Hello,
this game looks amazing. I was wondering if characters will be able to dual wield weapons. Any chances at all?

I certainly hope they add this as well. I would find it very odd if they didn't. They have Sword & Board and 2 Handed weapon skills in the game already. Hopefully their absence is just an Early Access issue of the skill not being in game yet.

They also have unarmed and single weapon skills. Yeah, I consider dual wielding the most exciting combat style. Have they mentioned the possibility of including it?

They've taken Unarmed out (for the moment at least). No mention at all about including dual-wielding. I wouldn't count on it.

They haven't mentioned dual wield to my knowledge but I'm sure when the editor is out and someone makes some extra animations for it and handles the balancing it could be added in with relative ease.

There's no dual wielding (yet)? Huh, surprising. I would have thought that a given. Well if it's not on the way *hugs editor*

I sure do hope they put dual-wielding in ! It's a classic of tabletop rpg rules now, and most video games count it

Hum. To duel or not; I hope I don't cut myself.

I want to strike a blow for dual wield as well, it is an interesting middle ground between 2H and 1H/shield. I miss whenever it is not in the game, although I primarily pref to go with a board myself, it spices up any more thuggish characters quite a bit.

Definitely a fan of the dual wielding; it is always my favorite play style when offered. There is good variety in the characters as they stand though, so it won't be a huge disappointment if it is skipped.

^ Does that quote mean that dual wielding isn't planned for release (but may happen in an expansion or something) or that it just isn't in yet?

I'm curious if that quote is recent.



Yes, modding is nice, but I'd prefer that something as core to gameplay as combat styles is implemented by developers themselves. This also includes adding opponents who dual wield etc.

The most recent one. Today's.

I dunno, I think it might be nice as a mod, give some form of backstory about an exotic combat style new to the land to explain why no one uses it and then you quest to find the source of the rumour, find a trainer, that whole thing.

Would you be so kind and link the source?

http://www.twitch.tv/docgotgame

You're implying that was said in a recent interview on twitch or something?

Kein means that someone from Larian said it in the chat stream of a twitch.tv session. Twitch doesn't save the chat sessions, though.

I'd argue, you'd need high perception and dexterity to wield two blades as if you've ever tried your usually weaker with your offhand and wielding something with it tends to feel off, not everyone is ambidexterous and you'd end up missing usually half the time without excellent hand to eye coordination (ie. Perception + Dexterity) to balance out the difference between both arms.

I would also like to see dual wielding put into the game, mainly because I prefer playing rogue style characters, but I am unsure as to how it would work with the gameplay style they have at the moment.

Each weapon costs a certain amount of AP to use, so if you have 9 AP and use a sword and a shield and the sword costs 3 AP to use, then if you don't move you can attack 3 times. If you have 2 swords equipped, then you would still only be able to attack 3 times.

I suppose they could add something like a dual-wielding skill that reduces the amount of AP weapons cost to use if you have 2 equipped...

Dual-wielding is hard because it adds another style to balance. It has to be given something to make it not clearly superior to single-handed (or worse, single-handed with shield, which has two different abilities you need to spend points on).

The AP system can help with this, I suppose. Simply add the AP costs of the weapons together and you can attack with each weapon, but each attack costs much more, which means that on any given turn, you can move, or you an attack, but not both (or you can skip a turn to save the AP so you can do both next turn).


Daggers, though, might be a bit powerful when dual-wielded.

I bought a Push Dagger requiring Level 5, and it worked very well indeed, even on the undead. The low AP cost plus high critical chance plus backstabbing works well. One fun strategy is to hold the rogue back for a turn or two to max out their AP, then have some teleport them behind enemy lines. The rogue might die, but can take out two or three enemies. I did 220 damage in one turn in 12 attacks, and I missed once, and 3 others were for normal damage not backstabs.

Since a dagger costs 2 AP to use, two would cost 4, but since the dagger animation plays twice, you still get the same number of attacks, dual wielding or no.

Another thing to consider is bonuses on weapons such as +strength, etc.
Adding the AP together would make it equal to single-handed, but it would still be superior to dual wield for the extra item's bonuses.

You're all talking as though this is a new thing.

Dual wielding has always had much better attack bonuses than sword and shield, but you sacrifice the extra defense that the shield gives you. So you either dual-wield and kill them before they kill you or use a shield and wear them down.

Yeah, it should not be harder to balance than any other combat style.

I'm in agreement with Dracolich that high Dexterity should be required for optimal dual wielding.
Also, dual wielding should make you attack faster. So you can attack once with each weapon at the average AP cost of the two weapons (or a bit higher).
You sacrifice the defensive bonus of shields and raw damage of two-handed weapons for faster attacks.

Bit surprise there is no dual wielding; as DD had it; the trade off between using a shield and using a second weapon was interesting though if I remember correctly you were mostly better off with a shield. I'm not sure I buy the balance issue given how it was done in DD but quite frankly in my view support dual wielding is a very minor thing relative to the big picture.

I'm pretty sure there was no dual wielding in Divine Divinity or Beyond Divinity. You're thinkingo f Divinity 2, maybe?

No definitely not thinking of divinity 2; I might be mistaken about DD but I thought I could wield two weapons - though it is possible I am thinking of the skill that gave shields damage. Been a while so maybe I am confused. Hum. To be honest I don't remember what DKS had because I mostly played a mage; though I've been meaning to replay it with a warrior type. I tend to favor mages/clearic in my rpg games - though scout/thief was a huge amount of fun in Dragon age but I guess this isn't quite related.
-

This gameplay video shows an enemy NPC "pseudo-clone" of the Scarlet character, using dual daggers on a player:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8ZvfIlMrqI;t=19m30s

So, dual-wielding animations and systems are obviously already implemented. Let's hope Larian doesn't find a reason to not make this available to the PCs.

Double blow this NPC ironed perfectly I really hope that our heroes learn to use two weapons in the full game.
Please give developers information about how well worth waiting for this ability in the game?
This is my favorite style of passing, I like many get pleasure with each new level of quality and increasingly deadly swords in both hands.

You don't HAVE the defensive bonus of a shield to start with! And I don't think the shield defense bonus can be equaled to having twice the damage output (which many seem to be suggesting). The numbers can be tweaked here and there but I would argue that Single Handed Spec should give shield proficiency right of the bat, leaving space for a new skill - Dual Wield which has no synergy with Single Handed Spec, and might require dexterity or something. Thus you have the pure damage dealer style of 2H, somewhat defensive (small parry chance?) Dual Wield, and the all out tank 1H/Shield skill. Thus you don't have to be splittin' up your points, while also bringing tank builds more in line with other builds Ability Point wise.

Nice find!

Is dual wielding in the beta?

Nope, and it's not coming in the base game either. Any reports of apparent dual-wielding on the "Mysterious Stranger" were erroneous or graphical glitches.

You're already attacking with a dagger twice each action. Would it be a possibility to assign daggers as 2h weapon (preventing you to use a dagger + shield) and whenever you equip a knife/dagger your character holds two of them (same weapon) and attacks once with each of them.

That solution shouldn't break the game balance, should it?

I believe that may fall under the "no additional features" catch.

Yeah, sadly I think so, too.

That's certainly a peculiar and outstanding bug... that is able to add dual wielding animations. I think game studios should hire this bug to reduce high animation costs.
Or maybe we're all hallucinating and the character in the youtube video is not attacking with both arms.

I was about to reply with, "Dual-wielding doesn't seem like something that a lot of melee fighters would realistically use." In a game with orcs, talking animals, and magic-users. I should probably get some fresh air.

Only those who are exceptionally coordinated would use it.

Historically there are instances of melee fighters utilizing two weapons. Now, you're not going to see anyone running around with a pair of axes but, say, in renaissance Italy it was popular for some rather talented bravos to wield a rapier in their main hand and a smaller blade in their off hand.

While that's true, the off-hand blade was primarily used for parrying and/or trapping the opponent's weapon. It might be used to stab when the combatants were pressed together with their weapons locked (the most dangerous situation for both to be in), but at that point the person wasn't striking with their main weapon. This was also typically being done in situations where neither person was wearing much if any armor.

Actually using two weapons at the same time for offense just isn't terribly effective in practice, in large part because the blows that actually matter require that you put power behind them and you can do that about as quickly with one weapon as you can with two. (Trying to put power behind two weapons simultaneously results in neither having much force.)

A lot of weapons and combat styles that will be present in this game (and are present in other games) are not the best options for combat. This isn't a combat reality simulator though. As noted above, throughout history some people actually used two weapons to fight and that's more than enough.

To tell the truth, even pair of axes is nothing unreal.
Some small axes are good for dual wielding combat.
(http://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/image/battle-ready-sword/1904-viking-axe.JPG)

Two daggers, rapier and dagger, short sword and dagger, rarely two short swords or two light axes.
These all are real combination.

Any news regarding DW in D:OS?

Yes. IT'S NOT HAPPENING. Just like has been said already.

Maybe it's time to set up the petition...

David commented in another thread that dual wielding will not be coming for the game release... But there are always mods which probably will take care of it^^.

I suggested a theoretically easy, or relatively easier way to go about this.

Allow wielding two different daggers. And a combination of one Rondel + one dagger - for a sum of their original AP cost.

So two daggers attack will cost you either 6 or 4 APs (if you take the Mack the knife talent as it is now). And Rondel + a dagger would cost the sum of whatever they cost individually now.

With the distinction of Rondel+dagger combo having a small chance to block, similar to but smaller then shields have.

This should be tied to dexterity and rogue (or is it scoundrel now) specific skills. Should probably be available at a higher level only.

I think dual welding might be added in as a mod...

Ah, i see now why this would be more difficult then it seems.


The way the new system is set up, there is only two skills for weapons. The single hand weapon skill and the Two hand weapons.

The Scoundrel skill doesnt give any unique abilities either.
Just gives you 3 rogue skill slots, 5 rogue skill slots, 7 skill slots, yadda, yadda, yadda...

...

anyway, if they dont want to do it, someone could make a nice mod - maybe.

The biggest difficulty would be animations, not skills I think 0_o

The problem with dual-wielding is that it is a pretty ridiculous concept. WOW made dual-wielding a standard, anyone can do it, damage-fest, when in reality its nearly impossible to do.

I wouldn't mind seeing it implemented, but done with a degree of realism. In D&D tabletop rules (the ones from the 90's anyways), it was like -2 to hit with your main weapon, and -4 with your off-hand weapon (which, if you know how the system works, is a huge penalty). And the off-hand weapon had to be a dagger, or in some circumstances a short-sword. AND only rangers could do it.

I like to see consequences in my games. Not everyone should be running around with 2 weapons with no penalty. I like some give and take.

I know some people will say that a game with orcs and magic doesn't need to be realistic. Well if that's the case why don't we have time-travelling robots and My Little Pony unicorns? Because that would be stupid. A game can have a fantasy lore-set and still have a degree of verisimilitude.

youre all taking this dual wielding stufff WAYY too seriously. it blows my mind that its not in the game. so as a rogue, are you saying i should use a shield with my dagger??? thats ridiculous. ITS A FREAKING FANTASTY GAME. "dual wielding is sooo unnrealistic" get a grip!

No, a rogue shouldn't use a shield with a dagger. Shields require at least 6 Strength, and better ones require more.

Way too much commotion over here, anyhow I thought they were changing the name of the Rogue class iirc....probably because of some incessant crying going on somewhere.

I totally agree.

Feel free to disable dual wielding for all other weapons, but allow it for two daggers.

Dual wielding is a good idea, in my own opinion, but should be restricted to light weapons on off hand, with penalty, like in D&D (someone probably mentioned it, didn't read)

AFAIK, Dual wielding , is a realistic possibility(not really an advantage though, I must say). That said, what is the vision that Larian wants to portray? I personally am familiar with the concept, as an old AD&D nut, this was common place for my Rogues.

So the question is not the reality, funny because we are talking about a game, but whether or not Larian wants it in their release. Modding could be the best bastion for this subject I believe, and frankly that's fine with me.

Also unless the Rogue drastically changes, I believe that their skill-set is fine the way it is, and if used in a cheeky way is quite devastating.

Today's live chat with creators was great!
They call us "Dual wielding Mafia"

It is not inconceivable, that Sooner or later dual wielding will be added to the game.
(Words of authors)

So we must persevere!

They have to save some stuff for expansions and patches.

Just chiming in to say I'd love for dual wield to be added to the game.

I always prefer to play the rogue/assassin-type and it just feels wrong to not have two daggers.

Rogues have two daggers.

It's not clear and you're not able to equip 2 separate daggers to gain extra stats or whatnot, but with no shield you attack twice per action - and see two daggers hit.

But it would be nice if this was made clearer on the items and on damage shown on your character sheet.

Really? Do you only see the second dagger in combat then? Because I just started a new game with a rogue and shadowblade and none of them had two dagger that I could see.

When you strike a foe with a dagger and no shield equipped, you see a one-two combo each time you strike, plus the damage from each blow shows up.

What you don't get to see is a guy/girl carrying twin daggers.
I'd suggest you campaign to get all daggers changed to "pair of daggers" so it shows up as such, doesn't allow shields used, damage is listed as half but shows it hits twice per attack etc.

Because that'd be awesome!

True, that would be enough for me at least.

I'm not so much worried about balance or min/maxing, I just want my char to carry around a dagger in each hand.

What bothers me is that in order to wield a dagger and a shield, you have to devote Attribute points to both DEX and STR even though you can really only afford to have one high stat (as opposed to two medium ones) if you want the best high-level equipment.

They need a Trait which says "Shields require DEX to equip rather than STR." They can probably add in something about having only one swing per attack while a shield is equipped. But maybe not, if they want dagger to be awesome.

With all this talk about "the animation shows thrusts with both hands", I went and took a closer look, from multiple angles, including top-down. When you stab someone and it hits, this is what happens:

The left hand comes up and shoves the target, then the right hand comes across to the left side and stabs the target, then the right hand thrusts into the right side.

So at least one of the animations, when you look at it, actually does show the attacker only using the right hand dagger to stab. There might be a second animation, I'll have to check more carefully.

Dual Wield simulation. Double up on main hand attacks. Oh the game already does that.

But I do love your post, Pete Jennings recap:

1.youre all taking this dual wielding stufff WAYY too seriously

Ok, you are right we should all chill.

2. it blows my mind that its not in the game.

My Too Seriously detector is starting to make noises. How can this be? The person who proclaimed we shouldn't be too serious, is blowing their own mind now.

3. so as a rogue, are you saying i should use a shield with my dagger??? thats ridiculous

I... Must... Not... Take... This... To... SERIOUSLY!!! AHHH!


4. ITS A FREAKING FANTASTY GAME. Get a grip!

Red Alert! Red Alert! Serious stuff here. ALL CAPS MUST BE USED!


Now perhaps you are just having fun here, as I am. It is hard to read sarcasm, especially without sarcasm indicators. But I did enjoy your post of "not taking it too seriously" and then busting a nut.

Or they can change dagger to "daggers" and made them two-handed.
A simple and elegant solution.

Larian. THANK YOU.

For ages I've been looking for an RPG where you could viably use a weapon in one hand without needing a shield or another weapon in the other hand, this is so cool!

I personally think dual wielding has been done to death in games lately (I'm not against having the option though, it just annoys me when you HAVE to dual wield to be viable)

Who said that you do not need a shield?

Everybody using dagger and better or worse shield. It's stupid not use empty hand when game does not have any one-hand specialization or bonus. But daggers need dexterity and shields need strength. So specializing in daggers has a big disadvantage.

Therefore no, in this RPG you couldnt "viably" use a weapon in one hand without needing a shield or another weapon.

If you equip a shield you lose the 2nd attack, effectively giving you half the damage you have without a shield.

So technically we already have duel wield in the sense of 2 attacks, we just cant equip an actual 2nd weapon in the off hand.

I would like to see a dagger in each hand though but that is just a cosmetic tbh.

Two daggers would also give a fair amount of +stats which may imbalance the class.

That's completely wrong. I know because I specifically tested it on request. With a shield equipped, you do one attack. Without a shield equipped, you still do one attack, but the damage/absorption is displayed as being split into two attacks, but the total damage dealt and absorbed is the same, shield or not.

(And as I said five posts up, when I actually zoomed in to watch the attack, I saw that the left hand shoves, and the right hand was the one which attacked twice with the dagger.)

10000 Views !
Dual wielding Mafia is still popular

Actually in eastern cultures dual-wielding of weapons has been vastly utilized and has been used proficiently in 1 vs many situations. In my opinion it would be kinda easy to balance in the game, many ways to make it viable.

By the way has somebody made an inquiry about on hit chances? i mean, some weapons have say 15% chance to poison the target, if i don't use a shield with the dagger do those chances double?(if not i believe it wouldn't be too ugly to make it so it would give some sort of viability to not having a shield)

I'm still waiting for the gog release, so i can't check how the animations in the game are, but if there is a block Animation with a shield, my "lazy/easy" solution would be to make dual wielding or shield a cosmetic/roleplay choice.
just to create a parrying dagger skin for the shield and *ta da* the blocking gets to a deflecting with a parrying dagger

I think you may be referring to Eskrima, of which a few styles involve the use of two identical weapons (such as sticks or knives). This is still practiced today in the Philippines.

I would be really happy to see dual wielding for Rogue at least. I wonder if Devs aware of that some people really looking forward to seeing dual wielding dex chracters.BTW I'm a huge fun of Artemis Entreri. Are there any latest and final news about this situation, thank you and sorry for my bad English

All of these kids wanting dual wielding.


Look here, dual wielding both looks silly, is impractical even in a fantasy setting and does absolutely nothing to spice up combat apart from making you look like "le epic ninja xDDDD".
If there is something that deserves to be added is a monk type skill tree, which focuses on unarmed combat, at least that can be justified in fantasy, unlike gimping yourself by using two weapons.

^they had an unarmed specialist where you could spend your skill points before. I really like the idea of unarmed monk though .

Blame pulp culture for that one, Kriss.

Dual-wielding melee weapons is impractical, requiring a high level of skill to be effective and even then providing no practical advantage over 2H or 1H+shield, which is why it historically with few exceptions wasn't used in combat, but occurred mostly in martial arts and other settings where it worked as a demonstration of skill... but it is sufficiently exotic (due to not being used in practice for fighting) that it made its way into popular literature, and as it can be made to look awesome with good stage choreography, it was a natural fit for movies and television.

AD&D took that and ran with it, going to extremes such as people dual wielding long weapons (with taken to its logical conclusion resulted in the mounted drow cavalier dual-wielding lances back in the day, but I digress), with the interesting result that these days many fantasy gamers expect characters to be able to dual wield weapons and be efficient thereat, or even to be more dangerous than those who use a shield to defend themselves, which is patently ridiculous.

BUT... and there's a big but, and it is this: What is wrong with that?

It is a fantasy game, not a reality simulator. Genre conventions may be silly, but fantasy games are mainly about entertaining players, not educating them.

Having dual-wielding effective on the level of sword&board or 2H in a game is neither more nor less silly or justified than the complete silliness of having unarmed combat be a reasonable choice when fighting armed opposition.

This unarmed silliness often being combined with another awesome fantasy convention, namely that highly skilled people fighting without armour can be effective in small or large scale melee, because they are so great at dodging. (An approach not used in real life, where highly skilled people have at all times preferred armour if they could get it, just like everybody else, because it was their lives on the line).

The way the dagger combat animation works you SHOULD be able to dual wield daggers, but for some reason you can't.

Try it out, when you do a melee attack while using a dagger it stabs/swipes with alternating hands as if you hold a dagger in each.

That's the only reason I was expecting to be able to equip my rogue with a second dagger, so the animation would make sense.

Monks can be explained away with mysticism and which is why I ask for it, because it actually creates a variable of fighting that can make sense in the context of a fantasy world. Dual wielding conventional weapons does not, using one to hit twice is faster straight up, just like how the Scoundrel currently does with his dagger.
I have no problem with it being included in games, I am free to not use it, so whatever. I do have a problem with it being shoehorned into games at the behest of dual wielding fanboys.
Take Oblivion for example, it didn't have dual wielding and was better for it, there was a larger degree of verisimilitude when you don't see random people holding two weapons for no reason. Oblivion also had unarmed combat based on mysticism, where the special attacks were explained as channeling inner energy and whatever, stuff that falls under suspension of disbelief.
I'd be fine with dual wielding being handled like that, figure out a reason for it to exist and be viable, don't just shoehorn it in there because some people "want to look cool". That's almost as bad as including an "awesome button" in your game.

For sure DW is not unknown of in real combat history.
It was used in Japan it was used in Medieval Europe too. Truth is it was not a common practice and was more of an exception than a rule. But it was present.
It really requires a special training to be able to utilize this style, even special weapon combination and is not actually more effective in pure power or offense.
It could give the DW-er an advantage in a surprise attack. In a DW combination 1 of the weapons is actually used for defense and the other for offense.
It's extremely hard and extremely situational that both weapons could be used for a simultaneous attack, if ever.
Excluding the east martial styles, where it has seen some real usage, DW style has seen some occasional usage in Europe too, mainly in the form of a dagger and rapier.
Although historically it is not a common or largely known and used style it has existed.
I don't see a reason to not add it into a game, for sure the reason should not be because historically this style is only exotic and rarely even mentioned.
After all, these are games where you shoot fire and ice from your fingers, i doubt this is more often met historically than DW-ing.

That makes sense in the context, because magic exists in the universe, the swords and other weapons shown are fairly conventional.

What? That doesn't make much sense, sorry. You can't apply rules from 1 universe to magic and from another to weapons.
The fact that they look like weapons in another universe (real let's say) doesn't mean rules for them in their universe apply from another universe.
You think in our universe we have had swords/axes etc. that could make elemental damage - fire, water, tenebrium (?) ?
It's all fictional, including the weapons. Skeletons also look like real ones, but in DOS they walk and talk and so on.

yeah, exactly, and because dual wielding wasn't included in the game, we know that the weapons behave, generally, in the same way they do in our universe.
Not having dual wielding in Original Sin is the same as not having the option to equip shields on your feet.

No we don't know that. We don't know the real reasons behind the decision to not include DW. Unless there is an official confirmation that this is because they think DW is unrealistic, i would rather think it has much much more technical reasons than historical.
Also there is no connection between weapons doing similar job to what they do in real life and not having DW. Water water in game looks like water IRL, do we make magic with it?
Skeletons in the game look similar to IRL, do IRL skeletons talk and walk?
See, they of course base the game on our perception of our real world and shift it into a fictional setting, that does not mean that things that look like real life counterparts should be exactly the same as in real life.
On the contrary, many of them are not and for reason.
Unless developers on purpose say - we won't put DW cause we think it's not historically believable to use it in combat, but it is historically believable to have talking skeletons, fire magic and huge flaming weapons, i would rather think they have not put it because it complicates things technically to code, to balance to implement. Which is a perfectly understandable and logical reason.

Why do you spam the word "historically" as if it is any part of my argument. Dual Wielding is less effective, it's stupid, you gimp yourself when you do it. It has nothing to do with history, the only widespread historic use of dual wielding was rapier and parrying dagger versus, guess what, rapier and parrying dagger.
My argument for not adding it, is that, unless there is some IN-UNIVERSE explanation as to why it's functional, it would just be stupid to do it, less effective than a single weapon or weapon and shield.

You are answering yourself in this post by contradicting yourself.
You mention you don't base your assumptions on real life and history (and as a matter of fact DW was used in Japan and is a style developed by one of their greatest swordsmen in the mid ages), but then you assume that DW is less effective.
Why? On what do you base that in a fictional universe?
If in our real combat situations in the middle ages when wars were waged with swords mainly, it was less effective, what makes you think it should be the same in this DOS fictional world?
It could be just a different style that people would want to use for fun in this game. Why would it be gimping or less effective or whatever you want to call it.
It could be not more not less effective overall than other styles, just different way to play the game as a melee.

Because if it was effective it would have seen widespread use beyond it's entertainment purpose which was dueling, which is what it was used for, not combat, showmanship.


Because the only instance of dual wielding in Divinity Original Sin I could find, that is justifiable, if in the art book, where two goblins, in an armored suit are quad wielding. Which backs up my claim rather nicely, because we know goblins are stupid, I mean you'd have to be, to actually dual wield in a combat situation.


Haha, surely you mean spears, swords were always a backup weapon.

Because the humans that we're playing as have the exact same muscle and body structure and the weapons follow nearly the exact same proportions (slightly bigger, which just furthers my case) as their real world counterparts, which inspired them. Thus it would be silly for these exact same humans, to do something, which is factually inferior to something else, which is also easier. Again, if we're gonna have dual wielding, why not be able to wear shields on our faces?


Like I said, I have nothing against it being included in games, but I do have a lot against shoehorning in stupid things, after the fact, just to appease edgy teenagers. The breath of fresh air that is a game which doesn't include dual wielding is always a nice thing, plus it adds to the verisimilitude. I'd be fine with a parrying dagger or Rondel, used in a defensive way, because that works, it makes some sense as opposed to wielding two swords of the same size and weight and attacking with both. Yeah, that was done in history, by entertainers, duelists, not by soldiers during combat.

Well, like I said, a defensive use would be fine, in fact I'm pretty sure someone can go into the editor and just make a bunch of items based on shields, which use knife meshes and there you go.

If you wanted to look from historical aspect; I'm an archaeologist, what we've seen from cylinder seals, steles and cuneiform tablets of Sumerians, Akkads(essipacially Akkad Military Campaing Scenes), Assriyans ,Hittites... , dual wielding's as old as their periods( Mostly small axes, short swords,daggers and curved blades all made of bronze) so looks like it was ok back then if you hear any news please tell us from this page, thank you.

Call me when you get some evidence of widespread combat use, chief, like I already said, yeah it was done, to entertain.

So it's not a very good fantasy game
as a DualWield patch is needed (then I'll buy the game for sure)
(by the way, make a better craft too, it seems).

NeverwinterNights2 is good for its adapted D&D3.5 rpg system.

Yes... using a fishing rod as a 2handed weapon is so more conventional than dual wielding....

Get real, being able to carry hundreds of items in your bags, with the entirely possible hypothetical situation of a full plate armor or 2 handed sword occupying every bag slot - and still being able to fight, whether with a 1 hander, 2 hander or sword and board - is (using your words) both silly and impractical, and gimping yourself. But YES, we are in a fantasy setting, so this is viable, and there is nothing wrong with people wanting dual wielding as an OPTION.

Maximus in Gladiator, and Gannicus and Spartacus didn't look like "le epic ninja xDDDD" - they looked freaking awesome and the fighting looked realistic enough for us dual wielding lovers to want to ROLE PLAY games with the fighting style WE want..

... got it, kid? /facepalm right back at you.

Of course there wasn't a widespread use of dual wielding weapons and techniques amongst soldiers that's the point, beacuse it's required proper traning and equipment. Back then it was really hard to get resources(copper and tin ect) and best weapons forged for royal forces and special units. Standart infantrymen carried a spear and a shield to the battlefield it was cheap and more easy to use. We'r not talking about common styles of fighting and regular foot soldiers,rogues and asssains tactics are not the same with a soldier. You shouldn't be mad at me because of my intrest of assasin/rogue role, wich lived in the real world too in the old times of man... Thank you and sorry for my bad Eng. again

It wasn't used, because it was worse, do you not know how the human body works?
It's only applicable use is to use one of the weapons for defense, in which case a shield is flat out better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw

He thinks dual wielding looks good and not silly.
Thinks any sane person would dual wield during actual combat.
Thinks role-playing is defined by gear.
Wants the developers to shoehorn in something they they excluded, because he thinks it looks good.
Calls others children, when he's advocating for a feature that is aimed directly at children who want to "look cool" be added.

I'm done with this thread, I hope Larian don't add dual wielding because it's useless as a fighting style and only has entertainment value, and guess what, Source Hunters aren't street performers. Have a nice day.

You guys are arguing about realism in a setting with magic. *That* is childish.

Here's the reason why dual-wielding would be a horrible idea for Divinity Original Sin: Str/Dex hybrid viability. Or, to explain it in more detail...

First, let's look at D:OS without dual-wielding. Rogues, assuming they are properly designed/balanced, would not have anything to put in their off hand. As such, daggers would and should be balanced around the assumption that there is no off-hand, and thus be roughly as powerful as a two-hander. This makes the concept of a Str/Dex melee hybrid appealing, since it could essentially allow you to run a "two-hander" along with a shield, simultaneously; this, plus the Man-at-arms skills, is a fair tradeoff for the Con, Speed, etc. you'll be missing out on by pumping Str.

Now let's imagine D:OS with dual-wielding. Rogues would now be dual-wielding daggers, which means Rogues would have to be balanced around this. This would mean that a single dagger in the hand would no longer have approximate two-hander power. This, in turn, would mean that Str/Dex hybrids have less to offer players, because there's nothing special about actually getting to use that off hand slot anymore.

There is absolutely nothing in that argument which deals with realism (or lack thereof). This isn't about realism, it's about game design.

Yeah Kriss, go bullshiting in other threads.
" the Mouser is deadly at swordsmanship (often using a sword in one hand and a long dagger in the other)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fafhrd_and_the_Gray_Mouser

The only dual wielding available should be for two daggers, or a rondel+dagger combo.

Which would cost double APs to use, so each strike with dual daggers would cost 4 APs and some special attacks can be created that would cost more.


As ive repeatedly said and suggested several times already.


That would keep things a bit more "realistic" not for the purpose of realism in a fantasy game but for the purpose of not making things way too silly and cheap.

There are different styles of fantasy and ranges of fantasy in them, so one such single global rule cannot be applied for all and is therefore nonsensical.


For OS, dual daggers or rondel+dagger combo - at double of AP cost, - would be very fitting.
It would enhance roguish builds diversity a bit more and be cool as an option to consider.

The animation is practically already there, which is a very important step to consider when suggesting these kinds of changes and additions.

So they clearly plan to include it. Yay!

But... when?

Edit:
I don't think "double AP cost" is a good solution for two weapon fighting. AP represents time, i.e. how fast you do things. If you wield two weapons, you're supposed to attack more often. That's the beauty of dual wielding.

No dual wielding in a RPG, this is ridiculous.

Yep, we need dual wielding!

Any news on dual wielding?

Thankfully no.
Here, this might be more your taste
http://store.steampowered.com/app/72850/

You're pretty close. I'm going to be pedantic - Sinawali (identical sticks) is more like a substyle that most if not all schools employ.

Now, to make some definitions. One thing to note is that Eskrima was highly influenced by Spanish fencing at the time when they were in the Philippines - Medium length blades, short offhand daggers or small bucklers - mixed together to create a system easy to maneuver and fight in the jungle. Of course the main sword was quickly switched to a machete-like weapon to clear paths.

The mainhand rattan stick is 26-28" long. It represents a Barong knife, which can be 22" long. In comparison, a one-handed European sword would have a blade 26-30" long.

The off hand is basically a knife-lengthed stick. And it lol represents a knife. So, yeah, this is reminiscent of historical European fencing with a main-gauche.

Just as equally used is the off hand being free. By doing so, you can use your free hand to guide the enemy's blade-hand after you dodge/parry, keeping their blade away as you counter.

Of course, you would use the knife in the same way, of guiding (called passing) the enemy's hand. It's IMO a bit tougher to finely control the enemy, instead trading off for more offensive angles of attack.

Now finally getting to Sinawali - using two equal length rattan sticks of 26-28" long. Well. I'm not sure about other schools' philosophies, but my two teachers tell me Sinawali is stupid, lol. But every school is a different lineage and each have their own quirks. For example, I learn Cabales Serrada Escrima. Angel Cabales being the founder of the school, Serrada Escrima meaning "closing skirmish." We use 19-22" mainhand sticks and we play at "corto" or short range.



I digressed a lot but dual wielding can work (in a way that pleases both over-realistic-whiners and Drizzt-fanboys) if you either use a one-handed-sword with a dagger, or you use two equal length short swords.

Moreover, after writing all that, I realized using a single weapon with no shield has its own advantages - that being able to use the free hand to manipulate the opponents' blade-hand. This slows down their ability to parry you, and then slows down their ability to counter attack. Even without a shield you can be quite defensive.

So for a game like but isn't DOS, this gives the Dexterity warrior several options instead of having to pump Strength for a Shield. A Dex warrior/fighter/scoundrel could use: (1) defensive skew: short sword or possibly a rapier, off hand free; (2) offense/defense balance: short sword or possibly a rapier, off hand dagger. (3) offensive skew: two short swords (no, nobody dual wields rapier length swords), alternatively two short daggers if you want to be a badassassassin.

Unfortunately I don't see an easy way of implementing this in DOS but it looks possible as an eventuality (mod?) Would need (A) dex-based short swords, which shouldn't be too bad, (B) is a bit harder, recognizing that (Ba) an off-hand free adds a defensive bonus, (Bb) an off-hand dagger adds less defense but also its weapon damage, (Bc) an off-hand short sword adds only its weapon damage.







P.S. I keep wanting to say longsword but I hold myself back, because historically there is only one longsword, and it's the two-handed German Longsword which has a ~36" blade. In a way it's the European Katana but I'm being quite facetious here.

Two-weapon fighting styles evolved because people didn't have shields (civilians), or don't like carrying shields (they are cumbersome), or wanted to be flashy. That's pretty much it. A shield is better both for offensive and defensive purposes than an offhand weapon.

However, DOS has talking sheep, gods getting into fistfights, and a spell called "deathpunch". I think it's fair to say that DOS is not realistic, or low fantasy.

I'd appreciate some dual weilding mechanics.

And some 'unarmed fighting' mechanics too, for that matter. I want to make Punchy McFisto.

History would disagree with you.

Common or effective is another matter, but there are historical manuals showing 2 rapiers being used.

I must refrain from commenting on the sexual orientation of those two gents.

Besides, before introducing such bs, how about fixing the current weapon system? Like, what is the purpose of spears having Dex bonus? What is the purpose of a 2h sword as a melee weapon at lvl 20? The scythe does a ton more damage, more crit and same range?
And why are piercing damage more resisted by many end game fores than say slashing, which is already OP because of scythes? Bow damage sucks hard compared to 2h? WHy is that? I mean in other games, there is a trade off between safety and damage. But here, arhcer is riskier to play and does worse damage and has less utilities. Yes, you heard that right! Archer doesn't have the utility of killing everything will 1 whirlwind in one single turn, the most important utility in this game right now. Why plays anything but a 2hander at all, even then why use anything else but a scythe at all?

Sounds like you think this is basically the height of game design.

Why complicate a perfectly simple design where you win something? Who would possibly want to use a sub-optimal tactic due to esthetics or a sense of fun?

You need to get fairly lucky with vendors to find a scythe which trumps a hand-crafted ax at Blacksmithing 5. Especially after you sharpen it and toss other ingredients at it.

Still, swords are in a pretty sorry state. Scythes get competition from axes, swords compete with nothing. I mean, Sword of the Planets is alright as a mostly defensive item, which makes it nice to pair with a shield, but that's it for good swords.

But that's all a derail. The actual topic is dual wielding. I already stated what I think in an earlier post. And I still think it.

The advantage of swords over axes is the bonus stats, crits and range (hand-crafted). A scythe has the range, the stats, the crit and damage. There is no comparison. A spear can enter the equation since he has way better range and deals piercing damage. BUT everything that is remotely threatening has high piercing resistance.

BTW, the high damage, low crit axe at BS 5 cannot be sharpened. You can go and test it. And no hand made thing can give you 3 con 3 str 3 speed before even applying anything in it. Plus, a hand made weapon can only be elemental or tenebrium enhanced not both. This put a hand made weapon in an even worse position. The damage calculator in the stat window actually takes into account elemental damages. In terms of raw damage, you don't even need to be lucky to trump anything hand made.

Point is. If you want to play at your best, there isn't many real options due to balance issues. Adding dual-welding won't yield anymore option. At best, it's subpar. At worst, it's grossly OP and makes everything else pointless. The developers need to take balance seriously.

Again, why in the world spears can have dex bonus??

At best, it's perfectly balanced. Why would you assume that the best case scenario it will suck?

Indeed. In fact a lot of the off-hand dagger techniques are similar to using a buckler (or small shield), if not derived from those techniques. Going larger than a small shield probably has different techniques, though, more-so based on large unit formations (various shield wall formations).

Also, soldiers fought in much larger units than a fantasy adventuring party, and also adventuring puts you in a variety of environments (cities, jungles, dungeons) that a soldier wouldn't face on an open field, so cumbersomeness can be a factor. Your characters in such a game are more like a mongrel of soldiers and civilians and egocentric heroes that just want to look flashy. More like gladiators, I guess.

Anyways you're right, DOS is not a game that tries to be realistic.

Though, how easy to put in dual wielding is an issue, especially if we want it to be mechanically distinct instead of just ore damage with less accuracy). And if dual wielding and unarmed is put in, I'd again like advantages to using a weapon with a free hand.


But how many pages of such a manual would depict this? I'm willing to bet it's like 2 pages, with the rest of the manual describing more useful techniques

Because I am a realist.

Semi realistic Dual Weilding:
Gives a chance to parry melee attacks equal to Single-Handed * 5
Modify your offense by (Singe-Handed rank - 2)* 5
Penalty until rank 2, bonus after rank 2
On a critical strike, attack with your offhand as well as your main hand.

Semi realistic Shield:
Reduce your Agility by 1,2,3 etc (increases as shield gets larger)
Reduce your movement by x (increases as shield gets larger)
Increase your Offense by (Shield * 5)
Gives a chance to block equal to shield rating + (Shield * 5)

Totally unrealistic Unarmed:
Must not have any weapons equipped
Deal blunt damage equal to (Strength + Agility + Level + Bracer Armor rating) * 2 (plus or minus 15%, costs 2 AP)
Increase damage by 5% per rank of Unarmed

Playing the wrong game, buddy boy. And probably should never play a Larian game, lol, they thrive on being not realistic.

I completely agree balance is an issue in this game. However game balance is independent of realism. You can make dual wielding (or ANY mechanic/skill/ability/etc.) subpar, balanced, or OP. In fact if you focus on realism there's a good chance it's not going to help balance, because in real life weapons and equipment sure as hell aren't balanced (they're only appropriate in specific situations... or of course whether a guy can afford a fully metal weapon or a wooden pole with a metal point on the end).

Now if I am misunderstanding you, and that you are saying that they should balance existing mechanics before adding new mechanics, then I again agree.

That was what I meant.
I agree that perfect balance cannot be achieved in any game but at least put some effort into it. 'Weakers' weapons should have a niche use that the supposedly superior version cannot match. You can't have an item called 'stick of God' that deals 10k damage and makes yourself invulnerable, and everything else.

Case in point:
Bow: superior range to melee weapons (no shit Sherlock) and safer. What's the point if the 2 handers can ram into a group and use nullify then ww to finish the fight?
Mages: great cc and utility. Again, what's the point if the 2 handers can ram into a group and use nullify then ww to finish the fight?
Rouges: great single target damage. But then, what's the point if the 2 handers can ram into a group and use nullify then ww to finish the fight?
Sword and board: ???lol? uhm, tanky against physical damage. Leech says hello. To add insult to the wound, everyone can have 100% elemental Poisona AND tenebrium resist. (never took Weather the Storm I think it's utterly useless).

Fix those first then add more.

Man I am sorely disappointed every time I play an RPG that doesn't have a viable monk build. I get over it pretty quickly, but not before I have shed a few tears.

I feel your pain.
It seems incredibly rare that rpgs give you viable unarmed builds, and when they do they're often uninteresting.

All I want to do is become a kung fu master and punch dragons in the face. Is that so much to ask?

Without any clothes on. You forgot that part.

Well, with no armor on, yes.
Cloth pants, bracers, and nothing else.

Real men don't hide behind armor. They hide behind their fists of fury.

Cool. Yup I agree definitely.

As an aside, I almost wanted to say that talking about balance is pointless in this thread. BUT I realized your point in that it's a good thing for the devs to see that while people want dual wielding, it's also clear that (a portion of us) prioritize balance before we want to see any additions.

So TLDR good on you.


May I suggest starting a topic with these ideas, SOLELY about Balance issues/concerns/suggestions and not any other fixes? I don't think I see any such thread. You could compile suggestions from further replies or something. Or if that's an issue I could do the thread.

I also know a bunch of posters on another forum that have a keen eye for balance (if not to over the top), I will ask them specifically for a list of their balance concerns.

There are several "here's a bunch of design things that I think are bad" threads. Just click through the first 5 pages in General.

Are they solely about balance, or do they have a mix of interface, quests, RPS minigame, AI, etc. concerns?

Also is the opening post a clear list with a constantly updated compilation of suggestions from the rest of the replies?

Check the first 5 pages and see. Or just make a new thread without checking. I'm no moderator.

I did. We need a better organized one that is constantly updated. I may do one, depends how lazy I feel. :p But it seems balance is the number one issue right now, not to say there aren't other justified annoyances.

I agree, though since everybody has their own opinions on what's balanced and what shouldn't be changed and what should, and how it should be changed, it's probably going to be less of a clean list of problems and more of an endless discussion of 'what if this' and 'that doesn't need to be changed' and 'I don't see why you people want x'.

So basically, I support your effort, but I think you're going to be in for a long, messy job sorting through all the opinions.

Definitely, but eh, I feel bad for not testing and providing feedback during beta while I did have access. On the other hand I did note I may be too lazy to do it :p

Nooooo! I want to be naked!

The problem actually doesn't exist at all.
One handed weapons wouldn't have to be rebalanced.

It's quite simple. When wielding two weapons you are less accurate and/or deal less damage per hit, but you attack faster (each swing costs less AP).

This is not anything revolutionary or unheard of.

Yup, it's just not how using two weapons actually works if you're a humanoid.

You mean like two-handed weapons in real life tend to be very, very fast and defensively precise, despite the video game representation of them as slower and clumsier?

It doesn't matter either way. The game is not a depiction of real life. Verisimilitude, not simulation.

I do want to see dual-wielding daggers for rogues, though I can see the balance issues as well. Instead of rebalancing "ALL" the weapons and stats and how they and their bonuses work, couldn't they "Only" cut dagger damage in half across the board? If Dagger damage was halved then having a character with two daggers would be the same as having a character with one dagger now, at least I *think*. Of course I know there's finer balance points I'm missing as well, but I don't see why it couldn't be done, at the very least Just With Rogues and daggers as a specialty skill for being a rogue.

If that is accomplishable then *Maybe* the same could be done with Just "Short Swords" (not long swords) and cut short sword damage in half and allow other classes to dual-wield them but only them.

IIRC I think back in Baldur's Gate a thief *could* dual-wield short swords but not any other kind of sword, then again it's been a Long Time since I did a play-through of that.

Now, we all know the game mechanics from D:OS is "based on" old school D&D mechanics, as are many other RPG's and Action RPG's. Any game that uses the standard STR, DEX, INT, etc etc, to me is based on D&D even if they alter how things work like D:OS does. I honestly don't know why dual-wielding wasn't thought about and taken into consideration by the devs from the very start. It's literally a "Must Have" to me in games like this, but then again that's just my opinion which is stuck on being back-in-the-day with old school D&D mechanics.

Un-armed combat should have been thought of too I think, but when I compare dual-wielding to un-armed combat, un-armed has always taken a back seat as Monks tend to be a lesser used class in many games and a dual-wielding rogue has always been a standard in "D&D Based" RPGs.

Guys, this is not about "how it works in real life".




Like it's been already pointed out, there's no need to rebalance any weapons (specifically for dual-wielding purposes). Simply, when you wield two weapons, you get a penalty to accuracy for intance, but you attack faster.


Anyway, is it possible we'll see two weapon fighting in the big September patch?

GREAT IDEA!!!

Most of this is your opinion. In the end, this is a game. If dual wielding is something people like, why do you care so much? There are a lot of unrealistic things in the game. It's a fantasy game, not a medieval simulator.

any comment from the developers? Will Dual wielding be added?

I think that's a really good idea and it would bring more strategic depth

No dual-wielding in the new patch/DLC.

Disappoint.

I was updating my source difficulty mod and saw that there were two brand new Abilities right beside the Bow, Crossbow, TwoHanded, SingleHanded, and Shield abilities.

The two new abilities are called Wand and Dual Wielding.

?? What?
where is Wand and Dual Wielding?

What do i have to do to learn Wand and Dual Wielding?

They are not implemented yet, just mentioned in the game files.

ahh... ok
So, it looks like another new Patch or DLC in October or November?

Marvelous, can't wait!

Of 2015.

Nonono.. it cannot be. Pls, Larian.

any news? Will it be added in 2014?

i would love DUAL WIELDING

I m fresh in this game and I too regret the absence of dual wielding.

Already for one thing , I have nothing to put on my second hand when playing a backstabbing char. SO one slot is just out. Ive even considered putting a stupid outdated shield with few str erequirement but that doesn't satisfy me. I already have the look n feel of a soldier when playing my 'paladin' char and I would like my rogue to look like 'le ninja of death' as stated by the very rude and obv not very smart kriss in previous posts.

Same can be said about unarmed.So yeah more fighting style is good for game diversity , makes you want to start the game over and over trying different chars. Better longevity better product with not so much effort.

Lots of ppl went with their idea of 'how that might work' , I'm not much for the -hit or -ap, instead I would suggest to get an increase in str/dex requierement. One had to be very precise to fight with two light weapons or incredibly strong to fight with two 'heavier' one. So you could dual wield with weapons that have lower requierement. So you would need 8 or 10 dex to dual wield with two req-6-dex weapons.

two handed weapons is the way to go, make it like diablo [url=http://www.iwantcheats.com/cheats-hacks-aimbot/] 3 [/url]

Great news.

Hopefully it will be available for only some combinations of weapons, instead of just everything, which would make it better and more balanced.

And hopefully it will be available soon (in 2014) together with a new difficultly level

As for the when, so far they have released a big update once every month:
15 Jul
21 Aug
15 Sep
So let's hope for one in the next one or two weeks!

I really don't get it. Why is everyone so hyped about dualwielding? It basically is already in the game. Using dagger+shield you only attack once. Using dagger and nothing else let's you attack two times. The only thing they could change would be to make a second dagger in offhand do the exact same - attack two times. But we already get that from having just one dagger.

Though you could change that one dagger attacks twice and make it attack one time only with a bit higher damage and make 2 daggers do the double attack. (though that would make daggers a must have 2 thing which sucks when you are unlucky and can only find 1 good dagger. Dual-wielding would nerf scoundrels)

Gamers have been indoctrinated that it looks dumb when someone has an empty hand. It just feels like one is "wasting a slot."

They're probably going to keep it as a double attack with one dagger or one attack with each dagger. They'll have to balance it so the stat boost doesn't make dual wielding the obvious choice, probably by increasing your miss chance or giving you a slight damage penalty.

Dual wielding doesn't necessarily have to be about daggers either. Someone could want to dual wield two axes. That's going to be even harder to balance, however. Probably each strike would do 40-45% the damage of normal, so you'd deal 80-90% of normal damage, but you have a higher chance to apply statuses and you get more stats. Larian might just stick with daggers, though, since those already have a double attack anyway.

Haha I actually completely forgot about the statboosts as I play with my mod which completely disables any skill or ability boosts from armor and weapons. And things like critmultiplier already only apply to the weapon you attack with. Tried that by modding a shield to have x2 crit damage and it didn't do anything when attacking with my sword.

Maybe just add offhanddaggers which don't have alot of statboosts and increase dodge chance. Like in reality. (parry dagger, noone would use a normal dagger in the offhand in combat)

I would like to see dual wielding included. I was mildly disappointed when it wasn't in D:OS.

Any news on this?

No, other than it will still take some time.

There is no hype or "indoctrination" - it would be nice if you people were capable of discussing anything without strawman and ad hominem fallacies but i guess thats too much to hope for.
There is no need for sudden dev defense squad mentality either. There is nothing to defend and you people are basically just using that mindless non thinking kneejerk reaction to excuse shit posting.


Your ideas about dual wielding are especially stupid, but thats the thing here. Those are your own stupid ideas that you criticize. And it would be sarcastically funny if it wasnt so mind numbing.


I have no idea how Larian will implement it or if they will, but as far as my suggestions about it go it would be, or should be a skill or a talent available only to rogue builds.
A second dagger in the second hand would not attack twice... if you have two in hands each would attack once - but for double AP cost. Its a rather simple logic.

I suggested another combination with a rondel, which would have some defensive effects - again -for double of the AP cost of both weapons, of course.

This kind of setup would not be just about dumb damage, but would allow players to combine different daggers or rondels that have different effects and elemental damages. And choose between offensive or defensive setups - instead of none, as it is now.

Therefore greatly increasing the diversity of rogue builds in a very simple, effective and inherently balanced way.

And rogue builds do need their special thing anyway.

Which other types of builds and skills do not, since they have plenty of their own "things".
So no dual wielding for other types of weapons and builds is needed, not to mention how ridiculous and non plausible it would look, even in a high fantasy game like this.




....


Maybe, maybe such a talent for a few select types of weapons such as smaller axes and maces could be added to pure fighter builds after they reach some very high levels in Men at arms and increase Strength to very high levels... like ... above 15 Strength or something.

Which would enable such capability in roughly second half of the game.


This would also allow some enemies to use it, like high level Orcs and such, which would seem naturally plausible in the setting as it is.

In history, dual wielding is a bit of a rarity, Miyamoto Musashi taught a school of it, and the Florentine style of fencing was also a dual wielding technique that gained some prominence for a limited period of time, before falling out of fashion when firearms got a lot more reliable, easy to use, and became affordable and so more common still. Native Americans supposedly used Tomahawks and knives simultaneously. I am probably either forgetting some or unaware of others, so feel free to point me in the direction of other interesting examples.

Some Escrima techniques are also a dual wield.

Otherwise a shield was far more common (before firearms) and probably a better choice.

In fantasy there is a ton of dual wielding just pick your genre.

I could really care less if it is included my rogue prefers a bow and my fighter likes a Zweihander, so I doubt I will be making use of it even if it is included.

Still- always nice to have options, and in Baldurs Gate 2 and Icewind Dale's I occasionally had a character that dual wielded, a fighter/thief using a Scimatar and a shortsword, which for hi dexterity decent strength and no shield ability was OK.

I want a mutation talent that lets my character have four arms, so I can quadruple wield.

Great. I need it too. But my forth arm is going to use shield.

http://lpix.org/1862430/U01-27.jpg

I think if I had that I would just use 4 shields...Yeah Big Roman style Scutums...LOL