Two-Weapon Fighting - Is this possible?

[briggart]

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?

I think you are looking at this from the point of view of the in game fiction, while to me the rules specify the legality of player options. So the "if" in the SM feat simply tells you what is required for the bonus action to be considered a valid player declaration. In a sense it's similar to antidoping controls at the olympics: if you are found positive to the test within a given period around the olympics, you are disqualified. Whether the test happened before, during or after your race is irrelevant.

Anyway, regardless of my interpretation above, it seems that this difference between "if" and "when" is the intent behind the rules: JC twitted about SM that the shove can happen before or after the attack.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/29/shield-master-feat/

while the SA compendium (v2.2 pag. 4) has

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, 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. That said, a DM would break nothing in the system by allowing an Eldritch Knight to reverse the order of the cantrip and the weapon attack.

Here JC is not specifically addressing the meaning of "when" and it's entirely possible that the difference between the tweet and SA is due to him changing his mind over time, but it supports the notion that they are using "if" and "when" to represent different level of restrictions on bonus action triggers.

 

[BluejayJunior]

Even if you can take the BA attack before the normal attack (and I don't agree that you are able to), you wouldn't be able to stow either weapon prior to making another attack. You would be changing the circumstances that allowed you to take the bonus action, which would disallow the bonus attack. If you take the BA attack first, you would be locking yourself into using your Action to Attack with a light weapon in the one hand while holding a light weapon in the other hand to fulfill the requirements necessary to make the BA attack.

 

[toucanbuzz]

So this is where common sense (RAI) comes into play. RAI keeps RAW from absurd results.

I cannot fathom any situation in which you fight better by continually sheathing your weapon. It's silly and absurd. If you're looking to get extra damage on the off-hand attack, there's already a specific rule for that: Two-Weapon Fighting Style.

Designers can't anticipate every silly thing players may come up with, so they rely on our common sense to prevent things like gaining the benefits of fighting two-weapon fighting by fighting with one weapon, and they've provided a rule for getting extra damage to the bonus off-hand attack. No need to engage in shenanigans.

 

[FrogReaver]

So this is where common sense (RAI) comes into play. RAI keeps RAW from absurd results.

I cannot fathom any situation in which you fight better by continually sheathing your weapon. It's silly and absurd. If you're looking to get extra damage on the off-hand attack, there's already a specific rule for that: Two-Weapon Fighting Style.

Designers can't anticipate every silly thing players may come up with, so they rely on our common sense to prevent things like gaining the benefits of fighting two-weapon fighting by fighting with one weapon, and they've provided a rule for getting extra damage to the bonus off-hand attack. No need to engage in shenanigans.

Easy to nip things like this in the butt. "In a round you may not benefit from more than one offensive fighting style"

 

[Satyrn]

Easy to nip things like this in the butt. "In a round you may not benefit from more than one offensive fighting style"

Why bother making a new rule when a ruling is easily available? a DM with any degree of respect from his players should be able to rule this on a case by case basis and be listened to.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

My RAI for these RAW examples is simple, regardless of what Crawford has ruled on before. A statement that starts with "If" allows you to do the secondary action any time in the round after you attempt the "If" qualifier, or primary action. A statement that starts with "When" allows you to do the secondary action immediately after the required action. And at no time is the secondary action ever allowed to happen before the primary action.

Well, that was sort of a side track, so to your original proposal. Like others, I would only allow a character to benefit from both styles if one of their classes provided extra attacks. You basically need two standard attack actions available to pull this off. And that is assuming that sheathing or drawing a weapon remains a free action. I just do not see any other way by RAW to use both attack styles in a single combat round.

Something else to think about is what if you have a double weapon that is also a light melee weapon? There are plenty of real world examples of these that are not in the 5E rules that could become a loophole weapon for these styles being used together.

 

[transtemporal]

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?

Sure, as long as you're not claiming duellist cheese on the first attack.

 

[Dausuul]

You would be changing the circumstances that allowed you to take the bonus action, which would disallow the bonus attack. If you take the BA attack first, you would be locking yourself into using your Action to Attack with a light weapon in the one hand while holding a light weapon in the other hand to fulfill the requirements necessary to make the BA attack.

Exactly. If you claim a bonus action attack on the basis of "I'm going to dual wield on my regular action," you have to dual wield on your regular action. Stowing a weapon and attacking with a single weapon is against the rules at that point.

(This is why I have issues with Crawford as rules arbiter. A ruling about basic combat mechanics that results in a debate over time travel logic is a deeply suspect ruling.)

 

[Coroc]

I usually only allow TWF with rapier and dagger, and as such i would allow TWF to stack with duelist since that makes sense rp-wise and realistically viewed.
Duelist seems to stack with sword and shield style so it does not prevent you from Holding something in your offhand.

By the book it should be allowed, even without the ^^ munchkin dance of cheese ^^ you described in the OP

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Something else to think about is what if you have a double weapon that is also a light melee weapon? There are plenty of real world examples of these that are not in the 5E rules that could become a loophole weapon for these styles being used together.

Could you give some examples of these real world double light weapons please?
I'm not entirely sure that I'm understanding what you are envisioning here: 5e doesn't have double weapons. the staff used to be in 3e but is no longer for example.

Which styles would these weapons be able to use together?