My build Max with no conditional damage or hindering attack roll to hit (So no Rage, Action Surge, Improved Critical, Favored Enemy, or Spellcasting) : 5d8+3d6+27 = 85 (Fighter 11, Barbarian Zealot 3, Ranger Hunter 3, Rogue 3) Rage damage increases this max to 93
Pole arm master with fighter 20 gets max with no conditional or hindering attack roll to hit 4d10+1d4+25=69. (78 with reaction even though it is conditional damage.)
You're comparing apples and oranges (and made a mistake because zealot 1d6+1 only applies when raging); single class builds aren't the same as multiclass builds. Also, you're stuck with Champion, which is not a very good archetype. You also only have 4 ASIs because of all those 3 level dips.
Good catch. Knock my build down by 7 damage, so still max 78 and 93 remains same while raging.
If good with not having reckless attack, get Swashbuckler for the level 3 Rogue subclass then go 5 levels in swashbuckler to add 1d6 and get ASI, and then 12 levels in Fighting for another ASI which almost gives the error max damage at 84 instead of 85. (Although no rage boost.)
Could also do 2 in barbarian then the extra in fighter for 12 to get ASI.
Personally I think I may keep build as it is for the Reckless attack and add on rage with zealot conditional bonus. Still max 78 with 93 Rage. Min 35 with 45 Rage. AVG 60 with 72.5 Rage.
While replacing two levels of barb for rogue and 1 barb for fighting gives more potential damage, the barb Reckless strike swings more true to give higher chance of hitting for most damage.
ASI is fine in my build with +2 STR at Fighter 6 and +1 STR 1 and +1 Con at Fighter 8, which means duel wielder feat at Fighter 4. Race is Half Orc with +2 STR and +1 Con. So standard array gives all multiclass prerequisites and sets STR up for Max. 15 STR, 14 DEX, 12 Con, 8 INT, 13 WIS, 10 CHA.
Huh. I guess all of this revolves around what the third point of the dual wielder feat actually means:
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
That seems to me to say that you don't get two separate free object interactions, but when you do use your one free object interaction, you can use it to draw or sheath both of your weapons at once. I think under that interpretation, many of the things described above would break.
Correct, the feat does not give you an additional free object interaction--it allows you to draw/stow two weapons with your one free object interaction.
If you are a Champion taking the DuelingStyle and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, then (assuming you're also taking the Dual Wielder feat and have Extra Attack (2)) you could do:
1d8+5 mainhand -> 1d8+5 offhand(bonus action) -> stow one weapon -> 1d8+7 mainhand (whichever weapon you didn't stow is now 'mainhand') -> 1d8+7 mainhand
1d8+5 mainhand -> 1d8+5offhand (bonus action) -> stow one weapon -> 1d10+5 two-handed (whichever Versatile weapon you didn't stow is now held two-handed) -> 1d10+5 two-handed
Pretty long post for this little chunk to be the only part that actually engaged with the setup that Mykel premised this thread on. That is mostly correct, but please note that Two Weapon Fighting is not worded in a way which demands that the mainhand weapon continue to be held after making the qualifying initial attack. There is no "...so long as you continue to wield two weapons while making the attack."
They did not mention they would be taking the Champion Martial Archetype, so the whole thing was actually very important for all of us to get on the same page regarding the requirements to make the build possible.
As far as TWF goes, you must be actually holding two eligible weapons for the bonus action offhand attack. The text block very clearly states that you must attack with two different weapons you are holding in different hands. The entire text block is written in present tense--you are holding two weapons during the entire interaction, and that interaction is only completed after you take the bonus action offhand attack.
If you are not wielding two weapons, you are not dual-wielding. I can't believe I have to point out the tautology.
If you attack with your right hand while holding two blades, you fulfill the requirement to take a bonus action with the left hand if holding a different blade sometime during this turn. Having a right hand or holding a blade in the right hand is no longer a requirement to in order to take the bonus action, it was only a requirement while performing the main attack. So if your right arm is blown off by a reaction from the main attack, you still fulfilled the requirement to take a bonus action with the limitations of it being with your left hand and another blade. The limitation of needing to hold a blade made with the initial main attack in your right hand isn't part of the bonus action, only to unlock the option of performing a bonus action with new limitations of using your left hand with a different blade.
Champion isn't a focus since criticals weren't being considered in max damage since it is conditional damage.
If I stow a blade and then draw a blade, then I drew or stowed 2 blades when normally I can only do one. It doesn't say it has to be done at the same time, stow only, or draw only. If stowing then drawing the same blade is an issue, just carry 3 blades.
You cannot stow a blade then draw a blade without the feat, so your point is moot. You get one free object interaction, and the feat says that you can only apply it to a second weapon when you would normally only be able to apply it to a single weapon. Drawing and stowing a weapon in one turn is not allowed without spending your action to do so.
Mykels56, again, the entire description of Two-Weapon Fighting is written in the present tense, not present perfect tense.
Two-Weapon Fighting
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.
You are holding two weapons when you fulfill the requirements for the bonus action, and you are holding two weapons during the bonus action. It does not tell you that you can make a bonus action attack with a different weapon from the one held when you took the Attack action.
It tells you that you can make a bonus action attack with a different weapon, from the one that you are holding in your main hand, that you are holding in your other hand. There is specific emphasis on the fact that you are are holding an eligible weapon in each hand throughout the entire interaction, and that interaction is not complete until after you've taken the bonus action attack.
If you stow a weapon prior to taking the TWF bonus action, then you are no longer eligible for taking that bonus action--you've invalidated the prerequisite.
[edit] and let's be clear: I'm not a purist claiming that you have to be holding two weapons for the entirety of your action. You can absolutely stow one weapon to switch to Dueling for the extra attacks, but you cannot do so until after you've taken your bonus action. The mechanical benefits & interactions of Two-Weapon Fighting are entirely incompatible with Dueling. There is zero possibility of overlapping them.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Relevant to the discussion on Dual Wielding according to the two weapon fighting style:
The present continuous verb tense indicates that an action or condition is happening now, frequently, and may continue into the future.
The Present Continuous Formula: to be [am, is, are] + verb [present participle]
The requirements for holding weapons in two-weapon fighting style is written in the present continuous tense.
Thanks, that sums it up more succinctly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
You cannot stow a blade then draw a blade without the feat, so your point is moot. You get one free object interaction, and the feat says that you can only apply it to a second weapon when you would normally only be able to apply it to a single weapon. Drawing and stowing a weapon in one turn is not allowed without spending your action to do so.
I said "If I stow a blade and then draw a blade, then I drew or stowed 2 blades when normally I can only do one." Meaning that I'm using the Duel Wielder Feat as listed in the build and by saying "normally I can only do one."
While I understand your specific interpretation, but the RAW is vague. The feat doesn't specifically say that when you take the free object interaction to draw a blade, you can draw an additional blade during the same interaction. It also doesn't specifically say that when you take the free object interaction to stow a blade, you can stow an additional blade during the same interaction. If the feat specifically said this, then my questioning of it wouldn't have taken place. It is because the feat is vague and can be interpreted to suggest more that I am asking the question.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
I am within the RAW if I draw, attack, and then stow. RAW doesn't say this is all within the same interaction of free object interaction. RAW also doesn't say that you can only stow with both or draw with both.
I see that your interpretation works and could be correct in its specificity only with any other interpretation being wrong mechanically even though it could apply in technically in the english language, but your specific interpretation that limits this feat could be a false limitation of specificity.
I admit it came from a grammar website, but I just wanted to point out that people generally only consider past present and future tense in English for some reason, and tend to forget about the constructed tenses (even though future is a constructed tense).
Like I said... these are pretty novel takes on Dual Wielder, which I’ve only ever seen come up in the context of nerfing two weapon fighting even harder, and never in the context of using the feat for crossbow experts, spellcasters needing to free up hands, thrown weapon users... its pretty routine to treat the feat as “you have two free object interactions.” I’m not going to touch the grammar jazz, I don’t know the right terms to use,, but to my ear “you can do this to two things, when you would normally only be able to do it to one” doesn’t imply a simultaneous timing restriction, or that the two things can’t be the same thing two different times.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
Nowhere does that say that it gives you a second interaction. It implies that when you could normally use your interaction to do something (draw or stow, your choice) with one weapon, you can do it with two. If you can show any reason other than "or probably means and in this case," you can maybe have a case. It is clear what it should do, and it is written in a way that gets you there unless you misunderstand the choice that it gives you.
Like I said... these are pretty novel takes on Dual Wielder
It may be novel to you, but it's normal grammar. Your take is equivalent to saying that when you use a spell with two targets, you can perform a separate action between affecting the first target and affecting the second target.
It just feels like Dual Wielder patches the clunkiness of object interactions if read permissively, which is desirable if we can find a way to do it:
a fighter with a great sword can open a door in a turn, no problem (door is free object interaction, no need to draw or stow anything). A spellcaster, a bow user... all of them open doors no problem.
But a rogue with two daggers or swords can open a door in a turn, but it takes an action to do so (sheathe one weapon is a free object, open door is a use an object). Dual Wielder (“You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.”) apparently does nothing to help? The dexterous dual Wielder is just stuck being the worst possible character to try to send ahead scouting at the ready?
It just doesn’t seem equitable, or necessary, to read the feat this harshly.
Like I said... these are pretty novel takes on Dual Wielder, which I’ve only ever seen come up in the context of nerfing two weapon fighting even harder, and never in the context of using the feat for crossbow experts, spellcasters needing to free up hands, thrown weapon users... its pretty routine to treat the feat as “you have two free object interactions.” I’m not going to touch the grammar jazz, I don’t know the right terms to use,, but to my ear “you can do this to two things, when you would normally only be able to do it to one” doesn’t imply a simultaneous timing restriction, or that the two things can’t be the same thing two different times.
It has never once occurred to me to interpret that wording of Dual Wielder as “You have two free object interactions” as it does not say that.
I have only ever read it to mean “If you could draw a one-handed weapon, you could instead draw two as part of the same item interaction. If you could stow a one-handed weapon, you can instead stow two as part of the same item interaction.” (Note the lack of necessitating that either weapon be a melee weapon.)
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
Nowhere does that say that it gives you a second interaction. It implies that when you could normally use your interaction to do something (draw or stow, your choice) with one weapon, you can do it with two. If you can show any reason other than "or probably means and in this case," you can maybe have a case. It is clear what it should do, and it is written in a way that gets you there unless you misunderstand the choice that it gives you.
This, 100%. Drawing a weapon is distinct from stowing a weapon.
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.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action.
One free object interaction by default. Second object = [Tooltip Not Found] action. Interacting with the same object twice = [Tooltip Not Found] action.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
Drawing weapon(s) is a distinct use of object interaction. Stowing weapon(s) is a distinct use of object interaction. Dual Wielder does not give you two free object interactions. Dual Wielder gives you the ability to use your one free object interaction on two weapons at the same time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It just feels like Dual Wielder patches the clunkiness of object interactions if read permissively, which is desirable if we can find a way to do it:
a fighter with a great sword can open a door in a turn, no problem (door is free object interaction, no need to draw or stow anything). A spellcaster, a bow user... all of them open doors no problem.
But a rogue with two daggers or swords can open a door in a turn, but it takes an action to do so (sheathe one weapon is a free object, open door is a use an object). Dual Wielder (“You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.”) apparently does nothing to help? The dexterous dual Wielder is just stuck being the worst possible character to try to send ahead scouting at the ready?
It just doesn’t seem equitable, or necessary, to read the feat this harshly.
It just feels like Dual Wielder patches the clunkiness of object interactions if read permissively, which is desirable if we can find a way to do it:
a fighter with a great sword can open a door in a turn, no problem (door is free object interaction, no need to draw or stow anything). A spellcaster, a bow user... all of them open doors no problem.
But a rogue with two daggers or swords can open a door in a turn, but it takes an action to do so (sheathe one weapon is a free object, open door is a use an object). Dual Wielder (“You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.”) apparently does nothing to help? The dexterous dual Wielder is just stuck being the worst possible character to try to send ahead scouting at the ready?
It just doesn’t seem equitable, or necessary, to read the feat this harshly.
First of all, to read it that way would be to put words where there aren't. Secondly, this does fix a problem: we're starting combat and every has their weapons in sheaths. Do the Dual wielders have to waste a turn only being able to draw one of their weapons? Nope. Finally, yes of course if you choose to fill both of your hands you have problems opening the door. That is the consequence of filling both hands. It is also a problem for weapon and shield or focus and shield or focus and weapon characters, none of which would generally have dual wielder (and wouldn't help anyway, because foci and shields are not weapons).
Hey, I definitely see your guys points. But “you can x, when you would normally y” doesnt always use “when” to imply time. “With this extra degree you can expect to make $60k as an administrator, when you would normally make $40k.” “When” is used to contrast against the normal state, not to imply “at the same moment.” That’s the sense of the word I’ve always read that as.
It just feels like Dual Wielder patches the clunkiness of object interactions if read permissively, which is desirable if we can find a way to do it:
a fighter with a great sword can open a door in a turn, no problem (door is free object interaction, no need to draw or stow anything). A spellcaster, a bow user... all of them open doors no problem.
But a rogue with two daggers or swords can open a door in a turn, but it takes an action to do so (sheathe one weapon is a free object, open door is a use an object). Dual Wielder (“You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.”) apparently does nothing to help? The dexterous dual Wielder is just stuck being the worst possible character to try to send ahead scouting at the ready?
It just doesn’t seem equitable, or necessary, to read the feat this harshly.
Agree. Seems like DM decision.
Except that it is RAW and this is the Rules forum. If you want to houserule it like that, that’s one thing, but you asked for RAW, so that’s what Sigred, Pentagruel666, and I are trying to provide you.
Hey, I definitely see your guys points. But “you can x, when you would normally y” doesnt always use “when” to imply time. “With this extra degree you can expect to make $60k as an administrator, when you would normally make $40k.” “When” is used to contrast against the normal state, not to imply “at the same moment.” That’s the sense of the word I’ve always read that as.
Yes. In contrast to the normal state, where you can only draw one weapon, you can draw two. Or, in contrast to the normal state where you can sheath only one weapon, now you can sheath both.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
Nowhere does that say that it gives you a second interaction. It implies that when you could normally use your interaction to do something (draw or stow, your choice) with one weapon, you can do it with two. If you can show any reason other than "or probably means and in this case," you can maybe have a case. It is clear what it should do, and it is written in a way that gets you there unless you misunderstand the choice that it gives you.
You can normally only draw or stow one one handed weapon. Now you can draw or stow two one handed weapons. So I stow, attack, then draw. I stowed, then drew a one handed weapon when I normally could have drawn or stowed only once with a one handed weapon. (This fits the feat by grammar.)
Now opinions of the intent of the feat or versions of limited specificity of the feat are focused on the vagueness of the feat since it lacks specific terms such as "only stow or draw both weapons, can't stow and draw", "can't stow and/or draw same weapon", or "within the one free interaction you can draw two weapons or stow two weapons". These limitations aren't in the feat, unless an opinion (interpretation) is applied.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good catch. Knock my build down by 7 damage, so still max 78 and 93 remains same while raging.
If good with not having reckless attack, get Swashbuckler for the level 3 Rogue subclass then go 5 levels in swashbuckler to add 1d6 and get ASI, and then 12 levels in Fighting for another ASI which almost gives the error max damage at 84 instead of 85. (Although no rage boost.)
Could also do 2 in barbarian then the extra in fighter for 12 to get ASI.
Personally I think I may keep build as it is for the Reckless attack and add on rage with zealot conditional bonus. Still max 78 with 93 Rage. Min 35 with 45 Rage. AVG 60 with 72.5 Rage.
While replacing two levels of barb for rogue and 1 barb for fighting gives more potential damage, the barb Reckless strike swings more true to give higher chance of hitting for most damage.
ASI is fine in my build with +2 STR at Fighter 6 and +1 STR 1 and +1 Con at Fighter 8, which means duel wielder feat at Fighter 4. Race is Half Orc with +2 STR and +1 Con. So standard array gives all multiclass prerequisites and sets STR up for Max. 15 STR, 14 DEX, 12 Con, 8 INT, 13 WIS, 10 CHA.
If you attack with your right hand while holding two blades, you fulfill the requirement to take a bonus action with the left hand if holding a different blade sometime during this turn. Having a right hand or holding a blade in the right hand is no longer a requirement to in order to take the bonus action, it was only a requirement while performing the main attack. So if your right arm is blown off by a reaction from the main attack, you still fulfilled the requirement to take a bonus action with the limitations of it being with your left hand and another blade. The limitation of needing to hold a blade made with the initial main attack in your right hand isn't part of the bonus action, only to unlock the option of performing a bonus action with new limitations of using your left hand with a different blade.
Champion isn't a focus since criticals weren't being considered in max damage since it is conditional damage.
If I stow a blade and then draw a blade, then I drew or stowed 2 blades when normally I can only do one. It doesn't say it has to be done at the same time, stow only, or draw only. If stowing then drawing the same blade is an issue, just carry 3 blades.
You cannot stow a blade then draw a blade without the feat, so your point is moot. You get one free object interaction, and the feat says that you can only apply it to a second weapon when you would normally only be able to apply it to a single weapon. Drawing and stowing a weapon in one turn is not allowed without spending your action to do so.
Mykels56, again, the entire description of Two-Weapon Fighting is written in the present tense, not present perfect tense.
You are holding two weapons when you fulfill the requirements for the bonus action, and you are holding two weapons during the bonus action. It does not tell you that you can make a bonus action attack with a different weapon from the one held when you took the Attack action.
It tells you that you can make a bonus action attack with a different weapon, from the one that you are holding in your main hand, that you are holding in your other hand. There is specific emphasis on the fact that you are are holding an eligible weapon in each hand throughout the entire interaction, and that interaction is not complete until after you've taken the bonus action attack.
If you stow a weapon prior to taking the TWF bonus action, then you are no longer eligible for taking that bonus action--you've invalidated the prerequisite.
[edit] and let's be clear: I'm not a purist claiming that you have to be holding two weapons for the entirety of your action. You can absolutely stow one weapon to switch to Dueling for the extra attacks, but you cannot do so until after you've taken your bonus action. The mechanical benefits & interactions of Two-Weapon Fighting are entirely incompatible with Dueling. There is zero possibility of overlapping them.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Relevant to the discussion on Dual Wielding according to the two weapon fighting style:
The requirements for holding weapons in two-weapon fighting style are written in the present continuous tense.
Thanks, that sums it up more succinctly.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I said "If I stow a blade and then draw a blade, then I drew or stowed 2 blades when normally I can only do one." Meaning that I'm using the Duel Wielder Feat as listed in the build and by saying "normally I can only do one."
While I understand your specific interpretation, but the RAW is vague. The feat doesn't specifically say that when you take the free object interaction to draw a blade, you can draw an additional blade during the same interaction. It also doesn't specifically say that when you take the free object interaction to stow a blade, you can stow an additional blade during the same interaction. If the feat specifically said this, then my questioning of it wouldn't have taken place. It is because the feat is vague and can be interpreted to suggest more that I am asking the question.
I am within the RAW if I draw, attack, and then stow. RAW doesn't say this is all within the same interaction of free object interaction. RAW also doesn't say that you can only stow with both or draw with both.
I see that your interpretation works and could be correct in its specificity only with any other interpretation being wrong mechanically even though it could apply in technically in the english language, but your specific interpretation that limits this feat could be a false limitation of specificity.
Idk, that is why I'm asking.
I admit it came from a grammar website, but I just wanted to point out that people generally only consider past present and future tense in English for some reason, and tend to forget about the constructed tenses (even though future is a constructed tense).
Like I said... these are pretty novel takes on Dual Wielder, which I’ve only ever seen come up in the context of nerfing two weapon fighting even harder, and never in the context of using the feat for crossbow experts, spellcasters needing to free up hands, thrown weapon users... its pretty routine to treat the feat as “you have two free object interactions.” I’m not going to touch the grammar jazz, I don’t know the right terms to use,, but to my ear “you can do this to two things, when you would normally only be able to do it to one” doesn’t imply a simultaneous timing restriction, or that the two things can’t be the same thing two different times.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Nowhere does that say that it gives you a second interaction. It implies that when you could normally use your interaction to do something (draw or stow, your choice) with one weapon, you can do it with two. If you can show any reason other than "or probably means and in this case," you can maybe have a case. It is clear what it should do, and it is written in a way that gets you there unless you misunderstand the choice that it gives you.
It may be novel to you, but it's normal grammar. Your take is equivalent to saying that when you use a spell with two targets, you can perform a separate action between affecting the first target and affecting the second target.
It just feels like Dual Wielder patches the clunkiness of object interactions if read permissively, which is desirable if we can find a way to do it:
a fighter with a great sword can open a door in a turn, no problem (door is free object interaction, no need to draw or stow anything). A spellcaster, a bow user... all of them open doors no problem.
But a rogue with two daggers or swords can open a door in a turn, but it takes an action to do so (sheathe one weapon is a free object, open door is a use an object). Dual Wielder (“You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.”) apparently does nothing to help? The dexterous dual Wielder is just stuck being the worst possible character to try to send ahead scouting at the ready?
It just doesn’t seem equitable, or necessary, to read the feat this harshly.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It has never once occurred to me to interpret that wording of Dual Wielder as “You have two free object interactions” as it does not say that.
I have only ever read it to mean “If you could draw a one-handed weapon, you could instead draw two as part of the same item interaction. If you could stow a one-handed weapon, you can instead stow two as part of the same item interaction.” (Note the lack of necessitating that either weapon be a melee weapon.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This, 100%. Drawing a weapon is distinct from stowing a weapon.
One free object interaction by default. Second object = [Tooltip Not Found] action. Interacting with the same object twice = [Tooltip Not Found] action.
Drawing weapon(s) is a distinct use of object interaction. Stowing weapon(s) is a distinct use of object interaction. Dual Wielder does not give you two free object interactions. Dual Wielder gives you the ability to use your one free object interaction on two weapons at the same time.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Agree. Seems like DM decision.
First of all, to read it that way would be to put words where there aren't. Secondly, this does fix a problem: we're starting combat and every has their weapons in sheaths. Do the Dual wielders have to waste a turn only being able to draw one of their weapons? Nope. Finally, yes of course if you choose to fill both of your hands you have problems opening the door. That is the consequence of filling both hands. It is also a problem for weapon and shield or focus and shield or focus and weapon characters, none of which would generally have dual wielder (and wouldn't help anyway, because foci and shields are not weapons).
Hey, I definitely see your guys points. But “you can x, when you would normally y” doesnt always use “when” to imply time. “With this extra degree you can expect to make $60k as an administrator, when you would normally make $40k.” “When” is used to contrast against the normal state, not to imply “at the same moment.” That’s the sense of the word I’ve always read that as.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Except that it is RAW and this is the Rules forum. If you want to houserule it like that, that’s one thing, but you asked for RAW, so that’s what Sigred, Pentagruel666, and I are trying to provide you.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes. In contrast to the normal state, where you can only draw one weapon, you can draw two. Or, in contrast to the normal state where you can sheath only one weapon, now you can sheath both.
You can normally only draw or stow one one handed weapon. Now you can draw or stow two one handed weapons. So I stow, attack, then draw. I stowed, then drew a one handed weapon when I normally could have drawn or stowed only once with a one handed weapon. (This fits the feat by grammar.)
Now opinions of the intent of the feat or versions of limited specificity of the feat are focused on the vagueness of the feat since it lacks specific terms such as "only stow or draw both weapons, can't stow and draw", "can't stow and/or draw same weapon", or "within the one free interaction you can draw two weapons or stow two weapons". These limitations aren't in the feat, unless an opinion (interpretation) is applied.