Words have meaning, as do their order and arrangement. We can of course get into a discussion about whether the decision to word the "when" condition of Dual Wielder and Two-Weapon Fighting differently represents a conscious decision or not, but I honestly don't care about RAI for the purpose of this conversation. RAW, the meaning of the words written on the page does not contain a "while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand" clause, and reading one in implicitly is nothing more than RAI or RAF.
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.
These aren't rhetorical questions. They are questions with answers and I gave you the answers. The answers to these questions align generally well with the other written rules to draw a complete picture where you only get the Dueling bonus damage when you are holding/wielding one weapon in one hand, and only get the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus attack when you are holding/wielding two weapons in two hands. That was the OP question, and we are answering it.
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.
These aren't rhetorical questions. They are questions with answers and I gave you the answers. The answers to these questions align generally well with the other written rules to draw a complete picture where you only get the Dueling bonus damage when you are holding/wielding one weapon in one hand, and only get the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus attack when you are holding/wielding two weapons in two hands. That was the OP question, and we are answering it.
Show me in the PHB... where it says... the ONLY time holding is DIFFERENT THAN WIELDING, is for a two handed weapon.
thats where THAT context comes from. It was very much rhetorical. In the context of who and what it was quoting and targeting.
as to the OPs point... RAW says nothing against it, RAI and RAF do. But not RAW. This DOES have quotes form the PHB too.
🥶🥶🥶 I don’t know what else I can say on your freezing cold take that is not using any empirical evidence to support it. When you try and find any argument possible to NOT provide empirical evidence to a simple question about “held” vs “wield” and it having “ONLY” one instance where it’s different.
RAW, both instances of "holding" are in present tense; they are therefore simultaneous, and nothing you've said so far changes that.
So this moment in time that the second "holding" is referring to... which moment is it? The moment you made the first attack, or the moment you made the second attack? Because as you've conceded, they aren't simultaneous events, there could be as much as six seconds between them. The common sense (or at least, a common sense) reading of the sentence structure is that the first holding applies to the first attack with the first weapon, and the second holding applies to the second attack with the second weapon. The fact that both holdings are present tense for their respective action does not require that they be referring to the same moment.
Show me in the PHB... where it says... the ONLY time holding is DIFFERENT THAN WIELDING, is for a two handed weapon.
The PH doesn't define either word. It's using their dictionary definitions, and they have different meanings. Using Merriam-Webster as an example:
Hold: to have or maintain in the grasp
Wield: to handle (something, such as a tool) especially effectively
Exactly the point.
now. Let’s use a dictionary again. Is Hold and Handle the same word?
They are all different words, with similar and related meanings. However, the only rule that we (or you so far) can identify where the difference in the meanings of those words has any major impact is when it relates to two-handed weapons; which can be held in one hand, but require two hands to wield. If you think that assertion is wrong (and important to correct) then you don't need rhetorical questions to prove it, you just need a counter-example.
The OP question does not at all hinge on the different definitions of hold/wield/handle. It hinges on the "when", the comma, and the two usages of the verb "to hold" in the present continuous tense. I posit that the only correct way to interpret that sentence as it is written is all the "that you are holding" statements must be true at the same time as some part of the "when you take the Attack action" statement. That is the meaning of the present continuous tense.
Show me in the PHB... where it says... the ONLY time holding is DIFFERENT THAN WIELDING, is for a two handed weapon.
The PH doesn't define either word. It's using their dictionary definitions, and they have different meanings. Using Merriam-Webster as an example:
Hold: to have or maintain in the grasp
Wield: to handle (something, such as a tool) especially effectively
Exactly the point.
now. Let’s use a dictionary again. Is Hold and Handle the same word?
They are all different words, with similar and related meanings. However, the only rule that we (or you so far) can identify where the difference in the meanings of those words has any major impact is when it relates to two-handed weapons; which can be held in one hand, but require two hands to wield. If you think that assertion is wrong (and important to correct) then you don't need rhetorical questions to prove it, you just need a counter-example.
The OP question does not at all hinge on the different definitions of hold/wield/handle. It hinges on the "when", the comma, and the two usages of the verb "to hold" in the present continuous tense. I posit that the only correct way to interpret that sentence as it is written is all the "that you are holding" statements must be true at the same time as some part of the "when you take the Attack action" statement. That is the meaning of the present continuous tense.
the “only correct way” to “interpret”
so... it’s not WRITTEN that way... it’s INTERPRETTED... that way...
there is a clear difference in what’s written. Between two weapon fighting. And dual wield.
and now you see where the issue is. You are welcome.
They are all different words, with similar and related meanings. However, the only rule that we (or you so far) can identify where the difference in the meanings of those words has any major impact is when it relates to two-handed weapons; which can be held in one hand, but require two hands to wield. If you think that assertion is wrong (and important to correct) then you don't need rhetorical questions to prove it, you just need a counter-example.
The OP question does not at all hinge on the different definitions of hold/wield/handle. It hinges on the "when", the comma, and the two usages of the verb "to hold" in the present continuous tense. I posit that the only correct way to interpret that sentence as it is written is all the "that you are holding" statements must be true at the same time as some part of the "when you take the Attack action" statement. That is the meaning of the present continuous tense.
I'm not really invested in the path that McDonaldazor is going down (I'm in the "comma matters" camp), but there is a major impact of his reasoning that gets to the same end point. If you can hold objects in general without wielding them, then surely you can hold a weapon without wielding it. The Dueling fighting style asks for you to wield a weapon in one hand without wielding any other weapons; it places no limitation that the other hand must be empty, only that it not be wielding another weapon. Two weapon fighting instead talks about you holding weapons in hands (maybe both hands, if you reject my comma-based line of reasoning). So the conclusion being, you can hold weapons in both hands, while only wielding the one in your main hand to make an attack, to receive +2 damage to that attack. That attack will then trigger the ability to make a bonus attack with the off hand weapon, which you will start wielding only when making that attack.
Again, not a line of reasoning I'm heavily invested in, but I can see McDonald's point.
Wow. This got way bigger than I thought it would (but then again it is a classic 5e half written rule, so of course it did).
Look 5e cut the word count for rules by more than half compared to 4e (which I hear included tons of clarification and clauses to prevent unwanted interactions). Simply put the rules that were designed around fighting with a single weapon and the rules that were designed around fighting with 2 weapons should not interact. If there is any room to consider alternative rulings, the ruling that makes the most sense is probably the correct one.
Might even be easier rather than two weapon fighting... doing a bonus action “unarmed attack” for fighter, in combination with the dueling. To where first he does dueling attack. Then close fist punches with offhand.
Oh yeah. I also wanted to comment on this, and I don't think anyone else did.
You can't do this. An unarmed strike is not a light melee weapon. It is not even a weapon, let alone having any weapon properties.
Might even be easier rather than two weapon fighting... doing a bonus action “unarmed attack” for fighter, in combination with the dueling. To where first he does dueling attack. Then close fist punches with offhand.
Oh yeah. I also wanted to comment on this, and I don't think anyone else did.
You can't do this. An unarmed strike is not a light melee weapon. It is not even a weapon, let alone having any weapon properties.
Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks. Here's where the confusion comes in: your unarmed strike (fist, elbow, knee, butt, etc.) is not considered by the rules to be a weapon the way a longsword is a weapon. But the rules let you make unarmed weapon attacks anyway
Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you strike with two free hands, the d6 becomes a d8. When you successfully start a grapple, you can deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage to the grappled creature. Until the grapple ends, you can also deal this damage to the creature whenever you hit it with a melee attack.
Brandon Hanson@brhanson27
·
@mikemearls Even though "unarmed strike" doesn't have the "light" property, can it be consisdered a light weapon for the purposes of TWF?
Mike Mearls@mikemearls
@brhanson27 there was a reason why we didn't do that, but can't recall. Probably ok if players don't abuse it w/2-handed weapons
I said it would be easier. And is something that could be done with dueling. And I appear wrong.
so... you’re wrong unarmed isn’t a weapon. Per Jeremy Crawford no less.
and a very fundamental... but not a technical. And... not where they even say “probably ok...” about either...
just saying. I come with facts and sources and a bibliography to my statements and claims.
so... it’s not WRITTEN that way... it’s INTERPRETTED... that way...
there is a clear difference in what’s written. Between two weapon fighting. And dual wield.
and now you see where the issue is. You are welcome.
It *is* written that way. Everything is written to be interpreted. On reading something you must choose an interpretation. Most things have only one correct interpretation, others have several equally valid interpretations, or some more valid than others. You didn't hoist me on any petard, that's just how communication works.
So you have questions about the Dual Wielder feat, where they use "wield" not "hold"? Do you get the DW bonus when holding two one-handed weapons? Yes, you are effectively wielding them. Do you get the DW bonus when holding one or more two-handed weapons? No, you cannot wield them in one hand each. Do you get the DW bonus when holding one or more non-weapon (but potentially improvised weapon) objects? No, they are not weapons.
I'm not really invested in the path that McDonaldazor is going down (I'm in the "comma matters" camp), but there is a major impact of his reasoning that gets to the same end point. If you can hold objects in general without wielding them, then surely you can hold a weapon without wielding it. The Dueling fighting style asks for you to wield a weapon in one hand without wielding any other weapons; it places no limitation that the other hand must be empty, only that it not be wielding another weapon. Two weapon fighting instead talks about you holding weapons in hands (maybe both hands, if you reject my comma-based line of reasoning). So the conclusion being, you can hold weapons in both hands, while only wielding the one in your main hand to make an attack, to receive +2 damage to that attack. That attack will then trigger the ability to make a bonus attack with the off hand weapon, which you will start wielding only when making that attack.
Again, not a line of reasoning I'm heavily invested in, but I can see McDonald's point.
Are you honestly arguing that someone can hold two shortswords and get the Dueling damage bonus just by declaring that they are not "wielding" the second sword, just "holding" it (and further that they can later use two-weapon fighting because they *are* holding two swords)? Is that honestly what you are arguing is the true and correct meaning of what is written in these rule books, or are you using some form of reductio ad absurdum to discredit the line of reasoning?
Are you honestly arguing that someone can hold two shortswords and get the Dueling damage bonus just by declaring that they are not "wielding" the second sword, just "holding" it (and further that they can later use two-weapon fighting because they *are* holding two swords)? Is that honestly what you are arguing is the true and correct meaning of what is written in these rule books, or are you using some form of reductio ad absurdum to discredit the line of reasoning?
Like I said, it's not my argument, I'm just rephrasing (what I think to be) McDonald's argument because others weren't picking up on it. Dueling asks for wielding, 2WF asks for holding, and everyone acknowledges that you can hold without wielding, so in a vacuum it would appear that you could satisfy both simultaneously...
Personally I think it gets a bit too esoteric and legalese-ish even for my own tastes. As a DM, I would ask the player "OK, what's the difference between when you're "holding" your short sword and when you're "wielding" it so that I understand when it changes?" If their answer is just "whenever it benefits me?" my eyes would roll right out of my head, but I could imagine a player describing gripping the pommel of their still-sheathed short sword, or flipping their offhand butterfly knife open and closed playfully, or something like that to describe how the offhand weapon is held but not being "wielded" in a combat ready state until the moment they make the bonus attack later that round. I'm not sure if there's a dual-wieldin form of real world iaijutsu, but so far as I understand it the combat style is all about holding weapons that aren't yet wielded?
Might even be easier rather than two weapon fighting... doing a bonus action “unarmed attack” for fighter, in combination with the dueling. To where first he does dueling attack. Then close fist punches with offhand.
Oh yeah. I also wanted to comment on this, and I don't think anyone else did.
You can't do this. An unarmed strike is not a light melee weapon. It is not even a weapon, let alone having any weapon properties.
Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks. Here's where the confusion comes in: your unarmed strike (fist, elbow, knee, butt, etc.) is not considered by the rules to be a weapon the way a longsword is a weapon. But the rules let you make unarmed weapon attacks anyway
Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you strike with two free hands, the d6 becomes a d8. When you successfully start a grapple, you can deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage to the grappled creature. Until the grapple ends, you can also deal this damage to the creature whenever you hit it with a melee attack.
I said it would be easier. And is something that could be done with dueling. And I appear wrong.
so... you’re wrong unarmed isn’t a weapon. Per Jeremy Crawford no less.
and a very fundamental... but not a technical. And... not where they even say “probably ok...” about either...
just saying. I come with facts and sources and a bibliography to my statements and claims.
Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, but they are not weapons. JC's tweet does not say otherwise (and neither does any rule you quoted here). It is also mentioned at least 3 times in the SAC. And the PHB was errata'd to make this as clear as possible (you mentioned sources):
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons).
Second emphasis mine.
It isn't personal, I'm just clearing up the rules.
Are you honestly arguing that someone can hold two shortswords and get the Dueling damage bonus just by declaring that they are not "wielding" the second sword, just "holding" it (and further that they can later use two-weapon fighting because they *are* holding two swords)? Is that honestly what you are arguing is the true and correct meaning of what is written in these rule books, or are you using some form of reductio ad absurdum to discredit the line of reasoning?
Like I said, it's not my argument, I'm just rephrasing (what I think to be) McDonald's argument because others weren't picking up on it. Dueling asks for wielding, 2WF asks for holding, and everyone acknowledges that you can hold without wielding, so in a vacuum it would appear that you could satisfy both simultaneously...
Personally I think it gets a bit too esoteric and legalese-ish even for my own tastes. As a DM, I would ask the player "OK, what's the difference between when you're "holding" your short sword and when you're "wielding" it so that I understand when it changes?" If their answer is just "whenever it benefits me?" my eyes would roll right out of my head, but I could imagine a player describing gripping the pommel of their still-sheathed short sword, or flipping their offhand butterfly knife open and closed playfully, or something like that to describe how the offhand weapon is held but not being "wielded" in a combat ready state until the moment they make the bonus attack later that round. I'm not sure if there's a dual-wieldin form of real world iaijutsu, but so far as I understand it the combat style is all about holding weapons that aren't yet wielded?
I hold a short sword in my hand, that is free of a sheath and scabbard, that is wielded that I swing at your head with my left hand.
at the same exact moment. My right hand, is holding the handle of a short sword. In its scabbard, sheathed along my back/hip/leg/whatever. This weapon still requires a free action to be unsheathed. It is not wielded. But it is held.
i don’t know how this scenario can be explained any easier without pictures.
circling back, yet again, to the OP, about RAW.
this exact scenario. Does not violate dueling. Does not violate TWF. RAW. Maybe it’s not what they RAI, or RAF, but per RAW.... voila.
This has definitely blown up wayyyy more than I ever expected or intended.
RAI - I completely agree that it is not what was intended.
RAW - I just still don't see anything that has been provided, as being a hard "no, you cannot do this".
Ultimately, from what I have gathered out of the entirety of this discussion, is this... The rules are not written clearly enough to say with 100% certainty either way. So to me, that at the very least opens up the discussion to be had with the DM of the game.
If I were personally DMing, and it was brought to me, based on what I have read, I would allow it, so long as it is not being used for the purpose of abusing mechanics to maximize character efficiency. As I just don't see the hard writing saying you cannot do it.
I honestly never thought of "holding the handle of my sheathed shortsword" part. I will definitely be using that as flavor for the motions my character is doing.
And yeah, my DM already ok'd it, likely because he knows I'm not the type of person that is going to be abusing it.
But thank you for all of the responses. Just seeing how much this blew up makes me feel better to know I'm not the only one not entirely sure if RAW is clear on it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Words have meaning, as do their order and arrangement. We can of course get into a discussion about whether the decision to word the "when" condition of Dual Wielder and Two-Weapon Fighting differently represents a conscious decision or not, but I honestly don't care about RAI for the purpose of this conversation. RAW, the meaning of the words written on the page does not contain a "while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand" clause, and reading one in implicitly is nothing more than RAI or RAF.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
RAW, both instances of "holding" are in present tense; they are therefore simultaneous, and nothing you've said so far changes that.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
These aren't rhetorical questions. They are questions with answers and I gave you the answers. The answers to these questions align generally well with the other written rules to draw a complete picture where you only get the Dueling bonus damage when you are holding/wielding one weapon in one hand, and only get the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus attack when you are holding/wielding two weapons in two hands. That was the OP question, and we are answering it.
Show me in the PHB... where it says... the ONLY time holding is DIFFERENT THAN WIELDING, is for a two handed weapon.
thats where THAT context comes from. It was very much rhetorical. In the context of who and what it was quoting and targeting.
as to the OPs point... RAW says nothing against it, RAI and RAF do. But not RAW. This DOES have quotes form the PHB too.
🥶🥶🥶 I don’t know what else I can say on your freezing cold take that is not using any empirical evidence to support it. When you try and find any argument possible to NOT provide empirical evidence to a simple question about “held” vs “wield” and it having “ONLY” one instance where it’s different.
The PH doesn't define either word. It's using their dictionary definitions, and they have different meanings. Using Merriam-Webster as an example:
The Forum Infestation (TM)
So this moment in time that the second "holding" is referring to... which moment is it? The moment you made the first attack, or the moment you made the second attack? Because as you've conceded, they aren't simultaneous events, there could be as much as six seconds between them. The common sense (or at least, a common sense) reading of the sentence structure is that the first holding applies to the first attack with the first weapon, and the second holding applies to the second attack with the second weapon. The fact that both holdings are present tense for their respective action does not require that they be referring to the same moment.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Exactly the point.
now. Let’s use a dictionary again. Is Hold and Handle the same word?
They are all different words, with similar and related meanings. However, the only rule that we (or you so far) can identify where the difference in the meanings of those words has any major impact is when it relates to two-handed weapons; which can be held in one hand, but require two hands to wield. If you think that assertion is wrong (and important to correct) then you don't need rhetorical questions to prove it, you just need a counter-example.
The OP question does not at all hinge on the different definitions of hold/wield/handle. It hinges on the "when", the comma, and the two usages of the verb "to hold" in the present continuous tense. I posit that the only correct way to interpret that sentence as it is written is all the "that you are holding" statements must be true at the same time as some part of the "when you take the Attack action" statement. That is the meaning of the present continuous tense.
the “only correct way” to “interpret”
so... it’s not WRITTEN that way... it’s INTERPRETTED... that way...
there is a clear difference in what’s written. Between two weapon fighting. And dual wield.
and now you see where the issue is. You are welcome.
Two weapon fighting. And dual wielding. Not the same thing.
but it’s “similar and related”
in dual wielding you have two weapons at the same time. In two weapon. You have two weapons at some point on the same turn. * as written.
to your point Regent, of the OP, cause you keep bringing it up, he mentions specifically RAW. rAW. Not RAI or RAF. But RAW.
and no one has been able to give him a RAW definitive no...
where there is RAW evidence of a YES.
I'm not really invested in the path that McDonaldazor is going down (I'm in the "comma matters" camp), but there is a major impact of his reasoning that gets to the same end point. If you can hold objects in general without wielding them, then surely you can hold a weapon without wielding it. The Dueling fighting style asks for you to wield a weapon in one hand without wielding any other weapons; it places no limitation that the other hand must be empty, only that it not be wielding another weapon. Two weapon fighting instead talks about you holding weapons in hands (maybe both hands, if you reject my comma-based line of reasoning). So the conclusion being, you can hold weapons in both hands, while only wielding the one in your main hand to make an attack, to receive +2 damage to that attack. That attack will then trigger the ability to make a bonus attack with the off hand weapon, which you will start wielding only when making that attack.
Again, not a line of reasoning I'm heavily invested in, but I can see McDonald's point.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Wow. This got way bigger than I thought it would (but then again it is a classic 5e half written rule, so of course it did).
Look 5e cut the word count for rules by more than half compared to 4e (which I hear included tons of clarification and clauses to prevent unwanted interactions). Simply put the rules that were designed around fighting with a single weapon and the rules that were designed around fighting with 2 weapons should not interact. If there is any room to consider alternative rulings, the ruling that makes the most sense is probably the correct one.
Oh yeah. I also wanted to comment on this, and I don't think anyone else did.
You can't do this. An unarmed strike is not a light melee weapon. It is not even a weapon, let alone having any weapon properties.
Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks. Here's where the confusion comes in: your unarmed strike (fist, elbow, knee, butt, etc.) is not considered by the rules to be a weapon the way a longsword is a weapon. But the rules let you make unarmed weapon attacks anyway
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/951895470967672832?lang=en
Unarmed Fighting
Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you strike with two free hands, the d6 becomes a d8. When you successfully start a grapple, you can deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage to the grappled creature. Until the grapple ends, you can also deal this damage to the creature whenever you hit it with a melee attack.
I said it would be easier. And is something that could be done with dueling. And I appear wrong.
so... you’re wrong unarmed isn’t a weapon. Per Jeremy Crawford no less.
and a very fundamental... but not a technical. And... not where they even say “probably ok...” about either...
just saying. I come with facts and sources and a bibliography to my statements and claims.
It *is* written that way. Everything is written to be interpreted. On reading something you must choose an interpretation. Most things have only one correct interpretation, others have several equally valid interpretations, or some more valid than others. You didn't hoist me on any petard, that's just how communication works.
So you have questions about the Dual Wielder feat, where they use "wield" not "hold"? Do you get the DW bonus when holding two one-handed weapons? Yes, you are effectively wielding them. Do you get the DW bonus when holding one or more two-handed weapons? No, you cannot wield them in one hand each. Do you get the DW bonus when holding one or more non-weapon (but potentially improvised weapon) objects? No, they are not weapons.
Are you honestly arguing that someone can hold two shortswords and get the Dueling damage bonus just by declaring that they are not "wielding" the second sword, just "holding" it (and further that they can later use two-weapon fighting because they *are* holding two swords)? Is that honestly what you are arguing is the true and correct meaning of what is written in these rule books, or are you using some form of reductio ad absurdum to discredit the line of reasoning?
Like I said, it's not my argument, I'm just rephrasing (what I think to be) McDonald's argument because others weren't picking up on it. Dueling asks for wielding, 2WF asks for holding, and everyone acknowledges that you can hold without wielding, so in a vacuum it would appear that you could satisfy both simultaneously...
Personally I think it gets a bit too esoteric and legalese-ish even for my own tastes. As a DM, I would ask the player "OK, what's the difference between when you're "holding" your short sword and when you're "wielding" it so that I understand when it changes?" If their answer is just "whenever it benefits me?" my eyes would roll right out of my head, but I could imagine a player describing gripping the pommel of their still-sheathed short sword, or flipping their offhand butterfly knife open and closed playfully, or something like that to describe how the offhand weapon is held but not being "wielded" in a combat ready state until the moment they make the bonus attack later that round. I'm not sure if there's a dual-wieldin form of real world iaijutsu, but so far as I understand it the combat style is all about holding weapons that aren't yet wielded?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, but they are not weapons. JC's tweet does not say otherwise (and neither does any rule you quoted here). It is also mentioned at least 3 times in the SAC. And the PHB was errata'd to make this as clear as possible (you mentioned sources):
Second emphasis mine.
It isn't personal, I'm just clearing up the rules.
I hold a short sword in my hand, that is free of a sheath and scabbard, that is wielded that I swing at your head with my left hand.
at the same exact moment. My right hand, is holding the handle of a short sword. In its scabbard, sheathed along my back/hip/leg/whatever. This weapon still requires a free action to be unsheathed. It is not wielded. But it is held.
i don’t know how this scenario can be explained any easier without pictures.
circling back, yet again, to the OP, about RAW.
this exact scenario. Does not violate dueling. Does not violate TWF. RAW. Maybe it’s not what they RAI, or RAF, but per RAW.... voila.
This has definitely blown up wayyyy more than I ever expected or intended.
RAI - I completely agree that it is not what was intended.
RAW - I just still don't see anything that has been provided, as being a hard "no, you cannot do this".
Ultimately, from what I have gathered out of the entirety of this discussion, is this... The rules are not written clearly enough to say with 100% certainty either way. So to me, that at the very least opens up the discussion to be had with the DM of the game.
If I were personally DMing, and it was brought to me, based on what I have read, I would allow it, so long as it is not being used for the purpose of abusing mechanics to maximize character efficiency. As I just don't see the hard writing saying you cannot do it.
I honestly never thought of "holding the handle of my sheathed shortsword" part. I will definitely be using that as flavor for the motions my character is doing.
And yeah, my DM already ok'd it, likely because he knows I'm not the type of person that is going to be abusing it.
But thank you for all of the responses. Just seeing how much this blew up makes me feel better to know I'm not the only one not entirely sure if RAW is clear on it