Could a barb/rogue use a 2h weapon as a first attack, then pull out a dagger (as a free action), and use it on your second attack to trigger sneak attack? You would leave the dagger in the target and just carry lots of daggers with you. Reckless attack is implied.
Yes. The Dagger would still need to be a strength-based attack to benefit from Reckless, but you absolutely could do that. You wouldn't need to leave the dagger in the target either: round 2, you could make your first attack (Reckless) with the dagger, free action sheathe it, then make your second attack with the 2H weapon. Alternate rounds back and forth as to whether you're drawing or sheathing the dagger on any given round... or, yes, just drop it at any point for free to quit worrying about it, because ending your turn with it in your hand means you can't use the 2H weapon for opportunity attacks unless you drop it first (which I think you should be able to do off-turn, but your DM may say you can only do on your turn).
Could a barb/rogue use a 2h weapon as a first attack, then pull out a dagger (as a free action), and use it on your second attack to trigger sneak attack? You would leave the dagger in the target and just carry lots of daggers with you. Reckless attack is implied.
You can cast spells while holding a 2-handed weapon, so I don't see why not. . . . (actually I am incorrect- see below)
It doesn't give you any more attacks than you'd make normally, but-
Wait a second...
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.
Holding. Holding. Not "wielding." You can hold a Greatsword in one hand, can't you? TWF doesn't care that you're only holding the Greatsword in your other hand, it seems totally down with giving you a Bonus Action Two-Weapon Fighting attack with it after using your other hand to attack with a Dagger. The only reason you can't is that (1) the Greatsword needs two hands to actually make that attack (easy enough to solve, just drop or sheathe the Dagger as a free action after you attack with it) and (2) the Greatsword isn't Light. Can we fix #2?
Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
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.
So here's where this fails. Dual Wielder mostly fixes #2 by removing the Light requirement... but only for one-handed melee weapons. Arguably, it may also have just injected a new "wielding" requirement that Two-Weapon Fighting didn't already come up with, and you weren't "wielding" the Greatsword while you were merely holding it in one hand and attacking with the Dagger in the other.
So.... no. This is not a way to get around Two-Weapon Fighting, as much as my heart secretly thrilled that it might be for a moment, just a way to use your Sneak Attack once per round while still swinging a big Heavy sword on other attacks you have in your Attack action from the Extra Attack feature you get as a Barbarian 5. But way to get my hopes up :p
My understanding is you can't take the Attack action with a Two-Handed weapon you are holding in one hand. To attack with a two-Handed weapon you must be wielding it in two hands.
I think I could accept that if this at such a level that the Barbarian gets two attacks by using their action, then if they would like to use a two-hander & dagger, the action economy allows that during the attack action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I am going to agree with Musicscout. The game is generally written with natural language. While Chicken Champ is correct using the dictionary, I would not allow it as a DM.
So OP is right, but TWF would not apply and the combo would only work once Extra Attack is unlocked. Well that makes for some really interesting builds, esp since there's no need to stick to light weapons, so Greataxe + Rapier.
Edit: As for if any of this is good in a actual game and not just whiteroom thinking... uh... yeah some DMs might say no.
Additional Edit: Chicken is right in that actually yeah, now that I think of it yeah I can kinda see it. Definitely still a bit iffy but I guess I don't see much issue in it. I would probably allow it after reading his post below yeah. Changed most to some.
I never suggested that one be allowed to make an attack with a Two-Handed weapon using only one hand, if that was unclear.
But I see absolutely nothing about using multiple attacks within the Attack to attack with multiple weapons that "most DMs will probably say no" to. This is very standard stuff, and not really any different than stabbing with a rapier then throwing a dagger , or shooting with a longbow then drawing a sword and slashing. Very standard stuff.
No idk if it said it before cause it was edited, but Chicken_Champ is very clear that TWF would not work in all his posts (except the first one, where he doesn't mention it), that this is something you do with Extra Attack.
So.... no. This is not a way to get around Two-Weapon Fighting, as much as my heart secretly thrilled that it might be for a moment, just a way to use your Sneak Attack once per round while still swinging a big Heavy sword on other attacks you have in your Attack action from the Extra Attack feature you get as a Barbarian 5. But way to get my hopes up :p
Chicken's 3rd post (#10), note it says attack and links to the action. Not TWF.
But I see absolutely nothing about using multiple attacks within the Attack to attack with multiple weapons that "most DMs will probably say no" to. This is very standard stuff, and not really any different than stabbing with a rapier then throwing a dagger , or shooting with a longbow then drawing a sword and slashing. Very standard stuff.
Could a barb/rogue use a 2h weapon as a first attack, then pull out a dagger (as a free action), and use it on your second attack to trigger sneak attack? You would leave the dagger in the target and just carry lots of daggers with you. Reckless attack is implied.
Yes. The Dagger would still need to be a strength-based attack to benefit from Reckless, but you absolutely could do that. You wouldn't need to leave the dagger in the target either: round 2, you could make your first attack (Reckless) with the dagger, free action sheathe it, then make your second attack with the 2H weapon. Alternate rounds back and forth as to whether you're drawing or sheathing the dagger on any given round... or, yes, just drop it at any point for free to quit worrying about it, because ending your turn with it in your hand means you can't use the 2H weapon for opportunity attacks unless you drop it first (which I think you should be able to do off-turn, but your DM may say you can only do on your turn).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You can cast spells while holding a 2-handed weapon, so I don't see why not. . . .
(actually I am incorrect- see below)
What level? This sounds like an end around in violation of TWF. Am I missing something? I haven't played a barbarian yet.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
It is with the presumption that the Barb is high enough level to have Extra Attack.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
It doesn't give you any more attacks than you'd make normally, but-
Wait a second...
Holding. Holding. Not "wielding." You can hold a Greatsword in one hand, can't you? TWF doesn't care that you're only holding the Greatsword in your other hand, it seems totally down with giving you a Bonus Action Two-Weapon Fighting attack with it after using your other hand to attack with a Dagger. The only reason you can't is that (1) the Greatsword needs two hands to actually make that attack (easy enough to solve, just drop or sheathe the Dagger as a free action after you attack with it) and (2) the Greatsword isn't Light. Can we fix #2?
So here's where this fails. Dual Wielder mostly fixes #2 by removing the Light requirement... but only for one-handed melee weapons. Arguably, it may also have just injected a new "wielding" requirement that Two-Weapon Fighting didn't already come up with, and you weren't "wielding" the Greatsword while you were merely holding it in one hand and attacking with the Dagger in the other.
So.... no. This is not a way to get around Two-Weapon Fighting, as much as my heart secretly thrilled that it might be for a moment, just a way to use your Sneak Attack once per round while still swinging a big Heavy sword on other attacks you have in your Attack action from the Extra Attack feature you get as a Barbarian 5. But way to get my hopes up :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Objection, your honor.
My understanding is you can't take the Attack action with a Two-Handed weapon you are holding in one hand. To attack with a two-Handed weapon you must be wielding it in two hands.
I think I could accept that if this at such a level that the Barbarian gets two attacks by using their action, then if they would like to use a two-hander & dagger, the action economy allows that during the attack action.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I am going to agree with Musicscout. The game is generally written with natural language. While Chicken Champ is correct using the dictionary, I would not allow it as a DM.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
So OP is right, but TWF would not apply and the combo would only work once Extra Attack is unlocked. Well that makes for some really interesting builds, esp since there's no need to stick to light weapons, so Greataxe + Rapier.
Edit: As for if any of this is good in a actual game and not just whiteroom thinking... uh... yeah some DMs might say no.
Additional Edit: Chicken is right in that actually yeah, now that I think of it yeah I can kinda see it. Definitely still a bit iffy but I guess I don't see much issue in it. I would probably allow it after reading his post below yeah. Changed most to some.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I never suggested that one be allowed to make an attack with a Two-Handed weapon using only one hand, if that was unclear.
But I see absolutely nothing about using multiple attacks within the Attack to attack with multiple weapons that "most DMs will probably say no" to. This is very standard stuff, and not really any different than stabbing with a rapier then throwing a dagger , or shooting with a longbow then drawing a sword and slashing. Very standard stuff.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Chicken,
Just to clarify, and not to be argumentative ... Are we considering this an option that could be used while two weapon fighting (TWF)?
If so, it appears we will just have to agree to disagree. Have fun.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
No idk if it said it before cause it was edited, but Chicken_Champ is very clear that TWF would not work in all his posts (except the first one, where he doesn't mention it), that this is something you do with Extra Attack.
Edit: Chicken's second post (#6). Emphasis mine.
Chicken's 3rd post (#10), note it says attack and links to the action. Not TWF.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Sorry for any confusion!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.