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?

[Moonbane]

Never taken dual wield. The greatswords is just too good, Balduran's sword or Silver Sword of the astral plane.

[talemore]

It's for people who want to roleplay dual wield one giant sword in each hand by using enlarge as well Monks who don't want to be Monks and knife fighters or two shields for extra protection since one is too few. I just put the shield in the shield pocket, knee shield, left arm, right arm, back shield and front shield.

[guppy]

Escrito originalmente por talemore:

It's for people who want to roleplay dual wield one giant sword in each hand by using enlarge as well Monks who don't want to be Monks and knife fighters or two shields for extra protection since one is too few. I just put the shield in the shield pocket, knee shield, left arm, right arm, back shield and front shield.

And for spell caster to dual wield staffs ;)

[Moonbane]

Escrito originalmente por guppy:

Escrito originalmente por talemore:

It's for people who want to roleplay dual wield one giant sword in each hand by using enlarge as well Monks who don't want to be Monks and knife fighters or two shields for extra protection since one is too few. I just put the shield in the shield pocket, knee shield, left arm, right arm, back shield and front shield.

And for spell caster to dual wield staffs ;)

Huh..that i didnt realize was possible. So just the dual wielding feat?

[Kernest]

Escrito originalmente por Moonbane:

Huh..that i didnt realize was possible. So just the dual wielding feat?

Yup.

Double boost to spell hit and spell save DC, with the right staves.

[Moonbane]

Escrito originalmente por Kernest:

Escrito originalmente por Moonbane:

Huh..that i didnt realize was possible. So just the dual wielding feat?

Yup.

Double boost to spell hit and spell save DC, with the right staves.

Markoheskhir is a given. Havent usually looked into secondary staves because of its existence.

Staff of Spell Power should probably be the other. Giving you two staves with abilities to not use a spellslot.

[talemore]

It literally says on the 1st comment

[Kernest]

Escrito originalmente por Moonbane:

Markoheskhir is a given. Havent usually looked into secondary staves because of its existence.

Staff of Spell Power should probably be the other. Giving you two staves with abilities to not use a spellslot.

Can't think of anything better off the top of my head.

But obviously before act 3 you'd pick lesser versions, like the one you can find in act 1 Underdark Myconid colony.

[Moonbane]

Hrm, Staff of Cherished Necromancy might be a pretty strong alternative for an offhand as it forces disadvantage on necromancy spells. Giving you a really powerful way to milk Dethrone as a necromancer wizard.

[Paroe]

The point of dual wield is that it scales MUCH better with added damage sources. Sharpshooter is -5 to hit +10 to damage for example; The single best use of it is on dual hand crossbows.

[Oddball]

This is all great insight, thank you all!

I'm not entertaining the spell casting benefits of dual wielding, because my OP was more along the lines with dual wielding as a combat style comparison to single weapon or two-handers.

I'm also not going into the weeds of calculating everything based on possible feats, bonuses, and other modifiers.

Simply that since BG3 currently requires an Action to attack with one weapon, and a Bonus Action to use another form of attack with that weapon, and many of the fighting classes allow for such a bonus-action follow up no matter the fighting style, then why dual wield if one could just use a 2H for more damage + a bonus action follow up? Or a single weapon + bonus action follow-up? Because dual-wielding doesn't seem to attack with both equipped weapons in the same Action, but instead requires a Bonus Action to use the off-hand weapon, which just doesn't make sense to me.

I was somewhat complaining, but also suggesting, that dual-wielding should allow for attacking with both weapons as the same Action, yet with a penalty for To-Hit % to help balance this fighting style out. I'm not a DnD rules nut, but this just makes better sense to me seeing it in the game (I did used to play DDO a lot years ago, and while that's a severely stretched adaptation of the rules for live play, at least you can experience dual-wielding attacks using both weapons at the same time, which is satisfying lol).

Also, I would not consider anything requiring an Action+Bonus Action to attack with both weapons truly dual wielding, because I could have done the something similar with a single weapon Action, then a Bonus Action attack afterwards. To me it's about attacking with whatever is equipped in the same Action if I have the feat/skills etc to support the training and my ability to do so as a combat fighting style.

For the current BG3 structure, I can see this being easily implemented if they just make an additional "Dual Wielding Mastery" feat that would allow for attacking with both weapons in the same Action (and maybe also grant a riposte counter attack type of reaction if an attacker misses the player?). The regular dual-wielding feat would just allow you to equip two weapons with a to-hit penalty. (Then you won't have nonsense like casters holding versatile staffs in each hand with no intent to use then as weapons but only for the spell effects)

[Moonbane]

Not true. You can enable the dual wielding passive that lets you attack with both weapons, costing both an action and a bonus action. Disabled, you only attack with main weapon.

[Kernest]

Escrito originalmente por Oddball:

and many of the fighting classes allow for such a bonus-action follow up no matter the fighting style,

I don't think there are all that many options, though.

Polearm Master gives you a bonus action attack, but requires a polearm and a Feat.

Berserker Frenzy allows a full attack, but comes with a stacking debuff.

Then there's probably one or two major methods I've forgotten, but AFAIK most if not all the "bonus" moves weapons give you (like Flourish or Pommel Strike) are restricted to something like once per short rest.

[Oddball]

Escrito originalmente por Moonbane:

Not true. You can enable the dual wielding passive that lets you attack with both weapons, costing both an action and a bonus action. Disabled, you only attack with main weapon.

That's my point... it requires Action + Bonus to do so.

I could attack with my main weapon first, then follow-up with my off hand as a bonus Action (which ends up the same thing if either linked together or linear). Or if single wielding, follow up with my main hand again as a bonus. To me, this isn't truly attacking with both weapons as a fighting style if it requires the bonus action to do so, because I could accomplish something similar with follow-up bonus actions 2H or single.

[Oddball]

Escrito originalmente por Kernest:

Escrito originalmente por Oddball:

and many of the fighting classes allow for such a bonus-action follow up no matter the fighting style,

... most if not all the "bonus" moves weapons give you (like Flourish or Pommel Strike) are restricted to something like once per short rest.

Good to point out, as this is probably some of what I was thinking of as follow-up's.