RAW it seems like only the off-hand weapon needs to be drawn in advance; you can use your free object interaction to do that. Otherwise Two-weapon Fighting only requires you to have attacked with a one handed weapon that was Light, it doesn't say exactly when it needs to be drawn, so during the attack with the fighting style should be fine.
So basically it goes:
Free Object Interaction: Draw a dagger into your off-hand
Action: Draw and throw a dagger (fighting style)
(optional) Haste Action: Draw and throw another dagger (fighting style)
Bonus Action: Attack with off-hand dagger.
This seems to meet the requirements because during your attack action(s) you are attacking with a one-handed Light weapon, then in the bonus action you're doing the same with a weapon you're already holding.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Yeah I had considered that sneak attack might be a "fighting style" but using that same thought process could the Fighter's second wind or the Rangers favored enemy be a fighting style too? Because second wind is sort of like interception? I do see your point though
Its a question of how each class fights. The Fighter class is basically a weapons-master, picking whatever suits them best. The Monk is a Martial Artist and athlete. The Barbarian uses brute strength (thus, Rage and Reckless Attack). Paladins are knights in shining armor, so their styles revolve around shields, swords and the occasional polearm. Rangers are hunters and monster slayers.
So, a Favored Enemy does tie into a Ranger's fighting style a bit - you're good at tracking the monsters down to kill, knowing their patterns to take them out. Less so Second Wind - that really doesn't factor into the whole "best at using weapons to their fullest" thing that Fighters do. But Action Surge and those third and fourth Extra Attacks very much do.
Rogues are all about being tricky and slippery. Sneak Attack, Cunning Action, etc. If a rogue picks up a bow, they're not going to be standing in formation shooting at an approaching enemy. They're going to find a hidden spot and snipe with advantage. If a rogue picks up a dagger, they're using it as a hidden weapon they can coat with poison and throw at an enemy. If they pick up a rapier and pretend to be Errol Flynn or Jack Sparrow, they're going to be all about maneuvering for the opportune moment to strike.
Really, when all is said and done, the mechanic Fighting Style is a bit of a bad fit, lore wise, for rogues - they are specialists in being sneaky and tricky, and not martial training. Whereas the Fighter, the Ranger and the Paladin all have different kinds of martial training. The Barbarian doesn't get a fighting style, because barbs are kind of what you get when you don't formally train and just rely on hitting hard. And monks are more about turning themselves into a weapon than using actual weapons.
RAW it seems like only the off-hand weapon needs to be drawn in advance; you can use your free object interaction to do that. Otherwise Two-weapon Fighting only requires you to have attacked with a one handed weapon that was Light, it doesn't say exactly when it needs to be drawn, so during the attack with the fighting style should be fine.
So basically it goes:
Free Object Interaction: Draw a dagger into your off-hand
Action: Draw and throw a dagger (fighting style)
(optional) Haste Action: Draw and throw another dagger (fighting style)
Bonus Action: Attack with off-hand dagger.
This seems to meet the requirements because during your attack action(s) you are attacking with a one-handed Light weapon, then in the bonus action you're doing the same with a weapon you're already holding.
Have I missed something?
With the new Thrown Weapon Fighting Style. Assume you took it with something like Fighting Initiate you wuold actually change the flow of this. Since Specifics take priority you could use it to affect when you would need to draw. Thrown Weapon Fighting style states:
You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon. In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll.
If you were to take this as a Feat that would mean that any time your throwing a dagger you would indeed be able to draw it without having to do so before hand. It actually makes no distinction about whether that is mainhand or offhand.
It basically removes any more broad requirements for the weapon to be in hand first to make the attack. But with the requirement that actually throwing said weapon as part of the attack ont it in return. Two Weapon fighting as a general rule would be superseded for the matter of having to hold the weapon by the specificity of the Feat. Leaving only the Caveats that they both must be light weapons and that you do not add any ability modifier damage to the offhand weapons usage as requirements to be able to do it from that particular rule.
If you were willing to pick up the two weapon fighting fighting style as well then you would be able to lift the restriction about not adding modifier damage to the off hand weapon. But that is getting rather feat or multiclassing dependent to be able to pull that off on a Rogue.
With the new Thrown Weapon Fighting Style. Assume you took it with something like Fighting Initiate you wuold actually change the flow of this. Since Specifics take priority you could use it to affect when you would need to draw. Thrown Weapon Fighting style states:
You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon. In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll.
If you were to take this as a Feat that would mean that any time your throwing a dagger you would indeed be able to draw it without having to do so before hand. It actually makes no distinction about whether that is mainhand or offhand.
It basically removes any more broad requirements for the weapon to be in hand first to make the attack. But with the requirement that actually throwing said weapon as part of the attack ont it in return. Two Weapon fighting as a general rule would be superseded for the matter of having to hold the weapon by the specificity of the Feat. Leaving only the Caveats that they both must be light weapons and that you do not add any ability modifier damage to the offhand weapons usage as requirements to be able to do it from that particular rule.
If you were willing to pick up the two weapon fighting fighting style as well then you would be able to lift the restriction about not adding modifier damage to the off hand weapon. But that is getting rather feat or multiclassing dependent to be able to pull that off on a Rogue.
There's nothing in the language of the feat that suggests that it allows you to throw a weapon as a bonus action after throwing one as part of an attack action. Lacking this language, it defaults to the general rules on two weapon fighting, which require that the off hand weapon be in your hand when you make the attack with the main hand. If the weapon is not already in hand, you can't use your bonus action to attack, so you can't draw a weapon as part of that attack.
As a side note, if I were DM, I would absolutely be willing to decide this the other way, it just isn't that way by the rules.
With the new Thrown Weapon Fighting Style. Assume you took it with something like Fighting Initiate you wuold actually change the flow of this. Since Specifics take priority you could use it to affect when you would need to draw. Thrown Weapon Fighting style states:
You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon. In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll.
If you were to take this as a Feat that would mean that any time your throwing a dagger you would indeed be able to draw it without having to do so before hand. It actually makes no distinction about whether that is mainhand or offhand.
It basically removes any more broad requirements for the weapon to be in hand first to make the attack. But with the requirement that actually throwing said weapon as part of the attack ont it in return. Two Weapon fighting as a general rule would be superseded for the matter of having to hold the weapon by the specificity of the Feat. Leaving only the Caveats that they both must be light weapons and that you do not add any ability modifier damage to the offhand weapons usage as requirements to be able to do it from that particular rule.
If you were willing to pick up the two weapon fighting fighting style as well then you would be able to lift the restriction about not adding modifier damage to the off hand weapon. But that is getting rather feat or multiclassing dependent to be able to pull that off on a Rogue.
There's nothing in the language of the feat that suggests that it allows you to throw a weapon as a bonus action after throwing one as part of an attack action. Lacking this language, it defaults to the general rules on two weapon fighting, which require that the off hand weapon be in your hand when you make the attack with the main hand. If the weapon is not already in hand, you can't use your bonus action to attack, so you can't draw a weapon as part of that attack.
As a side note, if I were DM, I would absolutely be willing to decide this the other way, it just isn't that way by the rules.
it actually is in the language. Because if it's not in the language then there is still a problem with this strategy. let me show you.
You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon. In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll.
Th bolded and italicized part above directly modifies these parts below:
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.
The Fighting Style does not make the distinction of what hand the weapon or weapons that you draw as part of your thrown attack must be in. it merely says that any time you wish to make an attack with a weapon that has the thrown weapon it can be thrown as part of that action as long as you meet it's own specific requirement that the weapon has the thrown property. it is directly modifying more general instances of the requirement to be holding said weapon for any attack your making with said weapon.
The way that two weapon fighting is written as a general rule as your choosing to read it your chosen actions through the round to throw the daggers is still faulty because the rule makes the distinction that When you take the action you must be holding both weapons from the beginning and not just one of them. if you must be holding the weapon in the off hand to make it trigger then you would have to be pre-emptively holding it in your main hand as well because it requires both to be the case when you take the action and drawing the weapon in your main hand as part of the action rather than already holding it when you take the action would still nullify the ability to use the bonus action.
Because here's the thing. if it's taking away the requirement to be holding the weapon before the attack action works for the main hand and still qualifies for the two weapon fighting's bonus action then it also works for the off hand because both hands have the same exact requirement at the same exact time to be able to take the bonus action.
The Fighting Style does not make the distinction of what hand the weapon or weapons that you draw as part of your thrown attack must be in. it merely says that any time you wish to make an attack with a weapon that has the thrown weapon it can be thrown as part of that action as long as you meet it's own specific requirement that the weapon has the thrown property. it is directly modifying more general instances of the requirement to be holding said weapon for any attack your making with said weapon.
The way that two weapon fighting is written as a general rule as your choosing to read it your chosen actions through the round to throw the daggers is still faulty because the rule makes the distinction that When you take the action you must be holding both weapons from the beginning and not just one of them. if you must be holding the weapon in the off hand to make it trigger then you would have to be pre-emptively holding it in your main hand as well because it requires both to be the case when you take the action and drawing the weapon in your main hand as part of the action rather than already holding it when you take the action would still nullify the ability to use the bonus action.
Because here's the thing. if it's taking away the requirement to be holding the weapon before the attack action works for the main hand and still qualifies for the two weapon fighting's bonus action then it also works for the off hand because both hands have the same exact requirement at the same exact time to be able to take the bonus action.
You can draw and throw the weapons as part of the attack action because you are eligible to take the attack action whether the weapons are in your hands or not. You cannot draw and throw them as a bonus action because you are not eligible to attack as a bonus action unless you trigger the phrase in two weapon fighting.
You can draw and throw the weapons as part of the attack action because you are eligible to take the attack action whether the weapons are in your hands or not. You cannot draw and throw them as a bonus action because you are not eligible to attack as a bonus action unless you trigger the phrase in two weapon fighting.
Ok lets start this again. What exact phrase in two weapon fighting does the character not qualify for?
Again we are stating that you can draw the first dagger as a free action, All daggers thrown with the attack action are drawn and thrown through the fighting style. Finally you can throw the free object interaction dagger you drew (Which is "a different light melee we weapon you're holding in your other hand")
You can draw and throw the weapons as part of the attack action because you are eligible to take the attack action whether the weapons are in your hands or not. You cannot draw and throw them as a bonus action because you are not eligible to attack as a bonus action unless you trigger the phrase in two weapon fighting.
Ok lets start this again. What exact phrase in two weapon fighting does the character not qualify for?
Again we are stating that you can draw the first dagger as a free action, All daggers thrown with the attack action are drawn and thrown through the fighting style. Finally you can throw the free object interaction dagger you drew (Which is "a different light melee we weapon you're holding in your other hand")
I'm not debating your interpretation, though whether you can draw a dagger as a free action without having it be part of another action is debatable. I'm saying that you do in fact have to draw the dagger that you want to use for the off hand attack before you make the main hand attack, which matches your interpretation.
The Fighting Style does not make the distinction of what hand the weapon or weapons that you draw as part of your thrown attack must be in. it merely says that any time you wish to make an attack with a weapon that has the thrown weapon it can be thrown as part of that action as long as you meet it's own specific requirement that the weapon has the thrown property. it is directly modifying more general instances of the requirement to be holding said weapon for any attack your making with said weapon.
The way that two weapon fighting is written as a general rule as your choosing to read it your chosen actions through the round to throw the daggers is still faulty because the rule makes the distinction that When you take the action you must be holding both weapons from the beginning and not just one of them. if you must be holding the weapon in the off hand to make it trigger then you would have to be pre-emptively holding it in your main hand as well because it requires both to be the case when you take the action and drawing the weapon in your main hand as part of the action rather than already holding it when you take the action would still nullify the ability to use the bonus action.
Because here's the thing. if it's taking away the requirement to be holding the weapon before the attack action works for the main hand and still qualifies for the two weapon fighting's bonus action then it also works for the off hand because both hands have the same exact requirement at the same exact time to be able to take the bonus action.
You can draw and throw the weapons as part of the attack action because you are eligible to take the attack action whether the weapons are in your hands or not. You cannot draw and throw them as a bonus action because you are not eligible to attack as a bonus action unless you trigger the phrase in two weapon fighting.
Then you cannot use that offhand dagger on any turn you didn't start with the dagger in your main hand as well since the requirement of both is needed to trigger the ability to use the bonus action. It's literally all or nothing. The phrasing that I copied into here is crystal clear. You either have them both in your hands at the time that you use the attack action (not make an attack which is part of the attack action) to be able to use the bonus action or you can only draw during the thrown attack with your main action (how ever many times that may be) and must forgo the bonus action entire. It's litterally that simple and black and white. There is no middle ground. Being able to do so with your main action because you can take the attack action no matter what does not remove the main hand condition that is required for the bonus attack off hand throw. No debate is required about that. If your going to be that strict about the conditions. You have to be strict about all the conditions required and not just the conditions you choose.
Edited in for Reference: The full conditions listed as I copied into my post for using two weapon fightings offhand attack.
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 can draw and throw the weapons as part of the attack action because you are eligible to take the attack action whether the weapons are in your hands or not. You cannot draw and throw them as a bonus action because you are not eligible to attack as a bonus action unless you trigger the phrase in two weapon fighting.
Ok lets start this again. What exact phrase in two weapon fighting does the character not qualify for?
Again we are stating that you can draw the first dagger as a free action, All daggers thrown with the attack action are drawn and thrown through the fighting style. Finally you can throw the free object interaction dagger you drew (Which is "a different light melee we weapon you're holding in your other hand")
I'm not debating your interpretation, though whether you can draw a dagger as a free action without having it be part of another action is debatable. I'm saying that you do in fact have to draw the dagger that you want to use for the off hand attack before you make the main hand attack, which matches your interpretation.
"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack."
That last part of the sentence is just an example, not a requirment. I've never heard of any DM saying to a paladin. Sorry you cant draw your sword if you plan to use your action to cast a spell. Drawing a weapon is a free object interaction whether you use it or not.
And yes I absolutely agree you do have to draw that dagger first by very strict RAW. This is perhaps an important distinction as a justification as to why this does not work with the duelling style (Although the BA attack would still qualify) This also technically means that if you start without a weapon in hand, (Even with the TWF feat) you can never end your turn with a weapon in hand for attacks of opportunity (or the +1 AC) unless you forgo the BA attack, as the feat only allows you to draw two weapons as your free action which I don't believe you can break up between the start and end of your turn.
Then you cannot use that offhand dagger on any turn you didn't start with the dagger in your main hand as well since the requirement of both is needed to trigger the ability to use the bonus action.
Actually, I don't think this is the case, here's the rule again:
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.
It seems like you only need to be holding a weapon in one hand while attacking, not prior to taking the attack action; only the bonus action weapon needs to be held in advance (as you need to be holding a weapon in your off hand at the same time that you attack with your main hand).
Basically you do:
Draw weapon into off hand
Draw weapon and attack using fighting style
Bonus action attack (attacked with weapon in one hand, have a weapon in other hand)
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I didn’t realize there was an option for fighting styles in feats. I went custom lineage to get dark vision + Alert.
I have missed quite a few shots, and I’ll tell the DM they don’t need to feel bad or provide too much description of the miss, it’s a miss, we get it :)
flavour wise I am enjoying the alert feat. I had considered a fighter or ranger dip for the fighting style, maybe as far as Rune Knight or Gloom stalker but considering it might be a short campaign I’ll look at that feat for the next opportunity.
it would be in competition with observant, dungeon delver, lucky or even sharpshooter. I think SS is worth considering even if I never use it’s active, just no disadvantage at range and ignoring some cover seem great. going 1 fighter does get you longbow and a little second wind, maybe sets you back a level from the next sneak attack increase.
^Really enjoying the Rogue Scout so far, primarily ranged :)
I’d take Blindfighting, hands down. Magical Darkness, Fog Cloud, Cloudkill, etc all reduce sight drastically and with Blindsight you’re getting auto-advantage on others that can’t see - and more chances of a Crit.
…, but every other martial class does with the exception of barbarian (I'm not including Monk because they basically have unarmed
this is the crux of the matter, rogues AREN’T a martial class they don’t get multiple attacks, they don’t get a D10, they don’t get significant armor, they don’t do significant damage in a straight up fight and they don’t get fighting styles as a class benefit. Now thanks to Tasha’s they can take them as a feat if they want and that is the balanced way to do it. Anyone can use two weapon fighting to get 2 attacks but to get the 3 of dagger, dagger, dagger in a round you need to either multiclass into a martial class or use haste which is how the rules intended it for balance. Yes fighting styles can help certain rogue subclasses and thanks to Tasha’s they now can - in a balanced way.
I don't think it NEEDS one included, but being obtained through blood, sweat, tears (AKA 1 level dip into fighter or costly Fighting Initiative feat) is a nice option. I considered a Fighter dip to get Archery and proficiency in Longbow for my Rogue Scout, but needed ASI at 4 and tempted to keep 5 rogue for uncanny dodge even though the PC is primarily ranged the melee survivability is tempting to go Duelling fighting style instead. Uhhg!
You don't really need Archery post-Tasha's, since you can get Advantage whenever you need it, by giving up all of your personal mobility, including the ability to hide. Archery is also hands-down the single best fighting style and the only one remotely good enough to be a feat - Blind Fighting isn't, not when Eldritch Adept (Devil's Sight) exists. I also would never consider Archery good enough to burn a feat on - it's basically good enough to be the non-ASI half of a half-feat.
You don't really need Archery post-Tasha's, since you can get Advantage whenever you need it, by giving up all of your personal mobility, including the ability to hide. Archery is also hands-down the single best fighting style and the only one remotely good enough to be a feat - Blind Fighting isn't, not when Eldritch Adept (Devil's Sight) exists. I also would never consider Archery good enough to burn a feat on - it's basically good enough to be the non-ASI half of a half-feat.
I agree that I wouldn't take a feat for it, but there are still times I find where using careful aim isn't always the best thing to do. Some fights sure, I'm able to get into a good position and then just play sniper for the rest of the fight. But sometimes I have to move if an enemy is behind total cover, or something nasty is approaching me and I need to move or disengage, etc. Plus even with advantage you can still miss if unlucky, so it can come in handy. But yeah, probably not quite worth a full feat by itself.
I don't think it NEEDS one included, but being obtained through blood, sweat, tears (AKA 1 level dip into fighter or costly Fighting Initiative feat) is a nice option. I considered a Fighter dip to get Archery and proficiency in Longbow for my Rogue Scout, but needed ASI at 4 and tempted to keep 5 rogue for uncanny dodge even though the PC is primarily ranged the melee survivability is tempting to go Duelling fighting style instead. Uhhg!
Uncanny dodge isn't just melee attacks. It doesn't differentiate on the attacks that it will half that way. So it is still completely useful to ranged rogues getting attacked by other ranged weaponry.
As for Eldritch Adept (Devil's Sight) that another mentioned. There are a lot of people that can't take it. Supposedly there was an errata that made it easier to take. But I haven't been able to locate it lately so it's possible that's somebodies wishful thinking turned into rumor or something. This means that Blind Fighting taken from a feat does have some room for it to be taken... though on a rogue that is questionable because depending on the level the game is going to they get something similar at about level 10.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
RAW it seems like only the off-hand weapon needs to be drawn in advance; you can use your free object interaction to do that. Otherwise Two-weapon Fighting only requires you to have attacked with a one handed weapon that was Light, it doesn't say exactly when it needs to be drawn, so during the attack with the fighting style should be fine.
So basically it goes:
This seems to meet the requirements because during your attack action(s) you are attacking with a one-handed Light weapon, then in the bonus action you're doing the same with a weapon you're already holding.
Have I missed something?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Its a question of how each class fights. The Fighter class is basically a weapons-master, picking whatever suits them best. The Monk is a Martial Artist and athlete. The Barbarian uses brute strength (thus, Rage and Reckless Attack). Paladins are knights in shining armor, so their styles revolve around shields, swords and the occasional polearm. Rangers are hunters and monster slayers.
So, a Favored Enemy does tie into a Ranger's fighting style a bit - you're good at tracking the monsters down to kill, knowing their patterns to take them out. Less so Second Wind - that really doesn't factor into the whole "best at using weapons to their fullest" thing that Fighters do. But Action Surge and those third and fourth Extra Attacks very much do.
Rogues are all about being tricky and slippery. Sneak Attack, Cunning Action, etc. If a rogue picks up a bow, they're not going to be standing in formation shooting at an approaching enemy. They're going to find a hidden spot and snipe with advantage. If a rogue picks up a dagger, they're using it as a hidden weapon they can coat with poison and throw at an enemy. If they pick up a rapier and pretend to be Errol Flynn or Jack Sparrow, they're going to be all about maneuvering for the opportune moment to strike.
Really, when all is said and done, the mechanic Fighting Style is a bit of a bad fit, lore wise, for rogues - they are specialists in being sneaky and tricky, and not martial training. Whereas the Fighter, the Ranger and the Paladin all have different kinds of martial training. The Barbarian doesn't get a fighting style, because barbs are kind of what you get when you don't formally train and just rely on hitting hard. And monks are more about turning themselves into a weapon than using actual weapons.
With the new Thrown Weapon Fighting Style. Assume you took it with something like Fighting Initiate you wuold actually change the flow of this. Since Specifics take priority you could use it to affect when you would need to draw. Thrown Weapon Fighting style states:
You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon. In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll.
If you were to take this as a Feat that would mean that any time your throwing a dagger you would indeed be able to draw it without having to do so before hand. It actually makes no distinction about whether that is mainhand or offhand.
It basically removes any more broad requirements for the weapon to be in hand first to make the attack. But with the requirement that actually throwing said weapon as part of the attack ont it in return. Two Weapon fighting as a general rule would be superseded for the matter of having to hold the weapon by the specificity of the Feat. Leaving only the Caveats that they both must be light weapons and that you do not add any ability modifier damage to the offhand weapons usage as requirements to be able to do it from that particular rule.
If you were willing to pick up the two weapon fighting fighting style as well then you would be able to lift the restriction about not adding modifier damage to the off hand weapon. But that is getting rather feat or multiclassing dependent to be able to pull that off on a Rogue.
There's nothing in the language of the feat that suggests that it allows you to throw a weapon as a bonus action after throwing one as part of an attack action. Lacking this language, it defaults to the general rules on two weapon fighting, which require that the off hand weapon be in your hand when you make the attack with the main hand. If the weapon is not already in hand, you can't use your bonus action to attack, so you can't draw a weapon as part of that attack.
As a side note, if I were DM, I would absolutely be willing to decide this the other way, it just isn't that way by the rules.
RAW we're stating you only need the bonus action weapon in your hand to TWF.
Therefore very strictly RAW.
1) You Draw dagger A in your left hand as a free object interaction.
2) You initiate the attack action to draw dagger B in your right hand which you can now draw through the fighting style.
3) You throw dagger B
4) You throw dagger A (which is a different light melee weapon you're holding in your other hand)
it actually is in the language. Because if it's not in the language then there is still a problem with this strategy. let me show you.
You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon. In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll.
Th bolded and italicized part above directly modifies these parts below:
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.
The Fighting Style does not make the distinction of what hand the weapon or weapons that you draw as part of your thrown attack must be in. it merely says that any time you wish to make an attack with a weapon that has the thrown weapon it can be thrown as part of that action as long as you meet it's own specific requirement that the weapon has the thrown property. it is directly modifying more general instances of the requirement to be holding said weapon for any attack your making with said weapon.
The way that two weapon fighting is written as a general rule as your choosing to read it your chosen actions through the round to throw the daggers is still faulty because the rule makes the distinction that When you take the action you must be holding both weapons from the beginning and not just one of them. if you must be holding the weapon in the off hand to make it trigger then you would have to be pre-emptively holding it in your main hand as well because it requires both to be the case when you take the action and drawing the weapon in your main hand as part of the action rather than already holding it when you take the action would still nullify the ability to use the bonus action.
Because here's the thing. if it's taking away the requirement to be holding the weapon before the attack action works for the main hand and still qualifies for the two weapon fighting's bonus action then it also works for the off hand because both hands have the same exact requirement at the same exact time to be able to take the bonus action.
You can draw and throw the weapons as part of the attack action because you are eligible to take the attack action whether the weapons are in your hands or not. You cannot draw and throw them as a bonus action because you are not eligible to attack as a bonus action unless you trigger the phrase in two weapon fighting.
Ok lets start this again. What exact phrase in two weapon fighting does the character not qualify for?
Again we are stating that you can draw the first dagger as a free action,
All daggers thrown with the attack action are drawn and thrown through the fighting style.
Finally you can throw the free object interaction dagger you drew (Which is "a different light melee we weapon you're holding in your other hand")
I'm not debating your interpretation, though whether you can draw a dagger as a free action without having it be part of another action is debatable. I'm saying that you do in fact have to draw the dagger that you want to use for the off hand attack before you make the main hand attack, which matches your interpretation.
Then you cannot use that offhand dagger on any turn you didn't start with the dagger in your main hand as well since the requirement of both is needed to trigger the ability to use the bonus action. It's literally all or nothing. The phrasing that I copied into here is crystal clear. You either have them both in your hands at the time that you use the attack action (not make an attack which is part of the attack action) to be able to use the bonus action or you can only draw during the thrown attack with your main action (how ever many times that may be) and must forgo the bonus action entire. It's litterally that simple and black and white. There is no middle ground. Being able to do so with your main action because you can take the attack action no matter what does not remove the main hand condition that is required for the bonus attack off hand throw. No debate is required about that. If your going to be that strict about the conditions. You have to be strict about all the conditions required and not just the conditions you choose.
Edited in for Reference: The full conditions listed as I copied into my post for using two weapon fightings offhand attack.
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 can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack."
That last part of the sentence is just an example, not a requirment.
I've never heard of any DM saying to a paladin. Sorry you cant draw your sword if you plan to use your action to cast a spell.
Drawing a weapon is a free object interaction whether you use it or not.
And yes I absolutely agree you do have to draw that dagger first by very strict RAW.
This is perhaps an important distinction as a justification as to why this does not work with the duelling style (Although the BA attack would still qualify)
This also technically means that if you start without a weapon in hand, (Even with the TWF feat) you can never end your turn with a weapon in hand for attacks of opportunity (or the +1 AC) unless you forgo the BA attack, as the feat only allows you to draw two weapons as your free action which I don't believe you can break up between the start and end of your turn.
Actually, I don't think this is the case, here's the rule again:
It seems like you only need to be holding a weapon in one hand while attacking, not prior to taking the attack action; only the bonus action weapon needs to be held in advance (as you need to be holding a weapon in your off hand at the same time that you attack with your main hand).
Basically you do:
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I didn’t realize there was an option for fighting styles in feats. I went custom lineage to get dark vision + Alert.
I have missed quite a few shots, and I’ll tell the DM they don’t need to feel bad or provide too much description of the miss, it’s a miss, we get it :)
flavour wise I am enjoying the alert feat. I had considered a fighter or ranger dip for the fighting style, maybe as far as Rune Knight or Gloom stalker but considering it might be a short campaign I’ll look at that feat for the next opportunity.
it would be in competition with observant, dungeon delver, lucky or even sharpshooter. I think SS is worth considering even if I never use it’s active, just no disadvantage at range and ignoring some cover seem great. going 1 fighter does get you longbow and a little second wind, maybe sets you back a level from the next sneak attack increase.
^Really enjoying the Rogue Scout so far, primarily ranged :)
I’d take Blindfighting, hands down. Magical Darkness, Fog Cloud, Cloudkill, etc all reduce sight drastically and with Blindsight you’re getting auto-advantage on others that can’t see - and more chances of a Crit.
Blindfighting if you're melee centric and archery if you're going for a sniper type character I'd say.
this is the crux of the matter, rogues AREN’T a martial class they don’t get multiple attacks, they don’t get a D10, they don’t get significant armor, they don’t do significant damage in a straight up fight and they don’t get fighting styles as a class benefit. Now thanks to Tasha’s they can take them as a feat if they want and that is the balanced way to do it. Anyone can use two weapon fighting to get 2 attacks but to get the 3 of dagger, dagger, dagger in a round you need to either multiclass into a martial class or use haste which is how the rules intended it for balance. Yes fighting styles can help certain rogue subclasses and thanks to Tasha’s they now can - in a balanced way.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I don't think it NEEDS one included, but being obtained through blood, sweat, tears (AKA 1 level dip into fighter or costly Fighting Initiative feat) is a nice option.
I considered a Fighter dip to get Archery and proficiency in Longbow for my Rogue Scout, but needed ASI at 4 and tempted to keep 5 rogue for uncanny dodge even though the PC is primarily ranged the melee survivability is tempting to go Duelling fighting style instead. Uhhg!
You don't really need Archery post-Tasha's, since you can get Advantage whenever you need it, by giving up all of your personal mobility, including the ability to hide. Archery is also hands-down the single best fighting style and the only one remotely good enough to be a feat - Blind Fighting isn't, not when Eldritch Adept (Devil's Sight) exists. I also would never consider Archery good enough to burn a feat on - it's basically good enough to be the non-ASI half of a half-feat.
I agree that I wouldn't take a feat for it, but there are still times I find where using careful aim isn't always the best thing to do. Some fights sure, I'm able to get into a good position and then just play sniper for the rest of the fight. But sometimes I have to move if an enemy is behind total cover, or something nasty is approaching me and I need to move or disengage, etc. Plus even with advantage you can still miss if unlucky, so it can come in handy. But yeah, probably not quite worth a full feat by itself.
Uncanny dodge isn't just melee attacks. It doesn't differentiate on the attacks that it will half that way. So it is still completely useful to ranged rogues getting attacked by other ranged weaponry.
As for Eldritch Adept (Devil's Sight) that another mentioned. There are a lot of people that can't take it. Supposedly there was an errata that made it easier to take. But I haven't been able to locate it lately so it's possible that's somebodies wishful thinking turned into rumor or something. This means that Blind Fighting taken from a feat does have some room for it to be taken... though on a rogue that is questionable because depending on the level the game is going to they get something similar at about level 10.