without the change to qualify them as simple melee weapons, I would 100% agree with you on this, but as that has been changed since the UA it does somewhat undermine Dillon's other reasoning on natural weapons not qualifying.
If there is a legitimate intent on having this not work, I do wonder why the simple melee weapon tagline was added, as the UA version just being natural weapons AND not classed as unarmed strikes was effective at blocking the bonus action attack. Adding either simple weapon or unarmed strike is enough to qualify for the monk dip opening up the extra Bonus action attack, and if they went with unarmed strike that would have just brought it in line with most of the other natural weapons.

Regarding the initial Dan Dillion tweet I linked to, I can see we have two varying interpretations on that. I see the question being asked with regards to light weapons and Dan responding to that (which I originally included as both the UA and the Tasha's release both share that lack in light property). You've implied that his latter tweets to other people are a follow up and that the 'light ' aspect of the initial question as an assumption, but to that I'm left wondering why his initial answer in the first tweet didn't clarify it was because of another reason and not the light property as the question was referring to.
I'm not saying your wrong, just that we are reading it differently, and a more recent clarification would be appreciated. Especially since the most recent thing I'm finding with the greater spotlight would be the James Haeck interview with D&D Beyond saying it would work with Dual Wielder. Neither Haeck nor Dillon carry that official rule arbiter title that Crawford carries with sage advice and the compendium, they are just guys who each did work for WotC. Good for glimpses of insight, but not the final word (again, as I covered above about it being a grey area and best to check with you individual DMs first)

On the front of 'in hand' vs 'hands as' I acknowledge (as posted above) that there is ground to get pedantic over the wording with a very strict parsing, I just don't see it as worth being so critical of since you can get just as many attacks with some weapon switching at the same level milestones, and they'd actually be hitting harder anyway, that allowing it with just claws isn't breaking anything.
Assume Dual Wielder and Two Weapon Fighting Style.

Start with either a 1h 1d8 weapon drawn or two free hands
Attack Action claw (1d6+mod), free claw (1d6+mod)
Object interaction draw one or two 1h 1d8 weapons depending on your starting state
Extra Attack main hand (1d8+mod)
Bonus Action off hand (1d8+mod)
next round
free action drop one weapon
Attack Action claw (1d6+mod), free claw (1d6+mod)
Object interaction pick up dropped weapon
Extra Attack main hand (1d8+mod)
Bonus Action off hand (1d8+mod)
repeat for 2*(1d8+mod)+2*(1d6+mod) ≈ 16+(4*mod)

vs just letting the claws work
Attack Action (main hand), Extra Attack (any), free claw (any), Bonus Action attack (off-hand) = 4*(1d6+mod) ≈ 14+(4*mod)

with that gap just widening once magic weapon(s) come into play.

[sophontteks]

If you read two-weapon fighting it is pretty clear that the weapons must be held. I'm not sure what you are misinterpreting. The link I provided is literally his explanation why it doesn't work posted just 4 days later. I'm not implying anything. This is exactly what he said, and it's a concrete explanation.

None of the stuff you are talking about works. There are two reasons
- You must be holding 2 weapons when you make the attack.
- You can not use a bonus action in the middle of an attack.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995024061267767298?lang=en

[Zhorn]

If you read two-weapon fighting it is pretty clear that the weapons must be held. I'm not sure what you are misinterpreting. The link I provided is literally his explanation why it doesn't work posted just 4 days later. I'm not implying anything. This is exactly what he said, and it's a concrete explanation.
We have two people who have both worked on WotC products saying different things, one saying it works and one saying it doesn't.
The one saying it doesn't work (Dan Dillon) is talking about a Unearthed Arcana version long before the book was announced.
The one saying it does work (James Haeck) was from an interview talking about the classes after the book had been released with updates.
Neither are the lead rules designer. As covered on the first page of the Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) under the Official Rulings section;

The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here.
This makes it a grey area (which is what I've been saying from my initial post).
You might have it right, you might have it wrong. At this point in time with the information linked to so far in this thread; we just don't know. Hence why you saying that it definitive is their intent for it to not work with TWF in any capacity, I say 'citation needed', since as far as I can tell that is wholly speculation on your part.


None of the stuff you are talking about works. There are two reasons
- You must be holding 2 weapons when you make the attack.
- You can not use a bonus action in the middle of an attack.
I have not made those mistakes. Check the order of attacks as listed (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626062-Beast-barbarian-and-BA-attacks&p=24902143#post24902143). the Bonus Action on each round has always been last, and the first time an attack is make with a held weapon, there is a weapon in each main hand and off hand, being put in hand using an object interaction, being as those can be done in tandem with movement/actions (see PHB p190; Interacting with Objects Around You, where picking up and drawing weapons are some for the examples given).