Two-Weapon Fighting - Is this possible?

[briggart]

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

I'm not sure Shield Master is relevant here. SM does not have a timing specification:

If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feel of you with your shield.

Bonus actions without timing specifications can be taken at any time during your turn, so you can declare you take the attack action, then use a bonus action to shove before actually making any of your attacks.

On the other hand (), twf has a different trigger:

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.

I tend to agree with others that "When" implies you can't take the bonus action until *after* you make 1 attack as part of the attack action. At the very least that seems to be RAI, based on a related SA compendium question(v2.2 pag 11):

With two-weapon fighting, can I use both attacks (normal and bonus) to shove a creature? No. Two-weapon fighting (PH, 195) doesn’t grant the bonus attack unless the first attack is made with a light melee weapon. Shoving a creature is a special melee attack that does not involve the use of a weapon.

That said, if you also have Extra Attack, the following could be RAW

1) make your first regular attack
2) make your bonus attack
3) stove one of your weapons
4) make the remaining attacks

 

[5ekyu]

I think its worth noting that there is no off hand in 5e. The TWF seems to not leave any leeway - the first attack(s) with either hand is the Attack Action and the bonus action is with the other hand but does not precede the attack action.

I think an argument can be made for a 5th level fighter with extra attacks taking an attack action, making one attack as part of that action, making the bonus action twf, drop/sheathe either weapon and then the rrmaining "extra attacks" gaining the dueling +2" since dueling has no "attack action"conditional.

 

[Krachek]

First I would tell the player:
“stop this in and out with your sword.” It is not an efficient way of fighting.
You want to benefit from two weapon and duelist fighting style? Nice.
Let’s talk to find a solution.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not sure Shield Master is relevant here. SM does not have a timing specification:



Bonus actions without timing specifications can be taken at any time during your turn, so you can declare you take the attack action, then use a bonus action to shove before actually making any of your attacks.

On the other hand (), twf has a different trigger:



I tend to agree with others that "When" implies you can't take the bonus action until *after* you make 1 attack as part of the attack action. At the very least that seems to be RAI, based on a related SA compendium question(v2.2 pag 11):



That said, if you also have Extra Attack, the following could be RAW

1) make your first regular attack
2) make your bonus attack
3) stove one of your weapons
4) make the remaining attacks

Interesting take. I see no difference in "When you do this on your turn..." and "if you do this on your turn..."

For example, consider these statements and the following questions from a normal everyday English perspective.
When you do X you can do Y.
When can you do Y? After you have done X.

If you do X you can do Y.
When can you do Y? After you have done X! (We all know how this works, "If you clean your room you can go play with your friends")

In other words, an if statement is equivalent in meaning to a when statement. Since it has been declared that the "if" statement doesn't specify timing. How can it be that the "when" statement does specify timing?

 

[Unwise]

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

I would like to think that this is the sort of thing any experienced DM could resolve with a mere look and raise of an eyebrow. I would like to think at this stage that I would be able to resolve a player asking about this without having to use any actual words.

 

[abs]

Interesting take. I see no difference in "When you do this on your turn..." and "if you do this on your turn..."

For example, consider these statements and the following questions from a normal everyday English perspective.
When you do X you can do Y.
When can you do Y? After you have done X.

If you do X you can do Y.
When can you do Y? After you have done X! (We all know how this works, "If you clean your room you can go play with your friends")

In other words, an if statement is equivalent in meaning to a when statement. Since it has been declared that the "if" statement doesn't specify timing. How can it be that the "when" statement does specify timing?

When and if are different. If is used when something might or might not happen. When is used when something definitely has to happen.

In the SM case, a reaction might keep the attack action from happening, but the intent is more important. With TWF, the action has to happen for the bonus action to occur.

 

[FrogReaver]

When and if are different. If is used when something might or might not happen. When is used when something definitely has to happen.

In the SM case, a reaction might keep the attack action from happening, but the intent is more important. With TWF, the action has to happen for the bonus action to occur.

Meanwhile back in the real world...

There is a bit of nuance between the statements "If X occurs, then Y" and "When X occurs, then Y".

However, it's not incorrect to say "if X occurs, then Y" even if you are certain that X will occur. Likewise it's not incorrect to say "when x occurs, then y" and have x never occur.

Examples:
"Hey girl, when you come over we will watch Netflix" (Girl never comes over)
"Hey girl, if you come over we will watch Netflix" (Girl never comes over)

"If you drop an apple, it will fall"
"When you drop an apple, it will fall"

"If I get back from the war, I will marry you"
"When I get back from the war, I will marry you" (it's uncertain X will happen but we usually expect to hear "when" here)
***Please note that in neither case is the promise to marry something that must be carry out immediately upon return. It may take months or a year to finalize the marriage, however engagement should be expected within days or a few weeks upon return.

However, "when X occurs, then Y" can be used to denote a bit more immediency than "If X occurs, then Y". Examples:

"If the sun comes up tomorrow, we will go to the movies" (no information about when we will go to the movies other than the speaker is likely referring to going to the movies tomorrow due to context. The sun coming up tomorrow if also something that is more or less guaranteed to occur)

"When the sun comes up tomorrow, we will go to the movies" (This statement does specify when we would be going to the movies a little more clearly)

However, please note that in all examples that that the if or when condition must occur before we begin to expect the "promise" (for lack of a better word) to occur. Even with "when" statements the "promise" doesn't necessarily have to be immediate but it can be.

The keys to remember are that "if then" statements do denote a timing (thus the "then" inherent in the reading of such statements). When statements and if statements can overlap most the time and keep the same meaning. Sometimes "when" statements can denote a lot more immediancy of action than "if then".

In D&D 5e terms, we know that the "if" and "when" difference isn't due to whether the action might or might not happen as it's talking about the attack action in both. We also know that both "if then" statements and "when" statements both denote timing. However, D&D 5e rules clarifications declare that the "if then" statement in shield master doesn't specify any timing and thus allows you to use the shield master bonus action attack anytime. I can only surmise that "when" statements being so related to "if then" statements get similar treatment.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Fighter has 2 short swords. He has both drawn.

TURN 1
1. He attacks with the bonus action granted by two weapon fighting first.
2. He then sheathes that weapon
3. He than attacks with the attack 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.

REPEAT

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

So there was another post recently about a player trying to get 2 attacks with a hand crossbow and on with a sword using the Crossbow Expert feat. I was on board with that (until I found out errata states you need a free hand for the reload and another user pointed out that old crossbow tech usually did not support quick loading without a free hand due to difficult produced by power and impurity of materials) because I could see using a cross bow and a sword as a strategic play style desire that was not game breaking or against the intent....

USING TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING TO FIGHT ONE HANDED IS AGAINST THE INTENT! ... wow... if I ever saw a case of rules lawyering .... this is it.

I would face palm this request, then tell them "NO, I don't care if the rules allow it or not, I will not let you use "two-weapon fighting" as "extra attack" just because your sheathing your sword for no reason over and over again in battle so you can avoid the lack of bonus damage to the off hand. If you want the damage bonus to offhand that bad your going to have to multi-class into fighter and grab the two-handed weapon fighting style. The second attack from two weapon fighting is the higher damage bonus duelist is intended to match. If you want a bonus for dual wielding try the Dual Wielder Feat for +1 to AC while using two swords. I am pretty sure using two-weapons to fight one handed is not allowed by "rules as written" but if some how it is, I can guarantee 100% its not rules and intended. No way is that going to fly."

I would also question the players damage roles on all off hand attacks from then on and want to see the dice to make sure the player didn't just add it anyway. Because ...wow... trust is waning after something like that.

I normally side with players. I prefer player to ask and try to bring as much free agency and role play into the game as they can so we can share the story but that's my line in the sand right there.

Any way that's my opinion and how I would handle it. Take it for what its worth.

If you want to be nicer about it offer the player a chance to change 1 level to fighter and take the two-weapon fighting and replace a feat/ASI with the Dual Wielder Feat... With some appropriate, you need to train with this fighter for a weak role play.

 

[Horwath]

Fighter has 2 short swords. He has both drawn.

TURN 1
1. He attacks with the bonus action granted by two weapon fighting first.
2. He then sheathes that weapon
3. He than attacks with the attack 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.

REPEAT

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

If I were your DM, just for saying that, the next crate of beer would be on you.

 

[abs]

Even though someone has decided to call me a bit case for stating this, there is a subtle difference between the the word if and when. And it is the degree of certainty about the condition. That is basic English. Examples are great, but when is used when the certainty of the condition is higher.

You can argue within the context of the rules. We know the SM ruling covering a statement with an if. Here's a ruling with the word when:

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic fea-
ture mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the can-
trip, or can it come before? The bonus action comes after
the cantrip, since using your action to cast a cantrip is what
gives you the ability to make the weapon attack as a bonus
action.

Why are the two rulings different? The two words, when and if, have subtly different meanings and are treated differently by the game designers. By RAW, in both situations the action must precede the bonus action. Reading trends in Sage Advice, it's pretty clear that the designers intent is different. Those words are used it to imply different intent.