Can any creature other than PCs use Two-Weapon Fighting?
As per the rule on PHB, page 195:
Two-Weapon Fighting.
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 don't
add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus
attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you
can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee
attack with it.
Now, let's take for example a drow (MM, page 128):
Under its Actions, it can use a shortword, which is a light melee weapon. Should said drow find itself wielding a second shortsword, would it be able to use Two-Weapon Fighting within the normal limitations of the feature?
dnd-5e monsters npc
New contributor
add a comment |
As per the rule on PHB, page 195:
Two-Weapon Fighting.
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 don't
add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus
attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you
can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee
attack with it.
Now, let's take for example a drow (MM, page 128):
Under its Actions, it can use a shortword, which is a light melee weapon. Should said drow find itself wielding a second shortsword, would it be able to use Two-Weapon Fighting within the normal limitations of the feature?
dnd-5e monsters npc
New contributor
add a comment |
As per the rule on PHB, page 195:
Two-Weapon Fighting.
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 don't
add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus
attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you
can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee
attack with it.
Now, let's take for example a drow (MM, page 128):
Under its Actions, it can use a shortword, which is a light melee weapon. Should said drow find itself wielding a second shortsword, would it be able to use Two-Weapon Fighting within the normal limitations of the feature?
dnd-5e monsters npc
New contributor
As per the rule on PHB, page 195:
Two-Weapon Fighting.
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 don't
add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus
attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you
can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee
attack with it.
Now, let's take for example a drow (MM, page 128):
Under its Actions, it can use a shortword, which is a light melee weapon. Should said drow find itself wielding a second shortsword, would it be able to use Two-Weapon Fighting within the normal limitations of the feature?
dnd-5e monsters npc
dnd-5e monsters npc
New contributor
New contributor
edited 3 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
48.2k6239365
48.2k6239365
New contributor
asked 3 hours ago
Emmanuel Acosta
513
513
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Yes, if you want it to be able to
NPCs in D&D 5e are designed differently from, and often do not follow the same rules as, the player characters - but in this case the same rules should apply. The guidance for reading monster stat blocks states:
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action.
By a strict reading, the weapon attack options described in the monster's stat block are not uses of the Attack action - they're special actions that the monster can use, so if it uses one of those actions it's not taking the Attack action and so can't qualify for two-weapon fighting. (Functionally, these options are usually equivalent to taking the Attack action and making an attack with that weapon, and in most cases I'd personally rule as if they were the Attack action for situations where that's relevant, but that's not the rules as written.)
However, the monster explicitly retains the ability to use actions which are available to all creatures - including the Attack action - so it can take that action and make an attack with a weapon it's holding and then invoke two-weapon fighting just like a PC can.
Where things get a bit funky is when the Multiattack action is in play. A monster with Multiattack can make several attacks with a single action - which is much the same as a player character using the Attack action with the Extra Attack feature - but it is not the Attack action, so a monster that uses Multiattack cannot use those attacks to qualify for a two-weapon-fighting bonus action attack. A monster with Multiattack is probably better off using that than trying to use the two-weapon fighting rules though, since its Multiattack almost certainly has better stats and doesn't use up a bonus action.
1
MM p. 10 specifically calls out named monster actions as Actions, so the natural reading of the rules is that they are attacking using custom-named Actions, not the Attack action. This answer’s logic still works regardless of that , and I’d like to upvote it, but the bit about reading monster Actions as being already secretly the Attack action means I can’t bring myself to.
– SevenSidedDie♦
2 hours ago
@SevenSidedDie fair enough - I've edited to clarify that my interpretation isn't strictly RAW on that particular issue.
– Carcer
2 hours ago
1
That works for me! I like how what is and what’s sensible to rule are distinguished. (And the reason for personally ruling that way is clear and makes good sense, now that I consider it separately.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Yes.
Two-weapon fighting rules apply to monsters per the MM's guidance on monsters and what actions they can take.
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from...one of the actions available to all creatures...as described in the Player's Handbook. (MM page 10.)
Further guidance on the next page of the MM specifically references the attack section of the PHB which contains the rules for Two Weapon Fighting.
3
Being able to use TWF isn't strictly the same as Mulitattack - Multiattack is a single action whereas TWF requires expending a bonus action to get the extra attack, which has implications for their action economy. (Possibly functionally irrelevant implications in many cases, I do concede.)
– Carcer
3 hours ago
So it seems that Multiattack, though similar to TWF, is distinct from TWF and that TWF is usable by any creature that fulfils the pre-reqs, (bonus action, both weapons light, etc.) Any edit to make?
– Token
2 hours ago
I would add support for why you say that TWF rules can apply to monsters. That is the core of the question so you really need to expand your logic there. Also, what is the point of bringing up multiattack? I don't get what point you are trying to make there.
– Rubiksmoose
2 hours ago
Changed supporting information from the previously mentioned and unrelated Multiattack to the answers current state.
– Token
1 hour ago
I think it was a worthwhile note in the original version that allowing a monster to TWF does make it more dangerous and could potentially justify increasing its CR (though a TWF attack with a mundane light weapon would only be a few points of damage, with is within the margin of tolerance for offensive CR calculation in most cases).
– Carcer
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Emmanuel Acosta is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f138309%2fcan-any-creature-other-than-pcs-use-two-weapon-fighting%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, if you want it to be able to
NPCs in D&D 5e are designed differently from, and often do not follow the same rules as, the player characters - but in this case the same rules should apply. The guidance for reading monster stat blocks states:
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action.
By a strict reading, the weapon attack options described in the monster's stat block are not uses of the Attack action - they're special actions that the monster can use, so if it uses one of those actions it's not taking the Attack action and so can't qualify for two-weapon fighting. (Functionally, these options are usually equivalent to taking the Attack action and making an attack with that weapon, and in most cases I'd personally rule as if they were the Attack action for situations where that's relevant, but that's not the rules as written.)
However, the monster explicitly retains the ability to use actions which are available to all creatures - including the Attack action - so it can take that action and make an attack with a weapon it's holding and then invoke two-weapon fighting just like a PC can.
Where things get a bit funky is when the Multiattack action is in play. A monster with Multiattack can make several attacks with a single action - which is much the same as a player character using the Attack action with the Extra Attack feature - but it is not the Attack action, so a monster that uses Multiattack cannot use those attacks to qualify for a two-weapon-fighting bonus action attack. A monster with Multiattack is probably better off using that than trying to use the two-weapon fighting rules though, since its Multiattack almost certainly has better stats and doesn't use up a bonus action.
1
MM p. 10 specifically calls out named monster actions as Actions, so the natural reading of the rules is that they are attacking using custom-named Actions, not the Attack action. This answer’s logic still works regardless of that , and I’d like to upvote it, but the bit about reading monster Actions as being already secretly the Attack action means I can’t bring myself to.
– SevenSidedDie♦
2 hours ago
@SevenSidedDie fair enough - I've edited to clarify that my interpretation isn't strictly RAW on that particular issue.
– Carcer
2 hours ago
1
That works for me! I like how what is and what’s sensible to rule are distinguished. (And the reason for personally ruling that way is clear and makes good sense, now that I consider it separately.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Yes, if you want it to be able to
NPCs in D&D 5e are designed differently from, and often do not follow the same rules as, the player characters - but in this case the same rules should apply. The guidance for reading monster stat blocks states:
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action.
By a strict reading, the weapon attack options described in the monster's stat block are not uses of the Attack action - they're special actions that the monster can use, so if it uses one of those actions it's not taking the Attack action and so can't qualify for two-weapon fighting. (Functionally, these options are usually equivalent to taking the Attack action and making an attack with that weapon, and in most cases I'd personally rule as if they were the Attack action for situations where that's relevant, but that's not the rules as written.)
However, the monster explicitly retains the ability to use actions which are available to all creatures - including the Attack action - so it can take that action and make an attack with a weapon it's holding and then invoke two-weapon fighting just like a PC can.
Where things get a bit funky is when the Multiattack action is in play. A monster with Multiattack can make several attacks with a single action - which is much the same as a player character using the Attack action with the Extra Attack feature - but it is not the Attack action, so a monster that uses Multiattack cannot use those attacks to qualify for a two-weapon-fighting bonus action attack. A monster with Multiattack is probably better off using that than trying to use the two-weapon fighting rules though, since its Multiattack almost certainly has better stats and doesn't use up a bonus action.
1
MM p. 10 specifically calls out named monster actions as Actions, so the natural reading of the rules is that they are attacking using custom-named Actions, not the Attack action. This answer’s logic still works regardless of that , and I’d like to upvote it, but the bit about reading monster Actions as being already secretly the Attack action means I can’t bring myself to.
– SevenSidedDie♦
2 hours ago
@SevenSidedDie fair enough - I've edited to clarify that my interpretation isn't strictly RAW on that particular issue.
– Carcer
2 hours ago
1
That works for me! I like how what is and what’s sensible to rule are distinguished. (And the reason for personally ruling that way is clear and makes good sense, now that I consider it separately.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Yes, if you want it to be able to
NPCs in D&D 5e are designed differently from, and often do not follow the same rules as, the player characters - but in this case the same rules should apply. The guidance for reading monster stat blocks states:
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action.
By a strict reading, the weapon attack options described in the monster's stat block are not uses of the Attack action - they're special actions that the monster can use, so if it uses one of those actions it's not taking the Attack action and so can't qualify for two-weapon fighting. (Functionally, these options are usually equivalent to taking the Attack action and making an attack with that weapon, and in most cases I'd personally rule as if they were the Attack action for situations where that's relevant, but that's not the rules as written.)
However, the monster explicitly retains the ability to use actions which are available to all creatures - including the Attack action - so it can take that action and make an attack with a weapon it's holding and then invoke two-weapon fighting just like a PC can.
Where things get a bit funky is when the Multiattack action is in play. A monster with Multiattack can make several attacks with a single action - which is much the same as a player character using the Attack action with the Extra Attack feature - but it is not the Attack action, so a monster that uses Multiattack cannot use those attacks to qualify for a two-weapon-fighting bonus action attack. A monster with Multiattack is probably better off using that than trying to use the two-weapon fighting rules though, since its Multiattack almost certainly has better stats and doesn't use up a bonus action.
Yes, if you want it to be able to
NPCs in D&D 5e are designed differently from, and often do not follow the same rules as, the player characters - but in this case the same rules should apply. The guidance for reading monster stat blocks states:
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action.
By a strict reading, the weapon attack options described in the monster's stat block are not uses of the Attack action - they're special actions that the monster can use, so if it uses one of those actions it's not taking the Attack action and so can't qualify for two-weapon fighting. (Functionally, these options are usually equivalent to taking the Attack action and making an attack with that weapon, and in most cases I'd personally rule as if they were the Attack action for situations where that's relevant, but that's not the rules as written.)
However, the monster explicitly retains the ability to use actions which are available to all creatures - including the Attack action - so it can take that action and make an attack with a weapon it's holding and then invoke two-weapon fighting just like a PC can.
Where things get a bit funky is when the Multiattack action is in play. A monster with Multiattack can make several attacks with a single action - which is much the same as a player character using the Attack action with the Extra Attack feature - but it is not the Attack action, so a monster that uses Multiattack cannot use those attacks to qualify for a two-weapon-fighting bonus action attack. A monster with Multiattack is probably better off using that than trying to use the two-weapon fighting rules though, since its Multiattack almost certainly has better stats and doesn't use up a bonus action.
edited 1 hour ago
GreySage
13.8k44992
13.8k44992
answered 2 hours ago
Carcer
21.8k462119
21.8k462119
1
MM p. 10 specifically calls out named monster actions as Actions, so the natural reading of the rules is that they are attacking using custom-named Actions, not the Attack action. This answer’s logic still works regardless of that , and I’d like to upvote it, but the bit about reading monster Actions as being already secretly the Attack action means I can’t bring myself to.
– SevenSidedDie♦
2 hours ago
@SevenSidedDie fair enough - I've edited to clarify that my interpretation isn't strictly RAW on that particular issue.
– Carcer
2 hours ago
1
That works for me! I like how what is and what’s sensible to rule are distinguished. (And the reason for personally ruling that way is clear and makes good sense, now that I consider it separately.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
MM p. 10 specifically calls out named monster actions as Actions, so the natural reading of the rules is that they are attacking using custom-named Actions, not the Attack action. This answer’s logic still works regardless of that , and I’d like to upvote it, but the bit about reading monster Actions as being already secretly the Attack action means I can’t bring myself to.
– SevenSidedDie♦
2 hours ago
@SevenSidedDie fair enough - I've edited to clarify that my interpretation isn't strictly RAW on that particular issue.
– Carcer
2 hours ago
1
That works for me! I like how what is and what’s sensible to rule are distinguished. (And the reason for personally ruling that way is clear and makes good sense, now that I consider it separately.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
1
1
MM p. 10 specifically calls out named monster actions as Actions, so the natural reading of the rules is that they are attacking using custom-named Actions, not the Attack action. This answer’s logic still works regardless of that , and I’d like to upvote it, but the bit about reading monster Actions as being already secretly the Attack action means I can’t bring myself to.
– SevenSidedDie♦
2 hours ago
MM p. 10 specifically calls out named monster actions as Actions, so the natural reading of the rules is that they are attacking using custom-named Actions, not the Attack action. This answer’s logic still works regardless of that , and I’d like to upvote it, but the bit about reading monster Actions as being already secretly the Attack action means I can’t bring myself to.
– SevenSidedDie♦
2 hours ago
@SevenSidedDie fair enough - I've edited to clarify that my interpretation isn't strictly RAW on that particular issue.
– Carcer
2 hours ago
@SevenSidedDie fair enough - I've edited to clarify that my interpretation isn't strictly RAW on that particular issue.
– Carcer
2 hours ago
1
1
That works for me! I like how what is and what’s sensible to rule are distinguished. (And the reason for personally ruling that way is clear and makes good sense, now that I consider it separately.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
That works for me! I like how what is and what’s sensible to rule are distinguished. (And the reason for personally ruling that way is clear and makes good sense, now that I consider it separately.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Yes.
Two-weapon fighting rules apply to monsters per the MM's guidance on monsters and what actions they can take.
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from...one of the actions available to all creatures...as described in the Player's Handbook. (MM page 10.)
Further guidance on the next page of the MM specifically references the attack section of the PHB which contains the rules for Two Weapon Fighting.
3
Being able to use TWF isn't strictly the same as Mulitattack - Multiattack is a single action whereas TWF requires expending a bonus action to get the extra attack, which has implications for their action economy. (Possibly functionally irrelevant implications in many cases, I do concede.)
– Carcer
3 hours ago
So it seems that Multiattack, though similar to TWF, is distinct from TWF and that TWF is usable by any creature that fulfils the pre-reqs, (bonus action, both weapons light, etc.) Any edit to make?
– Token
2 hours ago
I would add support for why you say that TWF rules can apply to monsters. That is the core of the question so you really need to expand your logic there. Also, what is the point of bringing up multiattack? I don't get what point you are trying to make there.
– Rubiksmoose
2 hours ago
Changed supporting information from the previously mentioned and unrelated Multiattack to the answers current state.
– Token
1 hour ago
I think it was a worthwhile note in the original version that allowing a monster to TWF does make it more dangerous and could potentially justify increasing its CR (though a TWF attack with a mundane light weapon would only be a few points of damage, with is within the margin of tolerance for offensive CR calculation in most cases).
– Carcer
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Yes.
Two-weapon fighting rules apply to monsters per the MM's guidance on monsters and what actions they can take.
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from...one of the actions available to all creatures...as described in the Player's Handbook. (MM page 10.)
Further guidance on the next page of the MM specifically references the attack section of the PHB which contains the rules for Two Weapon Fighting.
3
Being able to use TWF isn't strictly the same as Mulitattack - Multiattack is a single action whereas TWF requires expending a bonus action to get the extra attack, which has implications for their action economy. (Possibly functionally irrelevant implications in many cases, I do concede.)
– Carcer
3 hours ago
So it seems that Multiattack, though similar to TWF, is distinct from TWF and that TWF is usable by any creature that fulfils the pre-reqs, (bonus action, both weapons light, etc.) Any edit to make?
– Token
2 hours ago
I would add support for why you say that TWF rules can apply to monsters. That is the core of the question so you really need to expand your logic there. Also, what is the point of bringing up multiattack? I don't get what point you are trying to make there.
– Rubiksmoose
2 hours ago
Changed supporting information from the previously mentioned and unrelated Multiattack to the answers current state.
– Token
1 hour ago
I think it was a worthwhile note in the original version that allowing a monster to TWF does make it more dangerous and could potentially justify increasing its CR (though a TWF attack with a mundane light weapon would only be a few points of damage, with is within the margin of tolerance for offensive CR calculation in most cases).
– Carcer
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Yes.
Two-weapon fighting rules apply to monsters per the MM's guidance on monsters and what actions they can take.
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from...one of the actions available to all creatures...as described in the Player's Handbook. (MM page 10.)
Further guidance on the next page of the MM specifically references the attack section of the PHB which contains the rules for Two Weapon Fighting.
Yes.
Two-weapon fighting rules apply to monsters per the MM's guidance on monsters and what actions they can take.
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from...one of the actions available to all creatures...as described in the Player's Handbook. (MM page 10.)
Further guidance on the next page of the MM specifically references the attack section of the PHB which contains the rules for Two Weapon Fighting.
edited 28 mins ago
Rubiksmoose
48.2k6239365
48.2k6239365
answered 3 hours ago
Token
4076
4076
3
Being able to use TWF isn't strictly the same as Mulitattack - Multiattack is a single action whereas TWF requires expending a bonus action to get the extra attack, which has implications for their action economy. (Possibly functionally irrelevant implications in many cases, I do concede.)
– Carcer
3 hours ago
So it seems that Multiattack, though similar to TWF, is distinct from TWF and that TWF is usable by any creature that fulfils the pre-reqs, (bonus action, both weapons light, etc.) Any edit to make?
– Token
2 hours ago
I would add support for why you say that TWF rules can apply to monsters. That is the core of the question so you really need to expand your logic there. Also, what is the point of bringing up multiattack? I don't get what point you are trying to make there.
– Rubiksmoose
2 hours ago
Changed supporting information from the previously mentioned and unrelated Multiattack to the answers current state.
– Token
1 hour ago
I think it was a worthwhile note in the original version that allowing a monster to TWF does make it more dangerous and could potentially justify increasing its CR (though a TWF attack with a mundane light weapon would only be a few points of damage, with is within the margin of tolerance for offensive CR calculation in most cases).
– Carcer
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
3
Being able to use TWF isn't strictly the same as Mulitattack - Multiattack is a single action whereas TWF requires expending a bonus action to get the extra attack, which has implications for their action economy. (Possibly functionally irrelevant implications in many cases, I do concede.)
– Carcer
3 hours ago
So it seems that Multiattack, though similar to TWF, is distinct from TWF and that TWF is usable by any creature that fulfils the pre-reqs, (bonus action, both weapons light, etc.) Any edit to make?
– Token
2 hours ago
I would add support for why you say that TWF rules can apply to monsters. That is the core of the question so you really need to expand your logic there. Also, what is the point of bringing up multiattack? I don't get what point you are trying to make there.
– Rubiksmoose
2 hours ago
Changed supporting information from the previously mentioned and unrelated Multiattack to the answers current state.
– Token
1 hour ago
I think it was a worthwhile note in the original version that allowing a monster to TWF does make it more dangerous and could potentially justify increasing its CR (though a TWF attack with a mundane light weapon would only be a few points of damage, with is within the margin of tolerance for offensive CR calculation in most cases).
– Carcer
1 hour ago
3
3
Being able to use TWF isn't strictly the same as Mulitattack - Multiattack is a single action whereas TWF requires expending a bonus action to get the extra attack, which has implications for their action economy. (Possibly functionally irrelevant implications in many cases, I do concede.)
– Carcer
3 hours ago
Being able to use TWF isn't strictly the same as Mulitattack - Multiattack is a single action whereas TWF requires expending a bonus action to get the extra attack, which has implications for their action economy. (Possibly functionally irrelevant implications in many cases, I do concede.)
– Carcer
3 hours ago
So it seems that Multiattack, though similar to TWF, is distinct from TWF and that TWF is usable by any creature that fulfils the pre-reqs, (bonus action, both weapons light, etc.) Any edit to make?
– Token
2 hours ago
So it seems that Multiattack, though similar to TWF, is distinct from TWF and that TWF is usable by any creature that fulfils the pre-reqs, (bonus action, both weapons light, etc.) Any edit to make?
– Token
2 hours ago
I would add support for why you say that TWF rules can apply to monsters. That is the core of the question so you really need to expand your logic there. Also, what is the point of bringing up multiattack? I don't get what point you are trying to make there.
– Rubiksmoose
2 hours ago
I would add support for why you say that TWF rules can apply to monsters. That is the core of the question so you really need to expand your logic there. Also, what is the point of bringing up multiattack? I don't get what point you are trying to make there.
– Rubiksmoose
2 hours ago
Changed supporting information from the previously mentioned and unrelated Multiattack to the answers current state.
– Token
1 hour ago
Changed supporting information from the previously mentioned and unrelated Multiattack to the answers current state.
– Token
1 hour ago
I think it was a worthwhile note in the original version that allowing a monster to TWF does make it more dangerous and could potentially justify increasing its CR (though a TWF attack with a mundane light weapon would only be a few points of damage, with is within the margin of tolerance for offensive CR calculation in most cases).
– Carcer
1 hour ago
I think it was a worthwhile note in the original version that allowing a monster to TWF does make it more dangerous and could potentially justify increasing its CR (though a TWF attack with a mundane light weapon would only be a few points of damage, with is within the margin of tolerance for offensive CR calculation in most cases).
– Carcer
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
Emmanuel Acosta is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Emmanuel Acosta is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Emmanuel Acosta is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Emmanuel Acosta is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f138309%2fcan-any-creature-other-than-pcs-use-two-weapon-fighting%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown