I needed to bring this up because this idea sounds stupid as hell and also ridiculously funny.
So basically, I have the dual wielder feat on my Paladin and chose Duelist style as my fighting style on level 2 (because TWF is not an option for Paladins). And my brother suggested this to me:
Kaoru can draw two weapons in one turn, so he can make use of Duelist by drawing one weapon, attacking with an action, dropping it and then drawing the other weapon to attack as a bonus action
The argument he makes is that I get the +2 to damage on each of the attacks (as I am only holding one at a time). Does this actually work? Can my character actually start juggling Rapiers around to do this sort of nonsense?
It is a little sketchy. Two- weapon fighting requires you to wield a weapon in two different hands (but does not actually specify at the same time). Duelist fighting style requires you to be wielding a weapon in only one hand.
I think the most rules lawyer-y guarantee I can make is that you can get the duelist bonus with your first attack, and maybe still make a second attack as a bonus action (though no guarantees about the bonus there). Ultimately it us up to the DM. RAW, RAI, and RAF kind of fight each other on this one.
Two weapon fighting is intended for fighting with two weapons. It was not designed to work with the dueling fighting style, which is specifically intended for one weapon fighting.The rules do what they say they do and nothing more.
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.
OK, it makes no mention of drawing or switching weapons in the middle of the process, but let's be real here. The rules for two weapon fighting also never say that if you switch weapons mid-attack, your pants won't fall down, so be careful! If you're only ever wielding one weapon at once, then you aren't two-weapon fighting. You are "one weapon now and one weapon later" fighting.
But hey, if you want to needle that loophole and your DM is ok with it, then go for it!
EDIT: Upon review, I might have sounded a little bit like a dick there. I'm jut saying what's what. You seem to have a good sense of humor about this and if your table gets a laugh out of it and everyone is cool, then go for it. D&D is about having fun.
It is a little sketchy. Two- weapon fighting requires you to wield a weapon in two different hands (but does not actually specify at the same time).
I wouldn't go so far as to say the TWF don't specify. As TexasDevin points out, it's possible to read the rule as saying you have to be holding two light melee weapons at the time of your Attack action to qualify for the bonus action. It's not the only way to read it, but since the DM decides which interpretation is going to be used, that's good enough.
But I think it's also clear you don't have to be wielding both weapons at the time of the bonus action, because TWF lets you throw either weapon. If you throw your weapon as part of the Attack action, you probably won't be holding that weapon when you take the bonus action. So, at a minimum, you can qualify for Dueling Fighting Style for the second attack.
Either way, this isn't a sustainable strategy for multiple reasons:
There's no way to carry 10 rapiers in such a way that they can be easily drawn.
If you choose to drop a weapon to pick back up on your next turn, you run the risk of enemies picking it up or kicking it away.
Sooner or later you're going to want magic weapons, which further makes juggling weapons impractical.
There's some ambiguity in the Dual Wielder feat as to whether both weapons need to be drawn as part of the same object interaction.
Firstly, as a DM I wouldn't allow such nonsense in a million years.
But to clarify a rule you can't "draw two weapons in one turn", you can "draw two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw only one". This means that you can use your free object interaction to draw two weapons at the same time, not draw one then attack then draw another.
The Two-Weapon Fighting rules are not specific on whether the two weapons must both be in your hands at the same time, thought the repeated use of the present tense phrase "weapon that you're holding" would tend to imply a certain level of simultaneousness. The intention of the features seems clear to me though, and want you to be two-weapon fighting rather than one-weapon fighting-twice.
The Paladin class just doesn't want you to dual-wield. I would recommend multiclassing for one level of Fighter.
The Paladin class just doesn't want you to dual-wield. I would recommend multiclassing for one level of Fighter.
I don't think it's worth it, honestly. Divine Favor and Divine Smite already synergize with two-weapon fighting. So does Oath of Vengeance's Hunter's Mark and Vow of Enmity. You'd be delaying access to more spell slots, better spells, and higher level class features for a small, fixed damage bonus that's hard to maximize since paladins rely on 3 ability scores (STR/DEX for attacks and possibly AC, CON for HP and concentration, CHA for spellcasting, channel divinity and auras.)
Dual Wielding Fighting Style is fairly weak IMO because the bonus is almost as small as Dueling Style - but Dueling Style is ok if I want to use my bonus action for something else rather than whip out two weapons in the first turn of combat. Plus I have the Dual Wielder Feat which makes me plenty effective with 2 weapons thanks to them having serious damage dice.
It is a little sketchy. Two- weapon fighting requires you to wield a weapon in two different hands (but does not actually specify at the same time).
I wouldn't go so far as to say the TWF don't specify. As TexasDevin points out, it's possible to read the rule as saying you have to be holding two light melee weapons at the time of your Attack action to qualify for the bonus action. It's not the only way to read it, but since the DM decides which interpretation is going to be used, that's good enough.
I agree that it is implied to be needing two weapons st the same time. But possible and implied are not specific. I stand by my wording.
I stand by my statement that nothing in the description of two weapon fighting says that your pants won't fall down if you switch weapons in the middle of your attack.
I stand by my statement that nothing in the description of two weapon fighting says that your pants won't fall down if you switch weapons in the middle of your attack.
Since the rules don't say your pants will fall down if you switch weapons, they don't fall down.
Thank you :) The rules do what they say and nothing more. A lot of loophole and edge case searching can be alleviated by just holding to that simple principle.
Either way, this isn't a sustainable strategy for multiple reasons:
There's no way to carry 10 rapiers in such a way that they can be easily drawn.
If you choose to drop a weapon to pick back up on your next turn, you run the risk of enemies picking it up or kicking it away.
Sooner or later you're going to want magic weapons, which further makes juggling weapons impractical.
This bit jogged my memory about an experience that's almost irrelevant, but close enough and hopefully entertaining enough to mention.
Had a player once who rolled an Eldritch Knight that we modified: I let him bond with as many weapons as his proficiency bonus.
He never carried a weapon on his person and tried to avoid violence; once a fight was done he would simply drop the weapons and move on, perfectly comfortable he could summon them at will later.
By 16th level he had an ungodly arsenal at his disposal that was very entertaining to imagine (I called his character the anime superhero). He would routinely cycle through three or more weapons in a fight, leaving them littered all over the battlefield: summon greatsword, slash, drop, summon bow, shoot, shoot.
Eventually people starting finding his magic weapons around the world and keeping them; some people even worshipped them as traveling religious icons that the "chosen" were permitted to watch over until the famed warrior called them back to battle.
Was hilarious until he dropped two in the Abyss and forgot them there. Woops.
Either way, this isn't a sustainable strategy for multiple reasons:
There's no way to carry 10 rapiers in such a way that they can be easily drawn.
If you choose to drop a weapon to pick back up on your next turn, you run the risk of enemies picking it up or kicking it away.
Sooner or later you're going to want magic weapons, which further makes juggling weapons impractical.
This bit jogged my memory about an experience that's almost irrelevant, but close enough and hopefully entertaining enough to mention.
Had a player once who rolled an Eldritch Knight that we modified: I let him bond with as many weapons as his proficiency bonus.
He never carried a weapon on his person and tried to avoid violence; once a fight was done he would simply drop the weapons and move on, perfectly comfortable he could summon them at will later.
By 16th level he had an ungodly arsenal at his disposal that was very entertaining to imagine (I called his character the anime superhero). He would routinely cycle through three or more weapons in a fight, leaving them littered all over the battlefield: summon greatsword, slash, drop, summon bow, shoot, shoot.
Eventually people starting finding his magic weapons around the world and keeping them; some people even worshipped them as traveling religious icons that the "chosen" were permitted to watch over until the famed warrior called them back to battle.
Was hilarious until he dropped two in the Abyss and forgot them there. Woops.
He was a lot more mindful after that.
There's no almost: it is completely irrelevant. An EK summons their weapon as a bonus action. Singular. One weapon. One bonus action. What you describe is not just a modified EK, but rather a completely ignored action economy. 100% irrelevant to Rules & Game Mechanics.
Dual Wielding Fighting Style is fairly weak IMO because the bonus is almost as small as Dueling Style - but Dueling Style is ok if I want to use my bonus action for something else rather than whip out two weapons in the first turn of combat. Plus I have the Dual Wielder Feat which makes me plenty effective with 2 weapons thanks to them having serious damage dice.
But it is not as small as Dueling now is it? Yes, Dueling works well when you aren't wielding two weapons. It's almost as if each was designed for a mutually exclusive purpose! If you're going to ignore the obvious, why not take Great Weapon Fighting while you're at it?
As to the actual arguments of merit at hand, the pin of the dilemma is not in the descriptions of Dueling/TWF styles. Look first at the actual bonus action 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.
That's it right there; you have to actually be holding two weapons at the same time, or you are not Two-Weapon Fighting. You cannot benefit from the Dueling fighting style if you are actually Two-Weapon Fighting. If you are dueling, then you do not qualify for Two-Weapon Fighting.
[edit]
I see TexasDevin (credit) addressed this point in post #3, so how is this still a question? 🙄
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I needed to bring this up because this idea sounds stupid as hell and also ridiculously funny.
So basically, I have the dual wielder feat on my Paladin and chose Duelist style as my fighting style on level 2 (because TWF is not an option for Paladins). And my brother suggested this to me:
Kaoru can draw two weapons in one turn, so he can make use of Duelist by drawing one weapon, attacking with an action, dropping it and then drawing the other weapon to attack as a bonus action
The argument he makes is that I get the +2 to damage on each of the attacks (as I am only holding one at a time). Does this actually work? Can my character actually start juggling Rapiers around to do this sort of nonsense?
I have no problem with what I think you're trying to do Shotagonist. I think you're trying to work within the rules to make the character *you* want to make: which is a duel wielding Paladin. I personally don't understand why the Devs decided to not just make this an official option. The problem is it's just silly trying to get around it.
I'd say do one of 2 things in this order: 1) Talk to your GM and say you really want to be Duel Wield. It's your entire concept and can you just take the Two Weapon Fighting Fighting Style. 2) If he says "no" to that, because s/he is super by the book. Ask him if you can take Defense instead. It's +1 AC which is always good. Then take a lvl of Fighter to get Two Weapon Fighting.
I think it's beside the point whether you can manage a loophole that allows you to do both by a theatrical use of drawing a weapon, dropping another one, and switching hands for attacks. The benefits of dueling are explicitly intended for single weapon fighting. Two weapon fighting is explicitly two weapon fighting. They are in opposition.
That being said, I fully agree with FullMetalBunny. If you really like the idea of being a dual wielding paladin (or a knight like like Ser Arthur Dayne) then yeah, let's find a way to make this work the right way--a way that looks and feels like a badass. I think you should take the defensive fighting style, giving you a bonus to your AC. Furthermore, I think you should look for an opportunity to pick up the dual wielder feat--maybe by playing a variant human or else at level four. The feat combined with the defensive fighting style will give you +2 AC when you are wearing strong armor and when you have a weapon in each hand. That's the same bonus as a sword and a shield would give. Now you can wield a pair of longswords, or any other 1h weapons.
Either way, this isn't a sustainable strategy for multiple reasons:
There's no way to carry 10 rapiers in such a way that they can be easily drawn.
If you choose to drop a weapon to pick back up on your next turn, you run the risk of enemies picking it up or kicking it away.
Sooner or later you're going to want magic weapons, which further makes juggling weapons impractical.
This bit jogged my memory about an experience that's almost irrelevant, but close enough and hopefully entertaining enough to mention.
Had a player once who rolled an Eldritch Knight that we modified: I let him bond with as many weapons as his proficiency bonus.
He never carried a weapon on his person and tried to avoid violence; once a fight was done he would simply drop the weapons and move on, perfectly comfortable he could summon them at will later.
By 16th level he had an ungodly arsenal at his disposal that was very entertaining to imagine (I called his character the anime superhero). He would routinely cycle through three or more weapons in a fight, leaving them littered all over the battlefield: summon greatsword, slash, drop, summon bow, shoot, shoot.
Eventually people starting finding his magic weapons around the world and keeping them; some people even worshipped them as traveling religious icons that the "chosen" were permitted to watch over until the famed warrior called them back to battle.
Was hilarious until he dropped two in the Abyss and forgot them there. Woops.
He was a lot more mindful after that.
There's no almost: it is completely irrelevant. An EK summons their weapon as a bonus action. Singular. One weapon. One bonus action. What you describe is not just a modified EK, but rather a completely ignored action economy. 100% irrelevant to Rules & Game Mechanics.
Thank you, Sigred, for taking the time to supply your rather unexpectedly harsh opinion on my post! I'm always happy to make clarifications!
Contrary to your opinion, I quoted the post by InquisitiveCoder to which I believe my post is relevant. He noted the silliness of attempting to carry 10 rapiers, and that in particular is what reminded me of the player I described. What I shared was admittedly an anecdote for entertainment value; but I shall insist it is related, however tangentially, to the rules being discussed (the fighter used Two Weapon Fighting routinely, so we had to be constantly mindful of ensuring that his attacks followed the rules).
It was not any attempt to argue a point, and I am bemused as to why you chose to make a such a sweeping judgment against my contribution instead of seeking clarification before doing so. But since you have done so, I shall engage on you on the subject and clarify what I believe you have unintentionally mistaken!
For your interpretive edification: the summoning of weapons by the player character playing the Eldritch Knight was not in any form or fashion "a completely ignored action economy" but was in fact completely and totally within the scope of the action economy. He summoned only one weapon per turn using his bonus action and only his bonus action on his turn. As you correctly noted: only one bonus action is permitted per turn!
Just to make sure there is no confusion on your part, what I posted before was in story/narrative format. When I stated "summon greatsword, slash, drop, summon bow, shoot, shoot" which you so generously highlighted but unfortunately misinterpreted, this was done over the course of several turns and well within the scope of the "Rules & Game Mechanics" regarding the bonus action. Additionally some of his magic items had summoning properties that operated outside the bonus action, but since I wasn't trying to debate and I didn't expect to be engaged on such a tedious level--not that I don't appreciate your enthusiasm--I neglected to include those details. My apologies!
It was admittedly an aside, but nonetheless contributed in good faith. Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion, and I'm happy to have had this exchange!
I think it's beside the point whether you can manage a loophole that allows you to do both by a theatrical use of drawing a weapon, dropping another one, and switching hands for attacks. The benefits of dueling are explicitly intended for single weapon fighting. Two weapon fighting is explicitly two weapon fighting. They are in opposition.
That being said, I fully agree with FullMetalBunny. If you really like the idea of being a dual wielding paladin (or a knight like like Ser Arthur Dayne) then yeah, let's find a way to make this work the right way--a way that looks and feels like a badass. I think you should take the defensive fighting style, giving you a bonus to your AC. Furthermore, I think you should look for an opportunity to pick up the dual wielder feat--maybe by playing a variant human or else at level four. The feat combined with the defensive fighting style will give you +2 AC when you are wearing strong armor and when you have a weapon in each hand. That's the same bonus as a sword and a shield would give. Now you can wield a pair of longswords, or any other 1h weapons.
Adding my support to what TexasDevin and FullMetalBunny have said! These recommendations should make for a very potent offensive paladin while still having strong durability.
FWIW, the only other thing I'd note is what has been thoroughly covered in the conversation thus far: for the bonus action to qualify for Two Weapon Fighting, it does seem that the fairest interpretation is that the second weapon is held at the time of the first attack. I don't prefer strict interpretations, but the RAW does specify "When... " for its trigger condition and "you're holding" as a further conditional on the second weapon.
I'd call it fair to be able to drop the first weapon and get the Dueling damage on the second swing, because IIRC dropping something is a free action but it still feels manipulative if done routinely. I'd rather my players strive for something more straightforward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I needed to bring this up because this idea sounds stupid as hell and also ridiculously funny.
So basically, I have the dual wielder feat on my Paladin and chose Duelist style as my fighting style on level 2 (because TWF is not an option for Paladins). And my brother suggested this to me:
The argument he makes is that I get the +2 to damage on each of the attacks (as I am only holding one at a time). Does this actually work? Can my character actually start juggling Rapiers around to do this sort of nonsense?
It is a little sketchy. Two- weapon fighting requires you to wield a weapon in two different hands (but does not actually specify at the same time). Duelist fighting style requires you to be wielding a weapon in only one hand.
I think the most rules lawyer-y guarantee I can make is that you can get the duelist bonus with your first attack, and maybe still make a second attack as a bonus action (though no guarantees about the bonus there). Ultimately it us up to the DM. RAW, RAI, and RAF kind of fight each other on this one.
Two weapon fighting is intended for fighting with two weapons. It was not designed to work with the dueling fighting style, which is specifically intended for one weapon fighting.The rules do what they say they do and nothing more.
OK, it makes no mention of drawing or switching weapons in the middle of the process, but let's be real here. The rules for two weapon fighting also never say that if you switch weapons mid-attack, your pants won't fall down, so be careful! If you're only ever wielding one weapon at once, then you aren't two-weapon fighting. You are "one weapon now and one weapon later" fighting.
But hey, if you want to needle that loophole and your DM is ok with it, then go for it!
EDIT: Upon review, I might have sounded a little bit like a dick there. I'm jut saying what's what. You seem to have a good sense of humor about this and if your table gets a laugh out of it and everyone is cool, then go for it. D&D is about having fun.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I wouldn't go so far as to say the TWF don't specify. As TexasDevin points out, it's possible to read the rule as saying you have to be holding two light melee weapons at the time of your Attack action to qualify for the bonus action. It's not the only way to read it, but since the DM decides which interpretation is going to be used, that's good enough.
But I think it's also clear you don't have to be wielding both weapons at the time of the bonus action, because TWF lets you throw either weapon. If you throw your weapon as part of the Attack action, you probably won't be holding that weapon when you take the bonus action. So, at a minimum, you can qualify for Dueling Fighting Style for the second attack.
Either way, this isn't a sustainable strategy for multiple reasons:
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Firstly, as a DM I wouldn't allow such nonsense in a million years.
But to clarify a rule you can't "draw two weapons in one turn", you can "draw two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw only one". This means that you can use your free object interaction to draw two weapons at the same time, not draw one then attack then draw another.
The Two-Weapon Fighting rules are not specific on whether the two weapons must both be in your hands at the same time, thought the repeated use of the present tense phrase "weapon that you're holding" would tend to imply a certain level of simultaneousness. The intention of the features seems clear to me though, and want you to be two-weapon fighting rather than one-weapon fighting-twice.
The Paladin class just doesn't want you to dual-wield. I would recommend multiclassing for one level of Fighter.
I don't think it's worth it, honestly. Divine Favor and Divine Smite already synergize with two-weapon fighting. So does Oath of Vengeance's Hunter's Mark and Vow of Enmity. You'd be delaying access to more spell slots, better spells, and higher level class features for a small, fixed damage bonus that's hard to maximize since paladins rely on 3 ability scores (STR/DEX for attacks and possibly AC, CON for HP and concentration, CHA for spellcasting, channel divinity and auras.)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Dual Wielding Fighting Style is fairly weak IMO because the bonus is almost as small as Dueling Style - but Dueling Style is ok if I want to use my bonus action for something else rather than whip out two weapons in the first turn of combat. Plus I have the Dual Wielder Feat which makes me plenty effective with 2 weapons thanks to them having serious damage dice.
I agree that it is implied to be needing two weapons st the same time. But possible and implied are not specific. I stand by my wording.
I stand by my statement that nothing in the description of two weapon fighting says that your pants won't fall down if you switch weapons in the middle of your attack.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Since the rules don't say your pants will fall down if you switch weapons, they don't fall down.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Thank you :) The rules do what they say and nothing more. A lot of loophole and edge case searching can be alleviated by just holding to that simple principle.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This bit jogged my memory about an experience that's almost irrelevant, but close enough and hopefully entertaining enough to mention.
Had a player once who rolled an Eldritch Knight that we modified: I let him bond with as many weapons as his proficiency bonus.
He never carried a weapon on his person and tried to avoid violence; once a fight was done he would simply drop the weapons and move on, perfectly comfortable he could summon them at will later.
By 16th level he had an ungodly arsenal at his disposal that was very entertaining to imagine (I called his character the anime superhero). He would routinely cycle through three or more weapons in a fight, leaving them littered all over the battlefield: summon greatsword, slash, drop, summon bow, shoot, shoot.
Eventually people starting finding his magic weapons around the world and keeping them; some people even worshipped them as traveling religious icons that the "chosen" were permitted to watch over until the famed warrior called them back to battle.
Was hilarious until he dropped two in the Abyss and forgot them there. Woops.
He was a lot more mindful after that.
There's no almost: it is completely irrelevant. An EK summons their weapon as a bonus action. Singular. One weapon. One bonus action. What you describe is not just a modified EK, but rather a completely ignored action economy. 100% irrelevant to Rules & Game Mechanics.
But it is not as small as Dueling now is it? Yes, Dueling works well when you aren't wielding two weapons. It's almost as if each was designed for a mutually exclusive purpose! If you're going to ignore the obvious, why not take Great Weapon Fighting while you're at it?
As to the actual arguments of merit at hand, the pin of the dilemma is not in the descriptions of Dueling/TWF styles. Look first at the actual bonus action Two-Weapon Fighting.
That's it right there; you have to actually be holding two weapons at the same time, or you are not Two-Weapon Fighting. You cannot benefit from the Dueling fighting style if you are actually Two-Weapon Fighting. If you are dueling, then you do not qualify for Two-Weapon Fighting.
[edit]
I see TexasDevin (credit) addressed this point in post #3, so how is this still a question? 🙄
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I have no problem with what I think you're trying to do Shotagonist. I think you're trying to work within the rules to make the character *you* want to make: which is a duel wielding Paladin. I personally don't understand why the Devs decided to not just make this an official option. The problem is it's just silly trying to get around it.
I'd say do one of 2 things in this order:
1) Talk to your GM and say you really want to be Duel Wield. It's your entire concept and can you just take the Two Weapon Fighting Fighting Style.
2) If he says "no" to that, because s/he is super by the book. Ask him if you can take Defense instead. It's +1 AC which is always good. Then take a lvl of Fighter to get Two Weapon Fighting.
I think it's beside the point whether you can manage a loophole that allows you to do both by a theatrical use of drawing a weapon, dropping another one, and switching hands for attacks. The benefits of dueling are explicitly intended for single weapon fighting. Two weapon fighting is explicitly two weapon fighting. They are in opposition.
That being said, I fully agree with FullMetalBunny. If you really like the idea of being a dual wielding paladin (or a knight like like Ser Arthur Dayne) then yeah, let's find a way to make this work the right way--a way that looks and feels like a badass. I think you should take the defensive fighting style, giving you a bonus to your AC. Furthermore, I think you should look for an opportunity to pick up the dual wielder feat--maybe by playing a variant human or else at level four. The feat combined with the defensive fighting style will give you +2 AC when you are wearing strong armor and when you have a weapon in each hand. That's the same bonus as a sword and a shield would give. Now you can wield a pair of longswords, or any other 1h weapons.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Thank you, Sigred, for taking the time to supply your rather unexpectedly harsh opinion on my post! I'm always happy to make clarifications!
Contrary to your opinion, I quoted the post by InquisitiveCoder to which I believe my post is relevant. He noted the silliness of attempting to carry 10 rapiers, and that in particular is what reminded me of the player I described. What I shared was admittedly an anecdote for entertainment value; but I shall insist it is related, however tangentially, to the rules being discussed (the fighter used Two Weapon Fighting routinely, so we had to be constantly mindful of ensuring that his attacks followed the rules).
It was not any attempt to argue a point, and I am bemused as to why you chose to make a such a sweeping judgment against my contribution instead of seeking clarification before doing so. But since you have done so, I shall engage on you on the subject and clarify what I believe you have unintentionally mistaken!
For your interpretive edification: the summoning of weapons by the player character playing the Eldritch Knight was not in any form or fashion "a completely ignored action economy" but was in fact completely and totally within the scope of the action economy. He summoned only one weapon per turn using his bonus action and only his bonus action on his turn. As you correctly noted: only one bonus action is permitted per turn!
Just to make sure there is no confusion on your part, what I posted before was in story/narrative format. When I stated "summon greatsword, slash, drop, summon bow, shoot, shoot" which you so generously highlighted but unfortunately misinterpreted, this was done over the course of several turns and well within the scope of the "Rules & Game Mechanics" regarding the bonus action. Additionally some of his magic items had summoning properties that operated outside the bonus action, but since I wasn't trying to debate and I didn't expect to be engaged on such a tedious level--not that I don't appreciate your enthusiasm--I neglected to include those details. My apologies!
It was admittedly an aside, but nonetheless contributed in good faith. Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion, and I'm happy to have had this exchange!
Adding my support to what TexasDevin and FullMetalBunny have said! These recommendations should make for a very potent offensive paladin while still having strong durability.
FWIW, the only other thing I'd note is what has been thoroughly covered in the conversation thus far: for the bonus action to qualify for Two Weapon Fighting, it does seem that the fairest interpretation is that the second weapon is held at the time of the first attack. I don't prefer strict interpretations, but the RAW does specify "When... " for its trigger condition and "you're holding" as a further conditional on the second weapon.
I'd call it fair to be able to drop the first weapon and get the Dueling damage on the second swing, because IIRC dropping something is a free action but it still feels manipulative if done routinely. I'd rather my players strive for something more straightforward.