The Hammer of Thunderbolts, a legendary magic weapon, has the following property amongst others:

While you are attuned to this weapon and holding it, your Strength score increases by 4 and can exceed 20, but not 30.

Let’s say that a creature meets all the requirements to attune to the Hammer (wearing Gauntlets of Ogre Power and a Belt of Any Giant Strength) but, for some reason, does not have a hand free to hold the Hammer (either because the creature lacks hands, or because they are occupied doing other things) and does not care about any of the Hammer’s additional properties (does not want to attack with it).

Could that creature hold the Hammer (in order to benefit from its Strength increase) with something else than their hands (such as their mouth, for instance), potentially suffering from some penalties by doing so if need be?


2 Answers 2


This is answered on page 140 of the DMG:

Wearing and wielding items

A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held in hand.


When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs can't wear boots.


That immediately feels like just attempting to circumvent the rules and I would personally not allow it. Holding it with anything other than your hand makes little sense to begin with; it's a heavy two-handed weapon. You need two hands to use it, so unless you have two mouths...

Sorry, imho it's just too far fetched.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Can you support this answer by citing any relevant rules or experience? \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Commented Mar 4, 2019 at 23:34
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I didn't downvote you, but so you know: this answer is problematic, because there are rules that state that a two handed weapon takes two hands to attack with, but imply that they can be held in a single hand (PHB, p. 147, post Errata ). \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 4, 2019 at 23:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Gandalfmeansme: I didn't word my answer well, as that's exactly what I meant with "use"... attacking with it. It was essentially a way to showcase how heavy it was and thus how illogical I felt it was to hold it with your mouth. Not the best argument I've made against something I'll admit; since I did not have any rules or experience to show for, prompting the question by V2Blast above. \$\endgroup\$
    – Tiny
    Commented Mar 5, 2019 at 0:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .