Two-Weapon Fighting Question

[Bloodyshadow1]

Do you need to use your attack action when you're duel wielding to attack with your bonus action?
I know the basics of how two weapon fighting works, I was wondering if it was like with Monks who need to use the attack action to get their bonus action attack
Or can you just use your bonus action attack first to see if that will finish off a target so you can use your action to do something else if possible like a skill check?
I can't find this specific issue since I'm not sure how to word it in a search engine so any help would be great

[Dork_Forge]

Do you need to use your attack action when you're duel wielding to attack with your bonus action?
I know the basics of how two weapon fighting works, I was wondering if it was like with Monks who need to use the attack action to get their bonus action attack
Or can you just use your bonus action attack first to see if that will finish off a target so you can use your action to do something else if possible like a skill check?
I can't find this specific issue since I'm not sure how to word it in a search engine so any help would be great

As per the two weapon fighting rules you need to take the attack action and attack with a light one handed weapon to allow the bonus action to happen. So no you can't bonus action attack first RAW.

When I DM I allow a TWF player to use the BA attack first provided they 'lock in' the attack action, allowing them to try and finish an injured enemy with the weak attack and throw the heavy main attacks at other targets.

[PhantomSoul]

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. You don't
add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus
attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you
can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee
attack with it.
(PHB 195)

You need to take the Attack Action, yes.

[Tanarii]

When I DM I allow a TWF player to use the BA attack first provided they 'lock in' the attack action, allowing them to try and finish an injured enemy with the weak attack and throw the heavy main attacks at other targets.
That works fine with RAW if you're one of those folks that thinks taking an action doesnt mean immediately doing it in universe.

Or what was at one time called the "permission slip" model.

[Dork_Forge]

That works fine with RAW if you're one of those folks that thinks taking an action doesnt mean immediately doing it in universe.

Or what was at one time called the "permission slip" model.

That RAW makes no sense to me, if you take an action but don't actually do the action... you've only really just said you're going to do it?

At the very least it feels like the added clause of "and attack with a light, one handed weapon" should close that out RAW. Without actually making the attack you don't qualify for the bonus.

[Tanarii]

That RAW makes no sense to me, if you take an action but don't actually do the action... you've only really just said you're going to do it?Yes, and used your action for the turn. And then resolution can happen in any order you like. This was a huge aspect of discussion on how Shield Master and EKs War Magic worked before SAC gave the official RAI answer.


At the very least it feels like the added clause of "and attack with a light, one handed weapon" should close that out RAW. Without actually making the attack you don't qualify for the bonus.
Good call, that does make it different from both Shield Master and War Magic. I spaced that actually attacking was also a requirement.

[Cheesegear]

When I DM I allow a TWF player to use the BA attack first provided they 'lock in' the attack action, allowing them to try and finish an injured enemy with the weak attack and throw the heavy main attacks at other targets.

That's very game-y. Why wouldn't a character attack with their main hand, first?

[Tanarii]

That's very game-y. Why wouldn't a character attack with their main hand, first?
One hand isn't even designated main hand and the other offhand. Each can be either. You can even attack once with each with Extra Attack, and then use either for the bonus action attack.

[Dork_Forge]

That's very game-y. Why wouldn't a character attack with their main hand, first?

Because they can see one enemy is grievously injured and wish to put their utmost effort into healthier enemies?

I don't mind and it facilitates players enjoying their characters, it's no loss situation.

[Cheesegear]

Because they can see one enemy is grievously injured and wish to put their utmost effort into healthier enemies?

But how do they determine whether an enemy is grievously injured? Are you telling your players that a hostile only has 2 HPs left and so don't worry about them? I just can't imagine a situation in which a player uses a relatively resource-free action to do less damage. Unless they have so much information at their disposal that they know that doing less damage is the correct option.

Player: 'How injured is the hostile?'
DM: 'He looks grieviously injured.'
Player: 'Soo...2 HPs left? 10? One quarter of their starting HP?'
DM: 'Yes.'
Player: 'I mean which attack should I use? The good one or the bad one?'
DM: 'I suppose you can use your Action to make a Medicine check?'
Player: 'No my Action is for attacking.'
DM: 'Then attack already.'
Player: 'Yeah. I know. But which attack should I use to get the optimal damage output?'
DM: 'Yes.'

...That's how it might go at my table, with a player who has asked similar questions in the past. About whether to use a Cantrip to kill a hostile, or to burn a spell slot to deal even more damage with a levelled spell. Just in the above, replace 'which hand/weapon should I use' with 'which spell should I use', and that's roughly the same conversation. But it's different with spell slots, 'cause they're a resource. But a 'weapon attack' is not usually viewed as a resource, so I'm not really sure why it would matter in the long run.

[Dork_Forge]

But how do they determine whether an enemy is grievously injured? Are you telling your players that a hostile only has 2 HPs left and so don't worry about them? I just can't imagine a situation in which a player uses a relatively resource-free action to do less damage. Unless they have so much information at their disposal that they know that doing less damage is the correct option.

Player: 'How injured is the hostile?'
DM: 'He looks grieviously injured.'
Player: 'Soo...2 HPs left? 10? One quarter of their starting HP?'
DM: 'Yes.'
Player: 'I mean which attack should I use? The good one or the bad one?'
DM: 'I suppose you can use your Action to make a Medicine check?'
Player: 'No my Action is for attacking.'
DM: 'Then attack already.'
Player: 'Yeah. I know. But which attack should I use to get the optimal damage output?'
DM: 'Yes.'

...That's how it might go at my table, with a player who has asked similar questions in the past. About whether to use a Cantrip to kill a hostile, or to burn a spell slot to deal even more damage with a levelled spell. Just in the above, replace 'which hand/weapon should I use' with 'which spell should I use', and that's roughly the same conversation. But it's different with spell slots, 'cause they're a resource. But a 'weapon attack' is not usually viewed as a resource, so I'm not really sure why it would matter in the long run.

I do not give players hp totals, I use 'bloodied' (lower than half hp) and barely on their feet (this has no hard and fast definition, but near death is an adequate descriptor).

If they take a chance by going lighter on a barely on their feet enemy they risk leaving them at 1 or 2 hp, which happens every now and them and I'll sometimes point it out as out of character fun that they then 'beat themselves up' over.

To clarify, players never ask me these questions, they may ask me how they look at which point I give them a rough descriptor from above and they make their own choice. I've never been asked 'do I think x would do it' or 'would y be enough' and I would discourage those kinds of questions. If an enemy is hurt enough for this to be a thing, there will be very visible damage and the players know how much they've been whaling on the creature in question.

I'll also throw out there that it's pertinent for one character partially because he has a mix of acquired weaponry that have different effects and he has a very set midnset about them: This weapon is my offhand (even though there's no mechanical dominat handedness), this is my regular attack routine and so on.

Ultimately it comes down to: Can I swing with my offhand first? Sure, just you just have to lock in the attack action.

The player gets to do something they wanted to, it hasn't impacted the game at all, good experience all round.

[Edenbeast]

I think the point is that effectively there is no "designated" off-hand. There's a light weapon in one hand you use to attack, and a light weapon in the other hand for which you can use a bonus action to attack. If you decide to use you "off-hand" to attack first, it still counts as an attack with "one hand", doesn't matter which one, thus it's always an attack action. You are then entitled to use a bonus action to attack with your "main hand" if you wish.

[Cheesegear]

I think the point is that effectively there is no "designated" off-hand. There's a light weapon in one hand you use to attack, and a light weapon in the other hand for which you can use a bonus action to attack.

Yes there is. The designated off-hand is the attack that if it hits, it doesn't add your ability modifier to its damage.

There is no main hand if both weapons are the same. As soon as one weapon becomes different - for any reason - it starts to matter a lot. Whether one becomes magical, or one has a different damage type that a hostile is vulnerable/resistant to, etc.

Real example from one of my own characters:

Started as a Two-Handed Fighter. Took Fighting Style: Defense 'cause I wasn't going to use a Shield. Fair enough.
Picked up a magical Battleaxe at Level 3. Oh. Oh okay. Well I already decided that I didn't want to use a Shield.
At Level 4, picked up Dual Wielder Feat. As a Dwarf, I bought a Warhammer for my other hand. 'Cause Axe & Hammer. Gotta stereotype.

Skeletons have vulnerability to bldgn damage.
In one hand is a Battleaxe +1, in the other is a Warhammer.

If I use the Warhammer to Action-attack, I double my ability modifier on damage.
If I use the Warhammer to Bonus Action-attack in my 'off' hand, I get nothing.

Next session we're up against a Banshee. The Battleaxe adds my ability modifier to damage and doesn't get resisted because it's a magical weapon. The Warhammer is garbage and I don't care that it's my 'off-hand' and doesn't add AM because it's not going to deal damage anyway.

Now, if both of my weapons were Longswords, and I had Two Weapon Fighting Style. I could do what I want because it makes no difference. Both weapons are the same, and both weapons add ability modifier to damage. Whichever order I make my attacks, doesn't actually matter. Unfortunately, the game just isn't that clean.

[stoutstien]

That's very game-y. Why wouldn't a character attack with their main hand, first?

Plenty of reasons for someone to use a quicker and less powerful strike first. Half of all sword fighting techniques revolve around that concept.
Not like TWF is in any danger of becoming too good.

[Kane0]

Not like TWF is in any danger of becoming too good.
I shouldnt laugh, but i did

[Tanarii]

Yes there is. The designated off-hand is the attack that if it hits, it doesn't add your ability modifier to its damage.
I think the point was it's not fixed in any given round. It's whichever weapon is the opposite one from a weapon used to attack in the Attack (or Extra Attack) action. And if you attacked with both (using Extra Attack to do so), it's either.

But yes, it does matter which weapon is being used for the bonus action attack when you make the bonus action attack.

Specific to your example of a Battle Axe and a Warhammer, every round the player can choose

pre Extra Attack:
1) Attack Action with Battle Axe, Bonus Action with Warhammer; or
2) Attack Action with Warhammer, Bonus Action with Battle Axe

Post Extra Attack:
1) Extra Attack with 2x Battle Axe, Bonus Action with Warhammer; or
2) Extra Attack with 2x Warhammer, Bonus Action with Battleaxe; or
3) Extra Attack with Battle Axe then Warhammer (or vice versa), Bonus Action with Warhammer or Battleaxe (pick one)

[Keravath]

I think the point was it's not fixed in any given round. It's whichever weapon is the opposite one from a weapon used to attack in the Attack (or Extra Attack) action. And if you attacked with both (using Extra Attack to do so), it's either.

But yes, it does matter which weapon is being used for the bonus action attack when you make the bonus action attack.

Specific to your example of a Battle Axe and a Warhammer, every round the player can choose

pre Extra Attack:
1) Attack Action with Battle Axe, Bonus Action with Warhammer; or
2) Attack Action with Warhammer, Bonus Action with Battle Axe

Post Extra Attack:
1) Extra Attack with 2x Battle Axe, Bonus Action with Warhammer; or
2) Extra Attack with 2x Warhammer, Bonus Action with Battleaxe; or
3) Extra Attack with Battle Axe then Warhammer (or vice versa), Bonus Action with Warhammer or Battleaxe (pick one)

Note that this example requires the dual wielder feat since neither the Battle Axe nor the Warhammer are light weapons and so without the feat are ineligible for two weapon fighting.

[Witty Username]

That RAW makes no sense to me, if you take an action but don't actually do the action... you've only really just said you're going to do it?

At the very least it feels like the added clause of "and attack with a light, one handed weapon" should close that out RAW. Without actually making the attack you don't qualify for the bonus.

It can make sense if you are used to stack and chain rules.
For example, your opponent taking to action to cast a spell grants you a reaction to cast counterspell. Your counterspell goes first and their spell fails.
In this framework, the bonus action attack would go first, with the attack action allowing "queued".
Not saying it is correct, just saying it can make sense.

[quindraco]

Note that this example requires the dual wielder feat since neither the Battle Axe nor the Warhammer are light weapons and so without the feat are ineligible for two weapon fighting.

Does that particularly matter? Just make the two weapons a scimitar and a shortsword.

[Keravath]

Does that particularly matter? Just make the two weapons a scimitar and a shortsword.

This board is full of both new and experienced D&D players. The example posted wouldn't work without a feat and I wanted to mention that since a newer player might go back to their DM and start trying to use a Battle Axe and a Warhammer at the same time because they read it somewhere. The example works fine for two light one handed weapons like a scimitar or shortsword as you mention.

[quindraco]

This board is full of both new and experienced D&D players. The example posted wouldn't work without a feat and I wanted to mention that since a newer player might go back to their DM and start trying to use a Battle Axe and a Warhammer at the same time because they read it somewhere. The example works fine for two light one handed weapons like a scimitar or shortsword as you mention.

Alright, fair enough.

[Edenbeast]

Yes there is. The designated off-hand is the attack that if it hits, it doesn't add your ability modifier to its damage.

I think that's a left-over assumption from previous editions. There's no mention of an off-hand in 5e, please tell me which page number if I'm wrong. Under two-weapon fighting in chapter 9 it clearly says you don't get to add your ability modifier on your bonus action, that's all. You chose which hand you make your first attack with, and the other hand uses the bonus action. As you say, it only matters when wielding two different weapons, but then again it's not a main-hand vs. off-hand attack, just which one do you use for the attack action first, and which on your bonus action.