D&D 5E Making an multi-attack with a non-light weapon in each hand

[auburn2]

The term "two-weapon fighting" in 5e refers specifically to a bonus attack. The rules state that both weapons must be light (barring a feat) and the character does not receive damage bonus from the offhand. I believe RAW this only refers to using the bonus action to attack with a second weapon and does not apply to multi-attack.

Say a 5th level fighter has a longsword in one hand and a spear in the other. To my knowledge there is nothing to prevent the fighter or other character with multi-attack making one attack with the long sword and his second attach with the spear.

My understanding is this is totally legal in terms of RAW and both of these attacks in this scenario would get his strength bonus because they are both a normal attack as part of the attack action and this is not "two-weapon fighting".

If the character had polearm master he could follow this up with a bonus action attack with the butt of the spear for 1d4+strength.

Is this a correct interpretation of the rules?

 

[Charlaquin]

The term "two-weapon fighting" in 5e refers specifically to a bonus attack. The rules state that both weapons must be light (barring a feat) and the character does not receive damage bonus from the offhand. I believe RAW this only refers to using the bonus action to attack with a second weapon and does not apply to multi-attack.

Say a 5th level fighter has a longsword in one hand and a spear in the other. To my knowledge there is nothing to prevent the fighter or other character with multi-attack making one attack with the long sword and his second attach with the spear.

My understanding is this is totally legal in terms of RAW and both of these attacks in this scenario would get his strength bonus because they are both a normal attack as part of the attack action and this is not "two-weapon fighting".

If the character had polearm master he could follow this up with a bonus action attack with the butt of the spear for 1d4+strength.

Is this a correct interpretation of the rules?

Yes. This is 100% correct.

 

[Voadam]

I don't have the text in front of me, what does the polearm master feat say? It seems odd to use both the pointy and the butt end while wielding it one handed instead of using it like a two handed weapon the way most polearms are wielded.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, this is correct. The Attack action merely says that you make "a melee or ranged attack," and Extra Attack allows you to do this twice (or three times, or four). Nothing in there forbids you from holding a weapon in each hand, nor from switching off between them as you attack.

You would even add your stat bonus to damage with both weapons.

 

[prabe]

I don't have the text in front of me, what does the polearm master feat say? It seems odd to use both the pointy and the butt end while wielding it one handed instead of using it like a two handed weapon the way most polearms are wielded.

In the PHB, the feat doesn't mention needing to use the weapon two-handed. I've fixed that error in my own campaigns, but I completely acknowledge that as a houserule.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't have the text in front of me, what does the polearm master feat say? It seems odd to use both the pointy and the butt end while wielding it one handed instead of using it like a two handed weapon the way most polearms are wielded.

Polearm Master says nothing about using the weapon two-handed. Many of the weapons listed have the Two-Handed property, but spears and quarterstaves do not.

 

[Voadam]

So I pulled my PH out, it says glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff for the butt end part of polearm master. Is there errata for that which added spear?

 

[prabe]

Yeah. In the PHB errata.

Polearm Master (p. 168). A second sentence has been added to the first benefit:
“This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack.”
Both instances of “or quarterstaff” have been changed to “quarterstaff, or spear.”

 

[DemoMonkey]

Is there a reason other than aesthetics that you would do this though?

You lose both the possibility of carrying a shield and the potential bonus action off-hand attack, and gain ...?

I mean if the reason is just "IT LOOKS METAL AF!" then you do you, I'm just wondering if there is a missing assumption somewhere.

 

[embee]

Is there a reason other than aesthetics that you would do this though?

You lose both the possibility of carrying a shield and the potential bonus action off-hand attack, and gain ...?

I mean if the reason is just "IT LOOKS METAL AF!" then you do you, I'm just wondering if there is a missing assumption somewhere.

Are you saying that you've never played a character "sub-optimally" just because it looks metal AF?

I mean, the main reason to play most fighter classes is to have a metal AF character.