Why is that clear? It doesn’t say “either draw or sheathe your sword once”?
There is an argument looking for an outcome.
Sure you can draw your one sword as many times as you like. But you may not sheath it because you've chosen to draw it.
Why? It says interact with one object for free during movement or attack, it doesn't limit the interaction to once.
Example: I move 5 feet, stow, move 5 feet, draw. Rinse and repeat.
Example: Stow, attack, draw.
Those are examples of interacting with one object during movement or attacking.
(None of this even includes Duel Wielder.)
As I've already pointed out, you are precluded from interacting with an object a second time. You get to interact with an object as either part of your move or your attack. The types of interactions you can use are the ones listed in the list you linked . You cannot interact with the same object a second time because even the use an object interaction requires that it be a different object that you interact with.
Well, now, I don’t think that the [Tooltip Not Found] action requires that it be a different item per se.
It’s probably easier to describe this than it is to find a specific anime clip showing it... but I think we have all seen the trope in a cartoon or something of the samurai who squares up to attack and then resheathes his sword after each blow in a flurry of blows. Is that realistic or historical or even humanly possible? No, but it is an established and recognizable fantasy trope. And fantasy tropes are what D&D are built around. And I think it’s a trope that the rules as written support any character with multiple attacks being able to do.
it is quite possible that it was not intended that way and that there really was intended to be a once limitation on that. But the word once never appears in that section in any of the three times that free object interactions are discussed, and that seems to me like a pretty huge and unreasonable oversight if once was really intended to be an important part of this rule.
Where is it clear? It says interact with object with movement or attack, not that the interaction is limited to only stowing or drawing. (Again duel wielder feat not even included in this.)
You get a free interact. It specifically says that if you want a second interact with a different object it requires an action. It doesn't actually say anything about a second interact with the same object (ignoring weapons for the moment, can you both open and close a door as a part of movement, or do you need to spend your action to close it?).
It doesn’t say you get “a free interact”. Paraphrasing is obfuscating the RAW here and presuming a conclusion. It says “You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free.” Elsewhere, “You normally interact with an object while doing something else.”
all of this argument that you have one discrete pseudo-action called “a free interaction” is imprecise, nothing SAYS that. It’s akin to treating your movement speed like “a move action,” which doesn’t exist.
The real point of that list is that it gives you an expectation of what object interactions are: they are not continuous or repeated actions, they are short simple things. You should expect one of those for free, obviously. Reading it any other way is... counterproductive, and to be frank, a little annoying.
It isn't obvious since it isn't stated in RAW and RAW even does very little do add to free interactions. But I'm good with passing on this because the focus of the original build is dual wielder feat and this really doesn't matter to the original build. (Although I'm also good continuing with it.)
While we have differing opinions since RAW isn't clear on object use limitations in movement or attacks, saying I'm right because it's my opinion and other opinions are just annoying is... well...
It doesn’t say you get “a interact”. Paraphrasing is obfuscating the RAW here and presuming a conclusion. It says “You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free.” Elsewhere, “You normally interact with an object while doing something else.”
all of this argument that you have one discrete pseudo-action called “an interaction” is imprecise, nothing SAYS that. It’s akin to treating your movement speed like “a move action,” which doesn’t exist.
Except it is exactly what the list of examples shows. Single "interactions." Not continuous finagling. Again, a case where if you can't understand the meaning of the text the examples are there to help you.
Other than the fact that is a surprising interpretation, I don’t think it’s an UNBALANCING one? “You can draw/stow your weapon for free on your turn whenever you do something else, so long as you haven’t interacted with any other objects” would be a fine baseline assumption, and seems supported by the plain text.
And if that’s the baseline, Dual Wielder would them let you do that with TWO weapons throughout your turn.
Actually NO.
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
draw or sheathe a sword
It is clear that you cannot do both.
Where is it clear? It says interact with object with movement or attack, not that the interaction is limited to only stowing or drawing. (Again duel wielder feat not even included in this.)
I think the limiter is in the "or". If it said "draw and/or stow" then there would be some wiggle. Having the dual wielder bullet should allow for both since two weapons could be done.
Where is it clear? It says interact with object with movement or attack, not that the interaction is limited to only stowing or drawing. (Again duel wielder feat not even included in this.)
You get a free interact. It specifically says that if you want a second interact with a different object it requires an action. It doesn't actually say anything about a second interact with the same object (ignoring weapons for the moment, can you both open and close a door as a part of movement, or do you need to spend your action to close it?).
True. A door is a good example, so I guess you can only open or shut it for free.
I think the limiter is in the "or". If it said "draw and/or stow" then there would be some wiggle. Having the dual wielder bullet should allow for both since two weapons could be done.
what’s funny is, in legal writing, “or” and “and” are often used in statutory interpretation as being synonyms... but that’s neither here nand there :)
Can you quote an example of the rules ever using “and/or” anywhere?
I think the limiter is in the "or". If it said "draw and/or stow" then there would be some wiggle. Having the dual wielder bullet should allow for both since two weapons could be done.
what’s funny is, in legal writing, “or” and “and” are often used in statutory interpretation as being synonyms... but that’s neither here nand there :)
Can you quote an example of the rules ever using “and/or” anywhere?
I think Wizards of the Coast only does and/or for Magic the Gathering.
I think the limiter is in the "or". If it said "draw and/or stow" then there would be some wiggle. Having the dual wielder bullet should allow for both since two weapons could be done.
what’s funny is, in legal writing, “or” and “and” are often used in statutory interpretation as being synonyms... but that’s neither here nand there :)
Can you quote an example of the rules ever using “and/or” anywhere?
If you would like to make it your crusade to have the interaction work specifically as you are arguing despite not playing it that way, you are free to do so. I was only trying to say that the "or" was the limiter, at least as far as some people seem to be interpreting it.
What I think is clear is that this discussion isn't really going anywhere aside from "I'm right, you're wrong, prove to me otherwise" or some variation of that. I haven't been convinced that either side has said enough to definitively settle the question, but enough has been said for DMs with questions on the matter to get a feel for which way they'll want to rule. As for any clarification for the OP, it's going to have to come from the DM. My advice would be to broach the topic early so that the DM has plenty of time to ruminate on the subject before making a decision and allow the OP to seek clarification before making dips into classes that may be useless to the character if the DM doesn't see the mechanics working in the way that they envision. Of course, that's the advice that I give to anyone that is planning on using multiclass or feats since there are so many interactions that have gray areas in them.
Yes, that IS my point. The wording is at least ambiguous as to whether it’s “one object” or “one object once,” if not outright hostile to “one object once.” “And/Or” would be very clear language to have used if they meant that... but I can’t recall “And/Or” being used ANYWHERE, so I’m not sure the use of “or” precludes that meaning (especially since “either...or...” wasn’t used).
Im not saying I’m right you’re wrong, I’m saying, RAW may not give us enough to definitively say “you can either draw your sword or sheathe it once for free,” so dismissing any interpretation of Dual Wielder that doesn’t presume that interpretation is putting the cart before the horse.
Reasonable minds can differ here, there is not an “obvious” rule.
Other than the fact that is a surprising interpretation, I don’t think it’s an UNBALANCING one? “You can draw/stow your weapon for free on your turn whenever you do something else, so long as you haven’t interacted with any other objects” would be a fine baseline assumption, and seems supported by the plain text.
And if that’s the baseline, Dual Wielder would them let you do that with TWO weapons throughout your turn.
Actually NO.
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
draw or sheathe a sword
It is clear that you cannot do both.
Where is it clear? It says interact with object with movement or attack, not that the interaction is limited to only stowing or drawing. (Again duel wielder feat not even included in this.)
I think the limiter is in the "or". If it said "draw and/or stow" then there would be some wiggle. Having the dual wielder bullet should allow for both since two weapons could be done.
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.
Are you talking about the feat or free interaction? Free interaction's example doesn't say stow or draw. It says draw as part of action to attack. So interacting with weapon by drawing, attacking, then stowing is still only interacting with one object during the attack.
If you mean duel wielder feat, then the or could apply to a limited on both or limited on each individually.
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.
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
All three tell a part of the story, or the same story a slightly different way. None of them say "once," or frame this in the context of having "an interaction." All three talking about interacting with "one object" (or, listing types of objects one might interact with, in the first quote).
I think the limiter is in the "or". If it said "draw and/or stow" then there would be some wiggle. Having the dual wielder bullet should allow for both since two weapons could be done.
what’s funny is, in legal writing, “or” and “and” are often used in statutory interpretation as being synonyms... but that’s neither here nand there :)
Can you quote an example of the rules ever using “and/or” anywhere?
If you would like to make it your crusade to have the interaction work specifically as you are arguing despite not playing it that way, you are free to do so. I was only trying to say that the "or" was the limiter, at least as far as some people seem to be interpreting it.
What I think is clear is that this discussion isn't really going anywhere aside from "I'm right, you're wrong, prove to me otherwise" or some variation of that. I haven't been convinced that either side has said enough to definitively settle the question, but enough has been said for DMs with questions on the matter to get a feel for which way they'll want to rule. As for any clarification for the OP, it's going to have to come from the DM. My advice would be to broach the topic early so that the DM has plenty of time to ruminate on the subject before making a decision and allow the OP to seek clarification before making dips into classes that may be useless to the character if the DM doesn't see the mechanics working in the way that they envision. Of course, that's the advice that I give to anyone that is planning on using multiclass or feats since there are so many interactions that have gray areas in them.
I agree RAW is vague with this and so it should be up to DM since there is no official answer; just some people wanted a RAW answer that doesn't exist and auto assume that the opinion of duel wielder being limited is the right answer when dual wielder's potential in RAW could outclass pole arm master. (Also give interactions with different fighting styles).
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.
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
All three tell a part of the story, or the same story a slightly different way. None of them say "once," or frame this in the context of having "an interaction." All three talking about interacting with "one object" (or, listing types of objects one might interact with, in the first quote).
Thanks! I guess DMs should decide if opening and closing a door in a movement requires an action then.
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.
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
All three tell a part of the story, or the same story a slightly different way. None of them say "once," or frame this in the context of having "an interaction." All three talking about interacting with "one object" (or, listing types of objects one might interact with, in the first quote).
None of them say "continuously" or "multiple times" either. But at least I have the examples of what to expect as your free interaction on my side.
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.
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
All three tell a part of the story, or the same story a slightly different way. None of them say "once," or frame this in the context of having "an interaction." All three talking about interacting with "one object" (or, listing types of objects one might interact with, in the first quote).
None of them say "continuously" or "multiple times" either. But at least I have the examples of what to expect as your free interaction on my side.
For the sake of this RAW argument over a build in question which doesn't have an answer as you mentioned, the build will still work by stowing after the main attack's damage is dealt.
The only question that remains in RAW that also doesn't have an answer is dual wielder feat. If you gain two separate interactions, the the build's maximum potential can be fulfilled. If you gain only only one interaction for two targets, then the build still gets full potential if you can draw one and stow another.
The only way the build doesn't get full potential is if the feat doesn't give two separate interactions and doesn't give an interaction with two targets that each have the option individually of being stowed or drawn. So the most limited interpretation is a single interaction that gives two targets that you must either draw both or stow both.
The only way the build doesn't get full potential is if the feat doesn't give two separate interactions and doesn't give an interaction with two targets that each have the option individually of being stowed or drawn. So the most limited interpretation is a single interaction that gives two targets that you must either draw both or stow both.
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.
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
All three tell a part of the story, or the same story a slightly different way. None of them say "once," or frame this in the context of having "an interaction." All three talking about interacting with "one object" (or, listing types of objects one might interact with, in the first quote).
None of them say "continuously" or "multiple times" either. But at least I have the examples of what to expect as your free interaction on my side.
For the sake of this RAW argument over a build in question which doesn't have an answer as you mentioned, the build will still work by stowing after the main attack's damage is dealt.
The only question that remains in RAW that also doesn't have an answer is dual wielder feat. If you gain two separate interactions, the the build's maximum potential can be fulfilled. If you gain only only one interaction for two targets, then the build still gets full potential if you can draw one and stow another.
The only way the build doesn't get full potential is if the feat doesn't give two separate interactions and doesn't give an interaction with two targets that each have the option individually of being stowed or drawn. So the most limited interpretation is a single interaction that gives two targets that you must either draw both or stow both.
At worst, you'll have a two round rotation that goes 1 hand attack with dueling bonus, 1 hand attack with dueling bonus, free interaction draw sword and gain +1AC, dual wield attack to trigger bonus action, and then bonus action attack with two weapon fighting style bonus. The next round would be the inverse: Dual wield to trigger bonus action, bonus action, stow weapon and lose 1 AC, 1h with dueling 1h with dueling. That's your baseline that everyone agrees happens and isn't bad. In reality you are losing out on +2 damage on the bonus action and +1 AC every other round from what you are trying to get.
If your DM rules permissivily, then you get some or all of that too.
Of course, you may not want to trade the AC out if your DM doesn't rule favorably for you, then you'll lose 4 more damage. It's not uncommon to trade offense for defense. Alternatively, you have second wind from fighter, could have cure wounds from Ranger, and a bonus action dash or disengage if you are taking too much damage, which is a great suite of recovery options, and doesn't factor the rogue being a swashbuckler for the free disengage. If you start barbarian or fighter, you'll have strength and constition proficiency, danger sense at barb 2 gives advantage on dex saves when you can see the effect, rage grants resistance to B/P/S damage, you'll have 3 d12s, 14 d10s and 3 d8s as hit die putting you on average as a d10, Action Surge can be used offensively or defensively, if you go champion, you'll have 3 fighting styles to get dueling, 2 weapon fighting style, and defensive style or you could go EK to drop one fighting style (maybe defensive which wouldn't affect unarmored defense if you chose that. Having a +5 con and +2 dex with unarmored defense is better than non magical medium armor which is the best you could do with rage). EK could give you some good defensive options like Shield or Absorb Elements but you would want to steer clear of offensive spells for the most part. Battlemaster could give some augments as well. Indomitable will help with saves. It's a strong suite of abilities that are fairly well balanced and give plenty of options for different scenarios. You'll be fairly weak against wisdom saves, but even that will be a +1 or +2. Charisma saves and intelligence saves are also weaknesses in the build but are the least common saves. In other words, you'll be like a barbarian on steroids. Half-Orc will accentuate that feeling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, now, I don’t think that the [Tooltip Not Found] action requires that it be a different item per se.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It’s probably easier to describe this than it is to find a specific anime clip showing it... but I think we have all seen the trope in a cartoon or something of the samurai who squares up to attack and then resheathes his sword after each blow in a flurry of blows. Is that realistic or historical or even humanly possible? No, but it is an established and recognizable fantasy trope. And fantasy tropes are what D&D are built around. And I think it’s a trope that the rules as written support any character with multiple attacks being able to do.
it is quite possible that it was not intended that way and that there really was intended to be a once limitation on that. But the word once never appears in that section in any of the three times that free object interactions are discussed, and that seems to me like a pretty huge and unreasonable oversight if once was really intended to be an important part of this rule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You get a free interact. It specifically says that if you want a second interact with a different object it requires an action. It doesn't actually say anything about a second interact with the same object (ignoring weapons for the moment, can you both open and close a door as a part of movement, or do you need to spend your action to close it?).
It doesn’t say you get “a free interact”. Paraphrasing is obfuscating the RAW here and presuming a conclusion. It says “You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free.” Elsewhere, “You normally interact with an object while doing something else.”
all of this argument that you have one discrete pseudo-action called “a free interaction” is imprecise, nothing SAYS that. It’s akin to treating your movement speed like “a move action,” which doesn’t exist.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It isn't obvious since it isn't stated in RAW and RAW even does very little do add to free interactions. But I'm good with passing on this because the focus of the original build is dual wielder feat and this really doesn't matter to the original build. (Although I'm also good continuing with it.)
While we have differing opinions since RAW isn't clear on object use limitations in movement or attacks, saying I'm right because it's my opinion and other opinions are just annoying is... well...
Except it is exactly what the list of examples shows. Single "interactions." Not continuous finagling. Again, a case where if you can't understand the meaning of the text the examples are there to help you.
I think the limiter is in the "or". If it said "draw and/or stow" then there would be some wiggle. Having the dual wielder bullet should allow for both since two weapons could be done.
True. A door is a good example, so I guess you can only open or shut it for free.
what’s funny is, in legal writing, “or” and “and” are often used in statutory interpretation as being synonyms... but that’s neither here nand there :)
Can you quote an example of the rules ever using “and/or” anywhere?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think Wizards of the Coast only does and/or for Magic the Gathering.
If you would like to make it your crusade to have the interaction work specifically as you are arguing despite not playing it that way, you are free to do so. I was only trying to say that the "or" was the limiter, at least as far as some people seem to be interpreting it.
What I think is clear is that this discussion isn't really going anywhere aside from "I'm right, you're wrong, prove to me otherwise" or some variation of that. I haven't been convinced that either side has said enough to definitively settle the question, but enough has been said for DMs with questions on the matter to get a feel for which way they'll want to rule. As for any clarification for the OP, it's going to have to come from the DM. My advice would be to broach the topic early so that the DM has plenty of time to ruminate on the subject before making a decision and allow the OP to seek clarification before making dips into classes that may be useless to the character if the DM doesn't see the mechanics working in the way that they envision. Of course, that's the advice that I give to anyone that is planning on using multiclass or feats since there are so many interactions that have gray areas in them.
Yes, that IS my point. The wording is at least ambiguous as to whether it’s “one object” or “one object once,” if not outright hostile to “one object once.” “And/Or” would be very clear language to have used if they meant that... but I can’t recall “And/Or” being used ANYWHERE, so I’m not sure the use of “or” precludes that meaning (especially since “either...or...” wasn’t used).
Im not saying I’m right you’re wrong, I’m saying, RAW may not give us enough to definitively say “you can either draw your sword or sheathe it once for free,” so dismissing any interpretation of Dual Wielder that doesn’t presume that interpretation is putting the cart before the horse.
Reasonable minds can differ here, there is not an “obvious” rule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
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.
Are you talking about the feat or free interaction? Free interaction's example doesn't say stow or draw. It says draw as part of action to attack. So interacting with weapon by drawing, attacking, then stowing is still only interacting with one object during the attack.
If you mean duel wielder feat, then the or could apply to a limited on both or limited on each individually.
Mykkel, free interaction is discussed in two other places in Chapter 9, he's pulling from the language that's near prone.
Further down, there's the part you quoted:
And even further down, there's this:
All three tell a part of the story, or the same story a slightly different way. None of them say "once," or frame this in the context of having "an interaction." All three talking about interacting with "one object" (or, listing types of objects one might interact with, in the first quote).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I agree RAW is vague with this and so it should be up to DM since there is no official answer; just some people wanted a RAW answer that doesn't exist and auto assume that the opinion of duel wielder being limited is the right answer when dual wielder's potential in RAW could outclass pole arm master. (Also give interactions with different fighting styles).
Thanks! I guess DMs should decide if opening and closing a door in a movement requires an action then.
None of them say "continuously" or "multiple times" either. But at least I have the examples of what to expect as your free interaction on my side.
For the sake of this RAW argument over a build in question which doesn't have an answer as you mentioned, the build will still work by stowing after the main attack's damage is dealt.
The only question that remains in RAW that also doesn't have an answer is dual wielder feat. If you gain two separate interactions, the the build's maximum potential can be fulfilled. If you gain only only one interaction for two targets, then the build still gets full potential if you can draw one and stow another.
The only way the build doesn't get full potential is if the feat doesn't give two separate interactions and doesn't give an interaction with two targets that each have the option individually of being stowed or drawn. So the most limited interpretation is a single interaction that gives two targets that you must either draw both or stow both.
Ding ding! That’s the one.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
At worst, you'll have a two round rotation that goes 1 hand attack with dueling bonus, 1 hand attack with dueling bonus, free interaction draw sword and gain +1AC, dual wield attack to trigger bonus action, and then bonus action attack with two weapon fighting style bonus. The next round would be the inverse: Dual wield to trigger bonus action, bonus action, stow weapon and lose 1 AC, 1h with dueling 1h with dueling. That's your baseline that everyone agrees happens and isn't bad. In reality you are losing out on +2 damage on the bonus action and +1 AC every other round from what you are trying to get.
If your DM rules permissivily, then you get some or all of that too.
Of course, you may not want to trade the AC out if your DM doesn't rule favorably for you, then you'll lose 4 more damage. It's not uncommon to trade offense for defense. Alternatively, you have second wind from fighter, could have cure wounds from Ranger, and a bonus action dash or disengage if you are taking too much damage, which is a great suite of recovery options, and doesn't factor the rogue being a swashbuckler for the free disengage. If you start barbarian or fighter, you'll have strength and constition proficiency, danger sense at barb 2 gives advantage on dex saves when you can see the effect, rage grants resistance to B/P/S damage, you'll have 3 d12s, 14 d10s and 3 d8s as hit die putting you on average as a d10, Action Surge can be used offensively or defensively, if you go champion, you'll have 3 fighting styles to get dueling, 2 weapon fighting style, and defensive style or you could go EK to drop one fighting style (maybe defensive which wouldn't affect unarmored defense if you chose that. Having a +5 con and +2 dex with unarmored defense is better than non magical medium armor which is the best you could do with rage). EK could give you some good defensive options like Shield or Absorb Elements but you would want to steer clear of offensive spells for the most part. Battlemaster could give some augments as well. Indomitable will help with saves. It's a strong suite of abilities that are fairly well balanced and give plenty of options for different scenarios. You'll be fairly weak against wisdom saves, but even that will be a +1 or +2. Charisma saves and intelligence saves are also weaknesses in the build but are the least common saves. In other words, you'll be like a barbarian on steroids. Half-Orc will accentuate that feeling.