So pretty sure the game allows me to use the rogue's second bonus action to do a second off hand attack, because there are some rounds where I attack three times instead of being limited to their normal "Dash" "Disengage" or "hide" from 5e. Was wondering if it was intentional to give the option to use that 2nd bonus action for attacking? If so I'm cool with getting a third attack if I don't need to do any of those other options.

I think... the sneak attack is just the sneak attack dice. So you get sneak attack damage as one hit, your main hand, and then offhand. I could be wrong.

what Zilfer refers to is the second bonus action, that the thief subclass gets.
at the moment, rogue is totally borked by all the rebalancing design choices, that larian made.
i really hope, that they try to get a lot closer so TT 5e rules, because they are really well balanced. I just can't understand why so many things were redesigned.
i like all the area fire frost etc stuff, but it's just too easy to get and nothing special, if cantrips can achieve these things.
oh and holy crap nerf acid pools. -2AC is bonkers.

but back to topic. thiefs getting a second bonus action is something that larian invented. it isn't in the original rule set of 5e, and for good reason.

Take a look at my thread discussing sneak attack, it shows a gif of sneak attack in action. sneak attack is indeed treated as it's own attack using the hit roll of the original attack. http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=684282#Post684282

But on the topic of multiple attacks, yeah rogues can use their 2nd bonus action from the theif subclass to do a second off hand attack, according to normal 5e rules you are not suppossed to be able to do that, but in the Alpha rogues can do a lot of things they arn't suppossed to be able to do lol.

Indeed, and if it's going to be the way that's ok with me, I just want to be sure it's intention and not a misunderstanding of 5e rules for "Cunning Action" or they did that because everyone else in the came kinda has their own "cunning action" as it sits with the ability to bonus action "Hide" for examples which used to be just rogues. It's not like i'm reaping a huge amount of DPS from a 2nd dagger attack. (Currently running shortsword, and dagger in off hand. Bow for some long distance sneak attacks.)

I hadn't even considered using the two bonus actions for attacks... (I switched in a rapier early on)... I don't understand this, weird rogue situation at all. Sneak attack only works on main hand attack, then you can off hand attack twice but can't use either of them for sneak attack?

I understand a 1 to 1 translation of tabletop to game isn't always possible, but this seems like they made this aspect way more complicated than it needs to be.
Frankly sneak attack should apply automatically if any of the criteria is met (maybe a pop up to show you got your sneak attack damage), whether it is an attack action or a bonus attack.
Letting rogues attack three times because of the extra bonus action should not be happening at all, make it a once per turn function.

You also get the ability modifier to the off-hand damage without Two Weapon Fighting style.

A level 3 Rogue Thief with 3 attacks is a ridiculous damage dealer. I mean.. two weapon fighting needed some love but this is bonkers.

Yes your two options are:

Attack (attacks with both daggers)
Bonus action attack
thats it because the second attack that went in with the first used up a bonus action automatically

or

Sneak attack (main hand)
bonus attack off
bonus attack off

and that is due to them getting 2 bonus actions, its just more explicit now.

What I dont like is that if you dont hit sneak attack and your first two land, you cant be like "I would like to add sneak attack to that hit". You just miss out. Sneak attack is decided after an attack hits, not before so its a bit clunky and be very costly in a close fight.

larian broke a lot with their new action economy design choices.
imagine now, your rogue takes magic initiate (warlock) as lvl 4 feat and you hex your enemies.
all 3 attacks get an extra 1d6 damage.

by giving everyone the special rogue ability to do lot of things with bonus actions, they had to give rogue something special.
they gave rogue (thief) a second bonus action.
by giving rogue (thief) the second bonus action, they took away, what is special about the monk (the many attacks).
i hope they stop right now with their redesign choices, because right now it looks like they have to redesign a lot, to not make one class lack luster...

I just realized if you dual wield with your melee gear, use a bow for ranged, attack with the bow.... you can use the offhand attack to stab someone closer to you. Not sure if this was the intent.

Some of the changes made to 5e's ruleset are baffling to me. I might be totally wrong, but it makes me think the designers lack knowledge concerning 5e. The ruleset is well tested, and yes, it has some issues at high levels, but it works well. And I struggle to think of good gameplay reasons for the changes. If they keep these weird rebalanced classes and abilities, I really hope they give grognards like me a game mode that lets me play with a 5e ruleset (or something closer to it at least).

People calling this broken are crazy. The rogue doesn't get enough features as it is, and sneak attack isn't functioning correctly since it's a specific main attack action instead of a passive effect.
Stabbing someone for 1d6 POSSIBLY 3 times in a turn is not overpowered.

it is broken as it is.
broken != overpowered
rogues have a lot of problems at the moment, and the design choices, that larian made, made the ruleset as a whole broken.
i really like and understand the changes to ranger for example, because you can't implement their features from TT really well and the TT ranger was pretty lack luster to begin with.
but all the ruleset changes over all, i can't understand. they don't have anything to do with implementation issues, since most of these changes have to do with changing bonus action to action and removing weapon skills and reducing effects, that cantrips do.

Seems like you're just pointing out more ways it's broken.

Agreed, wish larian can be more stick to TT 5e rules.

The cascading effect might be more than that, they also have a new backstab mechanism which grant everyone free advantage, imagining it took away what is special about barbarian & reckless attack, blind spell and etc, they have to do more redesign to rebalance it.

I think the to-hit % calculation on offhand attacks is pretty wack atm, too. Way lower than your MH attacks. I've also seen the % go down from first offhand attack to the second, from 5-10%. Free of any outside modifiers as far as I can tell, too.

The thought of three attacks every turn w/ Hex is actually scary, especially if they stick to how easy it is to get advantage for sneak attack currently.

Stealth range is even more broken: Zhentarim hideout, half of Goblin camp, dark grove are all more or less soloable with one rogue and time.

do you mean the "backstab" advantage?
do you only need to hit someone from behind or do you need a second melee character threatening them?
if the former, then it would be really insane... i have noticed that backstab advantage, but didn't know yet, what was required for it...

I've found most the game soloable due to bonus action hide, regardless of class I'm the type of player who refuses to play with a party unless I'm playing with actual people in multiplayer mode so I solo the game every time I play and I've gotten all the classes but cleric to level 3 for testing purposes. I have a personal dislike of clerics.

I actually show a gif of sneak attacking from a backstab in my thread all that is required is you are behind the target http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=684282#Post684282

I'm guessing it was meant as a concession since they made Disengage, Dash and such bonus actions for everyone. Then they realised the Rogue had basically been reduced to a Sneak Attack feature, and decided that the non-arcane path could get a second bonus action. But likely these choices were made separately and the second as a response to the first rather than both of them being part of a balanced design approach, so now mechanical premise (the D&D 5th edition ruleset) slowly gets eroded and Larian will probably come up with new modifications to the ruleset to fix their previous modifications to the ruleset... It could easily turn into a domino-effect of "fixes" because every time they modify a class or a feature it unbalances two others, which then need "fixing", and so on...

All of this really makes me wish we could play EA with 100% faithful 5e rules as a starting point. Then change only what *really* doesn't work in a video game.

None of the Larian changes seem necessary so far. I can understand reactions slowing down the game maybe too much if done by the letter but the rest is just...why?

If you skip 4 rogue levels you're giving up 2d6 sneak die's. The offhand attacks also do not get your ability modifier to hit, so that would surely lead to a decrease in overall damage.

I expect the issue is they started with the Divinity Engine where lots of stuff was already "working" and been tweaking stuff to follow 5e rules so stuff is not getting tweaked correctly.

If they had to start from scratch to build a 5e Engine, they would have had to look at the rules to see how X works instead of adjusting an existing system and expecting they are getting it right.