Any way to make dual wield as good as, basically any other choice?

[VoiD]

I was trying to follow a theme with a gloomstalker with 3 levels on assassin Minthara, I know doing it with a bow is really broken, but I kinda wanted to see a dual version of it, but this character seem like it's hitting like a wet noodle compared to my MC paladin, and laezel as a pure fighter, both using 2h weapons and hitting like trucks.

Is there anything I can do to make it work? It really doesn't feel like the bonus action for an offhand attack/turn is worth the build specialization, fighting style and feat invested.

[Zerostalgia]

Yep, 1000% no.
Dual wield is able to get to maybe 45th percentile in effectiveness if you are very deliberate in build decisions.
At the end of the day having that bonus action for things other than a basic attack is important if you want to be META.
Still fun if you dual wield.
But it will never be as good as most choices.

[Szorrin]

Dual Wielding is kinda gimped by action economy. You often have so many better uses for your bonus action than a single off-hand attack.

[RamzaBehoulve]

Dual wielding Gloomstalker / Assassin is one, if not the highest melee DPS in the game.

I could agree dual wield is crap outside of rogue/ranger, but not for them.

[Brady4444]

If it didn't use a bonus action to use the off hand weapon, dual wield would be the same as 2h (which is 2d6 per attack). And there are many other features in the game that use bonus action, so half of that 2d6 is competing as an opportunity cost (potions, special actions, etc.). I believe it is one of the grievances with 5e, but that's just how it is.

[VoiD]

Originally posted by RamzaBehoulve:

Dual wielding Gloomstalker / Assassin is one, if not the highest melee DPS in the game.

I could agree dual wield is crap outside of rogue/ranger, but not for them.

My big issue is that the only advantage of an offhand weapon seem to be the extra attack, meaning you use your bonus action to deal more damage, even though your main hand deals a bit less damage.

That's neat and all, but a 2h or 1h+shield guy can also use their bonus action to deal some extra damage, like hunter's mark, hex, pommel strikes, apply poisons or oils, etc... So the only advantage dual wield seem to get, kinda isn't an advantage at all.

Plus it needs a fighting style AND a feat just to get usable, while other choices are usable from the start and can get quite broken with feats/styles.

I really wanted to use it but it's hard to when I get that feeling on the back of my mind telling me this is just a trollbuild and I'm wasting my 4th character slot.

I mean, in theory, a training dummy could take more damage from a hunter's mark dual wield ranger beating on it for several turns, but realistically, how often do you have a single enemy alive for enough turns for you to waste your first bonus action with hunter's mark, then start hitting on it to eventually come ahead of a regular 2h build? If enemies stay alive for that long, you're probably about to lose the fight anyway.

[Midnight]

The way the math works out dual-wield has an edge against duelist before you get a second attack.

After that the math works out to duelist 2x attacks doing the same damage (but with higher lower range) as dual-wield's 3 attack without burning bonus action.

This is assuming duelist uses 1d8 weapon and dual-wielder 2x 1d6.

You could feat into dual-wielding 1d8 weapons but if the duelist gets a damage feat or ASIS instead the damage levels off again.

So using two weapons is only good in specific circumstances where you get to apply some form of damage bonus on all your attacks in the round. So yeah, alpha strike things. Also, Hunter's Mark works but you also have to burn bonus action to move so. It's the same with poisons you dip into the damage one more time but burn one attack to use it.

And then there's the insane demand for bonus actions in this game.

[Brady4444]

I guess there is the niche situation where a passive effect is worth putting a weapon in your off hand.

ex.: There is a dagger found deep in the goblin area that gives goblins disadvantage to attack the character wielding it, which is better than a shield, imo (plus you get to attack).

[zpc]

Originally posted by Brady4444:

I guess there is the niche situation where a passive effect is worth putting a weapon in your off hand.

ex.: There is a dagger found deep in the goblin area that gives goblins disadvantage to attack the character wielding it, which is better than a shield, imo (plus you get to attack).

I'd also say having extra effects on the weapons is the main benefit. I've a dagger with a rupture effect which is awesome once it triggers. Or that eldritch knight / warlock sword (needs one of those classes) which applies bane on hit.

[Underprivileged White Male]

Originally posted by Brady4444:

If it didn't use a bonus action to use the off hand weapon, dual wield would be the same as 2h (which is 2d6 per attack). And there are many other features in the game that use bonus action, so half of that 2d6 is competing as an opportunity cost (potions, special actions, etc.). I believe it is one of the grievances with 5e, but that's just how it is.

I have... so... many... of those with 5th edition in general. I just wish the youngin's knew how much better 3.5 was...

[VoiD]

I guess, but, then again, if you just want the odd weapon for a specific effect, it doesn't seem like it matters if you can actually wield it properly, does it?

I mean, you can just use it as a shield of sorts, if/when you find those weapons, and never actually use it to attack as you use your bonus action for other damage sources instead, and direct your feats towards other weapon types, or simply raw stats.

[VoiD]

Ok, so I've tested a bit more, made a few resets & restats.

Yeah, the ONLY thing dual wield has going for it seem to be offhand passive bonuses, or offhand active skills you can use with your main action, like free spells to cast, or a singing sword, but there is no scenario, build or situation in which actually using the offhand to hit thinks is a better idea than doing anything else your class allows you to do, it's just horrible.

[VoiD]

Update: Dual Wielding is not useless

By taking ambidexterity you can use your normal weapon, the only one that actually does any damage, on your main hand, and then use the fairy lantern on your offhand, first time she felt useful

[Airatome]

Just going to leave this here for posterity.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1086940/discussions/0/3812913197987825860/#c3812913197988035965

It works. Particularly when you know how to get consistent high damage out of both (all) attacks.

[TwoArmedMan15]

You might be able to get some extra value out of dual wielding by multiclassing a warrior (fighter, paladin or ranger) with a thief rogue. In theory, the thief additional bonus action will allow 2 offhand weapon attacks; I haven't tested it, though.

Unfortunately, Larian really mucked up the action economy and virtually eliminated the value of dual wielding by making so many things bonus actions...

[♥♥♥♥♥♥]

i go dual with astarion and hit like a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ rocket. And is pure rogue no multiclass, since low levels.