Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Feb 2021
Nouri Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2021
One handed weapons need a slight increase in damage so that Duel wield is more viable, or alteration to make the offhand calculate off strength, not dex.

At lower levels dw is roughly even to two hand weapons, however as the levels increase there grows a disparity between the two builds in terms of their melee damage output.
One suggestion to fix this is to add more weapon enchantments or variations of things like poisons, and cause them to be only applied to one hand weapons, or scale better with them. This being said, I am slightly ignorant of the DnD Calculations and will need to look more into this. From the early access level it seems to be that most of the itemization here really seems to be for two handed weapons, as opposed to duel wield so it may just be that because of the lack of items you can access, dw is inferior especially with scaling.

Either way, we can really use a conversation about this topic, especially from those who have the knowledge of the math to demonstrate the issues at hand.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
I am far from an expert on dual wielding but I am pretty sure the off hand doesn't benefit from any modifiers (Str or Dex.) Also some light weapons have the Finesse property which means you can use them in the main hand with either modifier. I don't Finesse is currently an option though.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
A disparity ?

Dual wield with the good feats allow you to add your modifier 2 times instead of 1.
There's also a feat that allow you to use non-light weapons meaning you can have a 1D8 weapons in both hands.
You can also add +1D4 damages to both weapons at the cost of a single bonus action (dipping)
+1/+2 weapons while dual wielding double your damages if you compare with a single weapon (1H or 2H)

Maybe you consider 2H with GWM, which is way too op because of the easy advantages but dual wield have significant pros if your character is well builded.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 23/02/21 06:25 AM.

French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus
Joined: Feb 2021
Nouri Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
A disparity ?

Dual wield with the good feats allow you to add your modifier 2 times instead of 1.
There's also a feat that allow you to use non-light weapons meaning you can have a 1D8 weapons in both hands.
You can also add +1D4 damages to both weapons at the cost of a single bonus action (dipping)
+1/+2 weapons while dual wielding double your damages if you compare with a single weapon (1H or 2H)

Maybe you consider 2H with GWM, which is way too op because of the easy advantages but dual wield have significant pros if your character is well builded.


this is taken from reddit on the topic.

Originally Posted by Tetsucubra
]
despite what the others said, i want to add that in 5e, dual wielding alone, without others damage-adding abilities / spells (like hunters mark, hex, sneak attack), two-weapon fighting never beats two-handed fighting. i also want to add that currently, the offhand attack doesnt work as intended, because your DEX gets added to the damage roll instead to the attack roll. In 5e, you get your DEX added to the to-hit chance instead of the damage done.

lets look at the math (very long post, sorry for that. TL;DR at the bottom):

lv 1-3, without any feats and fighting styles, with a +3 in the attack modifier:

two-weapon fighting: 1d6+3 + 1d6 = 2d6+3 = 10

two-handed fighting: 2d6+3 = 10

so, exactly the same, but with two-handed fighting you can use your bonus action!

lets look at the fighting styles. two-weapon fighting style lets you add your attack modifier (+3) to damage for offhand attacks. great weapon fighting lets your reroll 1 or 2, which averages in +1 damage.

so with fighting styles:

two-weapon fighting: 1d6+3 + 1d6+3 = 2d6+6 = 13

two-handed fighting: 2d6+3 +1 = 11

so, with this setup you have more damage, but still cant use your bonus action. instead of great weapon fighting, which is not that good, you could also take defense to up your AC by 1.

no, lets look at level 5, first without feats. fighter gets extra attack, so you attack two times with you action.

two-weapon fighting: 1d6+3 + 1d6+3 + 1d6 = 3d6+6 = 16,5

two-handed fighting: 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 = 4d6+6 = 20

two-weapon fighting /w fighting style: 1d6+3 + 1d6+3 + 1d6+3 = 3d6+9 = 19,5

two-handed fighting /w fighting style: 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 +2 = 22

lets add feats (lv 4). two-weapon fighter takes either dual wielder or +1 in the attack modifier ability (STR or DEX). two-handed fighter takes GWM or PAM. Lets look at those feats:

dual wielder adds +1 damage on bcos you can wield non-light one-handed weapons (1d8 instead of 1d6) and +1 AC. if we assume that our two-weapon fighter uses DEX to attack, raising dex to +4 does the same, but also gives us better DEX saving throws and skill checks. so we raise DEX.

GWM gives us the ability to get a -5 to attack rolls and a +10 to damage rolls. it also gives the ability to attack again as a bonus action if we kill an enemy or criticaly hit. For the first part, lets just ignore the -5/+10 part.

PAM lets ur attack again as a bonus action no matter what and lets us take another attack of opportunity if someone enters our range (10ft).

now the damage at lv 5 with feats and fighting styles. lets take the defense fighting style (+1AC) for the two-handed fighter, so the AC stays the same:

two-weapon fighting: 1d6+4 + 1d6+4 + 1d6+4 = 3d6+12 = 22,5

two-handed fighting with PAM: 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 + 1d4+3 = 4d6 + 1d4 + 9 = 25,5

two-handed fighting with GWM, lets say you get a bonus action attack every other round: 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 + 1d6+1,5 = 5d6 + 7,5 = 25

what do we have now? two weapon fighting has +1 more DEX, so better DEX saving throws and better DEX ability checks. he also has ~3 less average damage per round. what does the two-handed fighter has? ~3 more average damage, the ability to either take opportunity attacks when someone enters the range or to deal more damage on low AC targets (which also increases average damage), and you possibly have your bonus action free for other stuff.

this discrepancy gets bigger and bigger the higher level you are. lets look at lvl 6 for example. the two-weapon fighter gets +1 damage on all attacks, so his damage increases to ~25,5. the two-handed fighter has both GWM and PAM, getting opportunity attacks when someone enters his reach (10ft), gets a save bonus action attack (1d4) where he can add his +10 damage from GWM, and potentially gets a 2d6 bonus action attack. also, if you take battlemaster, you have precision attack, which increases your effectiveness with GWM -5/+10. thus you have also way higher burst / nova damage. Also, action surge is better with two-handed weapons, because you only get an additional action, not an additional bonus action.

lets also look at GWM -5/+10 now. lets look at the damage when you attack wiht -5/+10 every attack at level 6: 2d6+3+10 + 2d6+3+10 + 1d4+3+10 = 4d6 + 1d4 + 9 + 30 = 14 + 2,5 + 9 + 30 = 55,5. Now you can say: but every attack has -5 and hits less likely. yes, but lets look at the damage of every attack: 2d6+3+10 = 20 damage on average. the two-weapon fighter has 25,5 damage with all three attacks on average, so you only need to hit 1,25 attacks every round, which means one attack per round, and two attack every 4th round, to deal equal damage than the two-weapon fighter, assuming the two-weapon fighter never misses. with buffs (bless, ..), advantage and possibly precision attack (if it gets added to BG3), you easily achieve this.

side note: GWM is regarded as a Tier S feat, because it is so strong. the -5/+10 increases your average damage more than you think, and it gets boosted even more with bonus action attacks, advantage and modifiers that gets added to your attack roll / tohit chance, like precision attack, bless, ..

just on top, the average and max damage you can deal if all attacks hit at level 6:

two-weapon fighting: 1d6+5 + 1d6+5 + 1d6+5 = 11 + 11 + 11 = 33

two-handed fighting: 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 = 15 + 15 +15 = 45

two-handed fighting /w GWM: 2d6+3+10 + 2d6+3+10 + 2d6+3+10 = 25 * 3 = 75, although you might need to use some resources like precision attack to hit all attacks with -5 to hit.

two-weapon fighting with action surge: (1d6+5) * 5 = 11 * 5 = 55

two-handed fighting /w GWM: (2d6+3+10) * 5 = 25 * 5 = 150

now, at lv 8 and 10, you cant raise your DEX any more, because it is already at 20 / +5. but you can raise your STR from +3 to +5, giving you even more damage.

TL;DR: two-weapon fighting is nearly always weaker on classes with extra attack and uses your bonus action, which limits other aspects like mobility. fighter espacially are so so much better two-handing than dual wielding. the only reason to dual wield (damage wise), is for rogues to proc sneak attack, or for some build with hunters mark / hex / .., which adds damage to every damage you deal. other than that, you are better of just two-handing. but dual wielding is not that bad, and if you like it, go for it. it is still effective.

Joined: Oct 2020
T
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
T
Joined: Oct 2020
In terms of calculations, the posters on the Giants in the Playground D&D forum's created a pretty comprehensive 5E DPR calculator if you're interested in playing around with the math.

Calculator (make a copy in order to edit/input):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14WlZE_UKwn3Vhv4i8ewVOc-f2-A7tMW_VRum_p3YNHQ/edit?usp=sharing

Documentation (in case you're curious about the formulas and math):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11eTMZPPxWXHY0rQEhK1msO-40BcCGrzArSl4GX4CiJE/edit

All credits to Ludicsavant and AureusFulgen


Originally Posted by Nouri
now the damage at lv 5 with feats and fighting styles. lets take the defense fighting style (+1AC) for the two-handed fighter, so the AC stays the same:

two-weapon fighting: 1d6+4 + 1d6+4 + 1d6+4 = 3d6+12 = 22,5

two-handed fighting with PAM: 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 + 1d4+3 = 4d6 + 1d4 + 9 = 25,5

two-handed fighting with GWM, lets say you get a bonus action attack every other round: 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 + 1d6+1,5 = 5d6 + 7,5 = 25

I don't disagree with this poster's conclusions (that in RAW DPS PAM and GWM usually wins out), but the calculation here is full of errors.
  • There's no polearm eligible for PAM that does 2d6 damage. Most 2-handed polearms do 1d10
  • Accuracy for the most part is ignored - including the +1 to hit for two weapon fighting
  • Getting your bonus action attack every other round is a pretty huge assumption to make for GWM...


Not going to audit the whole thing, but just even going back to their example:

two-weapon fighting: 1d6+4 + 1d6+4 + 1d6+4 = 22.5

two-handed fighting with PAM (at -1 accuracy): 1d10+3 + 1d10+3 + 1d4+3 = 22.5

two-handed fighting with GWM (at -1 accuracy, assumes extra BA attack every other round): 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 + 1d6+1.5 = 25

two-handed fighting with GWM (at -1 accuracy, assumes 1 enemy): 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 = 20

I still think PAM and GWM are situationally superior because of the other effects (extra opportunity attacks for PAM, -5/+10 for GWM when paired with advantage), hence why I don't disagree with the conclusion. Having riders (i.e. Improved Divine Smite +1d8 damage on each hit) also changes the math. The more riders you have, the more TWF and PAM benefits and GWM loses its appeal (because the cost of missing each hit becomes proportionally a bigger opportunity cost).


Fun fact - you can use a 1 handed spear + shield with PAM (kinda like a Spartan), and then dueling style for the +2 dmg. Only +1 relative AC since the original poster is running defense style and +2 DEXt. The math would look like this:

1 handed weapon + shield fighting with PAM (-1 accuracy, +1 AC): 1d6+5 + 1d6+5 + 1d4+5 = 24.5

Last edited by Topgoon; 23/02/21 07:28 AM.
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Assuming 65% chance to hit, see this math
Level 1 fighter with a greatsword does 2d6+3 x 0.65 = 6.5 damage per round
Level 2 fighter with Great Weapon Fighting does (8.33+3)*2 x 0.65 = 7.37 damage per round (reroll 1 and 2s)
Assuming Great Weapon Fighting for the rest
Level 5 fighter attacks 2x with greatsword for (8.33+4)*2 x 0.65 = 16 damage
Level 5 fighter using Great Weapon Master deals (8.33+3+10)*2 x 0.4 = 17 damage (minus 25% chance to hit because GWM)
Level 11 fighter attacks 3x with greatsword for (8.33+5)*3 x 0.65 = 26 damage
Level 11 fighter using GWM deals (8.33+4+10)*3 x 0.4 = 26.8 damage

Level 1 fighter wielding 2 shortswords does (1d6+3)+(1d6) x 0.65 = 6.5 damage
Level 2 fighter with Two-Weapon Fighting does (1d6+3)*2 x 0.65 = 8.45 damage
Assuming TWF for the rest
Level 5 fighter does (1d6+4)*3 x 0.65 = 14.62 damage
Level 5 fighter who chose Dual Wielder Feat does (1d8+3)*3 x 0.65 = 14.62 damage but also gets +1 AC
Level 11 fighter does (1d6+5)*4*0.65 = 22.1 damage (the one who chose Dual Wielder Feat does the same damage but also gets +1 AC)

In sum, at level 11, a dual-wielding fighter (with Two-Weapon Fighting) does 22.1 damage per round and a 2H fighter (using Great Weapon Master and Great Weapon Fighting Style) deals 26.8 damage per round. The dual wielder gets +1 AC but the 2H'er retains their bonus action. The 2H'er is expected to deal 20% more damage.

However, this is all assuming non-magic weapons. See more math
A level 5 fighter with a +1 greatsword and GWM and GWF deals 17.9 damage.
A level 11 fighter with a +2 greatsword and GWM and GWF deals 29.2 damage
A level 11 fighter with a +3 greatsword and GWM and GWF 30.4 damage

A level 5 fighter with two +1 shortswords and TWF deals 16.6 damage
A level 11 fighter with two +2 shortswords and TWF deals 27.3 damage.
A level 11 fighter with two +3 shortswords and TWF deals 29.9 damage
In summary, assuming +2 weapons at level 11, a dual-wielding fighter does 27.3 damage per round and a 2H fighter deals 29.9 damage per round. The 2H'er is only 9% more effective. This difference reduces to 1.6% if both have +3 weapons.

Finally, we get to @Maximuuus's points, where you can coat your weapons with fire or poison. While a dual-wielder has twice the weapons to coat, they sacrifice a bonus action attack in order to coat them (immediately lose out on 1d6+4 x 0.65 ~ 4.8 damage, but then deal 1d4 x 0.65 = 1.6 more damage each turn thereafter). So it's only worth it if the coating lasts >3 turns or you coat your weapons before the fight starts.

p.s. if you have >65% chance to hit, then 2H'ing is even better (40.2 damage at level 11 versus DW's 34.9). So yes, in this Larian-BG3-always-advantage world, 2H'ing is superior

Edit: @Nouri, you have to take into account chances to hit. Especially the reduced chance to hit while using GWM. It's also important to use average damages, not max damage. Using max damage artificially exacerbates any differences

Edit2: I didn't account for GWM's bonus action attack when you reduce an enemy to 0 HP. So 2H'ing definitely wins out if you're fighting a lot of small enemies

Last edited by mrfuji3; 23/02/21 07:28 AM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Nouri
[quote=Maximuuus]A disparity ?

Dual wield with the good feats allow you to add your modifier 2 times instead of 1.
There's also a feat that allow you to use non-light weapons meaning you can have a 1D8 weapons in both hands.
You can also add +1D4 damages to both weapons at the cost of a single bonus action (dipping)
+1/+2 weapons while dual wielding double your damages if you compare with a single weapon (1H or 2H)

Maybe you consider 2H with GWM, which is way too op because of the easy advantages but dual wield have significant pros if your character is well builded.


this is taken from reddit on the topic.

[quote=Tetsucubra]

lv 1-3, without any feats and fighting styles, with a +3 in the attack modifier:

two-weapon fighting: 1d6+3 + 1d6 = 2d6+3 = 10

two-handed fighting: 2d6+3 = 10

so, exactly the same, but with two-handed fighting you can use your bonus action!

[/quote=Tetsucubra]

Yes but... At lvl 1 or 2 some classes choose a fighting style that increase your damages.
Why wouldn't you consider it ?

If your character is well builded the comparison should probably be something like this at early levels :

two-weapon fighting: 1d6+3 + 1d6 +3 = 2d6+3 = 13 (action + bonus action)
two-handed fighting: 2d6+3 = 10 (action)

Now consider things without any feats because GMW should be a choice. At the moment it's not, it's THE feat because having an advantage is way too easy.
+1 weapon + 4 modifier and 2 attack / turn.

2h weapon = 2D6 + 4 +1 + 2D6 + 4 +1 = 24 (action)
dual wield = 1D6 + 4 + 1 + 1D6 + 4 + 1 + 1D6 + 4 + 1 = 25.5 (action + bonus action)

Now add dipping...
2H weapons = 24 + 2D4 = 29 (action)
Dual wield = 25.5 + 3D4 = 33 (action + bonus action)

Dipping is a problem because it increase the damages done by dual wielder... And backstab is another one because GMW is completely OP.
That's Larian's rules, not D&D. Things look more balanced in D&D than in BG3.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 23/02/21 08:27 AM.

French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus
Joined: Feb 2021
Nouri Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Topgoon
In terms of calculations, the posters on the Giants in the Playground D&D forum's created a pretty comprehensive 5E DPR calculator if you're interested in playing around with the math.

Calculator (make a copy in order to edit/input):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14WlZE_UKwn3Vhv4i8ewVOc-f2-A7tMW_VRum_p3YNHQ/edit?usp=sharing

Documentation (in case you're curious about the formulas and math):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11eTMZPPxWXHY0rQEhK1msO-40BcCGrzArSl4GX4CiJE/edit

All credits to Ludicsavant and AureusFulgen


Originally Posted by Nouri
now the damage at lv 5 with feats and fighting styles. lets take the defense fighting style (+1AC) for the two-handed fighter, so the AC stays the same:

two-weapon fighting: 1d6+4 + 1d6+4 + 1d6+4 = 3d6+12 = 22,5

two-handed fighting with PAM: 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 + 1d4+3 = 4d6 + 1d4 + 9 = 25,5

two-handed fighting with GWM, lets say you get a bonus action attack every other round: 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 + 1d6+1,5 = 5d6 + 7,5 = 25

I don't disagree with this poster's conclusions (that in RAW DPS PAM and GWM usually wins out), but the calculation here is full of errors.
  • There's no polearm eligible for PAM that does 2d6 damage. Most 2-handed polearms do 1d10
  • Accuracy for the most part is ignored - including the +1 to hit for two weapon fighting
  • Getting your bonus action attack every other round is a pretty huge assumption to make for GWM...


Not going to audit the whole thing, but just even going back to their example:

two-weapon fighting: 1d6+4 + 1d6+4 + 1d6+4 = 22.5

two-handed fighting with PAM (at -1 accuracy): 1d10+3 + 1d10+3 + 1d4+3 = 22.5

two-handed fighting with GWM (at -1 accuracy, assumes extra BA attack every other round): 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 + 1d6+1.5 = 25

two-handed fighting with GWM (at -1 accuracy, assumes 1 enemy): 2d6+3 + 2d6+3 = 20

I still think PAM and GWM are situationally superior because of the other effects (extra opportunity attacks for PAM, -5/+10 for GWM when paired with advantage), hence why I don't disagree with the conclusion. Having riders (i.e. Improved Divine Smite +1d8 damage on each hit) also changes the math. The more riders you have, the more TWF and PAM benefits and GWM loses its appeal (because the cost of missing each hit becomes proportionally a bigger opportunity cost).


Fun fact - you can use a 1 handed spear + shield with PAM (kinda like a Spartan), and then dueling style for the +2 dmg. Only +1 relative AC since the original poster is running defense style and +2 DEXt. The math would look like this:

1 handed weapon + shield fighting with PAM (-1 accuracy, +1 AC): 1d6+5 + 1d6+5 + 1d4+5 = 24.5

there are many two handed weapons that do 2d6 or better (in early access)

Joined: Feb 2021
Nouri Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Assuming 65% chance to hit, see this math
Level 1 fighter with a greatsword does 2d6+3 x 0.65 = 6.5 damage per round
Level 2 fighter with Great Weapon Fighting does (8.33+3)*2 x 0.65 = 7.37 damage per round (reroll 1 and 2s)
Assuming Great Weapon Fighting for the rest
Level 5 fighter attacks 2x with greatsword for (8.33+4)*2 x 0.65 = 16 damage
Level 5 fighter using Great Weapon Master deals (8.33+3+10)*2 x 0.4 = 17 damage (minus 25% chance to hit because GWM)
Level 11 fighter attacks 3x with greatsword for (8.33+5)*3 x 0.65 = 26 damage
Level 11 fighter using GWM deals (8.33+4+10)*3 x 0.4 = 26.8 damage

Level 1 fighter wielding 2 shortswords does (1d6+3)+(1d6) x 0.65 = 6.5 damage
Level 2 fighter with Two-Weapon Fighting does (1d6+3)*2 x 0.65 = 8.45 damage
Assuming TWF for the rest
Level 5 fighter does (1d6+4)*3 x 0.65 = 14.62 damage
Level 5 fighter who chose Dual Wielder Feat does (1d8+3)*3 x 0.65 = 14.62 damage but also gets +1 AC
Level 11 fighter does (1d6+5)*4*0.65 = 22.1 damage (the one who chose Dual Wielder Feat does the same damage but also gets +1 AC)

In sum, at level 11, a dual-wielding fighter (with Two-Weapon Fighting) does 22.1 damage per round and a 2H fighter (using Great Weapon Master and Great Weapon Fighting Style) deals 26.8 damage per round. The dual wielder gets +1 AC but the 2H'er retains their bonus action. The 2H'er is expected to deal 20% more damage.

However, this is all assuming non-magic weapons. See more math
A level 5 fighter with a +1 greatsword and GWM and GWF deals 17.9 damage.
A level 11 fighter with a +2 greatsword and GWM and GWF deals 29.2 damage
A level 11 fighter with a +3 greatsword and GWM and GWF 30.4 damage

A level 5 fighter with two +1 shortswords and TWF deals 16.6 damage
A level 11 fighter with two +2 shortswords and TWF deals 27.3 damage.
A level 11 fighter with two +3 shortswords and TWF deals 29.9 damage
In summary, assuming +2 weapons at level 11, a dual-wielding fighter does 27.3 damage per round and a 2H fighter deals 29.9 damage per round. The 2H'er is only 9% more effective. This difference reduces to 1.6% if both have +3 weapons.

Finally, we get to @Maximuuus's points, where you can coat your weapons with fire or poison. While a dual-wielder has twice the weapons to coat, they sacrifice a bonus action attack in order to coat them (immediately lose out on 1d6+4 x 0.65 ~ 4.8 damage, but then deal 1d4 x 0.65 = 1.6 more damage each turn thereafter). So it's only worth it if the coating lasts >3 turns or you coat your weapons before the fight starts.

p.s. if you have >65% chance to hit, then 2H'ing is even better (40.2 damage at level 11 versus DW's 34.9). So yes, in this Larian-BG3-always-advantage world, 2H'ing is superior

Edit: @Nouri, you have to take into account chances to hit. Especially the reduced chance to hit while using GWM. It's also important to use average damages, not max damage. Using max damage artificially exacerbates any differences

Edit2: I didn't account for GWM's bonus action attack when you reduce an enemy to 0 HP. So 2H'ing definitely wins out if you're fighting a lot of small enemies


this is exactly the point he makes, that namely, two-handed weapon fighting is always inferior to two handed weapons, there for, there is no real reason to do two-handed weapon fighting. Thus the topic. keeping in mind we have not even tackled the other impacts like having the ability to cast rally, or self heal.

Last edited by Nouri; 23/02/21 08:42 AM.
Joined: Feb 2021
Nouri Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2021
lastly, i have not looked into the math deeply just skimmed read a few things and wanted to see what other think and if changes should be made to help dw more, for example giving it +2 ac/mac instead of +1ac

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Two weapon wielding, dual wielding, or double wielding, please.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Oct 2020
T
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
T
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Nouri
there are many two handed weapons that do 2d6 or better (in early access)

Ah, I thought we were talking about 5E since we're looking at Polearm Master (which aren't in EA). I'm not sure how BG3 is going to implement it but PAM is restricted to polearms (which are 1d10) in 5E.

In terms of two-handed weapons that more than 2d6 (base damage), the only one I can think of is the giant club people have managed to glitch off the minotaur in the Underdark. Not sure what else is there.

Maybe it'll be most productive if you posted the math for the best 2 handed builds in EA right now and we can see if we can come up with any 2 weapon fighting builds that come close?

Joined: Feb 2021
Nouri Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Topgoon
Originally Posted by Nouri
there are many two handed weapons that do 2d6 or better (in early access)

Ah, I thought we were talking about 5E since we're looking at Polearm Master (which aren't in EA). I'm not sure how BG3 is going to implement it but PAM is restricted to polearms (which are 1d10) in 5E.

In terms of two-handed weapons that more than 2d6 (base damage), the only one I can think of is the giant club people have managed to glitch off the minotaur in the Underdark. Not sure what else is there.

Maybe it'll be most productive if you posted the math for the best 2 handed builds in EA right now and we can see if we can come up with any 2 weapon fighting builds that come close?

no, there are a few two handed weapons that do this damage, for example, there are great swords like justice that have it. I have just rerolled a new game to test this and im using zae'rel and my own character (dw) to see the variance, and its pretty big.

Last edited by Nouri; 23/02/21 03:46 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Online Content
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
I agree with the OP that dual wield falls behind 2h, but I think that this is a feature, not a bug. I phrase it this way, because I actually like the way that 5E sets up the distinction between the two styles.

If you are strong and want to do really beefy damage, use a 2h weapon (you will probably need heavy armor for defense in this case because it is difficult to invest in both strength and dexterity).

If you are not particularly strong, dual wield gives you an option to partially close the gap, at the expense of your bonus action. If you invest in dexterity you can achieve decent defense without heavy armor in this case (need 15 str to equip full plate).

If you belong to a class without a 2 attack action (for instance, rogue) then dual wield gives an extra attack that you would not otherwise have. This is particularly useful for rogues as it gives an opportunity to land a sneak attack if your main hand misses (of course Larian has not implemented this properly, but *hopefully* they will).

If you belong to a class that has riders on the attack (ranger with hunters mark, warlock with hex, or anybody with a flaming/poison weapon) then adding that extra off hand attack might be enough to come very close to 2h with GWM.

In summary, dual wielding IS behind 2h in raw damage, but this is as it should be.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Nouri
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
my analysis, which showed that at high levels 2H fighting does like 10-20% more damage than dual-wielding
this is exactly the point he makes, that namely, two-handed weapon fighting is always inferior to two handed weapons, there for, there is no real reason to do two-handed weapon fighting. Thus the topic. keeping in mind we have not even tackled the other impacts like having the ability to cast rally, or self heal.
Eh, my point was more that the difference between 2H and DW is not that large.

See @dwig's post for all the versatility and additional damage buffs you can apply to DW, and the fact that DW is incredible useful for rogues due to doubled chance to get Sneak Attack off.

DW'ing is niche, better for certain builds/playstyles and worse for others, and not that much worse than 2H'ing in terms of raw damage. Seems fine to me.

Joined: Feb 2021
Nouri Offline OP
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Nouri
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
my analysis, which showed that at high levels 2H fighting does like 10-20% more damage than dual-wielding
this is exactly the point he makes, that namely, two-handed weapon fighting is always inferior to two handed weapons, there for, there is no real reason to do two-handed weapon fighting. Thus the topic. keeping in mind we have not even tackled the other impacts like having the ability to cast rally, or self heal.
Eh, my point was more that the difference between 2H and DW is not that large.

See @dwig's post for all the versatility and additional damage buffs you can apply to DW, and the fact that DW is incredible useful for rogues due to doubled chance to get Sneak Attack off.

DW'ing is niche, better for certain builds/playstyles and worse for others, and not that much worse than 2H'ing in terms of raw damage. Seems fine to me.


no, but as long as 2hnd always beats dw, no one will want to run dw.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Nouri
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Nouri
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
my analysis, which showed that at high levels 2H fighting does like 10-20% more damage than dual-wielding
this is exactly the point he makes, that namely, two-handed weapon fighting is always inferior to two handed weapons, there for, there is no real reason to do two-handed weapon fighting. Thus the topic. keeping in mind we have not even tackled the other impacts like having the ability to cast rally, or self heal.
Eh, my point was more that the difference between 2H and DW is not that large.

See @dwig's post for all the versatility and additional damage buffs you can apply to DW, and the fact that DW is incredible useful for rogues due to doubled chance to get Sneak Attack off.

DW'ing is niche, better for certain builds/playstyles and worse for others, and not that much worse than 2H'ing in terms of raw damage. Seems fine to me.


no, but as long as 2hnd always beats dw, no one will want to run dw.
This is why there are strength and dexterity builds. Strength builds usually have the incentive to go for 2-handed and Dexterity has the incentive to go for dual wield.

A Dex character can have really strong, accurate bow attacks with good dual wield attacks.
While a Str character has okay bow attacks with strong dual wield attacks.

That's the intended trade-off.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Nouri
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Nouri
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
my analysis, which showed that at high levels 2H fighting does like 10-20% more damage than dual-wielding
this is exactly the point he makes, that namely, two-handed weapon fighting is always inferior to two handed weapons, there for, there is no real reason to do two-handed weapon fighting. Thus the topic. keeping in mind we have not even tackled the other impacts like having the ability to cast rally, or self heal.
Eh, my point was more that the difference between 2H and DW is not that large.

See @dwig's post for all the versatility and additional damage buffs you can apply to DW, and the fact that DW is incredible useful for rogues due to doubled chance to get Sneak Attack off.

DW'ing is niche, better for certain builds/playstyles and worse for others, and not that much worse than 2H'ing in terms of raw damage. Seems fine to me.


no, but as long as 2hnd always beats dw, no one will want to run dw.

What about all classes not proficient with Martial weapons ? (Druid, rogue, cleric, bards,...)

Last edited by Maximuuus; 24/02/21 08:35 AM.

French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5