Lizardmen and Two-Weapon Fighting

[IanB]

I believe it ends up working like this: (Critter has Ambidexterity, 2 Weapon Fighting, Multiattack)

When it attacks with 2 claws and a bite: just like the monster manual says, no iterative attacks, 2 claws +2, bite +0.

When it attacks with a single weapon: weapon +2, bite +0, claw +0 (not totally sure about this one)

When it attacks with two weapons: weapon +0, weapon +0, bite +0 (assuming light weapon in off-hand)

The only one that is questionable is when the creature attacks with only one weapon - does it get both a bite and a claw? I'm not sure if it should. The easy answer is to give the lizard a shield or a two-handed weapon.

 

[reapersaurus]

When it attacks with a single weapon: weapon +2, bite +0, claw +0 (not totally sure about this one)

The only one that is questionable is when the creature attacks with only one weapon - does it get both a bite and a claw?

Yes, it does, and it doesn't need Ambi and TWF to have this happen.

This is explicitly mentioned in Dragon 292, again.

I'm not unclear about using one weapon at all.
Whether or not other people recognize Dragon 292 as a valid rules source for rules that were not covered in the core books is beyond me to determine.

 

[IanB]

I think it is unclear. Look at the description for the harpy.

The harpy can either use its club, OR 2 claws. It doesn't have the option to club and use one claw, despite being medium size. If the rules allowed for an off-hand claw attack with a weapon, wouldn't the harpy have that in the description?

Or consider the cornugon - it can whip + bite + tail, or 2 claws + bite + tail, but not whip + claw + bite + tail.

There seems to be at least an unwritten rule as far as claws are concerned.

 

[reapersaurus]

I think it is unclear. Look at the description for the harpy.

If the rules allowed for an off-hand claw attack with a weapon, wouldn't the harpy have that in the description?

Good reasoning, but I really don't think the MM stat-blocks are the way to confirm or deny rulings.

What do you guys think?
I thought the MM was well-understood to be incomplete and most of the stat-blocks are missing many rules applications.

 

[IanB]

That's why I'm not confirming or denying, I'm casting doubt.

 

[reapersaurus]

well, in the absense of anything official, that's always something.

 

[Astlin]

Good reasoning, but I really don't think the MM stat-blocks are the way to confirm or deny rulings.

What do you guys think?
I thought the MM was well-understood to be incomplete and most of the stat-blocks are missing many rules applications.

I thought it was well-understood that everything in the Dragon mags was optional. I do not have access to Dragon 292 anyway. If the MM is too incomplete and the SRD is not a valid source I guess I can't help you.

You could try the Sage. <shrug>

Astlin

 

[reapersaurus]

I thought it was well-understood that everything in the Dragon mags was optional.

This part of the Dragon mag was intended to be rules clarification for stuff that isn't covered in the core rulebooks.

As far as i'm aware, there have been quite a few examples of this.