Barbarian, Path of the Beast: Would the barbarian claws be eligible for two-weapon fighting if you take the Dual Wielder feat?

4 thoughts on “Barbarian, Path of the Beast: Would the barbarian claws be eligible for two-weapon fighting if you take the Dual Wielder feat?

  1. MRLoki says:

    Dan Dillon seems wrong to me – dual wielder feat says “You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.”

    His justification is plain wrong by RAW, hope someone else answers this.

  2. Brian says:

    Yeah the claws count as simple weapons. The only thing holding back from Two Weapon fighting them is the light property. Dual Wielder removes the need for that. I don’t see why not.

  3. James says:

    Relevant text
    “It counts as a simple melee weapon for you, and you add your Strength modifier to the attack and damage rolls when you attack with it, as normal.”

    “Claws. Each of your hands transforms into a claw, which you can use as a weapon if it’s empty. It deals 1d6 slashing damage on a hit. 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.”

    “You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.

    “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.”

    The only part of this which seems relevant is “holding” and how we interpret the claws. If they are held, because they are considered simple melee weapons or not. All in all, it doesn’t seem game breaking to allow this as it requires a feat and provides the same action economy as PAM.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.