What do you think about this?

Assuming the off-hand is an actual offhand like a main gauche, sure.

>le dual wielding meme
>he can't use fork and knife at the same time

Only if you don't know what you're doing. You really don't think a big shield blocks your weapon more than another weapon in your off hand?

>and your opponent can level one of your weapons into the other to parry both.
If your opponent is skilled enough to do this to you, then you've already lost, and you wouldn't change that by wielding a different weapon.

Wait, "to parry both"... are you guys thinking that dual-wielding involves doubling your attacks like in D&D? Because that's rarely the case. Generally, you're not trying to attack with both weapons at once, you're using your off-hand weapon either to defend yourself or to open up a line of attack for your main hand... feint with your left, strike with your right, for example, or move your opponent's guard aside with your off-hand to open up a line for your primary strike. You're almost never going to be making one "real" attack with each weapon, where you expect both attacks to actually have a chance to score a blow.

I think it's a weak topic to start a thread, and low defense on a two-hander is only just shy of retarded.

The only reason to use two weapons is if you're limited to knives.

or if shields are unavailable. The primary use of an offhand weapon in styles that use them is to parry. So they're useful in a civilian context in which a shield would be very impractical to carry around all the time, a sword/knife or longsword/shortsword combo would be less intrusive.

But this won't come up much in D&D because everybody sleeps in fullplate, so you might as well make 'em duel wield battle axes since nothing else makes sense anyway.

>one-handing doesn't exist in any game except in much later splatbooks as a very niche extremely late after-afterthought
YOU'RE WELL ON YOUR WAY TO BEING A WORLD CLASS GAME DESIGNER user

NOW ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS PRETEND CROSSBOWS ARE LOW DAMAGE VERSIONS OF BOWS

>Two Weapons has never been a good idea.
Not two conventional swords, but a sword and arming sword or dagger has been a popular weapon for single combat as it allows for more options in countering an opponent than simply deflecting their blade and can be used offensively.

I would take a look at some historical fighting manuscripts, like Fiore, or George Silver's "The Paradox of Defense" for how to view combat with differing weapon types.

As for myself personally, I would say sword and shield (or buckler) is high defense, medium damage, and two handed swords are high damage, medium defence. One handed weapon with an off-hand weapon is medium for both. Though really when you actually fight it comes down to a fundamental theory of zoning, footwork and knowledge of blade mechanics. At least from what little personal experience I have practicing historical fighting styles, two handers almost always have the advantage over a one hander, but an offhand parrying tool makes a world of difference. There is a reason longer weapons displaced shorter weapons during the late middle ages, and it wasn't for lack of defense.

In short, just look at the historical applications of weapons in both single and group combat, then make what mechanical changes make logical sense based on the evidence both personal accounts, manuscripts and even modern instructors would advise and find a way to implement that sense of fighting mechanically if you really wanted balance.

My favorite way, for games that are not too rules-heavy:
>Two handed weapon=bigger damages
>One handed weapon(s)=better defence
The reasoning behind this is that you're more free to move when your hand are not both holding the same object, but for a trained fighter having one or two knives won't change much.
Shields give a defense bonus but require separate training.

>as it allows for more options in countering an opponent than simply deflecting their blade and can be used offensively.
Ugh... this is just as bad as the people who think dual-wielding is "no defense". A shield is, at the very least, a big chunk of wood with a thin edge, working just like the flanges on a mace to concentrate all of its momentum into a small striking area. Anybody who thinks a shield's only use was for deflecting blows has no idea how combat works. Shields can be used to strike, feint, push, and do all sort of things other than blocking. If you've ever been hit in the face with the edge of a shield, you know full well that it can be used offensively, and to great effect.

Look, if you want to talk about in-game mechanics and balance, that's one thing. If you want to do the "high defense, low offense or low defense, high offense" trade-off as a game mechanic, that's fine. But if you're gonna try to bring "how it would really work" into the discussion, please at least do some basic research on the subject.

>The reasoning behind this is that you're more free to move when your hand are not both holding the same object,
This would restrict your reach a bit (having two hands on an object), but an object in two hands is actually easier to use to defend. Because you've got two points of contact, you can actually change the orientation of your weapon much more quickly than if you only had one hand on it, making it easier to interpose it between you and an opponent's weapon. So as long as the weapon you're using is long enough to cover your entire body (most things you're holding in two hands will be), that's the better option.

A shield is still better for defense, but a weapon held in both hands is better for defense than one held in one hand without anything in the off-hand (which is a situation you should do your damndest to never be in in the first place, but that's beside the point).

A shield can't catch a blade, you can't stab someone with a shield, you can't just open your hand and let the shield fall to the ground. There is a reason various arming swords were used, in single combat they offer more versatility, they are lighter, more useful for countering an opponent, and easier to use for an actual killing blow than a shield. Sure getting hit with a shield hurts, and can even kill, but since a shield is strapped to your arm it has less reach and is still heavier than a simple dagger.

>A shield can't catch a blade
Depends on the shield (some unrimmed shields actually could get blades stuck in them when the blades struck the edges, depending on the angle and force used), but yes, for the most part shields aren't used to catch blades. There is one thing that some weapons have over shields, but that is far from the implication that all a shield can do is deflect a blade, which is what I was responding to.

>you can't stab someone with a shield
No, but you can bash them hard as fuck with it. Which, again, is not at all insignificant. Bludgeoning weapons are a thing for a reason.

>you can't just open your hand and let the shield fall to the ground.
Yes, actually, you can, unless you're using a shield with straps, which most didn't have until cavalry became the norm, and even then anyone on foot would still have a center-grip shield. Even a heater shield (the "strapped" shield that so many people think of as the default shield) could be made with a hook instead of a strap so it could be easily picked up and dropped.

Again, if you want to talk about this stuff from a real-world perspective, please do some basic research. This information does not take long to find.

>Shield&Shield: high damage, high defense

Sword & Buckler vs Rapier & Dagger -- youtu.be/aI-zSSoiWvk

Start 7:10 in. Of course, a full-size shield is going to be a bit of a different story. Carrying a main gauche is going to be much less of a deal. It doesn't take up much room, doesn't draw much attention, and is quickly and easily brought to hand. But strictly in terms of combat effectiveness between ready opponents, I think it's difficult not to see the sword and shield combination as strictly superior under most circumstances.