Dual Weilding Rogue, any reason not to?

[Nophex]

it seems like there is no reason not to dual weild on my rogue, there isn't any feats needed to equip them it seems. is there any reason at all just to use 1 light weapon over 2?

[Peanut]

Attacking with a secondary offhand weapon uses a bonus action, so as long as you're good sacrificing a bonus action to attack instead of say, hiding, then by all means dual wield. If you're using the Thief archetype you get a second bonus action anyway - which makes dual wielding as a rogue even more viable.

[Mosey]

Dual wielding is pretty great for Rogue's, especially the trickster that gets two bonus actions thus two off-hand attacks.

Only reason not to is if you want to slap on a shield occasionally if you end up in a really bad spot. At least in my opinion, that is.

[Nophex]

Both very helpful thanks guys

[TheBlueFox]

Originally posted by Mosey:

Dual wielding is pretty great for Rogue's, especially the trickster that gets two bonus actions thus two off-hand attacks.

Only reason not to is if you want to slap on a shield occasionally if you end up in a really bad spot. At least in my opinion, that is.

Rogues actually do not get proficiency with shields.

Since Rogues cannot use anything but a weapon in the offhand, there's almost no reason NOT to carry a shortsword in the off hand unless you're really really REALLY dead set on using Single hand rapier. But since 60% of a rogue's damage (Past level 4) comes from Sneak attack, weapon damage isn't really what you're going for anyway.

[Indure]

Only thing I can think of is if you wanted to use a rapier.

I believe arcane trickster would want a free hand in order to cast spells in D&D, but its not implemented in BG3 and I doubt it will be.

[BW022]

In general, in BG3, unless you can use a shield or are using a two-handed weapon, there generally isn't a downside to dual wielding. Generally having the option to make a second attack (even if just for base damage) is better than the extra damage. If you are using a longsword two-handed, you do say 1d10+2 damage. Two shortswords would be 1d6+2 or 1d6+2+1d6 with better chance of hitting, possible magical modifiers, possibly extra damage such as sneak attack, hex, or hunter's mark.

In PnP, it isn't so cut and dry. Not having a hand free can be annoying. It creates issues spellcasting, opening doors, grab a rope, using potions (since you need a hand free to get one out), etc. Further, in PnP 5e, you can only draw/stow a single weapon as a free action. The second costing an action. As such, many characters (including rogues) simply don't have enough actions to get weapons out and attack. When switching between ranged and melee, or needing to open a door, or having to use a bonus action disengage, etc. its often easier just to put one weapon in your hand. For example, a typical 5e PnP tactic might be for a rogue to rush forward, attack, then disengage (bonus action) and then move safely behind a fighter-type.

In BG3, weapons don't take any actions to switch between, potions and spell casting don't require hands, etc. As such, generally no reason not to dual wield unless you can use a shield or are using a two-handed weapon.