Two-Weapon Fighting - Is this possible?

[Charlaquin]

Fighter has 2 short swords. He has both drawn.

TURN 1
1. He attacks with the bonus action granted by two weapon fighting first.

Right away, this is not possible by RAW. The bonus Action attack granted by two weapon fighting is triggered by using your Action to make an attack with a melee weapon you’re holding in one hand while you're holding another melee weapon in the other hand. You can’t make the bonus action attack first because you need to make an attack with an action before the bonus action attack becomes an option.

2. He then sheathes that weapon
3. He than attacks with the attack action attack.

Now, if we reverse the order of the attacks, then yes, I would allow him to attack with his action while holding two shortswords and sheath the one he just attacked with before he makes the bonus action attack with the other one. Other DMs might see that as against the spirit of the rule if not the letter and disallow it. But either way, by RAW, the bonus action attack MUST come AFTER the action attack.

TURN 2
1. He attacks with the weapon he has drawn.
2. He draws his other sword.
3. He uses the bonus action granted by two weapon fighting to attack with it.

This doesn’t work either because he has to be holding both weapons at the time that he makes the attack with his action in order to trigger the bonus action attack. If one of them is sheathed at the time, that bonus action attack does not become available.

If this is possible can such a fighter effectively benefit from both the two-weapon fighting and duelist fighting styles at the same time?

Well, if we shuffle things around a bit, so he’s holding both weapons, attacks with one as an action, sheaths the one he just attacked with, and then attacks with the second as a bonus action, then you’d have a case for the second attack benefiting from both fighting styles. Of course, the first attack won’t benefit from Duelist, and in order to repeat this sequence every turn, you’d need the Dual Weilder Feat so you can draw and stow the weapon in the same turn. And this gimmick probably won’t be allowed by most DMs because while it’s ARGUABLY possible by RAW, it doesn’t seem likely that it’s kosher by RAI. Plus the wording “while you’re engaging in two weapon fighting” is ambiguous enough to be interpreted to mean you have to still be holding both weapons, and the wording, “you can draw or stow two weapons” could be interpreted to mean that it has to be two separate weapons, not the same weapon twice in one turn. So overall it’s two Fighting Style slots, a Feat slot, and a lot of questionable rules-lawyering for what amounts to a few extra damage on one attack per turn. Probably not worth it.

 

[CM]

This is neither intended nor desired.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would say no, the presumption with using a bonus action before your standard action is that the condition that allowed you to take the bonus action is still in effect when you take the standard action.

Also, just no. I don't allow silliness for the sake of an in-game statistical bonus.

Ignoring the fighting styles for a moment.

Do you believe that if you used the attack action and attacked with it first while only holding 1 light melee weapon and aftwerward drew a 2nd light melee weapon that you could use a bonus action to attack with it?

 

[FrogReaver]

By the wording in the PHB on TWF, it seems to indicate that you need to be holding both weapons when you take the attack action in order to get the bonus action attack. You'd have to take the attack action first and then the bonus action attack.

Whether or not it's worth it to jump through the mechanical hoops to get two fighting styles just for such a minor benefit is another matter entirely.

One issue with your response: You do not have to take the attacks from the attack action before taking the bonus action attack is taken.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm trying to visualize the ridiculous fight where the guy in front of me keeps sheathing and unsheathing his sword. I'd think he was addled in the head. In any case, it's cheese.

As to the rules: agree with others above, no. Two-Weapon Fighting (PHB 195) says: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.

As written, you don't get the Bonus action associated with TWF until you attack with the primary weapon, and by design and common sense, you must have a weapon in each hand at all times. If you violate the conditions of Two-Weapon fighting, you forfeit its benefit. This would include attempting to get the bonus action while you have a weapon sheathed.

The bolded is untrue. Please refer to the shield master debates for clarification.

 

[Oofta]

Ignoring the fighting styles for a moment.

Do you believe that if you used the attack action and attacked with it first while only holding 1 light melee weapon and aftwerward drew a 2nd light melee weapon that you could use a bonus action to attack with it?

Maybe? I guess I would have to ask why. There are some things I wouldn't allow as a DM if it's done simply for mechanical benefit.

As far as the rules

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.

The way I read that, there's no tense - you have to be holding both weapons at the same time.

 

[Charlaquin]

The bolded is untrue. Please refer to the shield master debates for clarification.

I’d love to, but you haven’t provided a link...

 

[jgsugden]

D&D is a role playing game. Charaters play a role in a story.

If what you're proposing doesn't tell a good story, it should stop there. If it doesn't, you're not playig D&D, the RPG. You're just playing D&D, the strategy game.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’d love to, but you haven’t provided a link...

google. i'm not bored enough to do it for you.

 

[Charlaquin]

google. i'm not bored enough to do it for you.

Great. If you don’t care about your own points enough to support them, neither will I.