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.
If you want to use your off-hand to attack you must use the Action: Attack.
That said remember order is agnostic. So, you can do the Bonus Action attack first, but then you are required to use the Action: Attack to attack in the turn. Also remember Movement can be done before and after each and every attack.
I'm this case the order isn't agnostic. To use the bonus action attack with two weapon fighting you have to make an attack with the attack action. It implies you would need to do that first.
I think the order is still agnostic. You can declare you are performing and Attack Action, with the Bonus Action offhand attack, then perform those attacks with movement/object interaction in between and in any order. Once you start though, you can't change your mind no matter what the consequences. If you use the bonus attack then move and fall into a trap and can't reach anyone to hit with the remaining attacks then those attacks are wasted - you have already begun the Attack/Bonus attack manoeuvre so no other action may be chosen.
I don't agree with you. You can not declare actions. You can only take actions. Taking the attack action implies making one or more attacks. You can not take the attack action without doing any attacks (you could find some wiggle room in the sense that you could take an attack action without making an attack, since DnD 5e doesn't specify prerequisites - to make the rules simpler - but then your attack action would just do nothing). Because of this, you can not do your bonus action attack before your first normal attack (it is only granted when taking an attack action) and not even before a possible second normal attack, as the exception for interleaving stuff between your possible multi-attacks is only for movement:
Moving Between Attacks
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.
It doesn't allow to take bonus actions in between.
In my opinion this restriction is not for power level reasons, but just for making the rules simpler. So I don't think that your ruling is problematic in any way.
This has always been an odd topic, but in this instance I believe the bonus action can come first as long as you then definitely take the attack action.
There is a slight difference as the Shield Master feat has an extra "on your turn":
You use shields not just for protection but also for offense. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield:
If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
(bold by me)
Dnd 5e tends to not be that extremely exact in his wording, though, so this could mean nothing...
Under bonus actions in the PHB:
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
One can argue that Two-Weapon-Fighting specifies a timing.
I'm this case the order isn't agnostic. To use the bonus action attack with two weapon fighting you have to make an attack with the attack action. It implies you would need to do that first.
If you can explain a situation - as white roomed as you like - where it would make sense to attack with your bonus action before an attack using the normal attack option, then maybe, but only maybe, I'll understand the point you are trying to make.
@nils quoted out of context for fun : "You can not declare actions." Tell the BBEG that before he starts monologuing about how he's going to cut off parts of your body etc. Also, in my experience, most fighters do declare their attacks in advance - it's called telegraphing.
The only reason I could think of to take the bonus action attack first is that it is almost certainly your weakest attack (particularly if you lack the TWF style (but then why are you even using two weapons?)), and there is a very weak enemy that you would like to kill urgently - like an owl familiar that keeps buzzing across the battlefield "helping" give advantage to attack rolls. It would be sensible to use your least damaging attacks first, so as not to waste stronger attacks unless the first misses. So you bonus throw your dagger first to take that owl down, then use your hand axe to try at it again if you miss, or to attack another enemy if you hit. It is such a tiny tactical advantage (and it involves a risk of wasted attacks as well) that I see no reason to impose an order to the various attacks, rather than to continue with the assumption of agnostic action ordering that applies everywhere else. Is it a house rule? I don't know and don't much care.
I do believe you can take the bonus action before the regular attack action, but it might not matter. There is no "mainhand" and "offhand". Two-weapon fighting just specifies that if you take an Attack Action and attack when a light melee weapon you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to make an attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. So, lets say you're holding a vorpal scimitar in your right hand, and a dagger in your left hand, and you want to use your dagger first, then the scimitar. If you believe you must take the Attack Action first, then the bonus action, you can still make an Attack Action with your left hand (dagger), then attack with the scimitar as a bonus action. Granted, it's not ideal: barring Two-Weapon Fighting style, you won't add str/dex bonus to the scimitar damage, and if you have extra attacks, they'll happen with the dagger, not the scimitar. But in at least some cases (TWFS, no extra attacks), it works out the same.
That being said, the "on your turn" phrase in Shield Master reads more like a restriction than anything (you can't use it on a reaction, like for example, if you Ready an Action "If the hobgoblin comes within range, I'll bop him in the head with my club", and the condition happens, you can't do a bonus Shield Bash that round). Hm... actually, the fact that Two-Weapon Fighting lacks that restriction might imply there's timing involved. Either that, or it was an accidental omission. Otherwise, you could use the bonus "offhand" attack, ready the attack action, and use your reaction on someone else's turn that round to attack. Or maybe that's intended?
The reason I compared Shield Master and Two-Weapon Fighting as similar in an earlier post was due to the contrast with this following quote from Monk:
Flurry of Blows
Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.
In this instance we have clear wording that can't be interpreted any other way than intended.
That aside, there are some interesting points here. I remain of the opinion it can be either way around, but having googled it I can see opinion has been split in almost every time this discussion has come up. There doesn't appear to be a right or wrong answer, and, as mentioned, the difference is negligible.
My thing is this, if you can't normally make a bonus action attack with an offhand light weapon, but the rule says you can "if" you make an attack action with a light weapon in your main hand it stating you have to do that to even gain the option to make the bonus action off hand attack. That implies it needs to be done first to gain the latter.
Also to back this up, remember according to the phb, you don't even have a bonus action to spend unless a mechanic gives you one to spend. 1st page of the combat section. Making the attack action with two weapon fighting grants you that bonus action off hand attack. Therefore, the bonus action attack doesn't exist until you have made that initial attack action.
My thing is this, if you can't normally make a bonus action attack with an offhand light weapon, but the rule says you can "if" you make an attack action with a light weapon in your main hand it stating you have to do that to even gain the option to make the bonus action off hand attack. That implies it needs to be done first to gain the latter.
Also to back this up, remember according to the phb, you don't even have a bonus action to spend unless a mechanic gives you one to spend. 1st page of the combat section. Making the attack action with two weapon fighting grants you that bonus action off hand attack. Therefore, the bonus action attack doesn't exist until you have made that initial attack action.
You're imposing a temporal restriction that is not explicitly stated. The rules don't say you get the bonus action "after" you use the Attack action. If I use the Attack action in round 1, I get a bonus action attack with the other hand. Shield Master bonus action can be taken before the Attack action, this is confirmed. It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action can be taken before, also. Granted, Two-Weapon Fighting says "when", rather than "if", which can also reasonably be read as "at the exact point in time you take the Attack action, you generate a bonus action which you can use to make an attack with the other weapon". But that is certainly not the only reasonable reading of the phrase, especially considering other mechanics (e.g. Flurry of Blows) do explicitly mention temporal restrictions ("immediately after").
Mechanics-wise, the act of taking the Attack action gives you a bonus action for that round, and, as per Jeremy Crawford, with "most" bonus actions, you can choose the timing. Of course, the bonus action generated by Two-Weapon Fighting might not fall into that "most" group... but thematically and realistically, it makes sense that it would. Why would you need to wait until after you attack with your "mainhand" to then attack with your "offhand"? Especially since there is no real concept of "main-" and "off-hand". (Not that "realism" is a strong argument by itself... but I think it supports the other statements well.)
Edit: forgot to add: the strongest argument for "you need to do your main Attack action first", I feel, is "when" rather than "if", since "when" is, in fact, a "time" concept. Logic-wise "when" and "if" are interchangeable ("when it rains, I use my umbrella" is the same logic statement as "if it rains, I use my umbrella"), but a case can certainly be made that the word "when" was chosen there for its inherent temporal content, rather than "if".
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
The text for two-weapon fighting reads:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
I know that this has been going back and forth, but this one seems fairly clear (RAW) that until you actually "take the Attack action" you don't have the ability to use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon.
The Shield Master feat highlighted above by VillainTheory has exactly the same - until that attack action has been taken, the feat doesn't create the possibility of the bonus action being used for the shove.
I think what we have here is one of those RAW (Rules as Written) vs RAI (Rules as Interpreted) issues where the designers meant the game to play a certain way, but the rules they wrote down are logically defining things slightly differently.
With clarifications from Jeremy Crawford, it would seem:
RAW - you need to take Attack action first, before you can use your "offhand" weapon or shield master shove etc.
RAI - Jeremy has defined they can be in any order as long as you intend to take the attack action (ie. you can't get luck and kill something with your offhand attack, then change your mind about taking the attack action).
This kinda means there isn't a wrong or a right way of doing this, which is why people are able to interpret this both ways.
TL;DR - do it one way or the other, just be consistent. :)
Thinking that "When you take the Attack action..." counts as specific timing is, in my opinion, applying the "specific beats general" rule in opposite direction. I see it as being, both intended and written, as this:
Generally you don't have a bonus action.
More specifically, you do when something says you do and tells you how you can use it.
More specifically, you can do that bonus action with whatever timing relative to other actions you want to.
Most specifically, you can't do 3 if the bonus action in question has text like the "Immediately after you take the Attack action..." that flurry of blows has.
My reasoning for that thinking is this: if we were to treat "When you take the Attack action..." as being specific timing telling us we have to do the bonus action after the attack action, then the rules text saying "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified" isn't actually doing anything because the only bonus actions that would then not have timing specified are already just as clearly done in whatever order you want as your movement and action are because they are spells which have a bonus action casting time or other actions which are entirely independent (read: meaning they can be done without also doing some other thing, like making an attack action), and the "Immediately after..." from the flurry of blows feature (and any similarly worded bonus action timing that I might not be aware of at the moment) is then differently worded for no reason.
And that's the thing. The bonus action for all intents and purposes doesn't exist to use until you take that attack action. That's just RAW.
Yes IF you have a bonus action you can choose to use it before or after, but you have to have one to use. In this instance you don't have one to use until you take that attack action, only then does the mechanic give you the option to utilize that bonus action as an off hand attack.
I don't think anyone is wrong here, but also neither side can claim that their interpretation is RAW. The sentence in question is ambiguous, it literally could mean either thing or both. That's just the way English works sometimes. It is also not very important; both interpretations result in a similarly balanced effect, and both are pretty easy to implement in practice. Each to their own (but this *is* the internet, so my way is obviously the best).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi, I was wondering if the following was allowed for a turn, for a character holding 2 weapons, in this order:
Or if the bonus attack can only be made if the Attack action is taken?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/combat#TwoWeaponFighting
If you want to use your off-hand to attack you must use the Action: Attack.
That said remember order is agnostic. So, you can do the Bonus Action attack first, but then you are required to use the Action: Attack to attack in the turn. Also remember Movement can be done before and after each and every attack.
Interesting, thanks for clarifying.
I'm this case the order isn't agnostic. To use the bonus action attack with two weapon fighting you have to make an attack with the attack action. It implies you would need to do that first.
I think the order is still agnostic. You can declare you are performing and Attack Action, with the Bonus Action offhand attack, then perform those attacks with movement/object interaction in between and in any order. Once you start though, you can't change your mind no matter what the consequences. If you use the bonus attack then move and fall into a trap and can't reach anyone to hit with the remaining attacks then those attacks are wasted - you have already begun the Attack/Bonus attack manoeuvre so no other action may be chosen.
I don't agree with you. You can not declare actions. You can only take actions. Taking the attack action implies making one or more attacks. You can not take the attack action without doing any attacks (you could find some wiggle room in the sense that you could take an attack action without making an attack, since DnD 5e doesn't specify prerequisites - to make the rules simpler - but then your attack action would just do nothing). Because of this, you can not do your bonus action attack before your first normal attack (it is only granted when taking an attack action) and not even before a possible second normal attack, as the exception for interleaving stuff between your possible multi-attacks is only for movement:
It doesn't allow to take bonus actions in between.
In my opinion this restriction is not for power level reasons, but just for making the rules simpler. So I don't think that your ruling is problematic in any way.
This has always been an odd topic, but in this instance I believe the bonus action can come first as long as you then definitely take the attack action.
Source: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/29/shield-master-feat/
Crawford says: 'As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action.'
Notably, the Shield Master feat has extremely similar wording to the two-weapon fighting rules.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
There is a slight difference as the Shield Master feat has an extra "on your turn":
(bold by me)
Dnd 5e tends to not be that extremely exact in his wording, though, so this could mean nothing...
Under bonus actions in the PHB:
One can argue that Two-Weapon-Fighting specifies a timing.
Tell the BBEG that before he starts monologuing about how he's going to cut off parts of your body etc.
Also, in my experience, most fighters do declare their attacks in advance - it's called telegraphing.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
The only reason I could think of to take the bonus action attack first is that it is almost certainly your weakest attack (particularly if you lack the TWF style (but then why are you even using two weapons?)), and there is a very weak enemy that you would like to kill urgently - like an owl familiar that keeps buzzing across the battlefield "helping" give advantage to attack rolls. It would be sensible to use your least damaging attacks first, so as not to waste stronger attacks unless the first misses. So you bonus throw your dagger first to take that owl down, then use your hand axe to try at it again if you miss, or to attack another enemy if you hit. It is such a tiny tactical advantage (and it involves a risk of wasted attacks as well) that I see no reason to impose an order to the various attacks, rather than to continue with the assumption of agnostic action ordering that applies everywhere else. Is it a house rule? I don't know and don't much care.
I do believe you can take the bonus action before the regular attack action, but it might not matter. There is no "mainhand" and "offhand". Two-weapon fighting just specifies that if you take an Attack Action and attack when a light melee weapon you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to make an attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. So, lets say you're holding a vorpal scimitar in your right hand, and a dagger in your left hand, and you want to use your dagger first, then the scimitar. If you believe you must take the Attack Action first, then the bonus action, you can still make an Attack Action with your left hand (dagger), then attack with the scimitar as a bonus action. Granted, it's not ideal: barring Two-Weapon Fighting style, you won't add str/dex bonus to the scimitar damage, and if you have extra attacks, they'll happen with the dagger, not the scimitar. But in at least some cases (TWFS, no extra attacks), it works out the same.
That being said, the "on your turn" phrase in Shield Master reads more like a restriction than anything (you can't use it on a reaction, like for example, if you Ready an Action "If the hobgoblin comes within range, I'll bop him in the head with my club", and the condition happens, you can't do a bonus Shield Bash that round). Hm... actually, the fact that Two-Weapon Fighting lacks that restriction might imply there's timing involved. Either that, or it was an accidental omission. Otherwise, you could use the bonus "offhand" attack, ready the attack action, and use your reaction on someone else's turn that round to attack. Or maybe that's intended?
Ah, thats a good point with the vorpal/dagger choice there.
The reason I compared Shield Master and Two-Weapon Fighting as similar in an earlier post was due to the contrast with this following quote from Monk:
In this instance we have clear wording that can't be interpreted any other way than intended.
That aside, there are some interesting points here. I remain of the opinion it can be either way around, but having googled it I can see opinion has been split in almost every time this discussion has come up. There doesn't appear to be a right or wrong answer, and, as mentioned, the difference is negligible.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
My thing is this, if you can't normally make a bonus action attack with an offhand light weapon, but the rule says you can "if" you make an attack action with a light weapon in your main hand it stating you have to do that to even gain the option to make the bonus action off hand attack. That implies it needs to be done first to gain the latter.
Also to back this up, remember according to the phb, you don't even have a bonus action to spend unless a mechanic gives you one to spend. 1st page of the combat section. Making the attack action with two weapon fighting grants you that bonus action off hand attack. Therefore, the bonus action attack doesn't exist until you have made that initial attack action.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersGood point Zaikyu,
the relevant text is:
The text for two-weapon fighting reads:
I know that this has been going back and forth, but this one seems fairly clear (RAW) that until you actually "take the Attack action" you don't have the ability to use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon.
The Shield Master feat highlighted above by VillainTheory has exactly the same - until that attack action has been taken, the feat doesn't create the possibility of the bonus action being used for the shove.
I think what we have here is one of those RAW (Rules as Written) vs RAI (Rules as Interpreted) issues where the designers meant the game to play a certain way, but the rules they wrote down are logically defining things slightly differently.
With clarifications from Jeremy Crawford, it would seem:
RAW - you need to take Attack action first, before you can use your "offhand" weapon or shield master shove etc.
RAI - Jeremy has defined they can be in any order as long as you intend to take the attack action (ie. you can't get luck and kill something with your offhand attack, then change your mind about taking the attack action).
This kinda means there isn't a wrong or a right way of doing this, which is why people are able to interpret this both ways.
TL;DR - do it one way or the other, just be consistent. :)
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Thinking that "When you take the Attack action..." counts as specific timing is, in my opinion, applying the "specific beats general" rule in opposite direction. I see it as being, both intended and written, as this:
My reasoning for that thinking is this: if we were to treat "When you take the Attack action..." as being specific timing telling us we have to do the bonus action after the attack action, then the rules text saying "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified" isn't actually doing anything because the only bonus actions that would then not have timing specified are already just as clearly done in whatever order you want as your movement and action are because they are spells which have a bonus action casting time or other actions which are entirely independent (read: meaning they can be done without also doing some other thing, like making an attack action), and the "Immediately after..." from the flurry of blows feature (and any similarly worded bonus action timing that I might not be aware of at the moment) is then differently worded for no reason.
And that's the thing. The bonus action for all intents and purposes doesn't exist to use until you take that attack action. That's just RAW.
Yes IF you have a bonus action you can choose to use it before or after, but you have to have one to use. In this instance you don't have one to use until you take that attack action, only then does the mechanic give you the option to utilize that bonus action as an off hand attack.
I don't think anyone is wrong here, but also neither side can claim that their interpretation is RAW. The sentence in question is ambiguous, it literally could mean either thing or both. That's just the way English works sometimes. It is also not very important; both interpretations result in a similarly balanced effect, and both are pretty easy to implement in practice. Each to their own (but this *is* the internet, so my way is obviously the best).