Oh , yes he can . It ' s at this point that I realise that I am a rules robot of some kind , because I ' ve never come across this but I know the answer ? This is an example where it ' s not immediately obvious , because 5 e is a chain of logical dependencies whereby restrictions alone tend to be explicit . The case that triggered this post was a lot more straightforward , and was solved by reading a single very obvious section that left no ambiguities . Dual wielding is not mentioned specifically because as you point out , the twoweapon fighting bonus action to attack with a second weapon is a special case which applies only when the weapons are light and you have taken the attack action already . It is not unique to dual wielding itself , and there is no prerequisite for dual wield except that you should be able to wield each in a single hand . For the base attack action , you can attack with either weapon as there is no restriction so long as you are wielding the weapon you choose or are able to draw the weapon . The Extra Attack class feature would specify if there is a further restriction re light weapons , but as it specifies only that you are entitled to make two attacks and an attack could implicitly be made with either weapon , the choice of weapon is the player ' s . Point taken . There is no easily defined threshold for the complexity of a ruling problem , but again this was solved by using the index and it ' s also not the sort of problem that bothers me . What niggles at me , is when people would ask questions that can be answered , by simply reading over the relevant section once I am most bothered when a question resembles read the manpagesidebarFAQPHB to me because I CBA . There is no problem to solve and no greater insight to be gained , and the means to answer the question is in reach .