19
\$\begingroup\$

In this question we see that two-weapon fighting with darts is not possible because they are not melee weapons. Let's replace the darts in that scenario with daggers, which are valid light melee weapons for two-weapon fighting, and also have the thrown property.

Two-weapon fighting says:

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.

Consider this scenario:

Bob the rogue has two daggers drawn and ready to go. He throws his first dagger as his attack action, satisfying the condition of "when you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand."

At this point, he is no longer holding this weapon in hand because he has thrown it. He is now holding only one dagger, in his other hand. In this case, the condition above has been met, but does he get to use the bonus action to attack with a "different light melee weapon [held in his] other hand" even though he is now wielding only a single weapon?

In other words, is the bonus attack granted at the moment the first attack made, as long as you meet that first condition of "attack[ing] with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand," regardless of how many weapons you end up holding after the first attack?

\$\endgroup\$
33
\$\begingroup\$

Yup.

He takes the Attack action, and meets all of the prerequisites of TWF. Check.

He throws a dagger, as TWF allows. Check.

Now, as you describe, he's holding a light, one-handed, melee weapon and can attack with it. He can either make a melee attack or throw it, per the last line of TWF.

If he could not attack because he's only holding one weapon, the last line of TWF would be nonsense. The conditions were met when he chose the Attack action, so he can carry out all of its steps.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @LegendaryDude think of it as happening all at the same time instead of in linear time. \$\endgroup\$ – David Wilkins Mar 18 '16 at 14:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ that's one interpretation, but I don't think that's the necessary interpretation. If my rogue wants to throw her first dagger then wait to know the result of that small-'a' action before deciding whether to throw her second vs. moving into melee, I think that works too. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Mar 19 '16 at 1:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nitsya60 that is fair, regardless of when you declare what, if something says "when" it all happens as that action resolves \$\endgroup\$ – David Wilkins Mar 19 '16 at 9:28
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Also, by reading of the rules text, it doesn't anywhere say that you need to be wielding two weapons at once - just that you need to first attack with one weapon, wielded in one hand, end then attack with a different weapon, wielded in the other hand. You could throw, draw, then throw, and still use two weapon fighting in spite of never having had more than one weapon in hand at a time. \$\endgroup\$ – Ben Barden Apr 5 at 13:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.