Can you play as a creature with four arms?
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
358 points (99.2% liked)
RPGMemes
15987 readers
160 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Loxodons (Elephant species) have two arms but can use their trunk to make a grapple attack.
Thikreen have 4 arms. The secondary set can use Light weapons. Note that having 4 arms, each holding a Dagger or other light weapon doesn't inherently grant any additional attacks.
The best combo I have come up with is using 5.5 weapon mastery ruleson a Berserker Barb, and a 2h weapon with some desirable property like Cleave in your Primary arms, and Scimitars in your secondary arms. After level 5, with attack action you can make 1 attack with your big weapon, Cleave attack if you hit, then 1 attack with the secondary arms Scimitar, then an attack from Nick as part of that same attack action, then a bonus action attack with scimitar. STR bonus on first 2 attacks, +2 Rage bonus on all 5 attacks, +2d6 damage on first hit when Reckless, which you should always use.
Is a fist considered a light weapon? Hmmm
but what if you hold 2 gnomes on both hands, can you then quadwield?
The whole basis of this (nonsense) argument, and related ones, is that "weapon" is defined as "one of the entries in the 'weapons' table in the DMG", rather than y'know, the normal meaning of the word. But there is zero indication that this'd be the case, it's just powergaming chudslop.
Treantmonk has been a disaster for tbe 5e community.
5e is the disaster
Jarvis, translate this comment into English
DMG: Acronym, Dungeon Master's Guide.
Powergaming [verb]: The practice of optimising games above all other concerns, even fun.
Chud [noun]: A horrible creature that lives in the sewers and survives by licking piss off of boots. Sort like a goblin or ghoul.
Slop [noun]: Art that is of low quality.
Treantmonk [proper noun]: popular Youtuber that designs genuinely impressive powergaming builds for 5e, but frequently uses bad-faith arguments like this.
"X has been a disaster for Y": A snowclone, ah, alas, I forget where this one comes from.
People desperately need to understand that mechanical rules are there for balancing and taking them so painfully literally just isn’t necessary.
You only get one unarmed attack on the dice, but if you want to say you did the damage in two or three hits instead of one then go for it, it literally does not matter. You can even say you missed one attack and them wound up for a sneaky second one!
Follow the rules for number related things and roleplay and tell a story for being cool related things.
As DM, I'll have you roll the dice, tell you if it succeeded or not, and then have YOU describe what happens based on the roll.
But with this particular thing, it's not really about the story. It's the player trying to maximize their bonuses so the dice will be more favorable. In which case, sure. You can dual wield your hands. But you're still taking a penalty with your off-hand unless you have the feat that removes it. You ever try to punch someone with your non-dominant arm? You definitely take a penalty IRL, unless you're ambidextrous.
load more comments
(12 replies)
Well, yeah. If the sword is so heavy that you need two hands to wield it...then, it's a two-handed weapon. It's only considered "dual wielding" if both your hands are holding separate weapons. So, sword in one hand and an empty handed attack with the other, counts.
There's a phenomenon in TTRPGs called a Mermaids Amulet. There was an item in a game that let a mermaid breathe in air, which was the ONLY thing that indicated they normally couldn't. In short, a rule was only shown to exist by an ability to overcome it.
Monks have the ability to make a bonus action unarmed strike after making an attack, which would be redundant if the dual wielding rules let you do that.
load more comments
(5 replies)
DND is a weird mix of too many rules and not enough rules.
It's too many rules written with too much haste and no testing. You end up with a ton of rules that aren't clear and contradict each other constantly. It's honestly a shit system. New players really should be told to play Pathfinder 2e at this point, not D&D5e. If the company being complete shit wasn't enough of a reason, the rules making a lot more sense should be.
New players really should be told to play Pathfinder 2e at this point, not D&D5e
It's unfortunate that DND 5e is the sole mega popular game.
People who want fantasy tactical combat would probably do well with Pathfinder 2e. But people who just want to tell a fun story would probably have a lot more fun with something lighter, like Fate.
There's so many games out there and most don't get the love they deserve
coughcough PBtA.Daggerheart.Ironsworn.literallyanythingelse cough
Sorry, that came outta nowhere. 🙇🏼♂️
Stuff like this is why I like my DM so much. He has basically a "common sense" time for stuff like this where if an action makes good common sense within the world he's built (like a warrior type being able to punch someone after swinging a sword, or a brawler type being able to use both their fists without having to have some esoteric attribute attached to their character sheet), it's allowed, and you can roll for it.
I can't imagine too many scenarios where allowing someone who is wielding a one-handed (or versatile) weapon and nothing in the off hand to have a bonus action unarmed strike to be game-breaking. Seems like an easy call to me.
So there's a few issues here:
- Unarmed Strikes do not require an open hand. Punches, kicks, and slams all count as the same Unarmed Strike
- If you were to allow this, there would be no reason to allow someone with two Shortswords or a Greataxe to do a BA strike
- ...which would then render the BA attack from Polearm Master moot since they no longer need a feat to do that
- I'll also note that the fighter with a sword in one hand and nothing in the other is likely using the Duelist fighting style, so that sword attack is effectively two die sizes larger. A Duelist Longsword is roughly equivalent to a Greatsword to put it in perspective
At the end of the day, allowing martials to perform a BA Unarmed Strike wouldn't be game breaking, but it needs to be applied universally which has secondary implications
As far as I remember the rules, unarmed strike damage is 1 + Str modifier (i.e., a 1d1 damage die). And anyone untrained in unarmed strikes (not monk, not having the Tavern Brawler feat or similar) couldn't add their prof bonus to the attack roll. This makes it significantly weaker than a proper dual wielding build or something like PAM, where the attacker typically gets a proper damage die and prof bonus. Which is why it doesn't seem like a big deal to allow it.
Unarmed strikes can be done for flavor with kicks, elbows, etc. But mechanically I'd allow it as a proper bonus action if the character were wielding a single weapon without a shield. Anyone can describe anything however they want for flavor, I'm just talking about balancing the action economy.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
So we're just giving out bonus actions now? /s
Free actions? In this economy?
load more comments
(5 replies)
Anytime a show or movie shows a sword fight where someone also gets punched in the face is just good choriography.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Read it as dual welding and was quite impressed by the concept.
Unarmed Strikes are not just punches, they have nothing to do with how many hands you have. You can even Unarmed Strike with a weapon in each hand. If you want to "dual wield" Unarmed Strikes, go Monk.
view more: next ›