Dual Wield Questions

[Oddball]

Some questions I had after realizing I don't think I've been dual wielding correctly...

Why does dual wielding take a bonus action to use the second weapon, when you can often do another bonus melee action while use one main weapon? Didn't it used to be (maybe not, I'm not a rules nut) that the point of dual wield was that you attack with both weapons as a single attack (with penalties to hit to make up for uses two weapons).

Also, it seems (may be my imagination) that when dual wielding while melee sneak attacking does damage with both weapons in the same sneak attack? If not, should it?

Should dual wielding + the feat allow for an automatic parry or riposte type of reaction as well, since that's another reason to dual wield.

Otherwise... what's the point of dual wielding if the off hand isn't doing something automatically if we have the dual wield feat or the fighter/ranger specialty?

[Moffin Bovin]

you get +1 ac and there are far more interesting weapons than shields in the game.

so you can be equipped with 2 weapons and get the magical bonuses of both. like having 2 staves on a wizard and getting +2 to spell save dc and spell attack + be able to cast the spell on either staff (if it has one) + whatever other bonuses they have AND also get +1 ac.

[Kernest]

Off-hand attacks take a bonus action, that's just how it is.

You can un-link your dual-wield attack so that the game does not automatically perform an off-hand attack after your first attack. I recommend doing this in case you run into situations where the enemy dies from 1 hit, so you can walk up to a different enemy and off-hand attack them separately.

You don't get sneak attack damage on both main and off-hand attacks, nor should you.

The point of dual wielding is to deal more damage than you would with just a one handed weapon.

[PK_Thunder]

You've hit on something that has been a contentious topic in tabletop DnD for about thirty years. Even back in say, 3e, dual wield was heavily penalized without a lengthy feat chain and particular class features.

[Oddball]

Originally posted by Kernest:

Off-hand attacks take a bonus action, that's just how it is.

You can un-link your dual-wield attack so that the game does not automatically perform an off-hand attack after your first attack. I recommend doing this in case you run into situations where the enemy dies from 1 hit, so you can walk up to a different enemy and off-hand attack them separately.

You don't get sneak attack damage on both main and off-hand attacks, nor should you.

The point of dual wielding is to deal more damage than you would with just a one handed weapon.

I understand it is what it is, but I don't think it should be.

If using a two-handed weapon results in as much damage as two separate dual-wielding weapons, and I can use a bonus action for another follow-up hit, then why dual-wield (other than for the item bonus...which casters aside, often don't apply unless you use them to hit). Also if I can use a single weapon, and follow-up with another sort of bonus action hit, then why dual-wield (unless the off-hand weapon has an unique effect that would be useful to activate on a hit).

I think dual-wielding seems mucked up... to me the point of it was to be able to attack with both weapons in the same action, as you have both equipped. Not this main-hand, off-hand nonsense. Whatever you have equipped, you're attacking with it as the action if you have the feat or class skill etc. The additional consideration is for parry or opportunity attacks bonus as well. The draw back is there's a penalty to hit with both weapons.

[Oddball]

Originally posted by Moffin Bovin:

you get +1 ac and there are far more interesting weapons than shields in the game.

so you can be equipped with 2 weapons and get the magical bonuses of both. like having 2 staves on a wizard and getting +2 to spell save dc and spell attack + be able to cast the spell on either staff (if it has one) + whatever other bonuses they have AND also get +1 ac.

Yeah sorry, I was approaching this thought more from a attacking stand point. Obviously you get the benefits of two items being equipped etc. I should have expressed that better in my OP. Thanks!

[Mysta67]

I think the point is, you normally can't attack with a bonus action, so it allows you to do a little more damage by using your bonus action to attack with a weapon. However, I am not disagreeing with you that it should do more damage.

[Moffin Bovin]

Originally posted by Kernest:

You don't get sneak attack damage on both main and off-hand attacks, nor should you.

you do though. Its just that you only get 1 sneak attack per round. it'll proc on your off hand attack if you miss with the main hand attack.

[Moffin Bovin]

dual wielding sucks for fighters because it falls off hard once they start getting extra attacks.

But then, so does sword and shield. For the fighter classes its pretty much just "use a great weapon or go ♥♥♥♥ yourself."

[Mysta67]

Originally posted by Moffin Bovin:

Originally posted by Kernest:

You don't get sneak attack damage on both main and off-hand attacks, nor should you.

So instead of a rogue, just have a warrior with the scoundrel background and be done with it.... or a wizard. Rogues are very low end damage characters in the game. Rangers are far better or go with a Barbarian.

[guppy]

Originally posted by Oddball:

Some questions I had after realizing I don't think I've been dual wielding correctly...

Why does dual wielding take a bonus action to use the second weapon, when you can often do another bonus melee action while use one main weapon? Didn't it used to be (maybe not, I'm not a rules nut) that the point of dual wield was that you attack with both weapons as a single attack (with penalties to hit to make up for uses two weapons).

Also, it seems (may be my imagination) that when dual wielding while melee sneak attacking does damage with both weapons in the same sneak attack? If not, should it?

Should dual wielding + the feat allow for an automatic parry or riposte type of reaction as well, since that's another reason to dual wield.

Otherwise... what's the point of dual wielding if the off hand isn't doing something automatically if we have the dual wield feat or the fighter/ranger specialty?

The point of dual wielding is for most classes to have something to spend your bonus action on, as a rogue you have plenty of options - but as you never get multi attack outside of dualclassing it serves a 2nd purpose; another chance to land your sneak attack.

How ever sneak attack on bonus attack in BG3 is somewhat wonkey - you can't manually trigger it, and the reaction popup doesn't always activate.

Still it's a little extra dps - more if you chose to go with the theif as they get a 2nd bonus action in baldurs gate.

Also in case you haven't noticed it yet - below your meleweapon in the hot bar there is an icon to choose to use both attacks at once or individually.
if you are in stealth and don't plan on re-entering stealth having it on is good because both attacks enjoy the advantage - but outside of that manually choosing weather to attack or not is usually the superior option.

[Kernest]

Originally posted by Oddball:

I understand it is what it is, but I don't think it should be.

If using a two-handed weapon results in as much damage as two separate dual-wielding weapons, and I can use a bonus action for another follow-up hit, then why dual-wield (other than for the item bonus...which casters aside, often don't apply unless you use them to hit). Also if I can use a single weapon, and follow-up with another sort of bonus action hit, then why dual-wield (unless the off-hand weapon has an unique effect that would be useful to activate on a hit).

I think dual-wielding seems mucked up... to me the point of it was to be able to attack with both weapons in the same action, as you have both equipped. Not this main-hand, off-hand nonsense. Whatever you have equipped, you're attacking with it as the action if you have the feat or class skill etc. The additional consideration is for parry or opportunity attacks bonus as well. The draw back is there's a penalty to hit with both weapons.

This is how DnD 5e has decided to balance it, and I think you're overestimating the damage a 2H weapon does.

The average damage of a 1d12 weapon is 6.5, while the average damage of a 1d6 weapon is 3.5. That's 3 damage difference, assuming other factors are the same.

You do one bonus action off-hand attack, you get another 3.5 damage AND your combat stat modifier (up to 5 normally) if you have the two-weapon fighting style.

2H wielders typically have methods of dealing more damage than dual-wielders, but it's not as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

[guppy]

Originally posted by Kernest:

2H wielders typically have methods of dealing more damage than dual-wielders, but it's not as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

Unless the 2H wielder has a bonus action that causes damage then dual wield wins out by a small margin:

GWM 2H - basic zweihander : 2d6+str => 7+5+10 => 22 => 22 * 0.5(-5 hit=-25%) => 11 dpr

2WF Dual wield - basic shortswords : 2d6+str+str => 7+5+5 => 17 => 17 * 0.65 => 11.05 dpr

( average chance to hit/land a spell during your adventuring life will be 65%, thus this number is used for theory crafting )

Now once you start adding in damage riders ( flame dipped weapons and so on ) the Dual wield option will start to outpace 2H rather quickly

[Jonkenden]

Dual wielding is also great for gettin more triggers of things like hunters mark, hex or additional damage from rings and other things that add damage every hit. Also it looks awesome and min max is unnecessary to beat the game

[Kernest]

Originally posted by guppy:

Unless the 2H wielder has a bonus action that causes damage then dual wield wins out by a small margin:

GWM 2H - basic zweihander : 2d6+str => 7+5+10 => 22 => 22 * 0.5(-5 hit=-25%) => 11 dpr

2WF Dual wield - basic shortswords : 2d6+str+str => 7+5+5 => 17 => 17 * 0.65 => 11.05 dpr

( average chance to hit/land a spell during your adventuring life will be 65%, thus this number is used for theory crafting )

Now once you start adding in damage riders ( flame dipped weapons and so on ) the Dual wield option will start to outpace 2H rather quickly

You're calculating that based on a single attack, though, and for some reason granting the 2H fighter a Feat but no Fighting Style, such as Great Weapon Master, which slightly boosts the average damage.

With just one bonus action attack, the math is going to look very different on a level 11 Fighter, for example.

[guppy]

Originally posted by Kernest:

Originally posted by guppy:

Unless the 2H wielder has a bonus action that causes damage then dual wield wins out by a small margin:

GWM 2H - basic zweihander : 2d6+str => 7+5+10 => 22 => 22 * 0.5(-5 hit=-25%) => 11 dpr

2WF Dual wield - basic shortswords : 2d6+str+str => 7+5+5 => 17 => 17 * 0.65 => 11.05 dpr

( average chance to hit/land a spell during your adventuring life will be 65%, thus this number is used for theory crafting )

Now once you start adding in damage riders ( flame dipped weapons and so on ) the Dual wield option will start to outpace 2H rather quickly

You're calculating that based on a single attack, though, and for some reason granting the 2H fighter a Feat but no Fighting Style, such as Great Weapon Master, which slightly boosts the average damage.

With just one bonus action attack, the math is going to look very different on a level 11 Fighter, for example.

I am well aware, but rather than calculate for every level/class/feat combination I chose to present the maths involved with the added to hit calculation that so many forget when comparing builds ( the 'up to XXX' damage threads ).

You can just plot in what ever numbers you like - also I did include Great Weapon Master (GWM) but not GWF, simply to not muddy the waters as the damage numbers for that one is very dependent on the dice ( and I suspect, but don't know that BG3 rerolls all dices including smites, etc ) in short terms, it's dpr boost is larger the smaller the die - with vanilla weapons Zwei handers get's the most milage out of it, and great axe the least.