D&D 5E Natural Attacks, Shields and Two Weapon Fighting

[Krakenspire]

I'm running a campaign that uses modified Lizardfolk from the Kobold Press Southlands publication. One of the capabilities is a natural bite attack. As one of the players is making a barbarian lizardfolk in order to head off the obvious I need some advice.

If you have a natural attack that isn't claws, can you do a two weapon fighting attack with the natural attack (or the weapon in your hand) that includes the natural attack. Example: Attack with short sword, use bonus action to "two weapon" with the bite attack. This in general makes complete sense to me as a short sword or handaxe is 1d6 damage similar to the bite. This won't unbalance the game overly.

However should the lizardfolk use the bite attack after a double handed weapon attack or use it as an extra attack while wielding a shield would that cause problems?

The natural attack doesn't count as an off hand weapon, so unless they take a feat I think I can say that its not possible to bite and swing a warhammer together.

It they take the feat then I have no issues with even a great weapon attack and the bite. It's not much different than the pole arm master damage in the long run.

Now if they use a shield and want to hit with the warhammer and bite, I think that its reasonable to rule that they can do it but lose the shield bonus for that turn as it needs to be tossed aside to attack with both "weapons".

Thoughts and rules reference this issue?

 

[Kobold Stew]

There are three good parallels in the 5e rules for natural attacks in this sense, and the answer comes down to how you as DM choose to word the natural attack in the racial description.

1. In the UA Waterborne adventures there's the Minotaur race with horns. They are too powerful (in my experience as a player of one), in that there's no incentive to have a weapon in hand unless you want to shove, but they show you how racial characteristics can feature in this sort of thing. Natural attacks are introduced as a balancing actor in race design. So to implement this, you'd want to consider the suite of abilities you are giving the player.

2. At the end of the DMG, there are abilities for translating certain humanoid races from the MM to PC races. There, you'll note that the Gnoll has the ability to use the bite attack in certain circumstances (when you reduce a creature to zero), and that is the only circumstance in which the PC can use the bite attack (it's not something that is given as a default). That shows us that they're prepared to let PC monsters have fewer abilities than monster ones because they also have class levels.

(You'll also note that the Lizardfolk do not have natural weapons either, or proficiency with their special shield, but they do get Natural Armour. To have Natural armour and natural weapons would make for a very powerful race, and they seem to want to avoid the level-adujstment modifiers from 3.x, which were not popular.)

3. Finally, Rules for Deep Gnomes now include a racial feat, meaning that characters can start with sub-par abilities, but invest their feat at 4th level in order to access more. So far that's unique example of such a targeted feat, but it wouldn't be inappropriate here -- that if the player wants, at 4th level, they can get access to the Bite attack using a bonus action in addition to other attacks.

SO --

given those rules, I would not allow players to access a bite at level 1. I'd be careful about how the racial rules are written (avoiding the excesses of the minotaur), but I'd let them have a full multi attack if they invest in a specially written feat.

Hope this helps.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

According to RAW, without a feat or fighting style both weapons being used must be light weapons in order to use the bonus action to attack. In addition, a natural attack does not automatically qualify as a light weapon unless it is explicitly described as such. This is why a creature can make multiple natural attacks with the multiattack option despite their natural attacks not being considered light weapons, but cannot use their bonus action to make additional attacks via two-weapon fighting. Personally, I think this is kind of stupid and nit-picky, but this is how the rules are written.

If you take the Dual Wielder feat, the weapons being used no longer have to be light weapons, which would then allow you to use the natural attack with the two weapon fighting option. However, you would still not be able to add your strength modifier to the natural attack's damage without the two weapon fighting style.

Edit: I gotta disagree with you, Kobold Stew. I think the Minotaur is fairly balanced, speaking from someone currently DM'ing one in the campaign I'm running. Yes, the player does not require a weapon like other characters, but it's not much different than an elf getting access to a damage dealing wizard cantrip. A minotaur still must maintain the same economy of actions as other players, and there are no current ways (within the current rule set) that allows a minotaurs attacks to be considered magical without taking 6 levels of monk, nor can the minotaur's horns ever become silvered or adamantine.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Edit: I gotta disagree with you, Kobold Stew. I think the Minotaur is fairly balanced, speaking from someone currently DM'ing one in the campaign I'm running. Yes, the player does not require a weapon like other characters, but it's not much different than an elf getting access to a damage dealing wizard cantrip. A minotaur still must maintain the same economy of actions as other players, and there are no current ways (within the current rule set) that allows a minotaurs attacks to be considered magical without taking 6 levels of monk, nor can the minotaur's horns ever become silvered or adamantine.

Fair enough -- I only played the character for a while, and it could be that I just happened to be at a sweet spot. But as a cleric I was doing meaningfully more damage than the fighter, and I was better at associated combat actions like shoving. I ended up choosing not to use my horns but use my mace in attacks, because I felt like it was too much.

I'll say, if it was a d6 attack instead of d10 (short sword rather than longsword with two hands), I'd have been fine with it.

 

[Noctem]

According to RAW, without a feat or fighting style both weapons being used must be light weapons in order to use the bonus action to attack. In addition, a natural attack does not automatically qualify as a light weapon unless it is explicitly described as such. This is why a creature can make multiple natural attacks with the multiattack option despite their natural attacks not being considered light weapons, but cannot use their bonus action to make additional attacks via two-weapon fighting. Personally, I think this is kind of stupid and nit-picky, but this is how the rules are written.

If you take the Dual Wielder feat, the weapons being used no longer have to be light weapons, which would then allow you to use the natural attack with the two weapon fighting option. However, you would still not be able to add your strength modifier to the natural attack's damage without the two weapon fighting style.

Edit: I gotta disagree with you, Kobold Stew. I think the Minotaur is fairly balanced, speaking from someone currently DM'ing one in the campaign I'm running. Yes, the player does not require a weapon like other characters, but it's not much different than an elf getting access to a damage dealing wizard cantrip. A minotaur still must maintain the same economy of actions as other players, and there are no current ways (within the current rule set) that allows a minotaurs attacks to be considered magical without taking 6 levels of monk, nor can the minotaur's horns ever become silvered or adamantine.

This post is spot on. Natural Weapons do not and will never qualify for two-weapon fighting unless specifically stated to be (as in an exception is specifically called out). Good post Hawk!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yeah, I basically fall on the side of letting players do mechanically equivalent attacks and stuff but in whichever flavorful format they wish. So in a case like this... I'd determine what the most normal two-weapon fighting mechanics would be-- including basic TWF, with the TWF fighting style, and with the Dual-Wielder feat... and then let the players substitute any odd-ball stuff they have in those places. But that's *all* they get to do. They don't get to add in extra stuff on top of that just because they now have "free hands" per se.

So I'd be fine with a lizardfolk attacking with a Light weapon in one hand and making a bite or claw off-hand attack doing your normal 1d6 damage (without STR or DEX bonus for damage) like any other Light weapon would do (as that is the equivalent to your normal two-weapon fighting character.) But that character wouldn't be able to then also add in a shield just because they have a hand free. A normal two-weapon fighting character doesn't get that, so this lizardfolk using a bite as Bonus attack doesn't either.

After that... everything scales up with the fighting style and the feat as normal-- the fighting style would allow the additional stat mod as bonus damage for the bite/claw... and the dual-wielder feat would allow the bite/claw to go up a step in damage to a d8 (like most Martial non-Light weapons do.) This lizardfolk character does get a slight extra bonus over a normal two-weapon fighting character in that they always have a hand free to do stuff with... but in my experience with my players I've found that to be rather inconsequential and thus would treat that more like a Ribbon bonus for being a lizardfolk than anything unbalancing. Especially considering the downside they'll experience in not ever having that "off-hand" bite or claw be a magical attack. So it all works out for me in the end.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

But that character wouldn't be able to then also add in a shield just because they have a hand free. A normal two-weapon fighting character doesn't get that, so this lizardfolk using a bite as Bonus attack doesn't either.

I'd disagree with you there, DEFCON. This might amount to different playing styles, but this is really one of the racial benefits of having the lizardfolk. They don't get the free cantrip of the High Elf, the Lucky ability of the halfling, the Gnome Cunning of the gnome, or the Relentless Endurance of the half-orc. Each race has their niche abilities, and I see no reason to nerf this in comparison to what the other races have access to. Not to mention in terms of realism, I can't see how any creature would need a free hand to bite someone. As a DM, I would allow them to benefit from a shield and use their bonus action to make an extra attack with their bite. From my perspective, this doesn't break the game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd disagree with you there, DEFCON. This might amount to different playing styles, but this is really one of the racial benefits of having the lizardfolk. They don't get the free cantrip of the High Elf, the Lucky ability of the halfling, the Gnome Cunning of the gnome, or the Relentless Endurance of the half-orc. Each race has their niche abilities, and I see no reason to nerf this in comparison to what the other races have access to. Not to mention in terms of realism, I can't see how any creature would need a free hand to bite someone. As a DM, I would allow them to benefit from a shield and use their bonus action to make an extra attack with their bite. From my perspective, this doesn't break the game.

Oh, well if you were making this a racial feature for the Lizardfolk PC race, then absolutely I'm right there with you. There's enough design space availability in racial features to give you a sword/board/bite trio that would be balanced. I just wasn't taking the racial feature availability into account with my original analysis, coming at it purely from a "How would you allow for a natural attack to be a part of TWF" scenario with no additional rule space to use.