So, I'll spare all the details of why / character being created... And go right to the rules question.
Scenario. Fighter, level 1. Dueling stance.
Fighter has a short sword equiped, and nothing equiped in off hand.
Fighter takes the attack action, makes a weapon attack with his short sword, +2 damage for dueling stance.
Fighter then uses his free interact with object, to equip a second short sword, into his off hand.
Can the fighter now make a bonus action to attack with two weapon fighting mechanics with the second shortsword.
Sure, in this scenario it may seem silly, as you would benefit more from the two weapon fighting style, but the character concept would make use of this very nicely.
As much as I read the RAW, I don't see anything that sticks out as a definitive yes or no.
It isn't explicitly said (because 5e tries to cut down on number of words by assuming no one will try to break the game), but it is implied that you need to be holding the second weapon at the time you attack with the first.
I agree that it is implied, at least in the "flavor" of things. I'm more curious of RAW, if this is allowed. Or if it has been asked previously.
I can certainly see an argument in the "flavor" side of things, to be dueling with one weapon, and unsheathing and quickly striking with your off hand, in sort of a "surprise" attack motion.
The benefits I think are very small, small enough that I don't see how it could really be considered "op" or anything. As you immediately lose your dueling bonus on future turns, and can only use the free action to sheathe the weapon the next turn. Meaning you would only be able to abuse it every other turn. Which when you consider your primary has to be a light weapon... You are losing damage each swing, for a benefit one attack every other turn
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.
I would say it is more than just an implication. The exact wording is "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." The key words are "when" and "you're holding" (twice). The meaning of these words all combined in the present continuous tense is that all must be true at the same time. You must make at least one attack (as part of the Attack action) while holding two valid weapons. You then unlock the ability to take the bonus action attack. If you're not holding a second weapon at the time of the attacks, then you have no bonus action attack to take - no matter what object ends up in your other hand later in the turn.
After having re-read the rules several times... I actually very strongly disagree with that interpretation.
Nowhere in that, does it mention wielding both weapons at the time of the initial attack action occuring.
It simply states that if you attack with a light weapon in one hand, you may attack with one in your other hand as a bonus action.
The wording seems actually rather clear that you have the bonus action available to you. So long as you meet the requirements of holding another light weapon to do so. Which, unsheathing your weapon would do so.
Timing shouldn't be an issue either, as you can break up your attacks, with movement in between, which you could also unsheath your second weapon during that timeframe as well.
It sounds silly... But... The more I'm reading the RAW, the more it sounds like you absolutely can do so.
Unless there is a ruling somewhere stating that if at the time of you gaining a bonus action, you don't meet the requirements to USE the bonus action right then, that you lose it forever. Even if you later meet the requirements on the same turn.
Or more specifically. The rules state I meet the requirements to use the bonus action to make the attack, before ever stating the existence of a second weapon.
I agree that it is implied, at least in the "flavor" of things. I'm more curious of RAW, if this is allowed. Or if it has been asked previously.
I can certainly see an argument in the "flavor" side of things, to be dueling with one weapon, and unsheathing and quickly striking with your off hand, in sort of a "surprise" attack motion.
The benefits I think are very small, small enough that I don't see how it could really be considered "op" or anything. As you immediately lose your dueling bonus on future turns, and can only use the free action to sheathe the weapon the next turn. Meaning you would only be able to abuse it every other turn. Which when you consider your primary has to be a light weapon... You are losing damage each swing, for a benefit one attack every other turn
Except that you could throw a dagger with your attack. If the DM rules that a free interaction could pick up the dagger (and assuming that you can make it to the dagger within your movement), then you could use it indefinitely. In fact, you could theoretically throw a dagger or other light thrown weapon to gain the +2 from dueling, then pull the second dagger out and do it again (without your attack ability modifier but with dueling).
The thing that I've found about RAW is that you can sometimes hand wave things or interpret things a certain way just to unlock something. While I agree with RegentCorreon's reading of the text, I can see where you are coming from. As a DM, I will look at RAI if the reading of RAW becomes muddy. For me RAI definitely precludes using two weapon fighting with the Duelist fighting style. The reason for this is that the bonus action doesn't exist unless you use two weapon fighting. The timing of the action Attack is the trigger. If you are holding a weapon in your other hand at the time you make your main action attack, then you get a bonus action melee attack with your other weapon if you choose to use it. If you don't have a weapon in your off hand, there is no trigger.
One of the main balancing factors in 5e is the action economy and your trying to work around it here.
"When you take the Attack action and attack with alightmelee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with adifferentlightmelee weapon that you're holding in the other hand." Emphasis mine.
Seems pretty straightforward. You need to be holding the second weapon in your off-hand when you hit with the first.
Two-weapon fighting and the Dueling fighting style are entirely incompatible, and there is no valid premise for an argument stating otherwise. They are clearly incompatible by RAW, and attempting to combine them is (IMO) the worst of Munchkin-ism on display.
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.
Erpman, you are correct that they are compatible as written. Not only does RAW allow it, action economy of free interactions should prevent it from being abused too heavily since you can only draw OR sheath the off hand each round.
Erpman, you are correct that they are compatible as written. Not only does RAW allow it, action economy of free interactions should prevent it from being abused too heavily since you can only draw OR sheath the off hand each round.
Except that they aren't compatible. What makes you think they are? Two-weapon fighting requires you to be wielding two weapons. The Dueling fighting style requires you to wield a weapon in one hand and no other weapons. These two features are the epitome of incompatible.
I also really don't understand why anyone would want to do this, anyway. Go with the Two-Weapon Fighting style instead. Dueling only gives you a +2 to your damage roll, Two-Weapon Fighting can give you up to +5. The main benefit of Dueling is being able to use a shield or focus.
These fighting styles/modes have two halves to them: a trigger (usually worded as a "When you..." statement), and an effect. The trigger of Two-Weapon Fighting is "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand". Attacking with a weapon wielded in the off hand is the effect upon trigger, not a trigger condition.
Here's what Two-Weapon Fighting says, for easy reference:
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.
Now, here's Dueling:
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
Looking at these two side by side, you can see quite plainly that Dueling requires a weapon to be held in only one hand as its trigger. If "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons" = true, then the effect = "you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
Two-Weapon Fighting is no more complicated. If "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand" = true, then the effect = "you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand".
I get that the hangup here for many is the present tense of "that you're holding." Would it be clearer in my and Erpman's favor if it read "that is held" in the other hand or "wielded in the other hand"? Absolutely. But I don't think the tense of holding overrides the fact that the trigger is already satisfied when you make the first attack, no other triggers need be satisfied.
If Two-Weapon Fighting was meant to require two weapons as a trigger, it would instead be worded something more like the Dual Wielder feat, which does require two weapons as a trigger:
When you take the Attack action while wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand 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.
Doesn't say that. Maybe RAI it should say that, but RAW it doesn't.
These fighting styles/modes have two halves to them: a trigger (usually worded as a "When you..." statement), and an effect. The trigger of Two-Weapon Fighting is "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand". Attacking with a weapon wielded in the off hand is the effect upon trigger, not a trigger condition.
Here's what Two-Weapon Fighting says, for easy reference:
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.
Now, here's Dueling:
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
Looking at these two side by side, you can see quite plainly that Dueling requires a weapon to be held in only one hand as its trigger. If "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons" = true, then the effect = "you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
Two-Weapon Fighting is no more complicated. If "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand" = true, then the effect = "you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand".
I get that the hangup here for many is the present tense of "that you're holding." Would it be clearer in my and Erpman's favor if it read "that is held" in the other hand or "wielded in the other hand"? Absolutely. But I don't think the tense of holding overrides the fact that the trigger is already satisfied when you make the first attack, no other triggers need be satisfied.
If Two-Weapon Fighting was meant to require two weapons as a trigger, it would instead be worded something more like the Dual Wielder feat, which does require two weapons as a trigger:
When you take the Attack action while wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand 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.
Doesn't say that. Maybe RAI it should say that, but RAW it doesn't.
You are absolutely right. It was either an oversight for their RAI when doing RAW, or. They wanted it to be there as something that people could do, if they ever got 2 fighting styles via feat or multi class.
but if they didn’t want them to not work together potentially, they would have definitely worded it as the dual wielding feat, which they clearly worded in such a way
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.
Therefore, after the first round of abusing the mechanics per the OP, the player would start combat with two weapons in each hand. Except dropping something, as pointed out, is completely free. Which means the character could drop the offhand weapon, attack with the +2 bonus again, then use the free action to pick up the dropped dagger and bonus action attack with two-weapon fighting.
It's intentionally breaking the Dueling fighting style. Therefore it shouldn't be allowed by RAW.
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.
This is one sentence, not a conjunction of two independent clauses. The entire thing applies. You must be actually holding two weapons to qualify for two-weapon fighting. 🙄
Dual Wielder does not contradict this. Dual Wielder actually confirms it.
Dual Wielder
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
+1 bonus to AC is something that is always active while you are wielding two melee weapons, not just when you are attacking with the weapons. The language in this bullet is completely unrelated to attacking with two-weapon fighting, and any similarity in syntax cannot be used as a premise to argue syntax with two-weapon fighting--regardless of the intended conclusion. You only qualify for the +1 AC when you're actually holding two separate weapons. This is the same as saying you only qualify for the +2 AC from a shield when you're actually holding it. That's it for the scope of bullet #1.
The language in bullet #2 is directly related to using two-weapon fighting, and specifically calls out the utilization of TWF being contingent upon actually holding two weapons at the same time.
Two-weapon fighting and the Dueling fighting style are mutually-exclusive. There is no ambiguity about this.
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.
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?
... 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...
... 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...
News to me. Where in RAW does it say this?
The main place it's described is here:
Use an Object
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
But there are other mentions. One is under the prone rules weirdly enough;
INTERACTING WITH OBJECTS AROUND YOU
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
draw or sheathe a sword
open or close a door
withdraw a potion from your backpack
pick up a dropped axe
take a bauble from a table
Point is, you never get to do it for "free," it's either a part of your action or movement or whatever. In this case, however, you need to resolve your entire Attack action while wielding only one sword, and once the attack is done that action is over. You can draw another weapon as part of your movement afterwards, but since the attack is done you won't get the bonus action attack, since in order to get the bonus action attack you have to "Make your Attack action" while holding two weapons.
So, I'll spare all the details of why / character being created... And go right to the rules question.
Scenario. Fighter, level 1. Dueling stance.
Fighter has a short sword equiped, and nothing equiped in off hand.
Fighter takes the attack action, makes a weapon attack with his short sword, +2 damage for dueling stance.
Fighter then uses his free interact with object, to equip a second short sword, into his off hand.
Can the fighter now make a bonus action to attack with two weapon fighting mechanics with the second shortsword.
Sure, in this scenario it may seem silly, as you would benefit more from the two weapon fighting style, but the character concept would make use of this very nicely.
As much as I read the RAW, I don't see anything that sticks out as a definitive yes or no.
It isn't explicitly said (because 5e tries to cut down on number of words by assuming no one will try to break the game), but it is implied that you need to be holding the second weapon at the time you attack with the first.
I agree that it is implied, at least in the "flavor" of things. I'm more curious of RAW, if this is allowed. Or if it has been asked previously.
I can certainly see an argument in the "flavor" side of things, to be dueling with one weapon, and unsheathing and quickly striking with your off hand, in sort of a "surprise" attack motion.
The benefits I think are very small, small enough that I don't see how it could really be considered "op" or anything. As you immediately lose your dueling bonus on future turns, and can only use the free action to sheathe the weapon the next turn. Meaning you would only be able to abuse it every other turn. Which when you consider your primary has to be a light weapon... You are losing damage each swing, for a benefit one attack every other turn
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.
I would say it is more than just an implication. The exact wording is "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." The key words are "when" and "you're holding" (twice). The meaning of these words all combined in the present continuous tense is that all must be true at the same time. You must make at least one attack (as part of the Attack action) while holding two valid weapons. You then unlock the ability to take the bonus action attack. If you're not holding a second weapon at the time of the attacks, then you have no bonus action attack to take - no matter what object ends up in your other hand later in the turn.
After having re-read the rules several times... I actually very strongly disagree with that interpretation.
Nowhere in that, does it mention wielding both weapons at the time of the initial attack action occuring.
It simply states that if you attack with a light weapon in one hand, you may attack with one in your other hand as a bonus action.
The wording seems actually rather clear that you have the bonus action available to you. So long as you meet the requirements of holding another light weapon to do so. Which, unsheathing your weapon would do so.
Timing shouldn't be an issue either, as you can break up your attacks, with movement in between, which you could also unsheath your second weapon during that timeframe as well.
It sounds silly... But... The more I'm reading the RAW, the more it sounds like you absolutely can do so.
Unless there is a ruling somewhere stating that if at the time of you gaining a bonus action, you don't meet the requirements to USE the bonus action right then, that you lose it forever. Even if you later meet the requirements on the same turn.
Or more specifically. The rules state I meet the requirements to use the bonus action to make the attack, before ever stating the existence of a second weapon.
Except that you could throw a dagger with your attack. If the DM rules that a free interaction could pick up the dagger (and assuming that you can make it to the dagger within your movement), then you could use it indefinitely. In fact, you could theoretically throw a dagger or other light thrown weapon to gain the +2 from dueling, then pull the second dagger out and do it again (without your attack ability modifier but with dueling).
The thing that I've found about RAW is that you can sometimes hand wave things or interpret things a certain way just to unlock something. While I agree with RegentCorreon's reading of the text, I can see where you are coming from. As a DM, I will look at RAI if the reading of RAW becomes muddy. For me RAI definitely precludes using two weapon fighting with the Duelist fighting style. The reason for this is that the bonus action doesn't exist unless you use two weapon fighting. The timing of the action Attack is the trigger. If you are holding a weapon in your other hand at the time you make your main action attack, then you get a bonus action melee attack with your other weapon if you choose to use it. If you don't have a weapon in your off hand, there is no trigger.
One of the main balancing factors in 5e is the action economy and your trying to work around it here.
"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." Emphasis mine.
Seems pretty straightforward. You need to be holding the second weapon in your off-hand when you hit with the first.
Two-weapon fighting and the Dueling fighting style are entirely incompatible, and there is no valid premise for an argument stating otherwise. They are clearly incompatible by RAW, and attempting to combine them is (IMO) the worst of Munchkin-ism on display.
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.
Erpman, you are correct that they are compatible as written. Not only does RAW allow it, action economy of free interactions should prevent it from being abused too heavily since you can only draw OR sheath the off hand each round.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Except that they aren't compatible. What makes you think they are? Two-weapon fighting requires you to be wielding two weapons. The Dueling fighting style requires you to wield a weapon in one hand and no other weapons. These two features are the epitome of incompatible.
I also really don't understand why anyone would want to do this, anyway. Go with the Two-Weapon Fighting style instead. Dueling only gives you a +2 to your damage roll, Two-Weapon Fighting can give you up to +5. The main benefit of Dueling is being able to use a shield or focus.
These fighting styles/modes have two halves to them: a trigger (usually worded as a "When you..." statement), and an effect. The trigger of Two-Weapon Fighting is "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand". Attacking with a weapon wielded in the off hand is the effect upon trigger, not a trigger condition.
Here's what Two-Weapon Fighting says, for easy reference:
Now, here's Dueling:
Looking at these two side by side, you can see quite plainly that Dueling requires a weapon to be held in only one hand as its trigger. If "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons" = true, then the effect = "you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
Two-Weapon Fighting is no more complicated. If "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand" = true, then the effect = "you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand".
I get that the hangup here for many is the present tense of "that you're holding." Would it be clearer in my and Erpman's favor if it read "that is held" in the other hand or "wielded in the other hand"? Absolutely. But I don't think the tense of holding overrides the fact that the trigger is already satisfied when you make the first attack, no other triggers need be satisfied.
If Two-Weapon Fighting was meant to require two weapons as a trigger, it would instead be worded something more like the Dual Wielder feat, which does require two weapons as a trigger:
Doesn't say that. Maybe RAI it should say that, but RAW it doesn't.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are absolutely right. It was either an oversight for their RAI when doing RAW, or. They wanted it to be there as something that people could do, if they ever got 2 fighting styles via feat or multi class.
but if they didn’t want them to not work together potentially, they would have definitely worded it as the dual wielding feat, which they clearly worded in such a way
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 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.
So, what's important is this: "When you attack with a weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can attack with a different weapon that you're holding in 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.
That could be abused, therefore against RAI when RAW is not clear.
A player could abuse the OP's definition because DROPPING something held in your hand costs nothing. It's not even considered a 'free action'.
Source: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/
Therefore, after the first round of abusing the mechanics per the OP, the player would start combat with two weapons in each hand. Except dropping something, as pointed out, is completely free. Which means the character could drop the offhand weapon, attack with the +2 bonus again, then use the free action to pick up the dropped dagger and bonus action attack with two-weapon fighting.
It's intentionally breaking the Dueling fighting style. Therefore it shouldn't be allowed by RAW.
Incorrect.
This is one sentence, not a conjunction of two independent clauses. The entire thing applies. You must be actually holding two weapons to qualify for two-weapon fighting. 🙄
Dual Wielder does not contradict this. Dual Wielder actually confirms it.
+1 bonus to AC is something that is always active while you are wielding two melee weapons, not just when you are attacking with the weapons. The language in this bullet is completely unrelated to attacking with two-weapon fighting, and any similarity in syntax cannot be used as a premise to argue syntax with two-weapon fighting--regardless of the intended conclusion. You only qualify for the +1 AC when you're actually holding two separate weapons. This is the same as saying you only qualify for the +2 AC from a shield when you're actually holding it. That's it for the scope of bullet #1.
The language in bullet #2 is directly related to using two-weapon fighting, and specifically calls out the utilization of TWF being contingent upon actually holding two weapons at the same time.
Two-weapon fighting and the Dueling fighting style are mutually-exclusive. There is no ambiguity about this.
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.
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?
News to me. Where in RAW does it say this?Nevermind.
The main place it's described is here:
But there are other mentions. One is under the prone rules weirdly enough;
INTERACTING WITH OBJECTS AROUND YOU
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
Point is, you never get to do it for "free," it's either a part of your action or movement or whatever. In this case, however, you need to resolve your entire Attack action while wielding only one sword, and once the attack is done that action is over. You can draw another weapon as part of your movement afterwards, but since the attack is done you won't get the bonus action attack, since in order to get the bonus action attack you have to "Make your Attack action" while holding two weapons.