This all relies on the economy of being able to interact with an object for free on your turn. The thing is, you can't do a free object interaction at any time, you do it as part of another action; typically as part of an Attack or as part of your Movement. Think about that.
In this instance, those arguing for this are saying "You can attack, then draw your off-hand weapon and attack with it." My question is, when and how are you drawing this off-hand weapon? Certainly not during the Attack itself; by the time you've gotten the +2 damage from Dueling, that attack is over with. "Why, during the bonus action attack, of course!" You may be saying... To that I ask, what bonus action attack? Your Attack is over, and since you didn't attack with a light melee weapon in one hand while holding a light melee weapon in the other, you don't get a bonus action attack; not without having that weapon already drawn.
So, how are you drawing a weapon as part of a bonus action that you needed to already be holding in order to earn that bonus action?
to devils advocate- as you feel the weapon bite into your opponent you immediately begin drawing the other weapon.
At what point is an attack finished? At what point does it begin? At what point is damage dealt. It can be broken down an infinite number of interpretations both ways.
when you look at how raw is. And how raw is explained. Two weapon fighting COULD have been phrased the same as the dual wielding feat. But it is not. If this was not an intentional difference of wording, there would be an errata to fix it. Or a sage advice to correct misunderstandings of it.
Let me throw another curveball out there.
what if I have cantrips via feat. And hold a light weapon in mage hand? Does it violate dueling? Then I mage hand it to myself for two weapon attack. Does it have to be my physical hand it’s held in or does mage hand count.
you see how it can become more and more convoluted?
I feel like you're just not listening to me. When the attack finishes doesn't matter, all that matters is what is happening when you start it. It is not convoluted, it's very straightforward; an action begins when you take the action, and if you're not wielding two weapons when you take the Attack action then you don't get the two-weapon fighting bonus action.
The Mage Hand thing is just ridiculous. For one thing, you need to use your action to do anything with it. For another, having your mage hand hold the weapon doesn't count as you holding it - obviously - and taking a weapon from a mage hand is no different than drawing a weapon from a sheath, which, well, see my previous post for why that won't work.
As to your question of "when does an attack finish, when does it begin, when is damage dealt..." You know, there are rules for this stuff.
Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
If you're not wielding a weapon in both hands at the very beginning of this order - meaning when you declare you're taking the Attack action, before even step 1 of choosing targets - then you don't get the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action. You can draw a weapon during this attack, or after it, or whenever, but unless you're holding it when you take the action then you don't get the bonus action. If you are holding two weapons when you take the action, you don't get the Dueling damage. That's all there is to it.
That’s not a curveball, that’s irrelevant. “Does controlling mage hand violate the dueling requirements?” Obviously not. But it does require your entire action. You cannot mage hand the weapon to yourself for two-weapon fighting, because you’re not using your action to attack.
That’s not a curveball, that’s irrelevant. “Does controlling mage hand violate the dueling requirements?” Obviously not. But it does require your entire action. You cannot mage hand the weapon to yourself for two-weapon fighting, because you’re not using your action to attack.
You can walk over to a mage hand and grab it as part of an attack action......
that’s some extreme laziness to always make the mage hand come to you. :-)
* and it seems I have a very real example of how it does not REQUIRE an entire action.
calm down dude. This is a rational discussion. No need to get upset.
As to your question of "when does an attack finish, when does it begin, when is damage dealt..." You know, there are rules for this stuff.
there’s also rules about being rude. Implying people are stupid. And being a POS. Doesn’t seem to stop everyone there either does it?
*i will make note next time to say “rhetorical question” but, maybe it’s not rhetorical. I don’t know you. I don’t know your level of experience or understanding of the rules. If I say rhetorical question and you don’t know. You might be offended. If I ask you like I don’t know. You call me stupid with how you respond. It’s a no win situation when one argues with someone who always thinks they are right no matter what. Shame on me, for trying to get the ACTUAL reason things aren’t allowed to be said, for those who are beginners or less aware of all the nuances of the rules. And heaven forbid I have a discussion based on what YOU actually said and used as examples.
lol. I guess I am an idiot. Trying to have rational discussions and assuming the other person won’t get their feelings hurt they aren’t agreed with when they use flawed logic. You were right the whole time but never gave the actual reason that proved you to be right until you were confronted on your bad examples that do not prove it.
It doesn’t say “wielding 2 light weapons” it says “holding”
* you even bolder it saying holding. Not wielding.
so....
devils advocate again....
when you argue solely off semantics. Look at the semantics against you. There is a difference between holding something and wielding something.
It's hard to argue rules language without bringing semantics into it. They kind of go hand-in-hand. Nevertheless, wielding just means "holding and using" something. You can't wield a weapon without holding it, and holding it is what's important.
there’s also rules about being rude. Implying people are stupid. And being a POS. Doesn’t seem to stop everyone there either does it?
I apologizing if I offended you, it wasn't my intention. I have a rather curt way of speaking, particularly when debating. That said, you should maybe take your own advice on that front.
Anyway, I'm glad you agree in the end that it wouldn't work.
I'm still curious as to why OP would even want to do this. You can get more than +2 damage on top of your two weapon's damage rolls by taking the Two-Weapon Fighting style. Maybe they intend to take both through different classes. If that's the case I would recommend to anyone to just go with Defense or Protection instead.
lol. I guess I am an idiot. Trying to have rational discussions and assuming the other person won’t get their feelings hurt they aren’t agreed with when they use flawed logic. You were right the whole time but never gave the actual reason that proved you to be right until you were confronted on your bad examples that do not prove it.
Wow, lots to unpack there. I'll just say I did give the actual reason in my very first post in this thread. To quote: "Seems pretty straightforward. You need to be holding the second weapon in your off-hand when you hit with the first." I suppose I should have said attack instead of hit, but whatever.
Essentially, in my situation it isn't even going to come up for a while. And the benefits will be rather small, at most twice a day... Every other turn at most (if being abused) on those twice a day, lasting no more than a minute... With declining benefits the longer combat lasts.... Lol... So... Meh.
Anyways, I am building a fighter/bladesinger, whom while not bladesinging, wields a rapier and shield. Then when bladesinging, his every now and then, has to obviously remove his shield, and begins transitioning into a twf stance
The only time that "holding" and "wielding" actually have a meaningful distinction is when it comes to weapons with the Two-Handed property. You can hold a 2-hander in one hand, but you are not "wielding" it (able to actually make an attack) unless you firmly have both of your hands devoted to using it. "Wielding" simply means "properly holding".
"Holding"/"Wielding" functionally mean exactly the same thing, in terms of game mechanic language, for one-handed weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Holding and wielding mean different things. You're holding an item if it's in your hand. You're wielding an item if you're using it for a combat purpose, such as part of an attack, or using it to grant yourself an AC bonus (a shield, or an off-hand weapon for the Dual Wielder feat). Two handed weapons, for example, require being wielded in two hands to make an attack, but notably do not require to be held in two hands while being carried. Other significances may or may not arise.
The only time that "holding" and "wielding" actually have a meaningful distinction is when it comes to weapons with the Two-Handed property. You can hold a 2-hander in one hand, but you are not "wielding" it (able to actually make an attack) unless you firmly have both of your hands devoted to using it. "Wielding" simply means "properly holding".
"Holding"/"Wielding" functionally mean exactly the same thing, in terms of game mechanic language, for one-handed weapons.
Are you able to provide definitive proof of your very first sentence?
devils advocate again:
I have my hand resting on the hilt of a sheathed sword. I am holding it. But it is not wielded.
2nd example: does holding a torch mean I am always wielding a improvised weapon? Therefore does holding ANYTHING always mean you have an improvised weapon wielded?
To help me understand things, I like to break rules down into the parts that are actually important. Let's do this here.
When you take the Attack action and attackwith alight melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with adifferent light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.
So, what's important is this: "When you attack with a weapon that you're holdingin one hand, you can attack with a different weapon that you're holdingin the other hand."
You're mentioning triggers, but the only trigger here is "when you take the Attack action," and if you take that action with only one weapon held, you are no longer eligible for the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action. Arguing that "you could draw a weapon as part of the bonus action attack" is a bad argument, because you don't get the bonus action if you attacked with only one weapon held.
We are absolutely right to get "hung up" on the word holding, because that is the word that is used. Saying it would work if the rules were worded a different way is a pointless argument, because they aren't. Kind of moot anyway, because changing the word "holding" to "held" or "wielded" wouldn't change any of this. You would still need to have the weapon "held" or "wielded" at the time you take the Attack action to gain the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action.
Lots of replies since I posted earlier today, but just want to back up to this one. The trigger is not "when you attack", reading it that way completely ignores the normal operation of "and" in sentence structure. Two weapon fighting's trigger is "when you attack with a light melee weapon you are holding in one hand." Or I guess you could write that as three concurrent triggers: (1) when you attack, and (2) when that attack is with a light melee weapon, and (3) when that light melee weapon is held in one hand, then...
Nothing in that trigger checks for anything in your off hand. Instead, satisfying that trigger opens up a new bonus action you can use this round: "you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light weapon that you're holding in the other hand". You can take that bonus action at any point later that round, nothing says it has to be immediate. You might move inbetween the first attack and that bonus action, or drop your current offhand weapon and draw a new one as part of the bonus attack, or draw an offhand weapon as part of the bonus attack if you don't yet have one, or use a non-action action like Action Surge, etc etc etc. The signifgane of the present tense "holding" is that you must be holding that weapon when you make the bonus attack, not when you made the original trigger attack with the other hand. Or at least, that's an equally grammatical reading as your own.
Regarding the comment that the free object manipulation rules somehow interfere with drawing a weapon as part of the bonus attack thta requires said weapon... no. If that were the case, one would never be able to make a ranged attack using a bow, because you can't fire a bow without an arrow, and you draw an arrow as a free action during the ranged attack, not before it as a precondition.
Again, its fine if people want to enforce a RAI limitation that Two-Weapon Fighting requires a pre-wielded offhand weapon, but it just simply is not written that way.
Are you able to provide definitive proof of your very first sentence?
devils advocate again:
I have my hand resting on the hilt of a sheathed sword. I am holding it. But it is not wielded.
2nd example: does holding a torch mean I am always wielding a improvised weapon? Therefore does holding ANYTHING always mean you have an improvised weapon wielded?
or am I mistaken there?
You are not mistaken. This is why, for example, a monk does not automatically lose his Martial Arts feature every time he holds a torch or any other potential-improvised-weapon in a hand. Wielding is not holding, it is using an object in combat for a combat purpose (attack or defense, possibly includes spell focuses in hand when they are used to cast a spell as well).
I have my hand resting on the hilt of a sheathed sword. I am holding it. But it is not wielded.
2nd example: does holding a torch mean I am always wielding a improvised weapon? Therefore does holding ANYTHING always mean you have an improvised weapon wielded?
or am I mistaken there?
No. You aren't "holding" the sheathed sword. You might be holding onto its handle, but you are not holding the sword. For the purposes of taking combat actions your hand is currently empty.
No. You are not always wielding an improvised weapon, you are holding an object. An object only becomes an improvised weapon at the moment you try to use it for an attack. For that instant it is a sort of weapon (but still not really a weapon for the purposes of many rules) and is used to make a weapon attack.
These aren't zen riddles you are posing, they are just (possibly willful) misinterpretations of the rules.
I have my hand resting on the hilt of a sheathed sword. I am holding it. But it is not wielded.
2nd example: does holding a torch mean I am always wielding a improvised weapon? Therefore does holding ANYTHING always mean you have an improvised weapon wielded?
or am I mistaken there?
No. You aren't "holding" the sheathed sword. You might be holding onto its handle, but you are not holding the sword. For the purposes of taking combat actions your hand is currently empty.
No. You are not always wielding an improvised weapon, you are holding an object. An object only becomes an improvised weapon at the moment you try to use it for an attack. For that instant it is a sort of weapon (but still not really a weapon for the purposes of many rules) and is used to make a weapon attack.
These aren't zen riddles you are posing, they are just (possibly willful) misinterpretations of the rules.
Who said anything about “combat”
* I know they aren’t zen like riddles.
i am asking really simple rhetorical questions now. That apparently... people don’t know the answer to. They just want to guess at. Which is fine. But they then take their guesses to use as a basis for other clearly written rules as to why some things are enforced or contradicted.
Nothing in that trigger checks for anything in your off hand. Instead, satisfying that trigger opens up a new bonus action you can use this round: "you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light weapon that you're holding in the other hand".
Both instances of holding are in the present tense; the rule assumes you're already holding two weapons and when you make that first attack, you qualify for the bonus action with the other. You can't just split the sentence in half and conclude that everything on the right side happens after everything on the left.
Nothing in that trigger checks for anything in your off hand. Instead, satisfying that trigger opens up a new bonus action you can use this round: "you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light weapon that you're holding in the other hand".
Both instances of holding are in the present tense; the rule assumes you're already holding two weapons and when you make that first attack, you qualify for the bonus action with the other. You can't just split the sentence in half and conclude that everything on the right side happens after everything on the left.
Inquisitive, I'm splitting the sentence in half because it has two halves, seperated by a comma. A "when you..." condition, which controls when the rule triggers and a "you can..." option becomes available. This is not a controversial way to read this sentence, 5E is full of them, and it is the normal way that sentence structure works in the English language.
Trigger: When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand // Effect: you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.
The effect very clearly happens after the trigger. Its why you can't make the offhand attack (which doesn't add your Stat to damage, by default) before the main attack. If this were any other rule in any other context, I am quite certain that none of you would be trying to argue that the second half of this sentence doesn't happen as a separate attack after the resolution of the first attack in the first half of the sentence.
The trigger checks for certain things at the time the main attack is made (did a melee attack with a light weapon wielded in one hand happen?). The effect checks for certain other things at the time the bonus action is attempted (is the character holding a different light weapon in a different hand?). I am not ignoring any language on either side of the equation, but you guys are implying extra wording in the trigger that simply is not written. The ability does not say "When you take the Attack action with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand, you can use...". You guys are reading that as implied language. It isn't there.
Inquisitive, I'm splitting the sentence in half because it has two halves, seperated by a comma.
Ok, so? Like I said, it doesn't follow that everything in the second half happens at the same time. The second half is just a slightly shorter version of "...you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're (currently) holding in the other hand", which has the exact same structure and is obviously the intent.
The effect very clearly happens after the trigger.
That's not being disputed. The "holding" bit isn't part of the effect. You're not going to start holding another weapon as part of the bonus action.
The ability does not say "When you take the Attack action with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand, you can use...". You guys are reading that as implied language. It isn't there.
You can say things implicitly. Language is funny that way. I've said it many times before: the rules aren't written in code or legalese.
to devils advocate- as you feel the weapon bite into your opponent you immediately begin drawing the other weapon.
At what point is an attack finished? At what point does it begin? At what point is damage dealt. It can be broken down an infinite number of interpretations both ways.
when you look at how raw is. And how raw is explained. Two weapon fighting COULD have been phrased the same as the dual wielding feat. But it is not. If this was not an intentional difference of wording, there would be an errata to fix it. Or a sage advice to correct misunderstandings of it.
Let me throw another curveball out there.
what if I have cantrips via feat. And hold a light weapon in mage hand? Does it violate dueling? Then I mage hand it to myself for two weapon attack. Does it have to be my physical hand it’s held in or does mage hand count.
you see how it can become more and more convoluted?
I feel like you're just not listening to me. When the attack finishes doesn't matter, all that matters is what is happening when you start it. It is not convoluted, it's very straightforward; an action begins when you take the action, and if you're not wielding two weapons when you take the Attack action then you don't get the two-weapon fighting bonus action.
The Mage Hand thing is just ridiculous. For one thing, you need to use your action to do anything with it. For another, having your mage hand hold the weapon doesn't count as you holding it - obviously - and taking a weapon from a mage hand is no different than drawing a weapon from a sheath, which, well, see my previous post for why that won't work.
As to your question of "when does an attack finish, when does it begin, when is damage dealt..." You know, there are rules for this stuff.
If you're not wielding a weapon in both hands at the very beginning of this order - meaning when you declare you're taking the Attack action, before even step 1 of choosing targets - then you don't get the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action. You can draw a weapon during this attack, or after it, or whenever, but unless you're holding it when you take the action then you don't get the bonus action. If you are holding two weapons when you take the action, you don't get the Dueling damage. That's all there is to it.
That’s not a curveball, that’s irrelevant. “Does controlling mage hand violate the dueling requirements?” Obviously not. But it does require your entire action. You cannot mage hand the weapon to yourself for two-weapon fighting, because you’re not using your action to attack.
It doesn’t say “wielding 2 light weapons” it says “holding”
* you even bolder it saying holding. Not wielding.
so....
devils advocate again....
when you argue solely off semantics. Look at the semantics against you. There is a difference between holding something and wielding something.
You can walk over to a mage hand and grab it as part of an attack action......
that’s some extreme laziness to always make the mage hand come to you. :-)
* and it seems I have a very real example of how it does not REQUIRE an entire action.
calm down dude. This is a rational discussion. No need to get upset.
That said: the attack rule. Very clearly kills the OPs position of it. And deems it not possible.
there’s also rules about being rude. Implying people are stupid. And being a POS. Doesn’t seem to stop everyone there either does it?
*i will make note next time to say “rhetorical question” but, maybe it’s not rhetorical. I don’t know you. I don’t know your level of experience or understanding of the rules. If I say rhetorical question and you don’t know. You might be offended. If I ask you like I don’t know. You call me stupid with how you respond. It’s a no win situation when one argues with someone who always thinks they are right no matter what. Shame on me, for trying to get the ACTUAL reason things aren’t allowed to be said, for those who are beginners or less aware of all the nuances of the rules. And heaven forbid I have a discussion based on what YOU actually said and used as examples.
lol. I guess I am an idiot. Trying to have rational discussions and assuming the other person won’t get their feelings hurt they aren’t agreed with when they use flawed logic. You were right the whole time but never gave the actual reason that proved you to be right until you were confronted on your bad examples that do not prove it.
It's hard to argue rules language without bringing semantics into it. They kind of go hand-in-hand. Nevertheless, wielding just means "holding and using" something. You can't wield a weapon without holding it, and holding it is what's important.
I apologizing if I offended you, it wasn't my intention. I have a rather curt way of speaking, particularly when debating. That said, you should maybe take your own advice on that front.
Anyway, I'm glad you agree in the end that it wouldn't work.
I'm still curious as to why OP would even want to do this. You can get more than +2 damage on top of your two weapon's damage rolls by taking the Two-Weapon Fighting style. Maybe they intend to take both through different classes. If that's the case I would recommend to anyone to just go with Defense or Protection instead.
Wow, lots to unpack there. I'll just say I did give the actual reason in my very first post in this thread. To quote: "Seems pretty straightforward. You need to be holding the second weapon in your off-hand when you hit with the first." I suppose I should have said attack instead of hit, but whatever.
Well this blew up... Lol
Essentially, in my situation it isn't even going to come up for a while. And the benefits will be rather small, at most twice a day... Every other turn at most (if being abused) on those twice a day, lasting no more than a minute... With declining benefits the longer combat lasts.... Lol... So... Meh.
Anyways, I am building a fighter/bladesinger, whom while not bladesinging, wields a rapier and shield. Then when bladesinging, his every now and then, has to obviously remove his shield, and begins transitioning into a twf stance
So in my situation it's more fluff than mechanical advantages. As I'm looking at potentially going with a Shadow Blade style.
And... Shadow Blade is a bonus action... Bladesinging is a bonus action...
So for a minimum of two rounds, no twf would be used. But on the third round the bonus action frees up, to pull out the short sword off hand.
That is the idea anyway
The only time that "holding" and "wielding" actually have a meaningful distinction is when it comes to weapons with the Two-Handed property. You can hold a 2-hander in one hand, but you are not "wielding" it (able to actually make an attack) unless you firmly have both of your hands devoted to using it. "Wielding" simply means "properly holding".
"Holding"/"Wielding" functionally mean exactly the same thing, in terms of game mechanic language, for one-handed weapons.
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.
Holding and wielding mean different things. You're holding an item if it's in your hand. You're wielding an item if you're using it for a combat purpose, such as part of an attack, or using it to grant yourself an AC bonus (a shield, or an off-hand weapon for the Dual Wielder feat). Two handed weapons, for example, require being wielded in two hands to make an attack, but notably do not require to be held in two hands while being carried. Other significances may or may not arise.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Are you able to provide definitive proof of your very first sentence?
devils advocate again:
I have my hand resting on the hilt of a sheathed sword. I am holding it. But it is not wielded.
2nd example: does holding a torch mean I am always wielding a improvised weapon? Therefore does holding ANYTHING always mean you have an improvised weapon wielded?
or am I mistaken there?
Lots of replies since I posted earlier today, but just want to back up to this one. The trigger is not "when you attack", reading it that way completely ignores the normal operation of "and" in sentence structure. Two weapon fighting's trigger is "when you attack with a light melee weapon you are holding in one hand." Or I guess you could write that as three concurrent triggers: (1) when you attack, and (2) when that attack is with a light melee weapon, and (3) when that light melee weapon is held in one hand, then...
Nothing in that trigger checks for anything in your off hand. Instead, satisfying that trigger opens up a new bonus action you can use this round: "you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light weapon that you're holding in the other hand". You can take that bonus action at any point later that round, nothing says it has to be immediate. You might move inbetween the first attack and that bonus action, or drop your current offhand weapon and draw a new one as part of the bonus attack, or draw an offhand weapon as part of the bonus attack if you don't yet have one, or use a non-action action like Action Surge, etc etc etc. The signifgane of the present tense "holding" is that you must be holding that weapon when you make the bonus attack, not when you made the original trigger attack with the other hand. Or at least, that's an equally grammatical reading as your own.
Regarding the comment that the free object manipulation rules somehow interfere with drawing a weapon as part of the bonus attack thta requires said weapon... no. If that were the case, one would never be able to make a ranged attack using a bow, because you can't fire a bow without an arrow, and you draw an arrow as a free action during the ranged attack, not before it as a precondition.
Again, its fine if people want to enforce a RAI limitation that Two-Weapon Fighting requires a pre-wielded offhand weapon, but it just simply is not written that way.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are not mistaken. This is why, for example, a monk does not automatically lose his Martial Arts feature every time he holds a torch or any other potential-improvised-weapon in a hand. Wielding is not holding, it is using an object in combat for a combat purpose (attack or defense, possibly includes spell focuses in hand when they are used to cast a spell as well).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No. You aren't "holding" the sheathed sword. You might be holding onto its handle, but you are not holding the sword. For the purposes of taking combat actions your hand is currently empty.
No. You are not always wielding an improvised weapon, you are holding an object. An object only becomes an improvised weapon at the moment you try to use it for an attack. For that instant it is a sort of weapon (but still not really a weapon for the purposes of many rules) and is used to make a weapon attack.
These aren't zen riddles you are posing, they are just (possibly willful) misinterpretations of the rules.
Who said anything about “combat”
* I know they aren’t zen like riddles.
i am asking really simple rhetorical questions now. That apparently... people don’t know the answer to. They just want to guess at. Which is fine. But they then take their guesses to use as a basis for other clearly written rules as to why some things are enforced or contradicted.
Both instances of holding are in the present tense; the rule assumes you're already holding two weapons and when you make that first attack, you qualify for the bonus action with the other. You can't just split the sentence in half and conclude that everything on the right side happens after everything on the left.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Inquisitive, I'm splitting the sentence in half because it has two halves, seperated by a comma. A "when you..." condition, which controls when the rule triggers and a "you can..." option becomes available. This is not a controversial way to read this sentence, 5E is full of them, and it is the normal way that sentence structure works in the English language.
Trigger: When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand // Effect: you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.
The effect very clearly happens after the trigger. Its why you can't make the offhand attack (which doesn't add your Stat to damage, by default) before the main attack. If this were any other rule in any other context, I am quite certain that none of you would be trying to argue that the second half of this sentence doesn't happen as a separate attack after the resolution of the first attack in the first half of the sentence.
The trigger checks for certain things at the time the main attack is made (did a melee attack with a light weapon wielded in one hand happen?). The effect checks for certain other things at the time the bonus action is attempted (is the character holding a different light weapon in a different hand?). I am not ignoring any language on either side of the equation, but you guys are implying extra wording in the trigger that simply is not written. The ability does not say "When you take the Attack action with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand, you can use...". You guys are reading that as implied language. It isn't there.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ok, so? Like I said, it doesn't follow that everything in the second half happens at the same time. The second half is just a slightly shorter version of "...you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're (currently) holding in the other hand", which has the exact same structure and is obviously the intent.
That's not being disputed. The "holding" bit isn't part of the effect. You're not going to start holding another weapon as part of the bonus action.
You can say things implicitly. Language is funny that way. I've said it many times before: the rules aren't written in code or legalese.
The Forum Infestation (TM)