The explanation is there in a couple of posts now in quite clear terms.
I take it you two are not familiar with the ruleset being used. That could be the issue here. You should go on reddit or some other D&D forum if you like to argue about D&D mechanics in such detail. Get a better feel of the ruleset. At any rate, Ragnarok's snide remarks that seem to be becoming habitual are pretty juvenile and pointless.
Until they are implemented differently, it is fair to assume actual rules will be used in BG3.
I don't see any explanations in any of your posts. I see assertions. I see claims that "other" bonus actions make dual wielding less attractive. But I still haven't seen you say *why* those "other" bonus actions are more attractive.
I've addressed other bonus actions. I've gone into detail as to why I don't think they're more attractive.
Regarding the crystal ball argument that I'm saying you're making: no, I don't believe it's fair to assume actual rules will be used in BG3.
In fact, that seems like an awfully silly assumption, especially given how upset you seem to be at how far the current game has strayed away from those rules.
In other words, if they've strayed from the core rules thus far, and if they admit openly that they'll be doing their own version of 5e by basically home-brewing rules, then why would you hang your hat on the assumption that such behavior would suddenly end?
I feel like on one hand you're balling your fist to the sky and saying, "Darn you, Larian, for changing so much!" And on the other hand, you're like, "Well, we can only assume that everything else in the future will be pureblood core."
It's just odd to me. It's like thinking two contradictory things at once.
But that aside, no. The proper prediction is based on what's already happened. In this case, the proper prediction is that there will be more changes.
