D&D 5E Can you use dueling and TWF at the same time? I think you can RAW.

But the last sentence of two weapon fighting says you can use it to throw either of the equipped weapons (unless I'm missing your point of confusion). Thus throwing a dagger triggers the clause for the bonus action attack.
Well, yes. If your plan is to throw both weapons that round and you are able to do so (both being daggers, as you mentioned) you can do that. You are skilled at using two weapons at a time and are doing so.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No, if you're holding two light thrown weapons, you can throw both weapons with two-weapon fighting. That means I can throw the first weapon using the Attack action which qualifies me for a bonus action attack with the second weapon, which I can also throw.

(Ninja'd by @James Gasik.)
Well, it seems odd that you having one weapon triggers an aspect of TWF. But the RAI seems to be that you can throw two throwable weapons, and that fits the theme.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
Well, it seems odd that you having one weapon triggers an aspect of TWF. But the RAI seems to be that you can throw two throwable weapons, and that fits the theme.
What's odd about it? When you started your attack action, you had two weapons - one in each hand. That you ended up with something less than that because you threw one or more of them in your attacks is immaterial. You were still fighting with two weapons.
 



Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Well, yes. If your plan is to throw both weapons that round and you are able to do so (both being daggers, as you mentioned) you can do that. You are skilled at using two weapons at a time and are doing so.
The rule says you can throw either weapon, so no, you don’t have to throw both. We can certainly argue about whether you should be allowed to benefit from the dueling fighting style on an attack that you were only enabled to make by the two weapon fighting rules, but it is explicitly clear that if you are holding a light melee weapon in each hand and either throw or make a melee attack with one of them, you can then use a bonus action to either throw or make a melee attack with the other.
 

The rule says you can throw either weapon, so no, you don’t have to throw both. We can certainly argue about whether you should be allowed to benefit from the dueling fighting style on an attack that you were only enabled to make by the two weapon fighting rules, but it is explicitly clear that if you are holding a light melee weapon in each hand and either throw or make a melee attack with one of them, you can then use a bonus action to either throw or make a melee attack with the other.
But that is applying common sense! The entire thread is about ignoring the common sense that you can't use a one handed and two handed fighting style at the same time and trying to legalistically interpret the precise wording.
 
Last edited:

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
I fail to see how it's common sense. The rule says "do this, then you can do that" for two weapon fighting (not a fighting style by the way, but a base combat rule anyone can use).

Then duelist fighting style says "if you attack with a one handed weapon and have nothing in the other hand, get +2 damage". That's it, no need to invent other rules or restrictions that don't exist in the rules.

As with everything else, it's up to the DM, who can make their own rulings, but nothing in the text implies you couldn't do this. You're certainly allowed to mix other fighting styles- if I wear armor, Defensive gives me +1 AC. It doesn't turn off with other styles.

It only "turns off" if I'm not longer wearing armor.

Similarly, if I have Thrown Weapon Fighting Style: "when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll."

So in this instance of a guy with Two Weapon Fighting throwing two daggers, Thrown Weapon Fighting Style applies when I use a ranged attack with a thrown weapon.

The class feature only checks to see if it's valid when you use it. I would think that is common sense.
 

"Surprise Attack. If you hit a creature with an attack roll, the creature takes an extra 2d6 damage if it hasn’t taken a turn yet in the current combat."


You could actually get it for every attack for 2 turns if you both surprise an enemy and beat him in initiative,

No you cant.

A surprised creature still has a turn on Round 1, he just cant take actions on it or move (or take reactions till that 1st turn ends).
 

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth
Well, it seems odd that you having one weapon triggers an aspect of TWF. But the RAI seems to be that you can throw two throwable weapons, and that fits the theme.
It isn’t “having one weapon” that grants the bonus action. It’s holding two light weapons and making an attack with one of them, the exact scenario described in the OP.
 

What's odd about it? When you started your attack action, you had two weapons - one in each hand. That you ended up with something less than that because you threw one or more of them in your attacks is immaterial. You were still fighting with two weapons.
The phrasing implied that having a weapon in the off hand after he threw from the primary triggered TWF. That was my issue, probably a misunderstanding on my part if that isn't his point.

The rule says you can throw either weapon, so no, you don’t have to throw both. We can certainly argue about whether you should be allowed to benefit from the dueling fighting style on an attack that you were only enabled to make by the two weapon fighting rules, but it is explicitly clear that if you are holding a light melee weapon in each hand and either throw or make a melee attack with one of them, you can then use a bonus action to either throw or make a melee attack with the other.
No, you don't have to throw both. It can be one or both as desired. I'm not arguing against that.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
But that is applying common sense! The entire thread is about ignoring the common sense that you can't use a one handed and two handed fighting style at the same time and trying to legalistically interpret the precise wording.
Again, we can certainly argue that you shouldn’t be able to benefit from the dueling fighting style on an attack that was only enabled by the two weapon fighting rules. I’m just saying, that’s the angle one would want to take, rather than “you can’t make the second attack if you threw the weapon on the first attack” because that’s explicitly not true.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I fail to see how it's common sense. The rule says "do this, then you can do that" for two weapon fighting (not a fighting style by the way, but a base combat rule anyone can use).

Then duelist fighting style says "if you attack with a one handed weapon and have nothing in the other hand, get +2 damage". That's it, no need to invent other rules or restrictions that don't exist in the rules.

As with everything else, it's up to the DM, who can make their own rulings, but nothing in the text implies you couldn't do this. You're certainly allowed to mix other fighting styles- if I wear armor, Defensive gives me +1 AC. It doesn't turn off with other styles.

It only "turns off" if I'm not longer wearing armor.

Similarly, if I have Thrown Weapon Fighting Style: "when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll."

So in this instance of a guy with Two Weapon Fighting throwing two daggers, Thrown Weapon Fighting Style applies when I use a ranged attack with a thrown weapon.

The class feature only checks to see if it's valid when you use it. I would think that is common sense.
The common sense argument basically goes, “dueling is supposed to provide a benefit when fighting with one weapon. It doesn’t make sense to apply that benefit to an attack you need to be fighting with two weapons to make.” I don’t agree with it, but I see where it’s coming from.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
The common sense argument basically goes, “dueling is supposed to provide a benefit when fighting with one weapon. It doesn’t make sense to apply that benefit to an attack you need to be fighting with two weapons to make.” I don’t agree with it, but I see where it’s coming from.
I guess, but if an argument requires you to add rules that don't exist, I don't see how it's common sense. It's just like, your opinion, man.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I guess, but if an argument requires you to add rules that don't exist, I don't see how it's common sense. It's just like, your opinion, man.
It’s based on an approach to the rules that prioritizes the imagined fiction over the written text. That’s why people arguing for that position call our interpretation “legalistic.” We’re basing our interpretation on what the words in the book literally say. They’re basing their interpretation on what they imagine happening in the narrative.
 


James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
It’s based on an approach to the rules that prioritizes the imagined fiction over the written text. That’s why people arguing for that position call our interpretation “legalistic.” We’re basing our interpretation on what the words in the book literally say. They’re basing their interpretation on what they imagine happening in the narrative.
But there's room for one imagined interpretation?
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
Could just use the thrown weapons style in place of duelist and avoid the whole issue.
Yeah if you want to keep throwing weapons away. At some point you're going to need a magic weapon, and I don't see wanting to throw those away. But this whole build is better off with a hand crossbow and Crossbow Expert anyways; Archery Style is superior.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Could just use the thrown weapons style in place of duelist and avoid the whole issue.
You could, but that wouldn’t be as optimal for what the OP is trying to do, which is to use a single one-handed weapon most of the time; they just want to make as many attacks as possible on the first round of combat to take advantage of the Bugbear’s ambusher racial feature.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top