Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Switching between weapons

I feel switching between weapons should cost an action. This would make throwing weapons more useful. What's the point of a javelin when you can just shoot a bow or crossbow? As I missing something?

Yes you are.

Throwing weapons are usually used with strength while bow and crossbow are always used with dexterity. One can be better at throwing javelins than at shooting with a bow or a crossbow.

Thanks, i didn't think of that

On the other hand, I think daggers have been made ~useless by this change..? Why use dagger instead of a shortsword/scimitar if you can just swap freely to a ranged weapon?

I think the only (BG3-relevant) class that might wield a dagger is the Trickery Cleric. Everyone else either gets at least one finesse martial weapon proficiency or would almost-exclusively use quarterstaffs/cantrips/ranged weapons.

i have to agree btw cos if i want to swap from shield to dual weild let say i have to use 2 actons. and range weapons i can have for free...??? and for some reason archers can have a shield equiped at all times and get +2 ac for free??

We need a melee set for weapons and weapons set for bows and crossbows and one hybrid one for throwing weapons(so we can dip them) that can be used in melee as well. Swaping between those should cost an action... And shield AC should be active only when you are using a shield that way even daggers get a use out of it.

This would change how combat feels and make it more tactical and reward players for using their wits...

Hmm, I do think it's a too easy to swap weapons, but a full action seems harsh, basically you'd miss a whole turn if you want to swap weapons unless you were hasted or could attack with your offhand. I think that might be as per 5e but my sense is that it would make fighting feel even less dynamic than a turn-based system needs to and that matters in a cRPG. Plus it feels a bit unfair to ranged fighters, who would need to lose a turn to swap to a melee weapon to deal with a sudden nearby threat, whereas (unless the whole thrown weapon mechanic were reworked) I think a melee fighter who found they couldn't do damage hand-to-hand wouldn't need to swap weapon set as they could throw a weapon directly from their inventory without equipping it. Though admittedly throwing weapons are a pain so perhaps that balances it out a little.

I'd be okay with something like giving characters the option to define a set number of weapon sets (3 or 4) and giving them the ability to swap freely between them once per turn, but they'd need to use an action if they wanted to swap again or equip a new weapon from the inventory or the ground (which latter I think is the case now). Or swapping between weapon sets costs a bonus action, compared to an action for changing the weapons in a slot, though again you'd need to consider how this impacted balance for melee vs ranged characters.

And I agree you should be able to dip a weapon you don't have equipped ready to throw it, perhaps there should be a "Dip" (bonus) action on the context menu along with the option to throw for any item in your inventory that is dippable? I confess that as I usually play non-STR characters I haven't done a lot of throwing weapons.

Oh, and I very definitely don't think characters should get a +2 to AC from a shield unless they're currently using it.

Yeah they messed up with their positioning so now they need to get out of it... So whats wrong with that?


When was the last time you used disengagement? It's there for a reason.:)

They are trade offs and you still have things you can do, you still have many options and we will have more when the game fully releases. You get rewarded more for staying out of that range... Like i said makes the combat more tactical risk vs rewards thing...

I do see where you're coming from, and am not saying it wouldn't work having weapon swaps cost an action, or even that it wouldn't be better than now (I think it would!). I'm just giving my feeling that it might be a step too far. As you say, it's about trade offs and decisions about risk vs reward, and a change like this will alter the calculus. I don't think there are obvious right and wrong answers here ... well except for the current setup being wrong ... and the fact swapping weapons takes an action in 5e is a point in its favour. I'm suggesting a sort of compromise position as I worry a little about how going all the way to 5e would feel in a cRPG, that's all, though I am quite ready to accept it might be better than I fear in practice.

I do use disengage a reasonable amount by the way! I sometimes prefer to reposition my ranged characters rather than have them stab at an enemy but be stuck in melee range unless they risk an AoO. But I agree I'd use it a lot more if changing weapons took an action

Shields are the actual problem here. They should cost an action to equip or unequip instead of having zero drawbacks and an exploit to get that +2 AC even if you're using a Heavy Crossbow or Greataxe.

This would also make two handed weapons indirectly more versatile. You could switch quickly between Greatsword and Longbow but using a Shield would limit you to quickly switching to one handed thrown weapons.

Other than Shields I'm fine with changing equipped weapons for free.

Not just them ...

+1. RAW, Shields cost an action to equip/de-equip.

This is the way. With the ability to swap freely back and forth between your weapon sets until you actually attack with one of them. Then, if you already made a swap this turn, you can no longer swap freely.

It's worth mentioning that it is only free to switch between melee and ranged weapons which I am totally fine with. It'd be a serious pain if switching those cost us an action. It is worth mentioning that it does cost you an action to change your melee weapon to another melee weapon or an equipped ranged weapon to another ranged weapon, which I also think is fair. I also a agree that shields should not give you a bonus when wielding a bow, though implementing slings as a ranged weapons which you can use a shield with would be cool.

BG1&2 don't let you equip two handed weapons, ranged or melee, in quick slots if you have a shield equipped. And it feels really good to play a Greatsword fighter who can quickly switch to a Composite Longbow and have that melee/ranged flexibility after giving up that +2 or better AC from a shield.

Also worth mentioning again that the quick slots in BG3 should not be restricted arbitrarily to ranged and melee. You need to be able to equip combos like Sword+Shield that you can switch to Hammer+Shield when you need blunt damage. And rely on thrown weapons for ranged.

If you're thinking of the fact that the original games didn't let you equip a shield if you wanted to have, say, a longsword and crossbow in your quickslots that annoyed me so much! Thank goodness they fixed it for the Extended Editions .


Sorry if this is old news to you, but I only realised this patch that the game does seem to be trying to give us a way to quickly swap weapons, though it is either very buggy or I'm just using it wrongly. But it's fine if you just want to swap between similar setups like sword+shield and hammer+shield. You just drag the weapon you're not currently using to, say, custom slot 1 in your toolbar, you can then use that button or the 1 key to toggle between hammer+shield and sword+shield. This takes an action, which is still instantaneous outside combat and is arguably fair enough in combat (depending on your overall view on weapon switching). If you want to swap between weapon+sword and a two handed weapon it works less well, as you lose your shield when you toggle to the two-handed weapon and so need to also map your shield to, say, slot 2. It then takes two actions to re-equip your one-handed weapon and your shield. The problems really come if you're trying to set up multiple weapons rather than just toggling them or are dealing with dual wielding - either the game gets really confused, or I do, or both.

Still, at least it's the start of some functionality that could hopefully be fixed.

Apologies if I'm not understanding you about thrown weapons, but if you are saying they should be equipable then, given that you need to go collect them after every fight then it would be a pain to have to redo this every battle. Choosing and throwing a weapon at the moment, without having to equip it, seems pretty straightforward, given you just press X or click the thrown button and you'll be shown all the weapons you have with the thrown property (well the first time you might need to specifically pick the weapon icon, but this seems to be a stored preference so you then don't need to do that again unless you throw something else), select one, click where you want to throw. It's the picking the blasted things up afterwards I hate.

And I guess this is why we need to be left with a free swap between melee and ranged weapons unless the thrown mechanic is changed significantly, as a melee character can freely choose a weapon to throw from their inventory, and be left still holding their sword and shield afterward, so it might be unfair on ranged characters not to allow them the same. And if they can freely swap between melee and ranged, then you may as well give any +2 AC bonus permanently as all it really does is remove the busy work of swapping back to the melee setup at the end of each turn (damage incurred on the player's turn excepted, I suppose). Of course, you could make it so that it takes an action, or a bonus action, for a melee character to swap between melee and throwing, but I think I'm starting to see why Larian have done this the way they have! Sorting it out in the way I'd like is starting to feel as though it would require some reasonably big changes to the interface.


As a result of thinking through how thrown weapons currently work and what interface changes might be needed to handle them differently, I think I might be starting to come round to this view, at least from a practical point of view. Hmm. I'm not sure. I'm going to have to think on this more deeply.

The free swap between weapons allows shield classes to always have +2 AC even if they attack with a ranged weapon. I would say that Larian should prevent swapping weapons after you make your attack, but what if you have 2 full actions and you need to melee one and snipe the other target.

Its also worth mentioning that you dont loose your AC bonus, when you are wielding shield (as a Ranger for example) but are using your Ranged Weapon.

So the only reason to keep swaping back to meele attack after you shoot is to be able to do AOO.

Quite honestly ...
I would probably welcome, if our characters would be able to AOO in meele no matter wich weapons they curently are holding (aka, let them swap automaticly) ...
Right now it feels like we are stuck somewhere in the middle of two rules ... in your turn, you can swap your weapons any times you want and it cost you nothing ... but outside your turn, you need to hold your sword drawn in order to be able to use it? :-/

//Edit:
Nah, +2 AC from shield is included all the time as long as you have shield equipped ... you dont need to swap it back to keep that bonus, so free swaping dont really affect this.

A fair point. It does seem inconsistent. Though I guess enemies should then get the same benefit.

To my mind, free swapping is the only thing that can possibly justify the permanent +2 AC, so while it’s not mechanically linked, I think it’s right to consider the two together.

Sure, why not ...
More power to all skills that disable reactions. :3

Question is if those enemies who are wielding bow even have any meele weapons in the first place. O_o

Rly? O_o

I allways thought its bcs it felt odd that once you wield your shield in hand, it gives you armor ... but once you put it on your back, its just like if it dissapeared.

Well, graphically it does just disappear I guess!

I suppose I can see an argument for a reduced AC benefit for just having a shield on your back, but it doesn’t feel at all the same as wielding one, with the flexibility to move the shield to catch and block attacks that you can see coming.

Indeed ... but this is problem with ruleset itself, isnt it?

I mean, if we start thinking about if Shield wielded in hand should provide additional AC, bcs his defensive atributes (for lack of better therm in my voabulary) are without a doubt better ...

Shouldnt we start giving same (or at least simmilar) deffensive bonus to Dual Wielding weapons? I mean, parrying daggers are a thing.