Do natural weapons such as those granted by being a Tabaxi or an Aarakocra count for the purposes of two weapon fighting? Would they have the light property to allow it and if not what about if you take the dual wielder feat that removes the restriction on them being light?

From a logical perspective I would think claws or talons would be light enough to count and with them being "natural weapons" this means they are definitely weapons so it would make sense for them to be considered light and one handed.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Related (possibly duplicates) : "Lycanthrope's Natural Attacks and Dual Wielding?" and "With Two-Weapon Fighting, can the second attack be a bite attack?" \$\endgroup\$ Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 16:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 I'm gonna say that the second one is not a duplicate as it's mentioning a bite attack whereas I'm talking about claws which in this case both are referring to your hands. The first one maybe but it seems to be referring to the multiattack and leaves the other one as the ever-present "ask your DM" \$\endgroup\$ Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 16:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ Helpful question about whether you can wield natural weapons and whether they count as melee weapons: "How do natural weapons interact with the Dueling fighting style?" \$\endgroup\$ Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 16:59
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @med. Actualy, I think it's better if we make this the canonical question and mark the other question as a duplicate per this meta: which states We prefer closing newer questions a dupe of older unless [...] This typically occurs when we establish a high-quality canonical question to handle a subject straightforwardly that's previously been handled messily in various earlier questions. This question gets at the matter more directly than the other. \$\endgroup\$
    – Rykara
    Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 17:15

1 Answer 1


I'm directly copying kviiri's answer to what is functionally a duplicate question. This question deals with the subject more cleanly and directly than the other one, however.

Natural weapons aren't light

Rules as written, there is no mention of the natural weapons being light, and hence they're ineligible for two weapon fighting. However, it should be noted that the normal unarmed strike, also a natural weapon in a way, is similarly not light. Natural weapons and unarmed strikes are mostly unrelated (see the next paragraph) but it's still clear that "but it's just my hand" is not enough to qualify as "light".

Two weapon fighting requires wielding two weapons

Even with Dual Wielder feat (Player's Handbook, page 165), the rules require one to be "wielding" these weapons, a term not well defined for natural weapons. Jeremy Crawford's unofficial tweets here and here confirm that natural weapons are weapons, usually not unarmed strikes, but still leave it unclear whether one can be considered to be wielding them.

I personally believe that Kviiri's answer is correct but that it would not be game breaking to allow natural weapons or unarmed strikes to be used with two-weapon fighting in most cases. This would be a homebrew rule, however, and something that needs to be cleared with a DM first. -Rykara

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Possibly more supporting evidence: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/151311 \$\endgroup\$ Commented Oct 11, 2019 at 17:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sage Advice has been updated to agree with Jeremy Crawford's tweets. "Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body." Still not a light weapon in RAW. \$\endgroup\$
    – Feygon
    Commented Dec 14, 2022 at 18:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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