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.
yeah. And “you can draw two weapons” on its own does not say to me “you can draw two weapons, as long as they’re at the same time.” ‘When’ is either doing that work or it isn’t, and if it isn’t, no timing restriction is there.
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.
Everything is "a DM decision"; that's a cop-out. We're talking about RAW--how the rules actually work, not what a DM may or may not allow.
The feat does not give you a second object interaction. What it does do is let you use your one free object interaction on both of your weapons at the same time. This is incredibly important, and it fills a very specific purpose--it allows you to not be penalized for being a dual-wielder.
Your weapons are not immediately drawn upon entering combat by RAW, nor are they sheathed immediately upon leaving combat by RAW. A dual-wielder (without the feat) can draw one weapon as a part of their move or action, but they absolutely require the use of their action to draw their second weapon. The Dual-Wielder feat explicitly provides parity, between single & dual-wielders, for that interaction (drawing or stowing).
With the feat, you can draw two weapons at the same time, or you can stow two weapons at the same time. That is all the 3rd bullet provides by RAW. If you want to draw one weapon, and later stow a weapon (in the same turn), or vice versa, you are required to use your action for the second object interaction.
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.
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.
Not the same at all. Spells specifically list themselves as an action and such. So a spell with one action that has 2 targets is specifically saying it is 1 action because it literally is listed as 1 action by using the specific terminology.
The free interaction terminology isn't listed specifically in the feat and is worded to where it can mean 2 free interactions, because of the lack of specificity.
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.
yeah. And “you can draw two weapons” on its own does not say to me “you can draw two weapons, as long as they’re at the same time.” ‘When’ is either doing that work or it isn’t, and if it isn’t, no timing restriction is there.
Ok, I'll concede that, but it also doesn't say that you can draw one and sheath another.
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.
Not the same at all. Spells specifically list themselves as an action and such. So a spell with one action that has 2 targets is specifically saying it is 1 action because it literally is listed as 1 action by using the specific terminology.
The free interaction terminology isn't listed specifically in the feat and is worded to where it can mean 2 free interactions, because of the lack of specificity.
Akshully no. Free interactions are a thing, and since it doesn't mention them, it isn't giving you two.
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.)
You can normally use your free object interaction to draw or stow one one-handed weapon. Now you can use your free object interaction to draw or stow two one-handed weapons. The problem is that you still only get a single free object interaction, it's just that it does more (draw/stow two weapons) than it did before (draw/stow one weapon).
I’m just surprised to hear all of this all of a sudden! I can’t remember any of you ever taking this position in past years! On my phone though, can’t check the receipts on past Dual Wielder/Crossbow Expert threads :)
I’m just surprised to hear all of this all of a sudden! I can’t remember any of you ever taking this position in past years! On my phone though, can’t check the receipts on past Dual Wielder/Crossbow Expert threads :)
Well, Dual Wielding Hand Crossbows is kinda pointless since, even with Crossbow Expert you still need a free hand to load them because of the restriction imposed by the ammunition property.
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.
Everything is "a DM decision"; that's a cop-out. We're talking about RAW--how the rules actually work, not what a DM may or may not allow.
The feat does not give you a second object interaction. What it does do is let you use your one free object interaction on both of your weapons at the same time. This is incredibly important, and it fills a very specific purpose--it allows you to not be penalized for being a dual-wielder.
Your weapons are not immediately drawn upon entering combat by RAW, nor are they sheathed immediately upon leaving combat by RAW. A dual-wielder (without the feat) can draw one weapon as a part of their move or action, but they absolutely require the use of their action to draw their second weapon. The Dual-Wielder feat explicitly provides parity, between single & dual-wielders, for that interaction (drawing or stowing).
With the feat, you can draw two weapons at the same time, or you can stow two weapons at the same time. That is all the 3rd bullet provides by RAW. If you want to draw one weapon, and later stow a weapon (in the same turn), or vice versa, you are required to use your action for the second object interaction.
I was saying since RAW is vague, it could be DM decision for sake of this thread. But if going by RAW, it is so vague that two one handed weapon stows, two draws, or one draw and one stow should be allowed. It is too limited and specific to apply an interpretation of opinion to one interaction of two blades that can both only stow or both only draw when the feat isn't that specific and isn't that limited due to its vagueness.
I know you can interpret it as one free interaction for both to only stow or both only draw, but the "free interaction" terminology isn't in the feat. Stowing, attacking, and then drawing is within the grammar of RAW for this feat because you are stowing a one handed weapon and drawing a one handed when you could normally only draw or stow one.
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.
Devil's advocate here... dual wielding handaxes. Attack: Throw handaxe. Does bonus action trigger for other handaxe?
Of course, this isn't the same as stowing between attack and bonus action. The OPs premise will certainly depend upon a DM ruling favorably, regardless of RAI or RAW.
I was saying since RAW is vague, it could be DM decision for sake of this thread. But if going by RAW, it is so vague that two one handed weapon stows, two draws, or one draw and one stow should be allowed. It is too limited and specific to apply an interpretation of opinion to one interaction of two blades that can both only stow or both only draw when the feat isn't that specific and isn't that limited due to its vagueness.
I know you can interpret it as one free interaction for both to only stow or both only draw, but the "free interaction" terminology isn't in the feat. Stowing, attacking, and then drawing is within the grammar of RAW for this feat because you are stowing a one handed weapon and drawing a one handed when you could normally only draw or stow one.
The +1 AC and the ability to dual-wield weapons that aren’t light is bonus enough. Being able to double draw OR double stow is an additional bonus so Dual Wielders aren’t penalized in the first round of combat. Giving it even more utility is unnecessary.
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 could also draw and stow at the same time, since it's a touch silly to say each hand can draw and each hand can stow, but I can't have one draw and the other stow. It doesn't help for the timing of two weapon fighting, but should be possible. It should also be possible to stow one weapon and draw another with the same hand (for those of us that can't pat our heads and rub our tummies at the same time).
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.
Not the same at all. Spells specifically list themselves as an action and such. So a spell with one action that has 2 targets is specifically saying it is 1 action because it literally is listed as 1 action by using the specific terminology.
The free interaction terminology isn't listed specifically in the feat and is worded to where it can mean 2 free interactions, because of the lack of specificity.
Akshully no. Free interactions are a thing, and since it doesn't mention them, it isn't giving you two.
A free interaction can draw or stow a blade. So if you can draw or stow two blades, that is normally two interactions which requires an action.
The question is, does this feat create a second separate interaction since RAW would normally do this as an action? Or does this feat make a free interaction have two targets? So does the action become an interaction or interaction get two targets? The interaction getting two targets seems completely unlike anything in RAW, and action becoming a second interaction flows with already established mechanics since DMs can already rule some interaction as free or action.
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.
Not the same at all. Spells specifically list themselves as an action and such. So a spell with one action that has 2 targets is specifically saying it is 1 action because it literally is listed as 1 action by using the specific terminology.
The free interaction terminology isn't listed specifically in the feat and is worded to where it can mean 2 free interactions, because of the lack of specificity.
Akshully no. Free interactions are a thing, and since it doesn't mention them, it isn't giving you two.
A free interaction can draw or stow a blade. So if you can draw or stow two blades, that is normally two interactions which requires an action.
The question is, does this feat create a second separate interaction since RAW would normally do this as an action? Or does this feat make a free interaction have two targets? So does the action become an interaction or interaction get two targets? The interaction getting two targets seems completely unlike anything in RAW, and action becoming a second interaction flows with already established mechanics since DMs can already rule some interaction as free or action.
That is all conjecture and wrong conjecture at that. Plenty of things in the game simply increase number of targets when their power is increased. None give you things that they forget to tell you about.
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.
Not the same at all. Spells specifically list themselves as an action and such(1). So a spell with one action that has 2 targets is specifically saying it is 1 action because it literally is listed as 1 action by using the specific terminology.
The free interaction terminology isn't listed specifically in the feat(2) and is worded to where it can mean 2 free interactions, because of the lack of specificity.
And is this a spell? No, so that's entirely irrelevant.
Go back to my post #34 on page 2.
Free interaction terminology is defined in the basic rules. It is a general rule that applies to everyone.
The Dual Wielder feat is notlacking specificity. It does not say anything about free interaction terminology because it has no effect on the number of free interactions you can take in a turn--it's still only one.
What you're doing here is a combination of the fallacies of appealing to ignorance, begging the question, and confirmation bias. You're injecting a perceived lack of specificity in the feat as evidence of your predetermined conclusion, while ignoring the very real evidence which clearly disproves your claim.
Bullet #3 of Dual Wielder is very specific about what it does--when you would use your one free object interaction to either draw or stow one weapon, you can instead either draw or stow two weapons.
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.
A free interaction can draw or stow a blade. So if you can draw or stow two blades, that is normally two interactions which requires an action.
The question is, does this feat create a second separate interaction since RAW would normally do this as an action? Or does this feat make a free interaction have two targets? So does the action become an interaction or interaction get two targets? The interaction getting two targets seems completely unlike anything in RAW, and action becoming a second interaction flows with already established mechanics since DMs can already rule some interaction as free or action.
It makes a free interaction have two targets. It also makes a non-free interaction have two targets (i.e. if you open a door, using your free object interact, and then draw weapons using your action, you can draw two weapons). Adding additional targets to actions happens multiple times in raw (e.g. twin spell).
Yes, but of other actions or abilities one could compare Dual Wielder's wording against, Extra Attack is a pretty close one:
you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Not an exact match, but "whenever"... that doesn't imply simultaneous timing, since we all know you can take Attack Action to attack once, and then interupt that "whenever" with any number of other shennanigans (moving, bonus actions, reactions, free interactions) before taking the second attack.
Other "whenevers" do imply simultaneous timing. Dawn, Bless, no shortage of spells with a "whenever x, y happens" condition.
My takeaway? "When"/"Whenever" isn't being used in one single way, the authors just wrote things with natural sounding language. If you think the intent was that the feat is intended to only allow interacting with two weapons at once instead of one, there's support for reading it that way. If you think the intent was to let you interact with weapons twice instead of once, there's support for reading it that way.
Yes, but of other actions or abilities one could compare Dual Wielder's wording against, Extra Attack is a pretty close one:
you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Not an exact match, but "whenever"... that doesn't imply simultaneous timing, since we all know you can take Attack Action to attack once, and then interupt that "whenever" with any number of other shennanigans (moving, bonus actions, reactions, free interactions) before taking the second attack.
Other "whenevers" do imply simultaneous timing. Dawn, Bless, no shortage of spells with a "whenever x, y happens" condition.
My takeaway? "When"/"Whenever" isn't being used in one single way, the authors just wrote things with natural sounding language. If you think the intent was that the feat is intended to only allow interacting with two weapons at once instead of one, there's support for reading it that way. If you think the intent was to let you interact with weapons twice instead of once, there's support for reading it that way.
Agree. DM decision is applied to free interaction in RAW and this feat involves free interaction. Does this feat give two free interactions or one interaction with two targets?
Two free interactions seems to line up with mechanics by making the action normally required to draw or stow the second weapon become an interaction. (Just like extra attack except two interactions.)
I don't know of any one interaction having two targets to interact with. Doesn't seem to line up with RAW mechanics, although this feat could go there.
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 could also draw and stow at the same time, since it's a touch silly to say each hand can draw and each hand can stow, but I can't have one draw and the other stow. It doesn't help for the timing of two weapon fighting, but should be possible. It should also be possible to stow one weapon and draw another with the same hand (for those of us that can't pat our heads and rub our tummies at the same time).
I could see that, but it’s still technically a houserule, and not RAW.
And is this a spell? No, so that's entirely irrelevant.
Go back to my post #34 on page 2.
Free interaction terminology is defined in the basic rules. It is a general rule that applies to everyone.
The Dual Wielder feat is notlacking specificity. It does not say anything about free interaction terminology because it has no effect on the number of free interactions you can take in a turn--it's still only one.
What you're doing here is a combination of the fallacies of appealing to ignorance, begging the question, and confirmation bias. You're injecting a perceived lack of specificity in the feat as evidence of your predetermined conclusion, while ignoring the very real evidence which clearly disproves your claim.
Bullet #3 of Dual Wielder is very specific about what it does--when you would use your one free object interaction to either draw or stow one weapon, you can instead either draw or stow two weapons.
Not for nothing, but the Free Object Interaction rules don't say that you have one free object interaction per turn. They say that you can freely interact with one object per turn:
Other Activity on Your Turn
Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.
You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.
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. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the DM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.
As written, you'd almost be forgiven for thinking that you could draw and stow the same sword multiple times in a round for free, because it's only one object that you're interacting with.
Free object interaction is also described in a couple other places in the same chapter, here and here, but those also don't actually say that you only have one "free object interaction."
This insistance that you only have one "free object interaction" seems to be a (reasonable) but unwritten inference. The rules are actually framed that you can freely interact with one weapon, no matter how many times. Which would imply that Dual Wielder lets you freely interact with two weapons, no matter how many times.
yeah. And “you can draw two weapons” on its own does not say to me “you can draw two weapons, as long as they’re at the same time.” ‘When’ is either doing that work or it isn’t, and if it isn’t, no timing restriction is there.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Everything is "a DM decision"; that's a cop-out. We're talking about RAW--how the rules actually work, not what a DM may or may not allow.
The feat does not give you a second object interaction. What it does do is let you use your one free object interaction on both of your weapons at the same time. This is incredibly important, and it fills a very specific purpose--it allows you to not be penalized for being a dual-wielder.
Your weapons are not immediately drawn upon entering combat by RAW, nor are they sheathed immediately upon leaving combat by RAW. A dual-wielder (without the feat) can draw one weapon as a part of their move or action, but they absolutely require the use of their action to draw their second weapon. The Dual-Wielder feat explicitly provides parity, between single & dual-wielders, for that interaction (drawing or stowing).
With the feat, you can draw two weapons at the same time, or you can stow two weapons at the same time. That is all the 3rd bullet provides by RAW. If you want to draw one weapon, and later stow a weapon (in the same turn), or vice versa, you are required to use your action for the second object interaction.
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.
Not the same at all. Spells specifically list themselves as an action and such. So a spell with one action that has 2 targets is specifically saying it is 1 action because it literally is listed as 1 action by using the specific terminology.
The free interaction terminology isn't listed specifically in the feat and is worded to where it can mean 2 free interactions, because of the lack of specificity.
Ok, I'll concede that, but it also doesn't say that you can draw one and sheath another.
Akshully no. Free interactions are a thing, and since it doesn't mention them, it isn't giving you two.
You can normally use your free object interaction to draw or stow one one-handed weapon. Now you can use your free object interaction to draw or stow two one-handed weapons. The problem is that you still only get a single free object interaction, it's just that it does more (draw/stow two weapons) than it did before (draw/stow one weapon).
I’m just surprised to hear all of this all of a sudden! I can’t remember any of you ever taking this position in past years! On my phone though, can’t check the receipts on past Dual Wielder/Crossbow Expert threads :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Well, Dual Wielding Hand Crossbows is kinda pointless since, even with Crossbow Expert you still need a free hand to load them because of the restriction imposed by the ammunition property.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I was saying since RAW is vague, it could be DM decision for sake of this thread. But if going by RAW, it is so vague that two one handed weapon stows, two draws, or one draw and one stow should be allowed. It is too limited and specific to apply an interpretation of opinion to one interaction of two blades that can both only stow or both only draw when the feat isn't that specific and isn't that limited due to its vagueness.
I know you can interpret it as one free interaction for both to only stow or both only draw, but the "free interaction" terminology isn't in the feat. Stowing, attacking, and then drawing is within the grammar of RAW for this feat because you are stowing a one handed weapon and drawing a one handed when you could normally only draw or stow one.
Devil's advocate here... dual wielding handaxes. Attack: Throw handaxe. Does bonus action trigger for other handaxe?
Of course, this isn't the same as stowing between attack and bonus action. The OPs premise will certainly depend upon a DM ruling favorably, regardless of RAI or RAW.
The +1 AC and the ability to dual-wield weapons that aren’t light is bonus enough. Being able to double draw OR double stow is an additional bonus so Dual Wielders aren’t penalized in the first round of combat. Giving it even more utility is unnecessary.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You could also draw and stow at the same time, since it's a touch silly to say each hand can draw and each hand can stow, but I can't have one draw and the other stow. It doesn't help for the timing of two weapon fighting, but should be possible. It should also be possible to stow one weapon and draw another with the same hand (for those of us that can't pat our heads and rub our tummies at the same time).
A free interaction can draw or stow a blade. So if you can draw or stow two blades, that is normally two interactions which requires an action.
The question is, does this feat create a second separate interaction since RAW would normally do this as an action? Or does this feat make a free interaction have two targets? So does the action become an interaction or interaction get two targets? The interaction getting two targets seems completely unlike anything in RAW, and action becoming a second interaction flows with already established mechanics since DMs can already rule some interaction as free or action.
That is all conjecture and wrong conjecture at that. Plenty of things in the game simply increase number of targets when their power is increased. None give you things that they forget to tell you about.
Bullet #3 of Dual Wielder is very specific about what it does--when you would use your one free object interaction to either draw or stow one weapon, you can instead either draw or stow two weapons.
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 makes a free interaction have two targets. It also makes a non-free interaction have two targets (i.e. if you open a door, using your free object interact, and then draw weapons using your action, you can draw two weapons). Adding additional targets to actions happens multiple times in raw (e.g. twin spell).
Yes, but of other actions or abilities one could compare Dual Wielder's wording against, Extra Attack is a pretty close one:
Not an exact match, but "whenever"... that doesn't imply simultaneous timing, since we all know you can take Attack Action to attack once, and then interupt that "whenever" with any number of other shennanigans (moving, bonus actions, reactions, free interactions) before taking the second attack.
Other "whenevers" do imply simultaneous timing. Dawn, Bless, no shortage of spells with a "whenever x, y happens" condition.
My takeaway? "When"/"Whenever" isn't being used in one single way, the authors just wrote things with natural sounding language. If you think the intent was that the feat is intended to only allow interacting with two weapons at once instead of one, there's support for reading it that way. If you think the intent was to let you interact with weapons twice instead of once, there's support for reading it that way.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Agree. DM decision is applied to free interaction in RAW and this feat involves free interaction. Does this feat give two free interactions or one interaction with two targets?
Two free interactions seems to line up with mechanics by making the action normally required to draw or stow the second weapon become an interaction. (Just like extra attack except two interactions.)
I don't know of any one interaction having two targets to interact with. Doesn't seem to line up with RAW mechanics, although this feat could go there.
I could see that, but it’s still technically a houserule, and not RAW.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Not for nothing, but the Free Object Interaction rules don't say that you have one free object interaction per turn. They say that you can freely interact with one object per turn:
As written, you'd almost be forgiven for thinking that you could draw and stow the same sword multiple times in a round for free, because it's only one object that you're interacting with.
Free object interaction is also described in a couple other places in the same chapter, here and here, but those also don't actually say that you only have one "free object interaction."
This insistance that you only have one "free object interaction" seems to be a (reasonable) but unwritten inference. The rules are actually framed that you can freely interact with one weapon, no matter how many times. Which would imply that Dual Wielder lets you freely interact with two weapons, no matter how many times.
How 'bout dem apples? :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.