Larian Studios
For example, if taking the Dueling fighting style, can you currently equip a longsword in one hand without occupying the off hand? The "single hand-dual wield" toggle at the bottom of the UI doesn't seem to do anything. Longsword is always 1d10 damage.
Hello,

Dueling fighting style requires you to only wield one weapon at hand. You can have a shield at the other but not a second weapon, nor you can hold a versatile weapon with both hands. Versatile weapons do greater damage if you do hold them with both hands. So they should not work together while using both hands with a single weapon.

As with Soulstalker's correction, you can also gain both benefits of "Dueling" and "Great Weapon Fighting" if you are wielding a versatile weapon with one hand.

Can you check your combat log to see if +2 damage roll is added?
  • Because if it's added, it's a BUG.
  • If it's not added, we still need a way to use "one hand only" to get benefit from dueling when we want. It's a FEATURE missing. wink


I can also check this when i play late evening wink
Can confirm that there is no way to visibly toggle one-handed mode for a 1d8+2 weapon damage. This is superior to GWF with 1d10 because your dmg range is 3-10 base vis a 1-10 base. A base 17 STR fighter will run 6-14 damage (average of 10) vs 4-13 (avg 9) and Dueling can still use a shield.
I second this opinion. I am missing the option to wield the longsword one handed, seeing as I thought I would need a free hand to hold the arcane focus as an Eldritch Knight and to my surprise this mechanic is missing from the game (both one haded and arcane focus).
@Lanetolsun Actually your completely wrong , a versatile weapon does qualify for dueling if held only in one hand. ( at least with official D&D) the other hand can't be a weapon, but you can hold a shield. If you use it with both hands to get the 1d10, then it doesn't qualify, but if using say a longsword and shield it does. Dueling is supposed to read as long as your holding a weapon with one hand, and not holding any other weapon. The other hand does not have to be "free", they got that part all wrong. ....also they made spears a two handed weapon there meant to be versatile. They also did versatile wrong in that it does different damage depending if used as a one hander or two hander, that while both dueling and great weapon fighting both can qualify for longsword or other versatile weapons

Originally Posted by soulstalker
@Lanetolsun Actually your completely wrong , a versatile weapon does qualify for dueling if held only in one hand. ( at least with official D&D) the other hand can't be a weapon, but you can hold a shield. If you use it with both hands to get the 1d10, then it doesn't qualify, but if using say a longsword and shield it does. Dueling is supposed to read as long as your holding a weapon with one hand, and not holding any other weapon. The other hand does not have to be "free", they got that part all wrong. ....also they made spears a two handed weapon there meant to be versatile. They also did versatile wrong in that it does different damage depending if used as a one hander or two hander, that while both dueling and great weapon fighting both can qualify for longsword or other versatile weapons


You are right, i will also correct my post to avoid confusion. I forgot the shield option. Thanks.

So they also missed something else about versatile, both seems easy to fix in my opinion.
Whether or not it works with a shield is up to how you interpret RAI in 5e, but in BG3 the wording is very precise, your off hand must be empty.

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I assume that versatile weapons are just not fully implemented yet.
In another thread, I think someone mentioned that dueling w/ sword and board still applied, just the tooltip is wrong/misleading.
Posted By: Kimo Re: Possible to single hand a versatile weapon? - 07/10/20 08:27 PM
I do remember seeing a one handed 2 handed option. Make sure to select one handed.
I have not seen that option.
It is not an option currently
This still doesn't seem to be an option. Additionally, when wielding a one-handed weapon, the tool tip does not indicate the appropriate damage.
Hi.
Is it possible now?
Can u usw a longsword in your main hand and ur second hand is empty to get 1w8 and not 1w10.

Sorry my English is not perfect. smile
Originally Posted by Nayhl
Hi.
Is it possible now?
Can u usw a longsword in your main hand and ur second hand is empty to get 1w8 and not 1w10.

Sorry my English is not perfect. smile
In D&D5, 'Versatile' means that the weapon can be wielded one-handed or two-handed. The two-handed wield option inflicts more damage.

BG3 has, so far as I can see (I've not tested every combination), implemented this, so the answer is yes.
Originally Posted by Sparkasaurusmex
For example, if taking the Dueling fighting style, can you currently equip a longsword in one hand without occupying the off hand? The "single hand-dual wield" toggle at the bottom of the UI doesn't seem to do anything. Longsword is always 1d10 damage.

Not currently. I am curious why you would want to just use one hand for lesser damage?
Can't equip a shield with both hands holding the weapon. smile
Originally Posted by Zarna
Can't equip a shield with both hands holding the weapon. smile

I don’t think that’s what the OP is asking. I think the OP wants to just hold the sword with one hand even if the other hand is empty. At least that’s what I understand from reading it.
Dueling need a free hand.
I like to use the longsword to get 1w8+2.
And I like the style. smile
They are no reason to use a longsword two-handed.
If I play two handed I pick the greatsword.

I hope u can read my English. 🤣
Originally Posted by Sadurian
In D&D5, 'Versatile' means that the weapon can be wielded one-handed or two-handed. The two-handed wield option inflicts more damage.

BG3 has, so far as I can see (I've not tested every combination), implemented this, so the answer is yes.

Sadurian, this is currently not accurate, I'm sorry. It's not true at all.

Currently there is *NO WAY* to use a Versatile weapon one-handed without also equipping a shield - no way to use a versatile weapon one-handed, with your other hand empty. It will always be used two-handed if your off-hand is empty, and use the higher damage die.

If there IS a way to use a versatile weapon one-handed while your off-hand is empty, then the game does not make the mechanic of how to do so clear or visible; to the extent that everyone here believes it cannot be done.


(Certainly, for the fighting style, a shield is acceptable, and you don't need the hand to be specifically empty (which is accurate despite the description saying otherwise)... but we should still be able to, because there are other features that aren't in the game yet for other subclasses that do want an empty hand.)

Spears and Quarterstaves are meant to be versatile, but are not, but I'm sure that's been reported on by many people already.
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by Sadurian
In D&D5, 'Versatile' means that the weapon can be wielded one-handed or two-handed. The two-handed wield option inflicts more damage.

BG3 has, so far as I can see (I've not tested every combination), implemented this, so the answer is yes.

Sadurian, this is currently not accurate, I'm sorry. It's not true at all.

Currently there is *NO WAY* to use a Versatile weapon one-handed without also equipping a shield - no way to use a versatile weapon one-handed, with your other hand empty. It will always be used two-handed if your off-hand is empty, and use the higher damage die.

If there IS a way to use a versatile weapon one-handed while your off-hand is empty, then the game does not make the mechanic of how to do so clear or visible; to the extent that everyone here believes it cannot be done.


(Certainly, for the fighting style, a shield is acceptable, and you don't need the hand to be specifically empty (which is accurate despite the description saying otherwise)... but we should still be able to, because there are other features that aren't in the game yet for other subclasses that do want an empty hand.)

Spears and Quarterstaves are meant to be versatile, but are not, but I'm sure that's been reported on by many people already.


Thank you.
I wait for it.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
I don’t think that’s what the OP is asking. I think the OP wants to just hold the sword with one hand even if the other hand is empty. At least that’s what I understand from reading it.
That is what I get for posting with insomnia. I misread and you are correct. RP reasons and the Dueling style would be reason enough to use these weapons with one hand. 1d8+2 gives more damage than 1d10 if you are like me and always end up with crap rolls for most things. Hopefully they fix this soon.
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
I don’t think that’s what the OP is asking. I think the OP wants to just hold the sword with one hand even if the other hand is empty. At least that’s what I understand from reading it.
That is what I get for posting with insomnia. I misread and you are correct. RP reasons and the Dueling style would be reason enough to use these weapons with one hand. 1d8+2 gives more damage than 1d10 if you are like me and always end up with crap rolls for most things. Hopefully they fix this soon.

Okay that makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up.
It should be noted that while Dueling Style requires one hand to be free from a weapon, it does not require the hand to be free. You could, for example, be holding a shield.

And yes, this is how the rule is intended to be, as far as I can tell. And yes, that makes Dueling Style OP compared to the other bonuses. +2 Damage per hit and an additional +2 AC potential. A jolly good time for all.
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by Sadurian
In D&D5, 'Versatile' means that the weapon can be wielded one-handed or two-handed. The two-handed wield option inflicts more damage.

BG3 has, so far as I can see (I've not tested every combination), implemented this, so the answer is yes.

Sadurian, this is currently not accurate, I'm sorry. It's not true at all.

Currently there is *NO WAY* to use a Versatile weapon one-handed without also equipping a shield - no way to use a versatile weapon one-handed, with your other hand empty. It will always be used two-handed if your off-hand is empty, and use the higher damage die.

If there IS a way to use a versatile weapon one-handed while your off-hand is empty, then the game does not make the mechanic of how to do so clear or visible; to the extent that everyone here believes it cannot be done.
My apologies, and thank you Niara. I missed the part about having an empty off'-hand.
yeah with a shield lol
i guess is fine as is. but some people will bitch about it. I reckon they think dueling hand behind the back was actually a thing outside of duals... so they like to use only one weapon i say nuts! use the freaking shield!!
The one free hand that you often see in depictions or re-enactments can represent a couple of things that aren't just for show and flair; parrying gloves were a thing that show up in a few places, and were essentially a mail glove designed to let you deflect and bat away the opponent's blade safely with your off-hand while leaving your blade line free to stay threatening. Alternatively, the practicality of keeping a free hand was sometimes done for versatility - it's much harder to grab a chair and brain someone with it with your free hand strapped up with a shield.

In the hands of nobility, it did certainly become a peacock fancy instead, but there are some practical roots buried back there.
He was the deadliest swordsman in the land. In one hand his sword, in the other a peacock. Unparalleled.
© Larian Studios forums