1) Can a player attack (Melee or Range) a different target using the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action that its original Action target?
2) If the player has in hand a shortsword and dagger can it do a melee attack for his Action and then throw its dagger as a ranged Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action?
Yes to both - though you should be careful when using the word "Range". Throwing a Melee weapon is mechanically very distinct from shooting a Ranged weapon.
Yes, assuming that when you say range you mean thrown, like in question 2, or hand crossbow. And yes. And the usual restriction of not adding ability modifier to damage would apply to the thrown dagger. Assuming you were declaring that your bonus action, off-hand attack. In theory, I’d think you could say the thrown dagger is your main attack and the melee short sword you bonus attack, and then not apply the damage mod to the short sword.
Yes, assuming that when you say range you mean thrown, like in question 2, or hand crossbow. And yes. And the usual restriction of not adding ability modifier to damage would apply to the thrown dagger. Assuming you were declaring that your bonus action, off-hand attack. In theory, I’d think you could say the thrown dagger is your main attack and the melee short sword you bonus attack, and then not apply the damage mod to the short sword.
The two weapon fighting specifically says that the weapons need to be melee. It does have a provision for making ranged attacks with either weapon if the thrown weapon has the thrown property. Thus, yes to daggers as stated, but no to hand crossbows unless you have the crossbow expert feat... which has it's own issues to deal with.
It should be noted that splitting attacks like this is frequently suboptimal. Take an enemy that has a +4 to hit and deals 1d6+2 damage on a hit for and example. If you attack once and leave that enemy with 1 HP, that enemy will still hit an AC 13 ally on a roll of 9 or greater which is 60% of the time. 1d6+2 averages to 5.5 damage (3.5 from the 1d6 plus the 2). With a 60% hit rate, the weighted damage would be 3.3 pts per attack on average (going lower to factor misses). If that enemy is able to get 2 attacks from multiattack and can still get OAs, that's potentially 3 attacks in a round for about 10 points of damage, not factoring critical hits or other bonuses that the creature might be able to generate like Pack Tactics (giving allies advantage on attacks within 5 feet of it), forcing Disadvantage on ranged attacks within 5 ft of it, etc. Using your second attack to bring that creature to 0 eliminates all those possibilities.
Spreading your attack can damage more enemies which would benefit allies who care about damaging already damaged enemies such as spellcasters casting Toll the Dead, Hunter Ranger's Colossus Slayer, or allies that get bonus action attacks from killing creatures. Your best bet would be to talk to your allies to find out what the ideal tactics would be so that your group can operate as efficiently as possible and to help prevent as much incoming damage as possible.
It should be noted that splitting attacks like this is frequently suboptimal. Take an enemy that has a +4 to hit and deals 1d6+2 damage on a hit for and example. If you attack once and leave that enemy with 1 HP, that enemy will still hit an AC 13 ally on a roll of 9 or greater which is 60% of the time. 1d6+2 averages to 5.5 damage (3.5 from the 1d6 plus the 2). With a 60% hit rate, the weighted damage would be 3.3 pts per attack on average (going lower to factor misses). If that enemy is able to get 2 attacks from multiattack and can still get OAs, that's potentially 3 attacks in a round for about 10 points of damage, not factoring critical hits or other bonuses that the creature might be able to generate like Pack Tactics (giving allies advantage on attacks within 5 feet of it), forcing Disadvantage on ranged attacks within 5 ft of it, etc. Using your second attack to bring that creature to 0 eliminates all those possibilities.
Spreading your attack can damage more enemies which would benefit allies who care about damaging already damaged enemies such as spellcasters casting Toll the Dead, Hunter Ranger's Colossus Slayer, or allies that get bonus action attacks from killing creatures. Your best bet would be to talk to your allies to find out what the ideal tactics would be so that your group can operate as efficiently as possible and to help prevent as much incoming damage as possible.
Honestly, it was just a question (two targets) that came up during my last session and while I said it was ok to attack two different characters I posted the question here to just get a second opinion. Where the question came up was after a player killed a creature and wanted to move-on/attack another enemy who was adjacent to them. (Ironically enough the creatures were Hyenas and I had a few in Pact Tactic formation.) Same situation as mention before where the player took out a Hyena with her Rapier and then wanted to throw a dagger for her bonus to Hyena that had another player surrounded.
It should be noted that splitting attacks like this is frequently suboptimal. Take an enemy that has a +4 to hit and deals 1d6+2 damage on a hit for and example. If you attack once and leave that enemy with 1 HP, that enemy will still hit an AC 13 ally on a roll of 9 or greater which is 60% of the time. 1d6+2 averages to 5.5 damage (3.5 from the 1d6 plus the 2). With a 60% hit rate, the weighted damage would be 3.3 pts per attack on average (going lower to factor misses). If that enemy is able to get 2 attacks from multiattack and can still get OAs, that's potentially 3 attacks in a round for about 10 points of damage, not factoring critical hits or other bonuses that the creature might be able to generate like Pack Tactics (giving allies advantage on attacks within 5 feet of it), forcing Disadvantage on ranged attacks within 5 ft of it, etc. Using your second attack to bring that creature to 0 eliminates all those possibilities.
Spreading your attack can damage more enemies which would benefit allies who care about damaging already damaged enemies such as spellcasters casting Toll the Dead, Hunter Ranger's Colossus Slayer, or allies that get bonus action attacks from killing creatures. Your best bet would be to talk to your allies to find out what the ideal tactics would be so that your group can operate as efficiently as possible and to help prevent as much incoming damage as possible.
Honestly, it was just a question (two targets) that came up during my last session and while I said it was ok to attack two different characters I posted the question here to just get a second opinion. Where the question came up was after a player killed a creature and wanted to move-on/attack another enemy who was adjacent to them. (Ironically enough the creatures were Hyenas and I had a few in Pact Tactic formation.) Same situation as mention before where the player took out a Hyena with her Rapier and then wanted to throw a dagger for her bonus to Hyena that had another player surrounded.
That's a valid example except that a rapier isn't a light weapon and doesn't trigger the 2 weapon fighting bonus action. If they have the dual wielder feat that eliminates that requirement, they would be good, but otherwise it would just be the rapier attack.
With Bonus Action: Two-Weapon Fighting
1) Can a player attack (Melee or Range) a different target using the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action that its original Action target?
2) If the player has in hand a shortsword and dagger can it do a melee attack for his Action and then throw its dagger as a ranged Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action?
Yes to both - though you should be careful when using the word "Range". Throwing a Melee weapon is mechanically very distinct from shooting a Ranged weapon.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Yes, assuming that when you say range you mean thrown, like in question 2, or hand crossbow.
And yes. And the usual restriction of not adding ability modifier to damage would apply to the thrown dagger. Assuming you were declaring that your bonus action, off-hand attack.
In theory, I’d think you could say the thrown dagger is your main attack and the melee short sword you bonus attack, and then not apply the damage mod to the short sword.
The two weapon fighting specifically says that the weapons need to be melee. It does have a provision for making ranged attacks with either weapon if the thrown weapon has the thrown property. Thus, yes to daggers as stated, but no to hand crossbows unless you have the crossbow expert feat... which has it's own issues to deal with.
Good point
Thanks, everyone. I appreciate the feedback.
It should be noted that splitting attacks like this is frequently suboptimal. Take an enemy that has a +4 to hit and deals 1d6+2 damage on a hit for and example. If you attack once and leave that enemy with 1 HP, that enemy will still hit an AC 13 ally on a roll of 9 or greater which is 60% of the time. 1d6+2 averages to 5.5 damage (3.5 from the 1d6 plus the 2). With a 60% hit rate, the weighted damage would be 3.3 pts per attack on average (going lower to factor misses). If that enemy is able to get 2 attacks from multiattack and can still get OAs, that's potentially 3 attacks in a round for about 10 points of damage, not factoring critical hits or other bonuses that the creature might be able to generate like Pack Tactics (giving allies advantage on attacks within 5 feet of it), forcing Disadvantage on ranged attacks within 5 ft of it, etc. Using your second attack to bring that creature to 0 eliminates all those possibilities.
Spreading your attack can damage more enemies which would benefit allies who care about damaging already damaged enemies such as spellcasters casting Toll the Dead, Hunter Ranger's Colossus Slayer, or allies that get bonus action attacks from killing creatures. Your best bet would be to talk to your allies to find out what the ideal tactics would be so that your group can operate as efficiently as possible and to help prevent as much incoming damage as possible.
Honestly, it was just a question (two targets) that came up during my last session and while I said it was ok to attack two different characters I posted the question here to just get a second opinion. Where the question came up was after a player killed a creature and wanted to move-on/attack another enemy who was adjacent to them. (Ironically enough the creatures were Hyenas and I had a few in Pact Tactic formation.) Same situation as mention before where the player took out a Hyena with her Rapier and then wanted to throw a dagger for her bonus to Hyena that had another player surrounded.
That's a valid example except that a rapier isn't a light weapon and doesn't trigger the 2 weapon fighting bonus action. If they have the dual wielder feat that eliminates that requirement, they would be good, but otherwise it would just be the rapier attack.
Yep, that is on me for the weapon choice flummox.