Duel Wielder: 2H Sword and Longsword?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

So it occurred to me that a character with a Duel Wielder Feat could attack with a 2 handed weapon then draw a 1 handed weapon and use a bonus action to attack with it and gain the +1 AC benefit of the feat. RAW you probably couldn't sheath the weapon, attack with the 2HSword, draw and repeat, as the feat says you can draw or stow 2 weapons, not draw and stow the same one. So on subsequent rounds you could attack with the weapon then stow it... or drop it, attack with your 2 Handed Weapon, and draw another to get the AC bonus.

Is it worth it? I'd say probably not as a primary strategy because PAM provides both the bonus action attack with damage bonus and a potential reaction, while GWM gives the power attack and some chance of a more powerful bonus action attack. However, for a higher level character it might be worth taking in addition to GWM for rounds where you don't get a bonus action attack.

Anything I'm missing?

[MaxWilson]

If you want an AC bonus from your off-hand it's usually going to be better to just draw a finesse weapon and get Defensive Dueler bonus (+2 to +6). Also, that way you can still use your bonus action on your main GWM/PAM or SS/CE attack. All you need for your AC is your object interaction and your reaction.

[Darc_Vader]

Doesn’t twf require you to be holding both weapons at the time of at least one of your attack action attacks?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

If you want an AC bonus from your off-hand it's usually going to be better to just draw a finesse weapon and get Defensive Dueler bonus (+2 to +6). Also, that way you can still use your bonus action on your main GWM/PAM or SS/CE attack. All you need for your AC is your object interaction and your reaction.

Yes this works as you say, though it doesn't provide a bonus attack for the GWM, which was the primary reason I brought this up. The bigger issue I'd see is the number of strength based martials that would have the 13 Dex requirement to take the Feat. Barbarians for sure, and I did have a Multiclass Paladin Rogue who was S+B with Shield Master. At our table that's about it.

[Zhorn]

Doesn’t twf require you to be holding both weapons at the time of at least one of your attack action attacks?
They could get it to work for one round, but it is not a realistically sustainable attack pattern beyond that and will be subject to debate.

Start of first round, greatsword in hand, two longswords sheathed.
Attack with greatsword (Attack Action, just one attack)
Drop greatsword (no cost)
Draw two longswords (Object Interaction using Dual Wielder feat)
Attack with main hand longsword (continuing Attack Action using Extra Attack)
Attack with off hand longsword (Bonus Action Two-Weapon Fighting)

They've failed to end their turn in the same state as what they've stared with, and having spent both their Object Interaction and Action they've nothing left to enable further weapon swaps.

You can get away with Object Interactions between attacks because they can be done as a function of the next Attack being made, or as a component of Movement which is allowed to break up multiple attacks from the Attack Action.

But Bonus Actions are a bit tricky, and not all are universally allowed to be inserted between the Attack Action's attacks. Technically Two-Weapon Fighting's Bonus Action attack is triggered from a single attack made in the Attack Action and not the full Attack Action, but you'll still get the occasional pushback from DMs insisting a Bonus Action will end the Attack Action and you cannot continue the Attack Action after is has been interrupted with a Bonus Action. Be prepared for a debate with your DM with all relevant PHB page references and Dev tweets to make your case if you want the permission to do the following sequence:

Start of second round, two longswords drawn in opposite hands, greatsword on ground
Attack with main hand longsword (Attack Action, just one attack)
Attack with off hand longsword (Bonus Action Two-Weapon Fighting)
Drop both longswords (no cost)
Pick up greatsword (Object Interaction)
Attack with greatsword (continuing Attack Action using Extra Attack)

That though gets into a worse situation for the third round as Dual Wielder allows you to draw or stow two one-handed weapons when your Object Interaction could normally only do one a round, BUT picking up is still going to be limited to one weapon per Object Interaction.
So even if your DM is lenient enough to let the second round work, the third, fifth and every nth+2 round will require an addition pair of one-handed weapons sheathed on the PC to maintain the sequence :smallfrown:

[5eNeedsDarksun]

They could get it to work for one rounds, but it is not a realistically sustainable attack pattern beyond that and will be subject to debate.

Start of round, greatsword in hand, two longswords sheathed.
Attack with greatsword (Attack Action, just one attack)
Drop greatsword (no cost)
Draw two longswords (Object Interaction using Dual Wielder feat)
Attack with main hand longsword (continuing Attack Action using Extra Attack)
Attack with off hand longsword (Bonus Action Two-Weapon Fighting)

They've failed to end their turn in the same state as what they've stared with, and having spend both their Object Interaction and Action they've nothing left to enable further weapon swaps.

You can get away with Object Interactions between attacks because they can be done as a function of the next Attack being made, or as a component of Movement which is allowed to break up multiple attacks from the Attack Action.

But Bonus Actions are a bit tricky, and not all are universally allowed to be inserted between the Attack Action's attacks. Technically Two-Weapon Fighting's Bonus Action attack is triggered from a single attack in the Attack Action and not the full Attack Action, but you'll still get the occasional pushback from DMs insisting a Bonus Action will end the Attack Action and you cannot continue the Attack Action after is has been interrupted with a Bonus Action. Be prepared for a debate with your DM with all relevant PHB page references and Dev tweets to make your case if you want the to do the following sequence:

Start of second round, two longswords drawn in opposite hands, greatsword on ground
Attack with main hand longsword (Attack Action, just one attack)
Attack with off hand longsword (Bonus Action Two-Weapon Fighting)
Drop both longswords (no cost)
Pick up greatsword (Object Interaction)
Attack with greatsword (continuing Attack Action using Extra Attack)

That though gets into a worse situation for the third round as Dual Wielder allows you to draw or stow two one handed weapons when your Object Interaction could normally only do one a round, BUT picking up is still going to be limited to one weapon per Object Interaction.
So even if your DM is lenient enough to let the second round work, the third, fifth and every nth+2 round will require an addition pair of one handed weapons sheathed on the PC to maintain the sequence :smallfrown:

Maybe I'm missing something, but Duel Wielder seems to indicate that it's not necessary to have 2 longswords. It explicitly says the 2 weapons need not be light, so why would it not be viable to hit with the 2H Sword then draw and hit with one longsword?

[Aett_Thorn]

Maybe I'm missing something, but Duel Wielder seems to indicate that it's not necessary to have 2 longswords. It explicitly says the 2 weapons need not be light, so why would it not be viable to hit with the 2H Sword then draw and hit with one longsword?

The way the rules are written, the way I see it, is that you already need to be holding the other weapon in-hand already when you make the first attack. So unless you have three arms, I don’t think that this will work.

[Zhorn]

Maybe I'm missing something, but Duel Wielder seems to indicate that it's not necessary to have 2 longswords. It explicitly says the 2 weapons need not be light, so why would it not be viable to hit with the 2H Sword then draw and hit with one longsword?
Skipping over some of the wording

Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
"one-handed", and "weapons" plural. You get to ignore the light property, but still need to be wielding multiple one-handed weapons when you make the attack to qualify.

Edit follow up; confirming Aett_Thorn's point
the general rule for Two-Weapon Fighting still holds true for making a one-handed melee weapon attack with one hand, then making a separate one-handed melee weapon attack with a different hand AND weapon.

Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light* one-handed* melee weapon that you're holding* wielding* in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light* one-handed* melee weapon that you're holding* wielding* in the other hand.
(*edits as per Dual Wielder feat modification)

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Skipping over some of the wording

"one-handed", and "weapons" plural. You get to ignore the light property, but still need to be wielding multiple one-handed weapons when you make the attack to qualify.

Edit follow up; confirming Aett_Thorn's point
the general rule for Two-Weapon Fighting still holds true for making a one-handed melee weapon attack with one hand, then making a separate one-handed melee weapon attack with a different hand AND weapon.

OK, figured I must have missed something. Will keep looking for loopholes.

[Zhorn]

OK, figured I must have missed something. Will keep looking for loopholes.
I hope you find something interesting.
I hate being the party pooper of other people's ideas. Just being the rules guy for devil's advocate purposes.

[Arkhios]

I hope you find something interesting.
I hate being the party pooper of other people's ideas. Just being the rules guy for devil's advocate purposes.

Personally I see nothing wrong in correcting a misunderstanding. Besides, I would prefer everyone followed the same rules, instead of each player following their own deductions. I hope we all can agree that much.

Table variation and house rules are fine, as long as everyone in that same table are treated equally.