I hope they dont change thier minds as wielding two longswords is silly and duel wielding them with any skill in combat would mean doing so without taking disadvantage. At least in comparison of game mechanics and real world combat.
In real history, there were duelists that wielded dual swords, like the legendary Miyamoto Musashi. It took great skill (like gaining experience and feats), but it worked. I mean, there's quite a lot of evidence about dual wielding fighting styles.
However, in real history, humans never had to fight creatures twice their size and eight times their mass in melee (if they hoped to survive) - which happens all the time in DnD. So your point about realism is quite unfounded.
I hope they dont change thier minds as wielding two longswords is silly and duel wielding them with any skill in combat would mean doing so without taking disadvantage. At least in comparison of game mechanics and real world combat.
In real history, there were duelists that wielded dual swords, like the legendary Miyamoto Musashi. It took great skill (like gaining experience and feats), but it worked. I mean, there's quite a lot of evidence about dual wielding fighting styles.
However, in real history, humans never had to fight creatures twice their size and eight times their mass in melee (if they hoped to survive) - which happens all the time in DnD. So your point about realism is quite unfounded.
Then you should be aware that Musashi didnt duel; with two katanas like the anime he didnt use two large swords either, even katana which is much more doable tw in real life is paired with the wakizashi which is way better, a smaller sword is preferable for dueling, like virtually everyone dueling with two weapons used a smaller 'light' blade in the second, that real history. You point is unfounded. The new TW attack rules are an improvement in that respect.
Then you should be aware that Musashi didnt duel; with two katanas like the anime he didnt use two large swords either, even katana which is much more doable tw in real life is paired with the wakizashi which is way better, a smaller sword is preferable for dueling, like virtually everyone dueling with two weapons used a smaller 'light' blade in the second, that real history. You point is unfounded. The new TW attack rules are an improvement in that respect.
You literally respond to a post with a medieval manuscript depicting duelists with two swords...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_wield - here, there's another batch of examples. Yes, a light off-hand was more popular and practical. Yet dual wielding normal weapons was a thing that human beings could actually do. You know what human beings can't do? Kill an elephant in 1vs1 melee. Which is easily doable in DnD, elephant is just CR4. Still rooting for hard realism?
Musashi didn't duel? What? There's like a million stories of him dueling others. Or did you mean dual, as in dual wielding? The Book of Five Rings advocates for using two weapons, and recommends warriors train using two swords.
Another fun fact - humans find it easier to dual wield with two implements of the same length. Shorter weapons have other contexts in which they're used - parrying dagger is used primarily by fencers to help protect their torso like a mini-shield, and as a backup weapon if you get too close to use your main weapon, not as an actual way to make more attacks. And that's specific to a certain style of one on one dueling. But, say, tonfa? They're paired in equal length because their main purpose is to hit. There's plenty of depictations of using twin scimitars or sabers in fights in real life.
Musashi didn't duel? What? There's like a million stories of him dueling others. Or did you mean dual, as in dual wielding? The Book of Five Rings advocates for using two weapons, and recommends warriors train using two swords.
Specifically, the Book of Water describes Musashi's style of kenjutsu and places emphasis on using the daisho (katana and tanto or wakizashi) for fighting multiple opponents.
This is a strategy echoed in several Renaissance fencing manuals. Most paired a rapier with a cape, dagger, or small shield. A second, full-sized sword was a rarity.
Im not saying you cant fight with two non Light weapons, just that it shouldnt be like the old rules as the new ones make sense with thier treatment of Light property. Its advantageous if they are shorter and lighter or at least the second is. In a formal duel weapons are either chosen or set to be equal and fair, so the thin swords in the illustration are dueling weapons for spectacle and shouldnt be misconstrued as martial optimization. Two Tonfas for example are both short and light paired weapons and could be used seamlessly with two weapon fighting as the 1DD rules support while two Longswords could be wielded with practice but will never be optimal, an opponent using one shorter weapon would have a clear advantage over the slower Longswords getting in each others way. Fighting with two long swords is clumsy and limits range of movement.
Im not saying you cant fight with two non Light weapons, just that it shouldnt be like the old rules as the new ones make sense with thier treatment of Light property. Its advantageous if they are shorter and lighter or at least the second is. In a formal duel weapons are either chosen or set to be equal and fair, so the thin swords in the illustration are dueling weapons for spectacle and shouldnt be misconstrued as martial optimization. Two Tonfas for example are both short and light paired weapons and could be used seamlessly with two weapon fighting as the 1DD rules support while two Longswords could be wielded with practice but will never be optimal, an opponent using one shorter weapon would have a clear advantage over the slower Longswords getting in each others way. Fighting with two long swords is clumsy and limits range of movement.
And fighting with a sword against a polearm is a sure way to get yourself killed in a real duel. So? How about fighting against a quickling, a tiny vicious fairy that can walk 120ft in 6 seconds? Or a duel with an ogre armed with a club that's the size of you? Which weapon is better against mage armor spell, or a lizardman's scales? It's a fantasy game. It's reasonable to advocate for verisimilitude, but fighting for realism will get you nowhere.
Im not saying you cant fight with two non Light weapons, just that it shouldnt be like the old rules as the new ones make sense with thier treatment of Light property. Its advantageous if they are shorter and lighter or at least the second is. In a formal duel weapons are either chosen or set to be equal and fair, so the thin swords in the illustration are dueling weapons for spectacle and shouldnt be misconstrued as martial optimization. Two Tonfas for example are both short and light paired weapons and could be used seamlessly with two weapon fighting as the 1DD rules support while two Longswords could be wielded with practice but will never be optimal, an opponent using one shorter weapon would have a clear advantage over the slower Longswords getting in each others way. Fighting with two long swords is clumsy and limits range of movement.
And fighting with a sword against a polearm is a sure way to get yourself killed in a real duel. So? How about fighting against a quickling, a tiny vicious fairy that can walk 120ft in 6 seconds? Or a duel with an ogre armed with a club that's the size of you? Which weapon is better against mage armor spell, or a lizardman's scales? It's a fantasy game. It's reasonable to advocate for verisimilitude, but fighting for realism will get you nowhere.
If you want to fight with two weapons, you can. It's called Extra Attack. There's no handedness in 5th edition, so if you want one attack to be with a battleaxe and another to be made with a warhammer, you absolutely can.
The issue people are getting hung up on is the Dual Wielder feat. And I suggest letting it go.
Personally I do think fighting with two long weapons is a little weird but then so is two short weapons, as most people are not ambidextrous. But realism isn't really important here, what is, is that that the feat is just under-powered. Most DMs are going to let people enter combat with two weapons and the only time it's going to matter with weapon switching is switching to a bow or back, again something most DMs will probably just allow anyway, considering the classes hit by it are going to be primarily Rogue and Ranger...
I think all the feat needs is the return of the +1AC while dual wielding, sure if somebody has an odd dex score then they could get +2AC in a single level, but that isn't really a major issue. 2 long weapons doesn't really make sense, even if somebody were ambidextrous, why use two weapons that do the same thing? The combination of short and long swords just gives more variety in combat, realistically speaking. Then the whole switching main and offhand at same time could just be moved to something all characters can do without a specific feat, since as far as I see it, most DMs will just play it that way anyways.
Ok it’s fantasy so real world realities some times get broken for the sake of fantasy. I would like to see it get back the +1 AC. The second weapon acts much like a buckler protecting the wielder so this makes sense. Do I allow dual LS or Rapiers with the right feats? Yes, I’ve worked with dual katanas and longer bladed swords so I know it is possible. HOWEVER, the longer the blades the more they get in each other’s way and the more likely you are to cut yourself by accident. Shorter blades limit or eliminate this problem as well as allowing for quicker responses. Yes, the tip of a long blade moves faster than the tip of a shorter blade for the same hand speed, but the lighter and more maneuverable shorter blade allows the hand to move faster and inside of the arc of the other hand+weapon. Don’t believe me? Go buy a couple of the toy foam swords and try dual wielding them. Then cut off a third of the blade (from the tip) and try again.
If you want to fight with two weapons, you can. It's called Extra Attack. There's no handedness in 5th edition, so if you want one attack to be with a battleaxe and another to be made with a warhammer, you absolutely can.
The issue people are getting hung up on is the Dual Wielder feat. And I suggest letting it go.
OMG, really? There's a thing called Extra Attack? Is this some kind of optional rule? Tell me more about it, how does it work?
Well, yeah, [attack with battleaxe, sheathe it], [unsheathe warhammer, attack with it]. What does it have to do with dual wielding? This requires just one hand. While the other can't operate another non-light weapon after the right hand makes two swings because sentient species originated from crabs in DnD)
Nah, I won't let it go because I'm just that obnoxious and annoying. The game's in playtest phase, and if memory serves me right, you were the one saying that WotC read the surveys, so letting go of obvious oversights in design would be counterproductive.
If you want to fight with two weapons, you can. It's called Extra Attack. There's no handedness in 5th edition, so if you want one attack to be with a battleaxe and another to be made with a warhammer, you absolutely can.
The issue people are getting hung up on is the Dual Wielder feat. And I suggest letting it go.
OMG, really? There's a thing called Extra Attack? Is this some kind of optional rule? Tell me more about it, how does it work?
Well, yeah, [attack with battleaxe, sheathe it], [unsheathe warhammer, attack with it]. What does it have to do with dual wielding? This requires just one hand. While the other can't operate another non-light weapon after the right hand makes two swings because sentient species originated from crabs in DnD)
Nah, I won't let it go because I'm just that obnoxious and annoying. The game's in playtest phase, and if memory serves me right, you were the one saying that WotC read the surveys, so letting go of obvious oversights in design would be counterproductive.
The time for feedback on the Dual Wielder feat has long since past. Ranting about the Attack rules in the next playtest survey isn't going to address that. By all means, continue being obnoxious and annoying. I'm sure it'll get you a warning before too much longer.
If you want to fight with two weapons, you can. It's called Extra Attack. There's no handedness in 5th edition, so if you want one attack to be with a battleaxe and another to be made with a warhammer, you absolutely can.
The issue people are getting hung up on is the Dual Wielder feat. And I suggest letting it go.
OMG, really? There's a thing called Extra Attack? Is this some kind of optional rule? Tell me more about it, how does it work?
Well, yeah, [attack with battleaxe, sheathe it], [unsheathe warhammer, attack with it]. What does it have to do with dual wielding? This requires just one hand. While the other can't operate another non-light weapon after the right hand makes two swings because sentient species originated from crabs in DnD)
Nah, I won't let it go because I'm just that obnoxious and annoying. The game's in playtest phase, and if memory serves me right, you were the one saying that WotC read the surveys, so letting go of obvious oversights in design would be counterproductive.
The time for feedback on the Dual Wielder feat has long since past. Ranting about the Attack rules in the next playtest survey isn't going to address that. By all means, continue being obnoxious and annoying. I'm sure it'll get you a warning before too much longer.
WotC would be pretty poor developers if they ended development with feats with just that one phase. Any developer worth their salt would revisit feats like Dual Wielder in the future, especially when the Warrior classes go into play testing.
Furthermore, extra attack is not a suitable mechanic by itself for dual wielding non-light weapons. Aside from the fact that extra attack is only possible in Tier 2 and forward, there is no mechanical reason to attack with one non-light weapon for one attack and then swing with another weapon for the second attack. You literally are just giving up free AC by not using a shield. At the very bare minimum there needs to be some mechanical advantage to dual wielding, even if it ultimately outweighed by its disadvantages.
If you want to fight with two weapons, you can. It's called Extra Attack. There's no handedness in 5th edition, so if you want one attack to be with a battleaxe and another to be made with a warhammer, you absolutely can.
The issue people are getting hung up on is the Dual Wielder feat. And I suggest letting it go.
OMG, really? There's a thing called Extra Attack? Is this some kind of optional rule? Tell me more about it, how does it work?
Well, yeah, [attack with battleaxe, sheathe it], [unsheathe warhammer, attack with it]. What does it have to do with dual wielding? This requires just one hand. While the other can't operate another non-light weapon after the right hand makes two swings because sentient species originated from crabs in DnD)
Nah, I won't let it go because I'm just that obnoxious and annoying. The game's in playtest phase, and if memory serves me right, you were the one saying that WotC read the surveys, so letting go of obvious oversights in design would be counterproductive.
The time for feedback on the Dual Wielder feat has long since past. Ranting about the Attack rules in the next playtest survey isn't going to address that. By all means, continue being obnoxious and annoying. I'm sure it'll get you a warning before too much longer.
WotC would be pretty poor developers if they ended development with feats with just that one phase. Any developer worth their salt would revisit feats like Dual Wielder in the future, especially when the Warrior classes go into play testing.
Furthermore, extra attack is not a suitable mechanic by itself for dual wielding non-light weapons. Aside from the fact that extra attack is only possible in Tier 2 and forward, there is no mechanical reason to attack with one non-light weapon for one attack and then swing with another weapon for the second attack. You literally are just giving up free AC by not using a shield. At the very bare minimum there needs to be some mechanical advantage to dual wielding, even if it ultimately outweighed by its disadvantages.
And if they decide to revisit the feat, that would be an appropriate time to discuss any mechanical changes. Presently, it's meaningless.
And I don't honestly care if you think Extra Attack isn't suitable. Is it honestly a big deal that the current iteration of the feat doesn't allow for two non-light weapons? I don't think so. Not with how the action economy has been improved. It's a net improvement.
If during the Warrior playtest they introduce more weapon traits or differentiation between weapons other than "this is a 1d6 slashing weapon and this is a 1d6 slashing weapon with a different name" it'll be worth being able to pair a main hand 1d8 weapon with an offhand 'special trait' light weapon.
But even then, that doesn't address the problem that Dual Wielder is an underwhelming feat. The net benefit of +1 avg damage would most often be outweighed by a pure ASI or other feat.
As mentioned, returning the +1 AC or ability to wield two non-Light weapons would be enough to make it mechanically competitive again.
It's funny when some ppl use the "no realistic" thing, sure they love playing super unrealistic weird characters, maybe a warrior with that feat about an extra large weapon in one hand, or stuff even more "suuuuuuper realistiiiiiiiiic" like... a mage :P
Dual wielding warrior is the worst of the warriors. WoTC fixes it or I will keep fixing it in my games... but I thought they were better with that stuff, we will see.
Not hard realism. I just prefer a realistic based fighting in my fantasy game. Dual Welder could use some benefit. Ability Score Improvement and Enhanced Dual Wielding are good mechanics. Quickdraw maybe is where it should be better or a different ability all together. Its seems reasonable with two hands free anyone can draw dual weapons with proficiency so quickdraw doesnt really give much at all.
If you want to fight with two weapons, you can. It's called Extra Attack. There's no handedness in 5th edition, so if you want one attack to be with a battleaxe and another to be made with a warhammer, you absolutely can.
The issue people are getting hung up on is the Dual Wielder feat. And I suggest letting it go.
OMG, really? There's a thing called Extra Attack? Is this some kind of optional rule? Tell me more about it, how does it work?
Well, yeah, [attack with battleaxe, sheathe it], [unsheathe warhammer, attack with it]. What does it have to do with dual wielding? This requires just one hand. While the other can't operate another non-light weapon after the right hand makes two swings because sentient species originated from crabs in DnD)
Nah, I won't let it go because I'm just that obnoxious and annoying. The game's in playtest phase, and if memory serves me right, you were the one saying that WotC read the surveys, so letting go of obvious oversights in design would be counterproductive.
The time for feedback on the Dual Wielder feat has long since past. Ranting about the Attack rules in the next playtest survey isn't going to address that. By all means, continue being obnoxious and annoying. I'm sure it'll get you a warning before too much longer.
WotC would be pretty poor developers if they ended development with feats with just that one phase. Any developer worth their salt would revisit feats like Dual Wielder in the future, especially when the Warrior classes go into play testing.
Furthermore, extra attack is not a suitable mechanic by itself for dual wielding non-light weapons. Aside from the fact that extra attack is only possible in Tier 2 and forward, there is no mechanical reason to attack with one non-light weapon for one attack and then swing with another weapon for the second attack. You literally are just giving up free AC by not using a shield. At the very bare minimum there needs to be some mechanical advantage to dual wielding, even if it ultimately outweighed by its disadvantages.
And if they decide to revisit the feat, that would be an appropriate time to discuss any mechanical changes. Presently, it's meaningless.
And I don't honestly care if you think Extra Attack isn't suitable. Is it honestly a big deal that the current iteration of the feat doesn't allow for two non-light weapons? I don't think so. Not with how the action economy has been improved. It's a net improvement.
However, that does not make discussion on the subject meaningless in any way. It isn't like they shut out any thought if it either. You never know when they may want to take another pass over feats because it should be going through multiple rounds of playtest, idealy more than twice.
Also, it does not matter if you don't care and it very much is a big deal that the current itteration does not allow for two non light weapons. Dual wielding is a very standard fantasy trope. Hell, in Lord of the Rings we see Gandalf dual wielding glamdring with his staff. It should have the bare minimum of viability which means to have some sort of mechanical reason to even attempt it.
Then you should be aware that Musashi didnt duel; with two katanas like the anime he didnt use two large swords either, even katana which is much more doable tw in real life is paired with the wakizashi which is way better, a smaller sword is preferable for dueling, like virtually everyone dueling with two weapons used a smaller 'light' blade in the second, that real history. You point is unfounded. The new TW attack rules are an improvement in that respect.
You literally respond to a post with a medieval manuscript depicting duelists with two swords...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_wield - here, there's another batch of examples. Yes, a light off-hand was more popular and practical. Yet dual wielding normal weapons was a thing that human beings could actually do. You know what human beings can't do? Kill an elephant in 1vs1 melee. Which is easily doable in DnD, elephant is just CR4. Still rooting for hard realism?
Do be careful with using Wikipedia, and wikis in general, for your information. Sourcing isn't always consistent or scrutinized.
Musashi didn't duel? What? There's like a million stories of him dueling others. Or did you mean dual, as in dual wielding? The Book of Five Rings advocates for using two weapons, and recommends warriors train using two swords.
Another fun fact - humans find it easier to dual wield with two implements of the same length. Shorter weapons have other contexts in which they're used - parrying dagger is used primarily by fencers to help protect their torso like a mini-shield, and as a backup weapon if you get too close to use your main weapon, not as an actual way to make more attacks. And that's specific to a certain style of one on one dueling. But, say, tonfa? They're paired in equal length because their main purpose is to hit. There's plenty of depictations of using twin scimitars or sabers in fights in real life.
Specifically, the Book of Water describes Musashi's style of kenjutsu and places emphasis on using the daisho (katana and tanto or wakizashi) for fighting multiple opponents.
This is a strategy echoed in several Renaissance fencing manuals. Most paired a rapier with a cape, dagger, or small shield. A second, full-sized sword was a rarity.
Im not saying you cant fight with two non Light weapons, just that it shouldnt be like the old rules as the new ones make sense with thier treatment of Light property. Its advantageous if they are shorter and lighter or at least the second is. In a formal duel weapons are either chosen or set to be equal and fair, so the thin swords in the illustration are dueling weapons for spectacle and shouldnt be misconstrued as martial optimization. Two Tonfas for example are both short and light paired weapons and could be used seamlessly with two weapon fighting as the 1DD rules support while two Longswords could be wielded with practice but will never be optimal, an opponent using one shorter weapon would have a clear advantage over the slower Longswords getting in each others way. Fighting with two long swords is clumsy and limits range of movement.
And fighting with a sword against a polearm is a sure way to get yourself killed in a real duel. So? How about fighting against a quickling, a tiny vicious fairy that can walk 120ft in 6 seconds? Or a duel with an ogre armed with a club that's the size of you? Which weapon is better against mage armor spell, or a lizardman's scales? It's a fantasy game. It's reasonable to advocate for verisimilitude, but fighting for realism will get you nowhere.
If you want to fight with two weapons, you can. It's called Extra Attack. There's no handedness in 5th edition, so if you want one attack to be with a battleaxe and another to be made with a warhammer, you absolutely can.
The issue people are getting hung up on is the Dual Wielder feat. And I suggest letting it go.
Personally I do think fighting with two long weapons is a little weird but then so is two short weapons, as most people are not ambidextrous. But realism isn't really important here, what is, is that that the feat is just under-powered. Most DMs are going to let people enter combat with two weapons and the only time it's going to matter with weapon switching is switching to a bow or back, again something most DMs will probably just allow anyway, considering the classes hit by it are going to be primarily Rogue and Ranger...
I think all the feat needs is the return of the +1AC while dual wielding, sure if somebody has an odd dex score then they could get +2AC in a single level, but that isn't really a major issue. 2 long weapons doesn't really make sense, even if somebody were ambidextrous, why use two weapons that do the same thing? The combination of short and long swords just gives more variety in combat, realistically speaking. Then the whole switching main and offhand at same time could just be moved to something all characters can do without a specific feat, since as far as I see it, most DMs will just play it that way anyways.
It allowed for +1 AC and +1 to either Strength or Dexterity, I think it would be fine.
Ok it’s fantasy so real world realities some times get broken for the sake of fantasy. I would like to see it get back the +1 AC. The second weapon acts much like a buckler protecting the wielder so this makes sense. Do I allow dual LS or Rapiers with the right feats? Yes, I’ve worked with dual katanas and longer bladed swords so I know it is possible. HOWEVER, the longer the blades the more they get in each other’s way and the more likely you are to cut yourself by accident. Shorter blades limit or eliminate this problem as well as allowing for quicker responses. Yes, the tip of a long blade moves faster than the tip of a shorter blade for the same hand speed, but the lighter and more maneuverable shorter blade allows the hand to move faster and inside of the arc of the other hand+weapon. Don’t believe me? Go buy a couple of the toy foam swords and try dual wielding them. Then cut off a third of the blade (from the tip) and try again.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
OMG, really? There's a thing called Extra Attack? Is this some kind of optional rule? Tell me more about it, how does it work?
Well, yeah, [attack with battleaxe, sheathe it], [unsheathe warhammer, attack with it]. What does it have to do with dual wielding? This requires just one hand. While the other can't operate another non-light weapon after the right hand makes two swings because sentient species originated from crabs in DnD)
Nah, I won't let it go because I'm just that obnoxious and annoying. The game's in playtest phase, and if memory serves me right, you were the one saying that WotC read the surveys, so letting go of obvious oversights in design would be counterproductive.
The time for feedback on the Dual Wielder feat has long since past. Ranting about the Attack rules in the next playtest survey isn't going to address that. By all means, continue being obnoxious and annoying. I'm sure it'll get you a warning before too much longer.
WotC would be pretty poor developers if they ended development with feats with just that one phase. Any developer worth their salt would revisit feats like Dual Wielder in the future, especially when the Warrior classes go into play testing.
Furthermore, extra attack is not a suitable mechanic by itself for dual wielding non-light weapons. Aside from the fact that extra attack is only possible in Tier 2 and forward, there is no mechanical reason to attack with one non-light weapon for one attack and then swing with another weapon for the second attack. You literally are just giving up free AC by not using a shield. At the very bare minimum there needs to be some mechanical advantage to dual wielding, even if it ultimately outweighed by its disadvantages.
And if they decide to revisit the feat, that would be an appropriate time to discuss any mechanical changes. Presently, it's meaningless.
And I don't honestly care if you think Extra Attack isn't suitable. Is it honestly a big deal that the current iteration of the feat doesn't allow for two non-light weapons? I don't think so. Not with how the action economy has been improved. It's a net improvement.
If during the Warrior playtest they introduce more weapon traits or differentiation between weapons other than "this is a 1d6 slashing weapon and this is a 1d6 slashing weapon with a different name" it'll be worth being able to pair a main hand 1d8 weapon with an offhand 'special trait' light weapon.
But even then, that doesn't address the problem that Dual Wielder is an underwhelming feat. The net benefit of +1 avg damage would most often be outweighed by a pure ASI or other feat.
As mentioned, returning the +1 AC or ability to wield two non-Light weapons would be enough to make it mechanically competitive again.
It's funny when some ppl use the "no realistic" thing, sure they love playing super unrealistic weird characters, maybe a warrior with that feat about an extra large weapon in one hand, or stuff even more "suuuuuuper realistiiiiiiiiic" like... a mage :P
Dual wielding warrior is the worst of the warriors. WoTC fixes it or I will keep fixing it in my games... but I thought they were better with that stuff, we will see.
Not hard realism. I just prefer a realistic based fighting in my fantasy game. Dual Welder could use some benefit. Ability Score Improvement and Enhanced Dual Wielding are good mechanics. Quickdraw maybe is where it should be better or a different ability all together. Its seems reasonable with two hands free anyone can draw dual weapons with proficiency so quickdraw doesnt really give much at all.
However, that does not make discussion on the subject meaningless in any way. It isn't like they shut out any thought if it either. You never know when they may want to take another pass over feats because it should be going through multiple rounds of playtest, idealy more than twice.
Also, it does not matter if you don't care and it very much is a big deal that the current itteration does not allow for two non light weapons. Dual wielding is a very standard fantasy trope. Hell, in Lord of the Rings we see Gandalf dual wielding glamdring with his staff. It should have the bare minimum of viability which means to have some sort of mechanical reason to even attempt it.
And "viability" to you means two non-light weapons instead of just one?