Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Offhand no attack modifier?

As far as I know, when attacking with an offhand attack you usually add the attack modifier to the attack role but not the damage roll. It seems though, at least according to the log, that currently for offhand attack rolls the bonus from the attribute (strength/dexterity) is not added to the attack roll. Is that intentional, a bug or did I misunderstand the D&D rules.

5E. Take the dual fighting style for classes that permit it; fighter & ranger, currenly.

Took it on my Dwarf Thief. Backstabbing with a pair of Warhammers to the skull.

That's the two weapon feat. That does something else.

Ok, I tried looking this up but I think rogues if not everyone already has this, if not could you explain or link what you are talking about? I could two weapon fight on the Nautiloid without penalty as soon as I looted a second dagger. Upgraded to a pair of hand axes before I got off the ship. I could use the bonus action for an additional attack and the main 'sneak attack' always rolls for both hands. So when i promoted to thief at level 3 to get a second bonus action I get 4 attacks per round. The ACTION attack which rolls for each hand and then two additional bonus action attacks with offhand.

Yes, that is normal. Okay.. That is again, something else.

Okay, quick dual wielding: Anyone can do it, but it is severely limited at first:

1. It costs a bonus action. [per RAW, one must make a main hand attack first, butin BG3 this is not the case]
2. You can only use light weapons.
3. Ability modifiers aren't added

You can augment it:
1. Two weapon fighting style [Fighter, Ranger] - Adds the ability score modifier
2. Dual Wielding Feat [anyone] - +1 AC for second weapon, and can wield non-light [1H] weapons.



[ In BG3, if you *have* a bonus action and just attack, it does it in one go, so yes, you attack with both weapons in one go, but you'll spend both an aciton and bonus action. ]

Okay thanks. However it is supposed to work it currently does not in BG3. My 4th level thief's regular action attack rolls for both the main hand and offhand weapon. I also get two bonus action attacks every round for four total. As an aside I do not have dual fighting style and my ability modifiers are still added to my bonus attacks. In my off hand I use the broken flail from the Flind leader. The damage is 1D6+5 (+2 weapon and +3 dam from str). It also procs a 1D6 heal from every hit even from my main hand weapon so I often auto self heal 4d6 per round. I assume these will be fixed long before release.

You are right. Currently, fighting with two weapons doesn't work as intended (at least not according to default 5E rules). Main hand is correct, you get proficiency and attribute modifiers on the attack roll and attribute modifier on the damage roll.

What the bonus off-hand attack should have:
- Proficiency and Attribute modifiers on the attack roll
- Neither on the damage roll

What the bonus off-hand attack actually has in BG3:
- Proficiency bonus on the attack roll
- Attribute modifier on the damage roll

This seems like a simple bug that should be fixed in a future patch.

This is a known bug. I believe it's also mistakenly adding damage to the offhand hit (instead of +hit even without the feat that should do that.

Sound like 3 bugs.
1. Attacking with both main and offhand with main attack without consuming a bonus action.
2. Adding my Str modifier to offhand weapon damage without Two Weapon Fighting.
3, The Bone club proccing heals on hits by other hands weapon.

Yup. That’s a good build to take advantage of the bugs in the current build but it presumably won’t work in the full release.

Okay, maybe I misunderstand you guys or you misunderstand me. So let me lay it out more clearly:

From the Player Handbook in dndbeyond;
Two-Weapon Fighting

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

So lets assume a character with +2 proficiency and 16 dex (+3 modifier) with short sword. I would expect the following stats without any traits:

main hand:
- attack roll: 1d20 +2 (proficiency) +3 (dexterity)
- damage roll: 1d6 +3 (dexterity)

off hand:
- attack roll: 1d20 +2 (proficiency) +3 (dexterity)
- damage roll: 1d6

But according to the log (screenshots below) it seems to be:

main hand:
- attack roll: 1d20 +2 (proficiency) +3 (dexterity)
- damage roll: 1d6 +3 (dexterity)

off hand:
- attack roll: 1d20 +2 (proficiency)
- damage roll: 1d6 +3 (dexterity)

Which, as far as I read the D&D rules seems a bit messed up.

In the screenshots below Astarion is level 3, so he doesn't have any two handed related traits. Also the additional 1d6 on the main hand attack comes from critical hit.

Astarion main hand attack:


Astarion off hand attack:

You are correct. Currently in BG3 for offhand attacks, the attribute modifier is swapped from attack roll to damage roll, as opposed to 5e.

This means that without any feats or fighting styles, your offhand attacks have less accuracy than they would in 5e, but do more damage than they would in 5e as well.

This is probably just a bug, but could be intentional.

Alright, that was driving me crazy, cuz I thought I was just not getting something. I hope it's a bug. I prefer more reliable small damage to the occasional big damage.

It is certainly not intentional, because now you do not get negative ability modifier added to offhand attack roll as well. This means, if you have negative ability modifier, you are more precise with offhand than with your mainhand

Also - if you take the two-weapon fighting talent on the Ranger (or probably the fighter, haven't tested) it doesn't do anything at all. You don't become more accurate with the off-hand, and the damage is identical.