Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Dual Wielding and Bonus Actions

Well, no, and I don't think why I should explain why that is a problem. But at least in a situation where there is no instant death pit within two screens distance, picking between damage and pushing someone down might be a reasonable choice.

No need i gues ...

Even tho im not quite sure if we have same "that" in this sentence.

Ok this is a waste of time.

You're not listening or trying to understand what people are saying but relentlessly trying to "win" an argument instead. Also in the Shove thread.

You're also assuming the other person "doesn't get it" hence educating them with "simple enough" five dollar bill comparisons and whatnot. Yeah, I get how it works and how to make the most of it - that's why I raised the topic in the first place. You just missed the point entirely.

Honestly, Dual wielding is really hard to pull off in 5e. A lot of classes that could benefit from it already have Bonus actions tied to their class. Not to mention needing a fighting style and feat to pull it off without negative. Maybe when they add it, dual wielding paladin will be fun, but for now its really hard to pull off, at least until level 4.

This seems to be the general consensus.

It can be good at low levels, but as martials start getting their extra attacks it falls behind compared to two handed weapons and sword+shield even if it costs a fighting style and feat.

In BG3 dual daggers / shortswords are really good for a Thief Rogue because of the extra BA and because poison / dip applies to both weapons at the same time. But with this the issue is not that dual wielding is good per se, but rather Larian's homebrew extra Bonus Actions are on the OP side. And they affect much more than just dual wielding. Otherwise the new powerful and useful BA's Larian homebrewed directly compete with the off-hand attack and make dual wielding far less appealing than in RAW. And Thief isn't supposed to be a DPS monster but a... thief. If Rogue needs such homebrew perhaps it should be Assassin.

Rogue doesn't need Dual wielding to be super powerful, Sneak attack will do that already. They also don't get a fighting style so they lose out on dual wielding benefits. I think the only class that can truly benefit, even at higher levels, is Ranger due to Hunter's Mark going off 3 times with Dual Wielding. A Warlock can also do this with Hexblade, Hex, Pact of the Blade, Thirsting Blade Invocation.

Dual wielding synergizes really well with Sneak Attack though. If only they would fix how SA works in BG3. If you miss with main hand the off-hand gives you a second chance of getting the SA damage in.

BG3 also applies Dex modifier to off-hand damage without the fighting style, unless they fixed that. I last played a Rogue around patch 3 I think, and it was a DPS monster.

True, the only issue is Rogue's cunning action. But then again, since thief gets Two bonus actions now, dual wielding is more viable. But now I fear for the broken Ranger/Rogue build where you will get 4 attacks, 1 sneak attack, and 4 hunters mark.

I find this an odd conversation. A two handed weapon for a barb deals 2d6+STR+2. Dual wielding deals 2d6+STR+4. Dual wielding requires an extra action that you miss out on the round that you rage. Two handed weapons means you don't have to roll to hit a second time, but on the other hand you also don't have a second chance to hit. Against AC 10, the damage output is basically comparable and the higher the enemy AC goes the more attractive dual wielding gets.

Rogues won't always want to use cunning action. Dual wielding gives you 2d6+DEX+Sneak attack. One handed gives you 1d8+DEX+Sneak attack. If you don't end up using your offhand weapon because there is a better use for your bonus action, that's an average difference of 1 point of damage and one handed will only deliver better damage than dual wielding about a third of the time against AC 10, and again the higher the enemy AC goes the more attractive that second attack becomes.

Plus you can keep rage going while using your standard action for something else.

You get attacks with BOTH weapons for opportunity attacks.

You can trigger additional advantageous effects on your weapons.

If you can find magical offhand weapons, the effectiveness of dual wielding only increases.

It's a perfectly viable, even appealing, system.

Sometimes there will be a bridge to shove somebody off of. There are a LOT of situations where that is not the case. You will only occasionally give up the extra damage from your offhand weapon to shove, and then mostly because shoving was the best thing to do anyway so the main attack was just extra.

Honestly it doesn't remotely bother me that shoving is the best strategy when you are running around the rafters or catwalks over lava. It SHOULD be the best tactic in those situations!

And if you are going out of your way to create situations where you can shove people off ledges, then that has nothing to do with dual wielding or wielding anything at all. But just because that is the tactic you've chosen to embrace does not mean it's the best one.

That said I have been playing with the shove and sneak as standard action mods for a long time now and I do think they make the game better, mostly because all of the shoving makes fights look like an episode of the three stooges. But the notion that shoving makes dual wielding ineffective is just ludicrous.

Dual Wielding isnt really an issue with BG3, its a system issue. Its just that most classes need their bonus actions, and that Dual Wielding takes a bonus action. As you also said, you get limited to 1d4 to 1d6 weapons without the Two Weapon fighting style and the Dual Wielding feat, which let you dual wield up to 1d8 weapons (Rapiers for Dex, several options for Str). There are classes like Barbarian that, depending on subclass, could either wield a two handed weapon and use bonus actions for other things, or dont use their bonus action and may want to wield dual 1d8 weapons. The issue really comes down to is there is just too many free bonus actions in the game that it truly shows the issue of Dual Wielding in the 5e system. Why waste a fighting style and a feat when you can take a better fighting style and an ASI/better feat at level 4. It all comes down to that action economy and what you want to spend those actions on, and sadly some options are just not worth it.

Here's what I'm not following: you're not explaining why it's not worth it. You're making an assertion, saying it's not worth it. You're saying other choices are better and claiming they're better because of action economy. But you're not explaining why.

Example:

I have a fighter with a 16 Str, 14 Dex, and 14 Con. The fighter has the two weapon fighting style so that Str damage is calculated for the off hand weapon.

I reach level four and pick up Dual Wielder, giving me the ability to use better weapons.

So here I am. In one hand I'm wielding Faithbreaker. In the other, I'm swinging Xyanyde.

Faithbreaker does 1d8 + 1(magic) + 3(str). This is 8.5 damage on average. In addition to this, I can add in damage from the weapon's ability: Absolute Power, which allows another d6 of force damage and potentially pushes the target back a considerable distance. Or maybe I just want to make the strike a menacing attack, adding a d8 of damage and potentially frightening the target. Most importantly though, if the swing misses, there's still a chance to do noteworthy damage.

Then I've got my other hand. Xyanyde only does a d6, although it does add in my Str. This is 6.5 damage on average. But more than that, the weapon has a very good chance of outlining the target in Faerie Fire, giving me advantage on all my attacks. Meaning I'm far less likely to miss on subsequent attacks.

Adding the two attacks together, I have an average of 15 points of damage, assuming no action surge, no battle technique, and no Absolute Power, all of which would only up my average damage.

I also have action surge, meaning I'm not limited to one primary attack when it matters.

Now, let's consider another fighter so things are basically similar. This fighter uses a two handed weapon, and maybe took a plus two to Str at level four instead of dual wielder. That's an 18 Str.

At this point, plenty of two handed fighters are still using the Everburn Blade.

So. That's 2d6 + 1d4 + 4. That's 13.5 damage on average. But it's not really because this fighter gets to reroll initial ones and twos on damage. If we assume no ones and twos are rolled (although they can be on the second roll, but we're being favorable and quick here), then the average damage comes out to 16.5. If the swing misses, all the potential damage is zero.

*

Assuming all hits land, that's an average damage of:

Dual: 15 (but higher if Absolute Power is used, not to mention the battlefield advantage of repositioning the target via push)
Two handed: 16.5 (technically a bit lower)

But... if I miss with a two handed attack, that's it. Zero damage. Try again later.

Whereas I have to miss twice with my dual wielder, making it the more conservative choice which is more likely to do *some* damage. And some is better than none.

And now consider, I'm *way* less likely to miss. Because my second weapon has a special ability. It outlines targets in Faerie Fire giving me advantage on all of my attacks. That's huge.

*

My point here is that most of the game is going to happen after level four. Which means the dual wielder is going to be able to take advantage of a lot of combinations when it comes to the special abilities of weapons.

I would argue that some of those combinations are already powerful at this stage of the game. The most powerful of which is the Xyanyde example above, in my opinion. But there are also combinations involving the Shattered Flail.

Mixing and matching the weapon choices is not only fun, it's potential for power in combat is undeniable.

*

And what bonus action am I going to trade this for?

The chance to shove? My primary weapon already does that if I want it to. Or I could use a push martial ability while adding a d8 to my attack. So, no, shove isn't attractive enough to replace my offhand attack.

In other words, where's the action economy?

Are there times where I'm going to need to drink a potion instead of using an off hand attack? Sure, probably, though I would argue that those times would be rare. Especially if I have a cleric in the party for healing and buffing or if I'm wielding a weapon that actually heals or buffs me in addition to hurting the enemy.

Yes the main problem is spending a Fighting Style and a Feat on Dual Wielding, and then actually using your Bonus Action for something else entirely half the time. Classes have many useful BA's (and will have more later), and Larian have now made this issue even clearer by turning Shove, potions and Hide into Bonus Actions, to name a few. That's why I wanted to raise the topic. Larian's changes have a ripple effect in the system and I'm not sure they care whole lot because they prioritize their own homebrew so much.

The second issue which is not apparent in EA yet is that Dual Wielding does not progress with levels. As martials get extra attacks, the worth of the off-hand damage decreases.

I don't think saying it's half the time is fair.

If you really analyze the game play and consider the weapon choices being made, I think you'll find that dual weapon fighters are using their off hands more than you give them credit for.


I can't speak for this. I'll have to wait and see what Larian does with dual weapon fighting as levels increase.

For what it's worth, I don't think we can predict how Larian is going to handle this.

Your DPS calculations are entirely missing the amount of other Bonus Actions used. They directly reduce the damage output. As pointed out, there are lots of good Bonus Actions in 5e, and MORE in BG3.

Your higher level logic is backwards as well. When you get extra main hand attacks, the single off-hand attack damage becomes less significant. Weapon properties work with the same logic, they are much more powerful as your main hand weapon if you have 3 attacks on that. There will eventually be Shields with properties as well for extra off-hand benefits without a fighting style and feat requirement.

And you're vastly underestimating the power of the empowered Shove that doesn't spend any resources and doesn't compete with a main hand attack.

You should get used to that.
Thrust me. :P

Here's what I don't get:

What are these awesome bonus actions that you are consistently losing your offhand attack to? Barbarians have rage and maybe a poison to apply if they are feeling especially damage-y. Rogues have three bonus actions that are only occasionally useful – you certainly don't need them every round.

My damage calculations did not include the dual wielding feat. If you do include the dual wielding feat, then dual wielding far out-damages two handed.

Shove is useful in a few narrow cases when you find yourself on a ledge.

When people keep alluding to these bonus actions that other classes "need," what are they talking about?

You spend the extra feat and fighting style on dual wielding to make it significantly better than just wielding a two handed weapon. It starts out roughly comparable.

Let's unpack this so that it's more than just an assertion.

In my above post, I addressed additional bonus actions, discussing the action economy, and I pointed out how the fighter in question would not typically use a lot of other bonus actions.

I said shove wasn't as necessary when the fighter had a weapon that actually shoved as a feature along with the attack. I also pointed out that fighters could shove as a maneuver with a strike that pushes the enemy and offers an additional d8 in damage.

Other bonus actions, like drinking potions, may happen, as I mentioned, but much more rarely than I believe you're giving them credit for. The reason why is because the weapons being used can often heal and/or buff, and failing that, the fighter is usually supported by someone like a cleric who can effectively tackle much of that.

So, again, you claim that these "other" bonus actions directly reduce the damage output, but the claim remains an assertion without evidence.

Can you refute my points with counterpoints that aren't just assertions saying you're right and I'm wrong?


This is a crystal ball argument. You have no idea how Larian is going to develop dual wielding in terms of the number of off hand strikes. And I mean that quite literally. You literally have no idea.

I mean, consider, your biggest argument is that Larian doesn't follow 5e closely enough, and then you follow that criticism by arguing here how future portions of the game will play out. How could you possibly know how many off hand attacks a dual wielder might have at level ten?

As for your "future" shield properties argument, that's the same thing. It's a broad prediction. I'm sure they'll be shields with properties. I'm guessing a lot of those properties will be conditional, but I don't know.

The point is, when it's fact and it exists then the calculus can change. Until then, it's wild speculation.

Right now, dual wielding makes a lot of sense. I'm guessing it will make a lot of sense in the future, also. We'll see.


How so?

This is kind of what I mean. Do you see the assertion? Do you see any commentary backing up the assertion? I mean this honestly and sincerely, for the sake of dialogue.

You say I'm underestimating the power of the shove. Okay, can we expand on that and show how I'm underestimating it?

I also feel like I touched heavily on the shove subject above. I literally provided an example of a weapon and a maneuver that did the shove during the actual attack, making it way less useful as a bonus action. <--and that's what I'm trying to do. See? I'm making an assertion and then saying why. I'm trying to support my assertion.

My assertion: shove as a bonus action is less attractive in my opinion...

--because--

My support: weapons can shove as a special ability *and* the fighter has the ability to shove as a maneuver *during* the attack.

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 find the bragging about how awesome you are at spotting broken mechanics to be pretty juvenile.

I haven't played PnP for about a year but before that I DM'd 5e and 4e since they were released. I never DM'd 3e but that's when I started playing. I've played 4e and 5e both with multiple circles of close friends as well as strangers from the game shop. I feel like I have a pretty good sense of these things, too.

Not to mention how different PnP is just because you have the DM there, tailoring combat to their players. It's really a fundamentally different experience than a video game and the rules should reflect that. (I actually think Larian are doing an exceptionally good job at that part, with the improvised weapon attacks, shove, high ground advantage, and turn-based toggle which each bring an aspect of the tabletop experience into the videogame world.)

You just keep asserting that you have some kind of magical insight, but you're not backing it up with any kind of examples or math. It's just "You don't understand how good bonus actions are!" over and over again. What are you using your bonus action for every round? Dashing?

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.