CAN I ROUND 1 PULL OUT MY LONG SWORD AND THEN ATTACK WITH IT WITH TWO HANDS THEN PULL OUT MY DAGGER. THEN ROUND 2 PUT MY DAGGER AWAY SO I CAN ATTACK WITH MY LONG SWORD AGAIN THEN PULL MY DAGGER BACK OUT SO I CAN GET THE AC BONUS ?
CAN I ROUND 1 PULL OUT MY LONG SWORD AND THEN ATTACK WITH IT WITH TWO HANDS THEN PULL OUT MY DAGGER. THEN ROUND 2 PUT MY DAGGER AWAY SO I CAN ATTACK WITH MY LONG SWORD AGAIN THEN PULL MY DAGGER BACK OUT SO I CAN GET THE AC BONUS ?
DO YOU HAVE THE DUAL WIELDER FEAT? IF SO, THEN YES YOU CAN. BUT THAT IS A POOR USE OF THE FEAT, BECAUSE ATTACKING WITH YOUR LONGSWORD TWO-HANDED WILL RESULT IN AN AVERAGE OF +1 DAMAGE, BUT ATTACKING WITH IT ONE-HANDED AND THEN ATTACKING WITH A SECOND WEAPON AS YOUR BONUS ACTION WILL PROBABLY DO MORE DAMAGE. THE DAGGER WILL DO 1d4 DAMAGE, OR YOU COULD USE TWO LONGSWORDS AND DO AN ADDITIONAL 1d8 DAMAGE. AND IF YOU HAVE THE TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING STYLE THEN YOU COULD ALSO ADD YOUR STRENGTH OR DEXTERITY MODIFIER TO THAT AECOND ATTACK TOO.
I had never considered the Dual Wielder feat’s possibilities for providing a Great Weapon Fighter a slightly better AC before. Being able to give yourself +1 AC for the low price of crappy OAs and a feat (fighters have plenty) might be an option for a GWF build that doesn’t feel like taking Sentinel and would prefer not to be hit. GWF, Dual Wielder, and Defensive Duelist.... hmmm?
No. You only get one free object interaction. You can pull out your longsword at the beginning of round 1, but once you’ve attacked with it, you no longer have the time to pull out your dagger. Likewise, on round 2, you can put your dagger away, but once you’ve attacked with the sword, you no longer have time to draw the dagger again.
The Dual Wielder feat lets you simultaneously draw/stow two weapons as a single object interaction. It doesn’t give you a second free interaction.
I think you might be putting words in the Feats mouth. The line reads:
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
There is no simultaneously condition or negation/affirmation of a second free interaction.
If someone jumped out at you while you were unarmed, I would let you draw a weapon, make a strike, stow it if the target was downed. That is obviously not a single object interaction.
Here is a Sage Advice quote that doesn't really add much aside from saying you can draw or stow a second weapon for free.
When you use two-weapon fighting, can you draw and throw two weapons on your turn?
You can throw two weapons with two-weapon fighting, but that rule doesn’t give you the ability to draw two weapons for free.
On your turn, you can interact with one object for free, either during your move or during an action. One of the most common object interactions is drawing or stowing a weapon. Interacting with a second object on the same turn requires an action. You need a feature like the Dual Wielder feat to draw or stow a second weapon for free.
I think you might be putting words in the Feats mouth. The line reads:
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
There is no simultaneously condition or negation/affirmation of a second free interaction.
If someone jumped out at you while you were unarmed, I would let you draw a weapon, make a strike, stow it if the target was downed. That is obviously not a single object interaction.
Here is a Sage Advice quote that doesn't really add much aside from saying you can draw or stow a second weapon for free.
When you use two-weapon fighting, can you draw and throw two weapons on your turn?
You can throw two weapons with two-weapon fighting, but that rule doesn’t give you the ability to draw two weapons for free.
On your turn, you can interact with one object for free, either during your move or during an action. One of the most common object interactions is drawing or stowing a weapon. Interacting with a second object on the same turn requires an action. You need a feature like the Dual Wielder feat to draw or stow a second weapon for free.
I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you as I have seen how you behave in other threads. You are correct it does not explicitly say simultaneously - however it does not say you can't either.
I think you might be putting words in the Feats mouth. The line reads:
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
There is no simultaneously condition or negation/affirmation of a second free interaction.
There is indeed a simultaneously condition. The feat very unambiguously says "when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one." Not "three seconds after you would normally be able to draw or stow only one." It's not an if/then conditional like Shield Master. It specifies the one moment you are allowed to draw/stow a second weapon: when you would draw/stow the first. Not at a different moment as long as you have also drawn/stowed one.
If someone jumped out at you while you were unarmed, I would let you draw a weapon, make a strike, stow it if the target was downed. That is obviously not a single object interaction.
You're absolutely correct. That is not a single object interaction, which is why it's not allowed by RAW. You might let a player do that, but the feat does not. If the intent of the feat were to grant a second, separate interaction, the feat would say that.
Saga, I do see your point. “When you would normally be able to draw a weapon” is usually:
”You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.”
So with that reading, yeah, that move or action is “when,” and Dual Wielder lets you do it twice.
But “This lets you do x, when you would normally only be able to do y” has ANOTHER plain English meaning, where “when” isn’t talking about time but rather setting up the.... what do you call it, the default condition? I haven’t studied grammar in a long while, you know what I mean, “when” as a synonym for “while”?
Both are decent readings of the English. But your “when means time, so two draws as part of one single attack or move” is VERY LIMITING on players, and enough to make the feat fairly useless. As is, it’s useful for a spell caster that needs to occasionally free up a hand in between dual wielding. Not so, if you have to use both draw/sheaths simultaneously. Or for Crossbow Expert, that wants to be able to actually USE that crossbow by loading it. No way to sheath rapier/reload xbow/redraw rapier your way. Or even a regular two weapon fighter, that wants to open a door... Dual Wielder is of no help letting them sheathe/open/draw, because not simultaneous?
your reading leaves NO application of the feat, and plain English leaves us a viable alternative, so I think we have a good out to not require an unwritten “simultaneous.”
CAN I ROUND 1 PULL OUT MY LONG SWORD AND THEN ATTACK WITH IT WITH TWO HANDS THEN PULL OUT MY DAGGER. THEN ROUND 2 PUT MY DAGGER AWAY SO I CAN ATTACK WITH MY LONG SWORD AGAIN THEN PULL MY DAGGER BACK OUT SO I CAN GET THE AC BONUS ?
DO YOU HAVE THE DUAL WIELDER FEAT? IF SO, THEN YES YOU CAN. BUT THAT IS A POOR USE OF THE FEAT, BECAUSE ATTACKING WITH YOUR LONGSWORD TWO-HANDED WILL RESULT IN AN AVERAGE OF +1 DAMAGE, BUT ATTACKING WITH IT ONE-HANDED AND THEN ATTACKING WITH A SECOND WEAPON AS YOUR BONUS ACTION WILL PROBABLY DO MORE DAMAGE. THE DAGGER WILL DO 1d4 DAMAGE, OR YOU COULD USE TWO LONGSWORDS AND DO AN ADDITIONAL 1d8 DAMAGE. AND IF YOU HAVE THE TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING STYLE THEN YOU COULD ALSO ADD YOUR STRENGTH OR DEXTERITY MODIFIER TO THAT AECOND ATTACK TOO.
BY THE WAY, WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I had never considered the Dual Wielder feat’s possibilities for providing a Great Weapon Fighter a slightly better AC before. Being able to give yourself +1 AC for the low price of crappy OAs and a feat (fighters have plenty) might be an option for a GWF build that doesn’t feel like taking Sentinel and would prefer not to be hit. GWF, Dual Wielder, and Defensive Duelist.... hmmm?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I would think the AC bonus only applies to a round where you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand. For the whole round.
No. You only get one free object interaction. You can pull out your longsword at the beginning of round 1, but once you’ve attacked with it, you no longer have the time to pull out your dagger. Likewise, on round 2, you can put your dagger away, but once you’ve attacked with the sword, you no longer have time to draw the dagger again.
The Dual Wielder feat lets you simultaneously draw/stow two weapons as a single object interaction. It doesn’t give you a second free interaction.
Round 1: Draw longsword and attack 2 handed.
Round 2: Stow longsword, draw dagger, attack with dagger.
Round 3: Stow dagger, draw longsword and attack with 2 hands.
Rinse and repeat.
Technically it is possible with the feat, but pointless.
I think you might be putting words in the Feats mouth. The line reads:
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
There is no simultaneously condition or negation/affirmation of a second free interaction.
If someone jumped out at you while you were unarmed, I would let you draw a weapon, make a strike, stow it if the target was downed. That is obviously not a single object interaction.
Here is a Sage Advice quote that doesn't really add much aside from saying you can draw or stow a second weapon for free.
When you use two-weapon fighting, can you draw and throw two weapons on your turn?
You can throw two weapons with two-weapon fighting, but that rule doesn’t give you the ability to draw two weapons for free.
On your turn, you can interact with one object for free, either during your move or during an action. One of the most common object interactions is drawing or stowing a weapon. Interacting with a second object on the same turn requires an action. You need a feature like the Dual Wielder feat to draw or stow a second weapon for free.
I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you as I have seen how you behave in other threads. You are correct it does not explicitly say simultaneously - however it does not say you can't either.
I'm not even responding to you anyway. You would know that if you read the post above you.
I have also seen how you post in other threads by not even posting anything relevant to the discussion at all, something like:
My, my...how informative.
Just as Dual Wielder doesn’t say “simultaneously,” it also doesn’t require “for the entire round” to get AC.
However, swapping a great sword with two daggers is three interactions, not two, so it won’t work for GWF after all. Ah well.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Could dip into Rogue for 3 levels to get Fast Hands? Weird build, but might work.
True. Good call. I guess if you could get hit between weapon swapping, you might not have the AC bonus at that moment somehow.
There is indeed a simultaneously condition. The feat very unambiguously says "when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one." Not "three seconds after you would normally be able to draw or stow only one." It's not an if/then conditional like Shield Master. It specifies the one moment you are allowed to draw/stow a second weapon: when you would draw/stow the first. Not at a different moment as long as you have also drawn/stowed one.
You're absolutely correct. That is not a single object interaction, which is why it's not allowed by RAW. You might let a player do that, but the feat does not. If the intent of the feat were to grant a second, separate interaction, the feat would say that.
I don't think the when is that literal.
When I want ice-cream, I chose vanilla. Used as a Conjunction(at any time that; whenever).
Not, when I want ice-cream, it's 4:00 pm. Used as an Adverb(at what time).
Saga, I do see your point. “When you would normally be able to draw a weapon” is usually:
”You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.”
So with that reading, yeah, that move or action is “when,” and Dual Wielder lets you do it twice.
But “This lets you do x, when you would normally only be able to do y” has ANOTHER plain English meaning, where “when” isn’t talking about time but rather setting up the.... what do you call it, the default condition? I haven’t studied grammar in a long while, you know what I mean, “when” as a synonym for “while”?
Both are decent readings of the English. But your “when means time, so two draws as part of one single attack or move” is VERY LIMITING on players, and enough to make the feat fairly useless. As is, it’s useful for a spell caster that needs to occasionally free up a hand in between dual wielding. Not so, if you have to use both draw/sheaths simultaneously. Or for Crossbow Expert, that wants to be able to actually USE that crossbow by loading it. No way to sheath rapier/reload xbow/redraw rapier your way. Or even a regular two weapon fighter, that wants to open a door... Dual Wielder is of no help letting them sheathe/open/draw, because not simultaneous?
your reading leaves NO application of the feat, and plain English leaves us a viable alternative, so I think we have a good out to not require an unwritten “simultaneous.”
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.