TWF while drawing the second weapon

[odigity]

If I have a shortsword in one hand, nothing in the other, and a dagger on my belt, can I attack with the shortsword, then use my bonus action to both draw and attack with my dagger, via the TWF rules? Or do I need to have the dagger in hand before using the bonus action to qualify as TWF? If so, can I draw my dagger during the action while attacking with the shortsword?

[Giant2005]

If I have a shortsword in one hand, nothing in the other, and a dagger on my belt, can I attack with the shortsword, then use my bonus action to both draw and attack with my dagger, via the TWF rules? Or do I need to have the dagger in hand before using the bonus action to qualify as TWF? If so, can I draw my dagger during the action while attacking with the shortsword?

You can't get your bonus action attack if you attack without a weapon in each at at any point during your turn.
You don't need to anyway unless you are trying to cheese things, as drawing a weapon has nothing to do with an attack or even the attack action - simply draw the weapon before you do anything else that turn.

[Coffee_Dragon]

There's no consensus on this. Some read "when you do X, you can do Y" to mean that when X happens, you can immediately do Y if you qualify for it (else lose your chance). Others read it to mean that if you do X during a turn, you can do Y at any other point during the turn when you otherwise qualify for it. I believe the second interpretation has gained much ground following some recent sage advices on bonus actions.

[DivisibleByZero]

You don't need to anyway unless you are trying to cheese things, as drawing a weapon has nothing to do with an attack or even the attack action - simply draw the weapon before you do anything else that turn.

Not true.
Drawing a weapon (or the ammunition for a ranged attack) is part of the attack action. But in the case of weapons, you can only do it once per turn, as a part of that action (or during movement). Ammunition is free, and is automatically drawn with the attack.

Basically you can draw one weapon per turn for free as long as you take the attack action or move at all.

None of that changes the fact that whether or not you can gain the bonus attack from TWF in this manner is going to be up to the DM and his interpretation of the TWF rules.

Personally, for me, it would depend. Age you trying to game the system and take advantage of dueling or something? Nope. Are you actually TWFing and just threw your other dagger? Sure, okay.

[bid]

You can't get your bonus action attack if you attack without a weapon in each at at any point during your turn.
Not true. The 2 requirements for TWF are Attack action and light melee weapon.

Using dueling style with a thrown dagger is perfectly RAW too. You can interact for free with that dagger to draw it.

[Plaguescarred]

If I have a shortsword in one hand, nothing in the other, and a dagger on my belt, can I attack with the shortsword, then use my bonus action to both draw and attack with my dagger, via the TWF rules? Or do I need to have the dagger in hand before using the bonus action to qualify as TWF? If so, can I draw my dagger during the action while attacking with the shortsword?Yes you can and technically that is the moment you must do so in fact, in tandem with your Attack action. So when you take the Attack action to attack with your shortsword, you can draw your dagger and attack with it as a bonus action.



Interacting With Objects Around You: Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action: draw or sheathe a sword

Attack: The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.

Two-Weapon Fighting: 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.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Yes you can and technically that is the moment you must do so in fact, in tandem with your Attack action.

This is a thing under contention. A while back there was a thread where someone was wondering whether you can throw a dagger as an off-hand attack, then attack with the main hand, qualifying for dueling style and retroactively justifying the off-hand attack. I and a couple of others argued this is absurd because a) it opens up the possibility of effect without cause, and 2) it implies fighting styles can be layered on the same attack. A majority I believe took the "I would allow it" stance, and the argument came to an end when tweets were presented that allowed the bonus action of Shield Master to precede the attack that enables it. Therefore, if there's any official position, it would seemingly be that the leading off-hand attack is legal.

[Dalebert]

This came up in a test scenario last night. Off-hand dagger was thrown before an attack was made. I said "If you don't take the attack action now or if you are unable to somehow make the attack action, then that dagger throw WAS your attack action. You can do it in any order but the requirement must be met."

[odigity]

...tweets were presented that allowed the bonus action of Shield Master to precede the attack that enables it.

That's extremely relevant.

Would you be willing/able to find the link?

[Coffee_Dragon]

That's extremely relevant.

Would you be willing/able to find the link?

"As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329

A DM could possibly still rule that the offhand weapon must be held at the time you make the mainhand attack in order for TWF to work in the first place. Might depend on whether you're trying to gain some systematic advantage like dueling bonus.

[Plaguescarred]

This is a thing under contention. A while back there was a thread where someone was wondering whether you can throw a dagger as an off-hand attack, then attack with the main hand, qualifying for dueling style and retroactively justifying the off-hand attack. I and a couple of others argued this is absurd because a) it opens up the possibility of effect without cause, and 2) it implies fighting styles can be layered on the same attack. A majority I believe took the "I would allow it" stance, and the argument came to an end when tweets were presented that allowed the bonus action of Shield Master to precede the attack that enables it. Therefore, if there's any official position, it would seemingly be that the leading off-hand attack is legal.There is no "off-hand attack" so i'm not sure what you and Dalebert are refering by that but you cannot take the bonus action attack before first attacking with your action when using Two-Weapon Fighting.


Two-Weapon Fighting: 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.

[Plaguescarred]

What i remember is a thread discussing the necessity of having two weapons at the moment of taking the action or not, meaning someone could potentially draw the second weapon after attacking and Two-Weapon Fighting is not clearly ruling against it.

[odigity]

"As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329

A DM could possibly still rule that the offhand weapon must be held at the time you make the mainhand attack in order for TWF to work in the first place. Might depend on whether you're trying to gain some systematic advantage like dueling bonus.

Thanks, that link could be handy someday.

And if the DM ruled that I have to have the offhand weapon at the time you make the mainhand attack, I'd ask to draw the offhand weapon as part of my mainhand attack as describe in the PHB.

I'm not cheesy enough to try to get the benefits of both TWF and Dueling in the same turn via clever sequencing. :) That's obviously trollish. (Though I do admit I did try to see if it would work mechanically a while ago when helping a friend try to build a TWF dagger-thrower. We concluded that the 5e rules just doesn't support that mechanic.)

[Dalebert]

There is no "off-hand attack" so i'm not sure what you and Dalebert are refering by that...

On page 195 of the PHB under "Two Weapon Fighting"--


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.

[Coffee_Dragon]

There is no "off-hand attack"

It's just a way to refer to the bonus action attack.


but you cannot take the bonus action attack before first attacking with your action when using Two-Weapon Fighting.

So one might think, but one might also think you need to attack first to gain a bonus action with Shield Master, and Crawford clearly doesn't agree with that one.


And if the DM ruled that I have to have the offhand weapon at the time you make the mainhand attack, I'd ask to draw the offhand weapon as part of my mainhand attack as describe in the PHB.

The rules for free object interactions are fairly vaguely written, so there shouldn't be a problem. It would be more "natural" to interact with the offhand weapon while using it, but it also says the interaction can happen "during movement", which itself can happen pretty much whenever.

[odigity]

The rules for free object interactions are fairly vaguely written, so there shouldn't be a problem. It would be more "natural" to interact with the offhand weapon while using it, but it also says the interaction can happen "during movement", which itself can happen pretty much whenever.

I feel ok being slightly liberal in this context because of how under-supported TWF and dagger throwing is in this edition. It really should be practical (and clearly articulated). Even then, it's still not as optimized as a Barbarian with GWM, so why make it so difficult and ambiguous? It's such in-demand flavor...

[Rysto]

Given that it's legal to draw a weapon and then attack with it in the first round, I see no reason why a PC who is already holding one weapon can't draw a second weapon and then attack with either to trigger TWF in subsequent rounds.

[Plaguescarred]

So one might think, but one might also think you need to attack first to gain a bonus action with Shield Master, and Crawford clearly doesn't agree with that one.I'd be curious to see the arguments of those who might think you can take the bonus action before attacking do you have a link to that thread by any chance?


Shield Master is not a good exemple as it has no mention of attacking prior to being allowed to take the bonus action.


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

Two-Weapon Fighting: 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.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I'd be curious to see the arguments of those who might think you can take the bonus action before attacking do you have a link to that thread by any chance?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?488853-Duel-Wielder-TWF-GWF-Question

I think the "bonus action attack before attack" thing gets going on page 2.

[Saggo]

Not true.
Drawing a weapon (or the ammunition for a ranged attack) is part of the attack action. But in the case of weapons, you can only do it once per turn, as a part of that action (or during movement). Ammunition is free, and is automatically drawn with the attack.

Basically you can draw one weapon per turn for free as long as you take the attack action or move at all.

None of that changes the fact that whether or not you can gain the bonus attack from TWF in this manner is going to be up to the DM and his interpretation of the TWF rules.

Personally, for me, it would depend. Age you trying to game the system and take advantage of dueling or something? Nope. Are you actually TWFing and just threw your other dagger? Sure, okay.

You're not restricted to the attack action, you get the free object interaction as a part of your action (p191). Drawing your weapon as part of the attack action is just a "For example", you can draw your weapon as part of any action or movement.

[Gwendol]

It should be allowed in general, it's not like the game breaks down if not.

[Arial Black]

The way 5E works is that 'taking an Action In Combat' is not the same thing as 'executing something that requires that action'.

For example, when you take the Disengage action, what happens to the mini on the table? Nothing. 'Taking the Action' doesn't in and of itself do anything! It just allows you to do something during this round; it's like a permission slip.

Take the Attack action: when you 'take the Attack action', what happens? Must you immediately execute the attacks?

No! We know that if you have two attacks that you can execute one of them, move, maybe take a bonus action, and then attack a second time later in the round.

We also know that the reason the shield bash can come before the attack is because you take the Attack action (the 'permission slip' that allows you to attack this round) without having to execute the attack immediately. Having taken the Attack action, but not yet executed the attack, you qualify for the shield bash. Actually attacking is not what generates the bonus action shield bash, it's 'taking the Attack action' (permission slip) that generates the bonus action.

It should be noted that once you have taken the Action/permission slip (whether or not you have actually executed the attack(s) it gives you permission to execute), then you have used your Action for the round. You cannot just say that you are going to 'take the Attack action', then use the shield bash, and then take a different Action instead! Although you don't have to actually execute that attack, what you cannot do is swap the Attack action for a different Action because you have already used your Action, even if you haven't actually attacked yet, as you have used the fact that you have taken the Attack action to generate the bonus action shield bash.

So, with TWF, you can 'take the Attack action' (that you intend to be used to attack with a light weapon in one hand) and that action generates the bonus action that allows you to execute an attack with a different light weapon in the other hand. Now you have permission to execute those attacks, at any time from when you 'take the Action' until the end of your round. Although you do not have to execute any of those attacks if you don't want to, you cannot swap the Actions you took for different Action In Combat because you already partially used your Action to generate that bonus action.

You can announce that you are 'taking the Attack action to attack with a light melee weapon held in one hand' without actually executing that attack yet. This generates a bonus action which you may (or may not) use to attack with a different light melee weapon in your other hand. You can execute an attack with that 'second' weapon first, and since you have already 'taken the Action' the only thing you have permission to do (with your Action) is to execute an attack with a light melee weapon in your 'first' hand. You don't have to actually execute that 'first' attack, but you are not allowed to swap it for a different Action In Combat so if you choose not to execute that 'first' attack then you've just wasted it.

Does that all make sense?

[Coffee_Dragon]

Does that all make sense?

It may be a largely consistent interpretation of the rules, but it's a convoluted one that doesn't rely on a natural reading, and if that's what they intended, the rules are very poorly written. Asynchronous TWF is a good example: making an attack with one hand, then walking around some, then picking up a weapon with the other hand to make an attack with it (with restrictions that no longer make any sense), doesn't fit what the rules are making two-weapon fighting out to be, or what anyone would expect two-weapon fighting to be.

[Plaguescarred]

You can announce that you are 'taking the Attack action to attack with a light melee weapon held in one hand' without actually executing that attack yet. This generates a bonus action which you may (or may not) use to attack with a different light melee weapon in your other hand. You can execute an attack with that 'second' weapon first, and since you have already 'taken the Action' the only thing you have permission to do (with your Action) is to execute an attack with a light melee weapon in your 'first' hand. You don't have to actually execute that 'first' attack, but you are not allowed to swap it for a different Action In Combat so if you choose not to execute that 'first' attack then you've just wasted it.

Does that all make sense?Yeah i agree the Sage Advice favors a ruling that allow you to take the bonus action before attacking with an action, which means you could take a bonus action attack before attacking when Two-Weapon Fighting. I don't necessarily agree with such ruling but i must admit it aligns with this clarification.


War Magic: Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.

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 intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).

[Plaguescarred]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?488853-Duel-Wielder-TWF-GWF-Question

I think the "bonus action attack before attack" thing gets going on page 2.Thanks now i know why the claim is made but i don't agree with the Sage Advice allowing this interpretation as it could potentially lead to abuse that wouldn't be intended. In my campaign my ruling is that a bonus action can only be taken when its granted, not before.

[odigity]

Does that all make sense?

"Yes, that makes sense" would be an understatement. Your permission slip analogy has reformed my mental model in a way that finally eliminates all the fog and confusion I've been suffering from regarding sequencing and criteria-matching I've had since I started 5e. I think I now have the mental tools to analyze most possible combat rule interactions. I feel a profound sense of enlightenment, and am extremely grateful.


It may be a largely consistent interpretation of the rules, but it's a convoluted one that doesn't rely on a natural reading, and if that's what they intended, the rules are very poorly written.

I don't think convoluted is the right term. Perhaps unintuitive would be better. I do agree that the rules were poorly written. Perhaps it would been more intuitive if the rules made the underlying mechanical model clearer instead of just trying to get away with a simpler, more intuitive (but more ambiguous) description, presumably to make it appeal to a wider audience instead of just engineers (like myself).

[DivisibleByZero]

That's all well and good in theory, but the entire design philosophy of 5e is that a DM makes rulings as he sees fit for his game. So all of these discussions always essentially boil down to "ask your DM," and this is by design and completely on purpose.
This edition takes a very different approach to the rules than 3.5 and 4e took. The problem is that too many people are and have been having a hard time grasping the concept of that change in mindset.

[Plaguescarred]

So all of these discussions always essentially boil down to "ask your DM," and this is by design and completely on purpose.All these discussions are usually not about wether DM should or shouldn't allow X Y Z, but wether its allowed rule-wise or its not RAW.

[Mr Adventurer]

So I could throw a dagger, walk over to it, pick it up (free interaction), and throw it out of my other hand as a bonus action (twf)?

[Mr Adventurer]

Actually, I could throw a dagger at a target, run over there, pick up the dagger in my off hand and attack the same target?

Sounds fairly awesome.

With the fighting style and the feat, I could do this with a larger weapon like an axe?

[Plaguescarred]

So I could throw a dagger, walk over to it, pick it up (free interaction), and throw it out of my other hand as a bonus action (twf)?Yup

No it must be a different weapon.


Actually, I could throw a dagger at a target, run over there, pick up the dagger in my off hand and attack the same targetYup

No it must be a different weapon.


With the fighting style and the feat, I could do this with a larger weapon like an axe?Depends what you want to do and with which feat. If you're referring to throwing battleaxes with the Dual Welder feat, not it wouldn't work as they're not thrown weapons. While the feat let you use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light, being able to throw them will still require the thrown property though.

[Mr Adventurer]

Are there any non-Light Thrown weapons?

[odigity]

So I could throw a dagger, walk over to it, pick it up (free interaction), and throw it out of my other hand as a bonus action (twf)?

The rule says "a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand", so, no. You need at least two different hands and two different weapons to make use of the TWF rule that grants you a bonus action attack. You just don't need to be holding both weapons in both hands at the same time at any point.

[Plaguescarred]

Oh yeah is true it must be a different weapon though

[Plaguescarred]

Are there any non-Light Thrown weapons?The javelin, spear and trident are non-light melee thrown weapons.

[odigity]

The handaxe is light and so would qualify for throwing with TWF, and does more than a dagger, but is not finesse. Most TWF chars are Dex-based, which is why they throw daggers. It's pretty much the only option.

[Mr Adventurer]

The javelin, spear and trident are non-light melee thrown weapons.

Time to add Two-Spears, the half-orc Champion to my list of characters then!

[Tanarii]

The way 5E works is that 'taking an Action In Combat' is not the same thing as 'executing something that requires that action'.That's not explicit in the rules. A DM (and players) can interpret how to run it any way they want. Either taking/using Action = declaring Action, followed by all resolution in any appropriate order. Or taking/using Action = resolving Action.

However, caveats:
I agree. It's become my preferred interpretation for 5e. Partially because it's less mechanistic simulationist, but mainly because ...
JC almost certainly agrees. His rulings on how actions work are only internally consistent under this interpretation of how to handle Actions, declarations, and resolutions.

Honestly, it reminds me a little bit more of AD&D 1e or BECMI. However, still with individual initiative and taking turns in order. Just in regards to any given players declaration of action(s), followed by resolution. Of course, if you require ALL declarations before ANY resolution, this can make using certain abilities less powerful.

[odigity]

The way 5E works is that 'taking an Action In Combat' is not the same thing as 'executing something that requires that action'.
That's not explicit in the rules.

You are right, which is unfortunate. I wish they had made it explicit, as it would have avoided months of confusion on my part.

However, much like an astronomer can deduce the existence of a planet without seeing it by measuring it's gravitational effect on nearby bodies, you can deduce this "permission slip" model from the existing information (PHB + Crawford), as Arial Black has demonstrated with his well-chosen examples and commentary. It's the only model that is consistent with the outcomes described by the authoritative sources we have access.

We tend to view games like D&D as a rough model for a fictional reality, but it, like all games, is just an abstract ruleset. Many if not most games (D&D, Magic: The Gathering, etc) are fundamentally about resource management, and are designed, play-tested, and balanced with that in mind.

In game play terms, your actions are resources that you spend to gain the benefits. When you spend your action on an Attack Action, you're paying the price for the right to one (or more) attacks. What you do with it is up to you. You can buy an ice cream cone and throw it on the floor if you want, as long as you pay the price. Otherwise, it would be illegal for a player with Extra Attack to take the Attack Action but then only make one attack. They are not compelled to make two, that would be depriving them of free will.

[DivisibleByZero]

All these discussions are usually not about wether DM should or shouldn't allow X Y Z, but wether its allowed rule-wise or its not RAW.

Good job on missing the entire point of that post via editing.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The rule says "a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand", so, no.

And these very explicit restrictions, which to my knowledge asynchronous TWF proponents do not challenge, lead to what I consider an awkward scenario:

There are two people, Bill and Ben. There are two identical daggers: dagger A is held by Bill and dagger B is lying at Ben's feet.

Bill throws dagger A at Ben using his left hand, and it ends up also lying at Ben's feet. Bill has now "used up" his left hand and dagger A for the purposes of TWF.

Bill saunters up to the rattled Ben with further hostile intentions.

Bill cannot pick up dagger A with his left hand and stab Ben with it.

Bill cannot pick up dagger B with his left hand and stab Ben with it.

Bill cannot pick up dagger A with his right hand and stab Ben with it.

Bill can pick up dagger B with his right hand and stab Ben with it. Bill: :smallsmile: Ben: :smallfrown:

So in such a case, the restrictions end up seeming arbitrary since there's little to connect Bill's second attack to the first in a TWF context. Whereas with a reading that the weapons must both be held when the attack action is carried out, the restrictions are a natural way of communicating that two-weapon fighting such as grants extra attacks really does involve two weapons and that they shouldn't be juggled between hands to exploit whichever factor. Since the offhand weapon is "locked in" when you make the mainhand attack, the problem of picking up a weapon later doesn't arise because if you have to do that, you weren't fighting two-handed in the first place.

Opinions may differ on whether such scenarios are actually a problem for the action-as-permission-slip model. My own view is probably not immune to criticism along similar lines, but I feel it is a more reasonable application of the rules as written.

[odigity]

And these very explicit restrictions, which to my knowledge asynchronous TWF proponents do not challenge, lead to what I consider an awkward scenario:

...


So in such a case, the restrictions end up seeming arbitrary since there's little to connect Bill's second attack to the first in a TWF context.

I agree, it is arbitrary. I cannot tell you why they chose to word the feature that way, or why they named it Two Weapon Fighting. We can speculate, surely. If you have time to attack once with each weapon, you should have time to attack twice with one weapon, especially since no action in D&D happens simultaneously with another. But regardless, that's what the feature's text says.

If we're talking about rules rather than flavor (which is what this thread is about), it helps to ignore the name of the feature. A feature's name is flavortext, not rule text. The fact that it's called Two-Weapon Fighting is technically irrelevant to an understanding of the rule.

The rule fundamentally just states "if you meet these arbitrary conditions we've chosen, you gain a bonus action attack that you may choose to make". They were probably trying to inspire / make-possible a battle dynamic that a layman would describe as "two-weapon fighting", and thought these particular criteria were a good way to facilitate that goal, but as I said, that's speculation. Ultimately, all we can know is what the text says.

[Mr Adventurer]

And these very explicit restrictions, which to my knowledge asynchronous TWF proponents do not challenge, lead to what I consider an awkward scenario:

There are two people, Bill and Ben. There are two identical daggers: dagger A is held by Bill and dagger B is lying at Ben's feet.

Bill throws dagger A at Ben using his left hand, and it ends up also lying at Ben's feet. Bill has now "used up" his left hand and dagger A for the purposes of TWF.

Bill saunters up to the rattled Ben with further hostile intentions.

Bill cannot pick up dagger A with his left hand and stab Ben with it.

Bill cannot pick up dagger B with his left hand and stab Ben with it.

Bill cannot pick up dagger A with his right hand and stab Ben with it.

Bill can pick up dagger B with his right hand and stab Ben with it. Bill: :smallsmile: Ben: :smallfrown:

So in such a case, the restrictions end up seeming arbitrary since there's little to connect Bill's second attack to the first in a TWF context. Whereas with a reading that the weapons must both be held when the attack action is carried out, the restrictions are a natural way of communicating that two-weapon fighting such as grants extra attacks really does involve two weapons and that they shouldn't be juggled between hands to exploit whichever factor. Since the offhand weapon is "locked in" when you make the mainhand attack, the problem of picking up a weapon later doesn't arise because if you have to do that, you weren't fighting two-handed in the first place.

Opinions may differ on whether such scenarios are actually a problem for the action-as-permission-slip model. My own view is probably not immune to criticism along similar lines, but I feel it is a more reasonable application of the rules as written.

Nah, that's just because you're being silly with the abstraction of the round.

[Plaguescarred]

Good job on missing the entire point of that post via editing.Sorry i don't thibk i've seen all your edit but anyway i don't see the point of saying in a thread discussing RAW interactions theory that the philosophy of 5e is that a DM makes rulings as he sees fit for his game when no one is questioning that so let's go back to business shall we :)

[Plaguescarred]

I'm curious whatkind of abuse can it lead to by letting bonus action being taken before the action allowing them?

[jas61292]

Am I missing something, or isn't the whole order of attacks irrelevant for Two-Weapon fighting?

You have a shortsword and a dagger. You want to throw the dagger and then attack with the sword. Why are people trying to find a convoluted way to justify using the bonus action for the dagger?

Just throw the dagger with your action. Bam. You now qualify to make an off hand attack with your shortsword. Even if you have extra attack, nothing is stopping you from making an attack with both your dagger and sword as your action and then your sword again as your bonus action. The only qualifiers for the bonus action attack is that it is with a light weapon, and that you used your action to make an attack with a light weapon in the other hand. Never does it say that is the only attack you can make that round with your offhand weapon.

[Tanarii]

IIRC it says the bonus action must be made with a different weapon, in your other hand. (Not 'off-hand' because you can do it either way around. There's no actual off-hand.)

[jas61292]

IIRC it says the bonus action must be made with a different weapon, in your other hand. (Not 'off-hand' because you can do it either way around. There's no actual off-hand.)

It does, but all it says it is different from a weapon you used during your attack action. It never says different from all weapons you use in your attack action. And nothing in the attack action limits it to one weapon if you have extra attack.

In other words, a single attack with a light weapon in your left hand procs a bonus action attack with a light weapon in your right hand. Any other attacks you make are irrelevant. They could be with the same weapon as the first attack, or the same weapon as the bonus action attack. It doesn't matter. Technically, you could even make other attacks that round with non-light weapons. All that matters is that you make a single attack with a light weapon to proc the bonus action, and then use a different light weapon, in the other hand, to make that attack.

[Plaguescarred]

Yeah with Extra Attack dagger attack + left kick + shortsword bonus attack sounds like its legal (and cool enought!)

[Tanarii]

It does, but all it says it is different from a weapon you used during your attack action. It never says different from all weapons you use in your attack action. And nothing in the attack action limits it to one weapon if you have extra attack.

In other words, a single attack with a light weapon in your left hand procs a bonus action attack with a light weapon in your right hand. Any other attacks you make are irrelevant. They could be with the same weapon as the first attack, or the same weapon as the bonus action attack. It doesn't matter. Technically, you could even make other attacks that round with non-light weapons. All that matters is that you make a single attack with a light weapon to proc the bonus action, and then use a different light weapon, in the other hand, to make that attack.Oh I see. The order is:
Throw Dagger (1st attack of Attack Action with Extra Attack), attack with shortsword (2nd attack of Attack Action with Extra Attack), attack with shortsword (attack with Bonus Action).

Yeah, that's totally legit.

[Arial Black]

"Yes, that makes sense" would be an understatement. Your permission slip analogy has reformed my mental model in a way that finally eliminates all the fog and confusion I've been suffering from regarding sequencing and criteria-matching I've had since I started 5e. I think I now have the mental tools to analyze most possible combat rule interactions. I feel a profound sense of enlightenment, and am extremely grateful.

Thank you for your kind words; I am truly humbled.

I went through a similar process myself while trying to get my head around the shield bash coming before the attack that generated it. The only conclusion that worked was that it was not the attack itself which generated that bonus action, but 'taking the Attack Action In Combat' that generated it.

Understanding this has helped me adjudicate other situations. I particularly like your (later) analogy re: astronomers deducing the presence of a planet from evidence, without ever directly seeing the planet itself.

If would have been helpful for the writers to explicitly mention this. Maybe in edition five-point-five...? :)

[Vogonjeltz]

If I have a shortsword in one hand, nothing in the other, and a dagger on my belt, can I attack with the shortsword, then use my bonus action to both draw and attack with my dagger, via the TWF rules? Or do I need to have the dagger in hand before using the bonus action to qualify as TWF? If so, can I draw my dagger during the action while attacking with the shortsword?

The timing of TWF bonus action specifies that it's with a weapon that is held in the other hand.

The general rules on being able to draw a weapon as part of an attack are over-ruled by the specifics of the bonus action.

As long as you didn't draw a weapon already (as your free object interaction) there's no reason you couldn't do that for the second weapon, then take the attack action, then get your twf bonus action.

One benefit of the Dual Wielder feat on PHB 165 is "You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one." So if you wanted to draw both weapons and attack with twf, you'd need that feat.