6
\$\begingroup\$

There are a number of D&D 5e questions specifically asking about what weapons can be used when making multiple attacks using the Extra Attack feature, the Two-Weapon Fighting rule, or both:

  1. Can you attack with more than one weapon when using Extra Attack?
  2. Can you attack with different weapons using Extra Attack?
  3. Can I use the same weapon for a normal attack and Two-Weapon Fighting in the same turn?
  4. Dual Wielding and Extra Attacks

(There may be other questions like this that I've missed; if so, feel free to point them out, and I may edit them into the list if they seem sufficiently similar.)

Obviously, there's a lot of overlap between some of them. Extra Attack is obviously different from Two-Weapon Fighting, but as you can see, there is some overlap in their focus; #1 and #2 ask just about Extra Attack and #3 asks just about TWF, but #4 asks about both. Currently, none of them are marked as duplicates of one another.

What should be done about these questions?

  • Should some of them be marked as duplicates of one another?
  • Are some of them (e.g. #1 and #2) sufficiently identical that they could/should be merged - and if so, which should be merged into the other?
  • Are they all substantially different, warranting no change (except maybe an edit to clarify the distinction)?
| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Actually, just here are some maybe related questions (I'm not entirely sure): "How does the Ranger's Extra Attack feature work with Two-Weapon Fighting?", "Can you break up your Attack action for a bonus action?", and "Order of offhand attack and extra attack". \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jan 8 at 15:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Already saw the first one and excluded because it's asking about the number of attacks made, not the weapons used. And the latter two questions are about the order/timing of bonus actions, not the weapons used, which is why I excluded them as well (though I do think the latter asks multiple questions that are all duplicates of existing questions). \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jan 8 at 20:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ [status-completed] seems like a strange tag to throw on here--there's no technical fix that's been applied (bugfix or feature implementation), it's just a normal site-matter that got sorted out. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Jun 11 at 2:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua I'm not entirely sure what status-completed exactly does given many of the questions in this search. But it certainly helps as a signal of "this question has been resolved" but that's too broad so it would end up on a lot of other posts too... \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jun 11 at 13:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60: I've seen it used before as a signal by other mods to indicate "this issue has been acted on" on a number of meta post, so I've continued to use it that way. I think the tag wiki mentioning "bugfix"/"feature-request" covers issues only the SE Inc. staff can address. However, it's been getting used in the way I describe since at least January 2012... \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jun 11 at 21:56
6
\$\begingroup\$

Questions 1 and 2 are identical

Question 1, "Can you attack with more than one weapon when using Extra Attack?" asks:

When one uses the Extra Attack class feature, must it be done with only one weapon?

Question 2, "Can you attack with different weapons using Extra Attack?" asks:

Assuming I am holding two different weapons, [...] can I attack once with each? [when using Extra Attack]

There is no meaningful difference between these questions, though the answers talk about some different things, in fact, the questions which doesn't mention Two-Weapon Fighting has answers that do, and the question which does mention TWF has answers that don't. In fact, I believe the second questions should not have the Two-Weapon Fighting tag because it is not part of the question at all.

This means the questions should either be merged or marked as duplicates. The first question is older and so it would be kept open. That said, the second question has more recent quotes (from the Sage Advice Compendium) so merging the questions would be my suggestion.

Question 3 is sufficiently different from questions 1 and 2

Question 3, "Can I use the same weapon for a normal attack and Two-Weapon Fighting in the same turn? asks:

I am allowed to use different weapons for an Attack action if I have the Extra Attack class feature. Let's assume I did just that, attacking once each with a hand-axe and once with a shortsword. Am I allowed to afterwards perform a Two Weapon Fighting bonus attack with one of these weapons?

I don't actually think the question's title matches the body, though it does work, something more like "Can I use Two-Weapon Fighting after attacking with both weapons I am holding" may work better. This questions is different because it is actually about TWF, unlike the other two.

Question 4 is two questions, so it can't be closed (or at least not closed well), regardless it needs a better title

Question 4, "Dual Wielding and Extra Attacks" asks:

[...] Do the rules ever explicitly stipulate that the two attacks from Extra Attack MUST come from the same weapon in this situation? [...]

However it also asks a separate question. Basically 'which of the following is true":

  • the bonus attack must be made with the opposite hand of the first attack when the action was taken
  • the bonus attack must be made with the opposite hand of the last attack before the bonus action
  • since both weapons have been used to attack does the player then have the option of which weapon to use?

The problem is that this question is actually asking two different questions. The first question is a duplicate of questions 1 and 2, but the second question is a duplicate of question 3. However, question 3 is older and so question 4 should remain open with question 3 closed as a duplicate. However it's not a duplicate because question 4 isn't one question and that's most of the problem.

Additionally the title of question 4, "Dual Wielding and Extra Attacks", explains almost nothing of what the question is actually asking. Ultimately I just think question 4 is a bad question (since it's two questions) and so it isn't fitting into a duplicate/close system very well.

An aside: the answers to questions 3 and 4 are slightly incomplete

Both questions 3 and 4 don't actually ask about when the TWF bonus action attack can occur; however, both seem to assume (at least as I read them) that it must come last. This is a occasionally important factor in the Two-Weapon Fighting + Extra Attack combo.

If you wanted to use TWF in-between the two attacks of your Attack action then it would have to use the weapon you did not use with your first attack. The bonus action attack can only be made using either weapon if both weapons have already been used, this is not something the current answers address.


There is already a question discussing this ordering issue:

This explicitly asks when the TWF bonus action attack can occur which I believe this is occasionally important and something that the answers to questions 3 and 4 do not address.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ A note re: #4: We (i.e. anyone that can close a question as a duplicate) can actually edit a question's duplicates list after it's closed as a dupe, including adding multiple Q&As for it to be closed as a duplicate of, if that's what makes sense here. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast May 30 at 11:04
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2B Yeah at this point I'm unsure what to do. I've been told in the past (don't remember who by) to let old duplicates lie and only just close/mark new ones, which is why I haven't done much regarding this question of mine: What, if anything, should we do about these D&D 5e multiclass spellcasting questions about spell slots? \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 May 30 at 17:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ I left that meta open in a tab with the plan to come back to it, and then forgot about it forever... Thanks for the reminder! :P \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast May 30 at 17:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ I have since edited my answer to question 1, in light of the SA ruling. And it does look like the answer to question 2 is similar to mine, except for the two-weapon fighting part. \$\endgroup\$ – daze413 Jun 4 at 9:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've gone ahead and merged question #1 into #2, and closed question #4 as a dupe of #2 and #3. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jun 11 at 2:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .