Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback We have to talk about dual wield

It's a shame that dual wield is already pretty useless in the dnd 5e vanilla, but the way it is programmed in the game brings even more hindrance to an already kinda useless flavorful trait.
What I noticed is that early on the early access all offhand attacks had the ability modifier added to damage and not to attack. Newer versions partially corrected it, getting rid of the ability modifier to damage unless you have the fighting style for dual wielding. But, the attack modifiers is still screwed up.

Basically how it should be:
- IF you're proficient with the weapon, you add the proficiency bonus AND the ability modifier to the ATTACK ROLLS in both hands IF both the weapons are light.
- IF you have the fighting style for dual wielding, you also add the attribute modifier to the DAMAGE ROLL for the OFFHAND ATTACK (the main hand attacks always have the attribute modifier to damage unless specified otherwise by another factor).
- You CAN dual wield non-light one handed weapons IF you have the dual wielding FEAT, which also gives you +1 CA while dual wielding and let you draw two weapons as a free action instead of one.
- Hand crossbows need both the dual wielding feat and the crossbow expert feat to be successfully dual wielded because of the loading quality.
!!!!! - Offhand attacks are still attacks should be allowed to be combines with other abilities, such as rogue sneak attack, fighter maneuvers, paladin smites. This is super important, especially in the setting of you guys from Larian trying to increase usefulness and flavor of melee classes (I remember Sven talking about this in the last panel from hell). !!!!!!

I really hope someone from Larian take a look at this and anyone please do feel free to reach out if there is any disagreement or interest in discuss possible improvements.

Hugs and love all around,
Stay safe y'all.

Offhand attack still didn't get proficiency bonus so dual wield is kinda useless

Hand crossbows require a free hand to load the ammunition even if you ignore the loading property. Jeremy Crawford has stated this as well. They have added an offhand attack option so I think the intent to separate them completely is there (hopefully). Being able to choose the bonus/extra effects on that attack should absolutely be a thing. It’s also stupid annoying to have to use the BA attack first if you don’t want to stab the same thing both times. I definitely agree it should be fixed.

You don't have to use the BA attack first. You can just switch "dual-wield" to "onehanded" on the left quickbar and your offhand attack will be always separated from your main hand attack.

Nice catch. I did not catch that. Thanks!

Hey Chukkensorc, thanks for the comment. Yeah, I agree with you regarding the hand crossbow and that is probably how I would run it in my table, but I couldn't find anywhere in the rulebook that you need a free hand to load. Loading property only says "Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make." and the feat only says you can ignore the loading quality.

About using the offhand first vs having to use the basic attack first, the vanilla rule states only that you can use your bonus action to use your offhand attack if you use your action to attack with the other one-handed light melee weapon in your main hand, but it does not set the order in stone. It would make sense that you would have to use your bonus attack only after your attack action to ensure you are taking the attack action. I would agree if someone wanted to use the offhand attack first with the commitment they'd have to use their attack action afterwards. So based on the rules you'd only be able to use the offhand attack if using your action as an attack action with your main hand melee attack. But honestly, I do prefer the way the game is programmed currently for CRPGs: being able to cast a spell and then shank a mf is the best.

Nevertheless, my main point is that the dual-wielding rule as it is should definitively be changed sooner rather than later. And the biggest problems IMO are the modifiers being all over the place...

Sage advice (and I believe an errata) have stated this: “ What does that all mean for a hand crossbow? It means Crossbow Expert makes it possible to fire a hand crossbow more than once with a feature like Extra Attack, provided that you have enough ammunition and you have a hand free to load it for each shot.” That’s straight from the WotC DnD website. What I was referring to with BA attack being separated was answered by Zellin. You just have to toggle dual wield off to make the main attack separate from the off-hand attack. My intent was: move, main hand stab target 1, BA off-hand stab target 2, etc. I was struggling to make that work. Never dawned on me to try it Zellin’s way.

In regards to the modifiers being all jacked up, yeah totally agree with you there! The only deviation I’d like to see from 5E with this rule is getting an off-hand attack for every attack your character has available like in 3E, but that would unbalance the 5E mechanics. Then again….the daggum gnolls get three attacks at level 3-4.

@Chukkensorc and @Cassiano, the property you're looking for is "Ammunition," of which the Hand Crossbow has (in addition to being "loading" and "light")
Given that in 5e (not BG3) rules you only have 1 free item-interaction per turn, you can't actually dual wield Hand Crossbows. Picture an optimal starting situation, where both are pre-loaded
- Turn 1: You fire both crossbows with your action and BA. Then you stow one crossbow so that next turn you have a free hand to load with as part of the attack.
- Turn 2: You attack (loading and firing) with your equipped crossbow, then use your item interaction to draw the other one. However, it's not loaded and you don't have a free hand to load it, so you can't fire it with your BA.

You can, using the alternate turn stowing-and-drawing of your melee weapon, dual wield a hand crossbow and a melee weapon. The downside is that every other turn you wouldn't be able to make opportunity attacks because your melee weapon would be stored.

Of course, in BG3 you can freely equip and de-equip items, so dual wielding hand crossbows would theoretically work.

Not arguing against anything you said except for one thing.

Is my game just bugged?! In combat I cannot equip anything without it using my action. For example, if Astarion attacks he can’t change any equipment.

*Edit* I forgot one thing. 5E: If an artificer makes 1 repeating shot hand crossbow, and buys another from a separate artificer they could dual wield them with the crossbow expert feat. The infusion removes the ammunition component.

BG3: No idea if we will get Artificers, and no idea if they will sell infused items.

I know it’s a bit pedantic…..but ya know. “Ummm actually…..TECHNICALLY”

The dual wield was broken day one. Some of us have reported it immediatly (personnaly I have reported it at every new patch).
Someday during the different version of the patch 3 (hotfix), they've changed it but only to broke it differently (attack bonus was missing - and i've reported it). Funny thing is they never said they changed it on the log of the hotfix.
With this two-weapon's fighter are not viable. It made me stop playing.

Also, but I'm not sure that Larian will respect the 5e here, you are not suppose to be able to use your bonus action to strike if you haven't strike with your main action first.

Dual wielding is very viable, just not 5E compliant. For example, look at the Githyanki rogues at the bridge. Main hand attack, off hand attack, off hand attack, and haste attack. You just need a potion of speed and a Thief Rogue build with two short swords. It’s deadly.