Dual wield without the wide-expanse of magical weapon options and a GM to work with you feels wasted. There's usually better things I want to do with a Bonus Action than to make an attack... but it's still useful to some degree, I suppose.
I tried a dual long sword wielding Strength Ranger for fun who picked Dual Wielder at level 4 instead of raising Str from 16 to 18.
And it sucks monkey balls.
Partly because a long sword is only +1 damage over a short sword, but the real killer is the off-hand attack eating up your Bonus Action. The off-hand attack is always competing against the silly bonus Shove or drinking a potion or something. It's just not worth it. Even using more cheese from Larian and dipping your dual weapons in a torch all the time only brings dual short swords closer in damage.
18 Strength with any weapon or shield combination or 18 Dex with dual short swords is just so much better.
All the feats in BG3 are really lackluster and useless compared to a +2 ASI. And it doesn't redeem the design that certain feats like Polearm Master are overpowered (and that particular one laughs really hard at any dual wielding attempts adding extra AoO's and reach in addition to a similar off-hand attack). By design, the feats should be separated from ASI's and more on the weaker side but you should get more of them.
And they should redesign how Dual Wielding works. Mixing basic attacks with bonus actions was a mistake. Rather give more basic attacks with a penalty when you have more weapons.
