<wielded> (Glowing) a dragon dagger
<dual wield> (Glowing) a mace of frost

wear axe
You stop using a dragon dagger.
The spider axe doesn't complement your secondary weapon.

rem mace
You stop using a mace of frost.

wear 3.dagger
You wield a dragon dagger.
A dragon dagger feels like a part of you!

wear axe
You stop using a dragon dagger.
You wield the spider axe.
The spider axe feels like a part of you!

You stop using the spider axe.

You wield a dragon dagger.
A dragon dagger feels like a part of you!

You dual wield a mace of frost.
You feel quite confident with a mace of frost.

A mace of frost is a mace, made of energy, and weighs 11 pounds 15 ounces.

The spider axe is an axe, made of adamantite, and weighs 11 pounds 14 ounces.

A dragon dagger is a dagger, made of dragonbone, and weighs 1 pounds 15 ounces.

*So basically, I can dual wield a heavier weapon (mace) but not dual wield a lighter weapon (spider axe). Seems like a bug*

>*So basically, I can dual wield a heavier weapon (mace) but
>not dual wield a lighter weapon (spider axe). Seems like a
>bug*

Dual wield rules aren't just weight vs. weight. They also depend on what weapon type would be in each hand. A dagger primary will, generally, require a more heavyish secondary, but different weights would be acceptable depending on the type of that secondary.

As much as I love nepenthesque comments, this seems like a situation where hard numbers would be useful and neccessary. Do we expect people to test out all possible combinations, or wouldn't it be better to just provide some sort of dual wield table?

Dual wield is jacked up enough that understanding is not based on intuitiveness, so can we just cut the crap and redo it or just give us the information we need to use it effectively as it is?

>As much as I love nepenthesque comments,

You're welcome!

>this seems like a
>situation where hard numbers would be useful and neccessary.

People have been using dual wield for 11 years without it. That'd make a strong counterargument for necessary.

>Do we expect people to test out all possible combinations, or
>wouldn't it be better to just provide some sort of dual wield
>table?
>
>Dual wield is jacked up enough that understanding is not based
>on intuitiveness, so can we just cut the crap and redo it or
>just give us the information we need to use it effectively as
>it is?

I'm not interested in posting and trying to explain a massive table, no. I also don't consider current dual wield to be broken, so I won't be spending my time redoing it.