[quote=Maximuuus]A disparity ?
Dual wield with the good feats allow you to add your modifier 2 times instead of 1.
There's also a feat that allow you to use non-light weapons meaning you can have a 1D8 weapons in both hands.
You can also add +1D4 damages to both weapons at the cost of a single bonus action (dipping)
+1/+2 weapons while dual wielding double your damages if you compare with a single weapon (1H or 2H)
Maybe you consider 2H with GWM, which is way too op because of the easy advantages but dual wield have significant pros if your character is well builded.
this is taken from reddit on the topic.
[quote=Tetsucubra]
lv 1-3, without any feats and fighting styles, with a +3 in the attack modifier:
two-weapon fighting: 1d6+3 + 1d6 = 2d6+3 = 10
two-handed fighting: 2d6+3 = 10
so, exactly the same, but with two-handed fighting you can use your bonus action!
[/quote=Tetsucubra]
Yes but... At lvl 1 or 2 some classes choose a fighting style that increase your damages.
Why wouldn't you consider it ?
If your character is well builded the comparison should probably be something like this at early levels :
two-weapon fighting: 1d6+3 + 1d6 +3 = 2d6+3 = 13 (action + bonus action)
two-handed fighting: 2d6+3 = 10 (action)
Now consider things without any feats because GMW should be a choice. At the moment it's not, it's THE feat because having an advantage is way too easy.
+1 weapon + 4 modifier and 2 attack / turn.
2h weapon = 2D6 + 4 +1 + 2D6 + 4 +1 = 24 (action)
dual wield = 1D6 + 4 + 1 + 1D6 + 4 + 1 + 1D6 + 4 + 1 = 25.5 (action + bonus action)
Now add dipping...
2H weapons = 24 + 2D4 = 29 (action)
Dual wield = 25.5 + 3D4 = 33 (action + bonus action)
Dipping is a problem because it increase the damages done by dual wielder... And backstab is another one because GMW is completely OP.
That's Larian's rules, not D&D. Things look more balanced in D&D than in BG3.
