I know this could be a bit on the D&D side of roleplaying, but one of my players wants to use two weapons, so this is my house rule for that:

- Main weapon (the one used with the "good" arm) can be any normal one-handed weapon, excluding weapons which can also be used with two hands (i.e. long swords) .
- Secondary weapon must be smaller (i.e. a short sword or dagger).

Additionally, if the character is exceptionally strong (Basic Body score of 7 or greater), he can use any weapon that can be used with one hand as the main weapon (including long swords).

For each close combat action spent, the character gets two attacks:
- One with the main weapon with a difficulty one level higher than usual (that's a 2 points increment for the TN).
- One with the secondary weapon with a difficulty two levels higher than usual (that's a 4 points increment for the TN).

New Distinctive Feature: Ambidextrous
It's available to any character and the effect regarding two weapons combat is that attacks with the main weapon have no penalty and attacks with the secondary weapon have one penalty level (TN +2). Also, main and secondary weapons can be of the same size.

What do you think?

I don't think it too D&D at all. Correct me if I am wrong but does Legolas not use 2 elven long knives in the books from time to time?

I like your rules. Easy, and I don't see them breaking anything rules wise.

Nice work!

One of my players (my son, actually) asked about this last night when we were building characters.

I'm a bit hesitant to do it, but not because it's "too D&D" or anything. My concern is that attack actions (per the TOR rules) are more than a single swing of your weapon. There's a few parts where it tells you that clearly, though I do agree that there's other parts that almost suggest that each attack roll is a single attack.

But game balance-wise, it does make sense to at least allow a bit more damage and make it a bit tougher to hit (as you've done). There ought to be some benefit to choosing to use two weapons (at the expense of a shield, for example).

Overall I like your idea. Would love to hear what the designers think on this one.

One other thing to consider would be to allow two weapons of equal size, if they're both small (like Legolas' long knives).

"My concern is that attack actions (per the TOR rules) are more than a single swing of your weapon.

Perhaps, given the above you could say that the secondary weapon has to be smaller then the primary, and that the player would get either a bonus to the damage done on a given attack roll, or he could get a small bonus to his parry in a round from the second weapon. That might fit a bit better with the RAW.

Legolas uses a single knife in the books. It was the films that added the second.

Same topic was discussed recently here:
Fighting with two weapons

Some house rules were proposed: maybe you can find something useful.

It would actually make more sense to me that you should get a single attack action that is easier to land a blow with. The point of fighting with a second weapon is not that you can reasonably land both blows, but that the second attack is easier to hit with, because the opponent hasn't yet recovered balance from deflecting the first. I would say that in exchange for giving up the greater damage of a two-handed weapon or the added protection of a shield, a second weapon makes you somehow more likely to hit the enemy. This does raise the question as to which weapon gets to deal damage in the event that you do hit. I would say that it would depend on how well you rolled.

Let's say that having an off-hand weapon lowers the TN of hitting the enemy by 2. If you hit that TN, but not the normal TN, you land a hit with the off-hand weapon. If you hit the normal TN, you hit with the main weapon. Perhaps if you hit a TN of 2 or 4 higher, you hit with both weapons.

Indeed, good observation!

Chamomile now that I think about it, I guess you're right. It should increase the chance to hit, instead of giving an extra attack.

Corvo thanks for pointing me out this topic, I had missed it.

So, here it is a new version (changes in red):

- Main weapon (the one used with the "good" arm) can be any normal one-handed weapon, excluding weapons which can also be used with two hands (i.e. long swords). In game terms, Encumbrace value of the main weapon must be 2 or lesser.
- Secondary weapon must be a small one (i.e. a short sword or dagger). In game terms, Encumbrace value of the secondary weapon must be 1 or lesser.

--> So now two short swords is a legal combination.

Additionally, if the character is exceptionally strong (Basic Body score of 7 or greater), Encumbrance for both weapons is up by one point (3 for the main, 2 for the secondary)

For each close combat action spent:
- The character makes one attack, with a bonus equal to the Encumbrance of his secondary weapon plus 1 (i.e. a 0 Encumbrance dagger will grant a +1 bonus).

- If the character achieves an extraordinary success or better, he has hit with both weapons.

-->I think the size of the secondary weapon should affect the advantage of the two weapons warriors when hitting. I know this rule is a bit odd, but lowering the TN one whole level (Encumbrance 0 daggers should give some advantge) plus another one per Encumbrance point of the secondary weapon seems too much (specially for long swords).

New Distinctive Feature: Ambidextrous
It's available to any character and the effect regarding two weapons combat is that the attack bonus is the Encumbrance of the secondary weapon plus 3 (instead of 1).
Also, main and secondary weapons can be of the same size.

I liked the option of using the Virtue subsystem to allow two-weapon fighting. This was, I believe originally proposed/drafted by Doc Nova but is included in my collection of house rules:

DUAL WIELDING
Forgoing a shield drastically lowers defense, but it does free the hand for other tasks, like pulling another knife. In untrained hands, such abandon oft proves fatal, but for the adroit or talented, it can be a vicious combination.

You wield two, one-handed weapons with lethal grace and potent skill. This is limited to club, dagger, hand-axe, mace, morning star, short sword, and sword. The encumbrance value of both weapons must be calculated for determination of Fatigue (paired daggers have an Encumbrance of 1). One weapon must be designated the primary; the other is the secondary. The bonus of dual wielding depends on current Stance:

Forward: Reduce Edge of the primary weapon by one.

Open: Increase Injury TN of the primary weapon by two.

Defensive: Add a parry value equal to the Encumbrance of your secondary weapon (not paired total, just a single weapon, so daggers have +0 while swords add +2 parry).

Otherwise, in all cases, only a single attack roll is ever made and no more than a single target can be attacked per turn.

Great point, Chamomile!

Each person has brought excellent points to this topic. I like the idea of keeping things simple and fast-moving, thus making modifications to a single attack.

I've been pondering on two-weapon fighting for a while and like Rich, came to the conclusion that a modification to attack roll was better for the system than an additional roll.

For those with experience in fencing/sparing, wielding two weapons in combat doesn't so much grant more attacks as more parries and more opportunities for a telling blow. In a system like D&D, more opportunities = more rolls, but such isn't the case in TOR. Instead, TOR translates more/better opportunity by combat advantage dice, straight bonus to parry rating or reduced attack TN, roll feat die twice and choose best result etc.

On the other hand, TOR has Savage Assault (monster ability) and now Shield Fighting (Lakemen cultural virtue) that grant an extra attack in specific conditions. This could be used to model two-weapon fighting as well.

In my games, I go with second weapon (which must weight at least 1 point of encumbrance) grants a -1 edge on a sword or axe. This for me reflects the principle that two weapons increase the chance of a telling blow.

I think that -1 edge is about in line with a +2 damage and +2 injury rating, which are the improved stats of hand-and-half weapons wielded two-handed (such as longswords and long-hafted axes).

That gives us three options: shields add to parry, two-handed adds to damage and injury and two weapons adds to edge.

I could see cultural virtues adding to that benefit.

Glorfindel

For clarity, should this say "[...] 7 or greater), the maximum Encumbrance for for each weapon the character can use is up by [...]?

I found the initial read through the quoted sentence to be confusing. You're introducing a new game mechanic (Encumbrance as a per weapon max weight mechanism) to TOR. While it's not a big deal it caused me to read that line three times to comprehend. Thus my suggested re-wording.

No comment on the rest of the suggested mechanism as I'm just not up to much thought ATM.


Well, except for preferring "Dual Wielding" or a similar name to "Ambidextrous". You're talking about a combat-only related ability so the name should be limited to such a term. Ambidextrous, IMO, should be universal. Allowing anyone with the ability to fight, pick a lock, paint a masterpiece with either hand, or what have you. Maybe not at equal ability levels between main- and off- hand, but with hugely better results than a non-Ambidextrous person could manage the task. Since your suggested ability doesn't allow that kind of universal application, it's name should be more limited / specific.

Few bits from my experience:

- two weapon fighting is very advanced technique and unless you know exactly that you are doing it can get you killed very fast
- it is more difficult to defend for some reason - two-handed weapon gives you range (thus safety), shield helps a lot, but having to distribute focus on two weapons is quite hard
- it is easier to hit, obviously
- the damage inflicted should be the same

I am all for having this as a virtue, and being very careful about the balance.

If any of my players ask me for this, I will allow them to take it as a non cultural Virtue that is similar to Swordmaster, in that the Encumbrance of their off hand weapon becomes a bonus to Endurance damage dealt while in the Forward stance. Simple.

What if they aren't fighting in the forward stance?

Then no bonus, just like there is no bonus for Swordmaster if they are in any stance other than Defensive. I'm trying to match the balance of existing Virtues.

My initial thoughts were along those lines as well. But then my players asked me this:

Cultural virtues don't take into account that heroes may already be fighting with a two-handed weapon (or hand-and-half weapon) or with a shield.

Wouldn't that (making TWF a virtue like Swormaster or Shadow Bane) be the equivalent of forcing player who wish to fight with a shield to spend a cultural virtue on being able to do so, and then only in defensive stance? Or having to spend a virtue to fight with a two-handed weapon, and then only in forward stance?

I disagree, particularly with Swordmaster. Anyone who is fighting with a sword is concerned about defense, as determined by their Stance. A Swordmaster is just that much better at it, particularly in the Defensive Stance. With Two Weapon Fighting, you can certainly wield two weapons at all times, but only with the Virtue, and only in the Forward (read aggresive) stance do you gain benefit from it. Otherwise your use of two weapons is simply a narrative device. Anything else seems to gamey for me, though ymmv.

You could have pointed that technically, using a shield with a sword, axe, spear, etc is two weapon fighting.

Minorly off topic, but why do players think that fighting with two axes or two swords is more advantageous?

This isn't exactly unarmoured dueling in the late 16th century (rapier + dagger).

* If your opponent has a shield, you are at a disadvantage.

* If you are fighting more than one opponent, you are at a disadvantage (as opposed to fighting with a shield and sword, shield and spear, etc).

From a norse, saxon, norman worldview, going shieldless was a sign of martial prowess. You were either foolhardy/stupid, a true fighting machine (Boromir for a ToR example), or you had suicidal tendencies. Fighting with two weapons was the exception, not the norm and of the few accounts available, some are a bit... embellished. (use a polearm in one hand and stave/staff in the other, for example).

No, I'm not saying no one fought with two weapons. No, I'm not saying nobody fought with two hand axes or two clubs or two daggers. I'm just pointing out that if these fighting styles were so great, then everyone would have been doing it and commenting on it (as they did in urban/civilian fighting/duelling in the late 16th.)

I have to disagree, unless " two weapons increase the chance of a telling blow" means that if you use two weapons your opponent's chances of a telling blow increases.

Just in terms of a 'slashing/hacking' opponent , using two weapons makes both your hands vulnerable to debilitating injury.




IMO, ToR isn't the 'time and place' for techniques based on thin blades and all that.

I would seek a more neutral solution that allows players to use two weapons listed in Rich's write up, but does not increase damage and maybe provides a slight defense increase (+1 Parry).

If a character gains a reputation fighting with two weapons, then let it be due to the character excelling at combat, not because some Virtue grants him technical training with two weapons.

What I mean is that with Swordmaster, nothing prevents you from wearing a shield in addition to your sword and gaining a shield bonus to your parry in addition to the advantage of Swordmaster. Similarly, you can use swordmaster with a longsword held two-handed for an additional +2 damage and +2 injury (from the sword stats). Same goes with Shadowbane.

So the player's point was; why should fighting with two weapons be different in that regard, why shouldn't twf be another option alongside shield and two-handed?

Like poster Evening, we can choose to decide that ToR is not the "time nor place" for two-weapon fighting. This then becomes a thematic decision, but mechanically speaking, a bonus to weapon's stat(s), without investment of Virtues/Reward is no different from shield fighting (which is the equivalent of 1-3 rewards, depending on size of shield) or fighting with a weapon held two-handed (the equivalent of 2 or 4 rewards, depending if 2-handed weapon or hand-and-half weapon). In both instance, the balancing factor is encumbrance, which obviously needs to be factored-in for two-weapon fighting to be "balanced".

Whether we feel that two weapon fighting requires specialized training and should transit trough a Cultural Virtue for a more significant effect (like the Lakemen Shield Fighting virtue) is another avenue.

But wouldn't this also be the case with weapons wielded two-handed?

I'll let Valarian weigh in on that.

What I meant by 'time and place' was, ToR is hack and slash, being-run-through-with-spear, saxon warfare -- not combat based on the two weapon fighting style found in romeo and juliet and bastardised in too many action movies. IMO, of course.

I'm not against two weapon fighting. I just don't think there is a need to add another game mechanic for doing so. If a player wants to fight with two handaxes and take on the additional Encumbrance, then have at it. He/she just won't be getting any special '+2 Damage' and so forth. He can go all out Johnny Depp and Legolas, just without any bonuses.

If he does well at it, then possibly he will be respected/feared because he carries an axe in each hand..., but not because of a weapon rule.

I actually respect and can get behind thematic decisions such as "no two-weapon mojo in my Tolkien, because it doesn't go with the feel of Middle Earth as I see it (or want to portray it)".

Between "how it was in 10th century Northern Europe" and "how I want it to be in my fantasy RPG", there's room for interpretation, and interpretation means what is there and what isn't. I don't like guns in my D&D, I can see someone feeling the same about TWF in ToR.

I'm more liberal about this particular issue and am a bit of a rulewonk nut; so I like system theory-crafting and rule-design like this.

All in all, I'm more and more leaning toward creating Cultural Virtues about TWF, giving slightly different advantage base on culture (Elves of Mirkwood might use it very defensively with long-knives, while Beornings use it very aggressive with paired axes). It was my initial thought and Caul reminded me of it.

Still, I'm looking for a vanilla use for the time a player will say something like "I'm taking my fallen companion's short sword and use it instead of my smashed shield"...

Point taken.


Also I'd like to add is that, in regards to modern training with historical weapons (no, not LARP or SCA), the one common factor amongst persons who are very adept at two weapon fighting (arming swords, gladius, saber, axes, etc etc) is they are semi- or fully ambidextrous. Not sure how you could work that into a Virtue or Trait, though.

In the Just Sayin department...

I could be wrong as the Middle Ages are just too recent for my historical interests. However, I recall something about a UK culture going into battle without their pants in order to prove to their enemies their manhood was not shriveled up in fear. So the idea isn't as outlandish as it might sound. (Assuming I've remembered correctly...)


Also, prior discussion (Q2 2012 or earlier topic) by the real world combat enthusiasts had determined that both Tolkien and TOR favored weaponry within the 700 (I'm kind of guessing) through 1550 (which I recall specifically) period for use in Middle-earth.

Edit: I goofed, see the strike-through. /sigh

Glorfindel: from my limited experience (basic to advanced training in latish swordfighting with sword, shield, rapier, twohanded sword, bastard and some experience with japanese swordfighting) I see good use of two weapons as an extraordinary thing. For most people it would be more beneficial to forfeit one weapon, or to use is as defence only. For some reason most schools that did include two-weapons fighting (tenshin shoden katori shinto ryu) did it in advanced phases of training, where other weapons were deemed to be suitable even for beginners. This is for me reason good enough to include TWF only as a special thing.

It is certainly true that is more difficult to defend oneself without a shield, but that doesn't mean that there were no people specialized in other forms of combat. I know late times better, so I can argue only with twohanded sword (that are BTW per se anachronistic to Middle-earth that, which seems to be focused on say 8-11th century) used as a counter weapon against pikes, and any form of reach weapons that trade shield for extra striking distance (which can defend you better in some cases). Such weapons were used even in ancient times. Two handed axes too, I think.

Your arms are safer with long twohanded wepons, as they are supposed to be far enough from the place where harm happens

Garn: I'd guess that year 1550 is far too late based on description of armor in books - no plate armours nor plate parts of armors (plates on legs and arms were used earlier). Even Aragorn's coronovation armor was a chain one, same goes for elves, Tuor...

I'm not sure you can bring Japenese swordfighting/combat into it because they didn't even use shields. So going with a two handed weapon or fighting with two weapons were natural options for them.

As to coming up with rules for dual wielding I'd be tempted to go with the idea that Rich H posted (can't remember whose idea it was originally).

As pointed out in another thread, Oderic from "Tales from Wilderlands" is depicted as fighting with sword and axe, using the "Savage Assault" rule.

I have an orc or two who fight in the same way in my extra adversaries add on. (and I thought of it before I got Tales from Wilderland).

Maybe another way of doing it is a virtue - and treating it the same as savage assault but replace hate with hope expenditure. Seems fair - Nice extra option but costs resources (hope) to use, should keep it balanced.

I've given this some thought for a while. I'd like to run my thoughts by some of you for comment because I'm about to start as a lore master for a large (young - mostly college aged) group of players and I suspect this may come up.

Whatever the solution, a LM should be sure not to make 2 weapon fighting better than the other existing weapon forms.

In the movie version of the fellowship of the rings, (I can't remember if this happens the same way in the book) Aragorn does fight with the ring wraiths using a burning torch as a weapon along with his sword. In this case it was purely a situational thing, he needed light, and thought the fire would be useful to scare them away... and it worked.... but he had the sword too! It made perfect sense for that scene.

So to sum up what I've read and how I feel: It makes sense that an extra weapon should benefit a fighter more than fighting with only a 1 handed weapon. However we know that it is not a commonly used weapon form in middle earth. Also the middle ages have few examples of this. Therefore the game rules themselves used should not push players towards the use two weapons as a main stay.

That is if players choose to wield 2 weapons it should be a choice in artistic expression and not because they think they will be more effective in battle based on a rule set the Lore master pushed on them. Still I feel a LM should give players some benefit to balance the extra encumbrance if not the use of the hand.

One point to remember though is that a character using a medium shield gets +2 parry, but he also takes 3 fatigue. a great shield grants +3 parry but costs 5 fatigue! A side dagger has no encumbrance, a short sword 1, and most weapons one would really consider as a side arm no more than 2 fatigue... any benefits should take this into account.

In the game I was playing a few months ago, one player asked the lore master if her character could use two short swords instead of a short sword with a buckler, and get a benefit for it. She was supposed to be playing a foreigner out of Dorwinion (the short swords were actually supposed to be scimitars but they used short sword stats) and though the LM was using the Barding culture for lack of a better starting culture, he decided to allow her in this to make her character's attack a little different from Bardings.

The game master did not require it to be a virtue or mastery. He allowed her some small bonuses, and it didn't clearly unbalance the game, at least not with her character, she wasn't really pushing to be a bad ass warrior.... but the execution was clumsy. I won't go into it because it was complicated and I have a lot of criticisms of it.

I think any weapon that can be used in one hand could suffice for either hand.

There are 2 benefits:

First: The player may decide which weapon to attack with on any given round. For example a character armed with a short spear and an axe may chose to attack unarmored foes with the spear but chose the axe to attack a well armored foe. Of course a limitation to this is it require more experience points to be skilled in multiple weapons.

Second: Grant a small bonus on every attack roll due to the difficulty of the target to block angles of attack from both weapons. The bonus is +1 if the secondary weapon has an encumbrance of 1 or more.

So a character who uses 2 short swords can attack with a short sword with +1 to attack, and spends 2 encumbrance, 1 for each short sword. A character who uses a short sword and a buckler has the same fatigue, 1 for the short sword and one for the buckler, but gain +1 parry bonus. This seems equal for a very lightly armed hero. Similarly if an axe or sword or spear was used as the primary weapon with a short sword as a backup with would be the same fatigue as a buckler and give an equivalent bonus. It may not be comparable to a warrior with a great shield in toe to toe combat however the great shield costs more encumbrance! Using a dagger under these rules in the other hand... gives no fatigue cost, and therefore grants no explicit benefit, except having a dagger at the ready if the character wants something to cut with or to throw etc....


So what about a player who wants special skill in using 2 weapons at once? Can it be a virtue? A mastery available to any culture not just those coming from off the map?

Here it gets a little trickier but I'd say yes.

Allow it as a mastery (by which I mean it's available to all cultures through raising wisdom), but not at the beginning of game play. The requirement is one of the following:

1 The character has used two weapons in one or more battle scenes over the course of the last adventure phase. Also during the fellowship phase the character finds an experienced teacher who will show him or her how to do it better.

OR

2 The character has used it in more than half the combat encounters (at least 3) over one or more adventuring phase(s) and becomes a self taught expert during the next fellowship phase through reflection, and practice.


<edit: I made a post further on where I replaced these following mechanics with completely different mechanics. They are not to be used together, I think being able to re-roll the feat die for a hand to hand attack breaks patterns the game designers created, i came up with an alternate inspired by reading the additional house rules which was put together by Rich H>

Benefits:

When the character attacks with two weapons, the player may trade his attack bonus to be able to roll the feat die twice, once for each weapon, and may chose the better of the two results. If the character has another virtue, reward, or special ability that would allow them to reroll the feat die and take them better result this virtue can not be used in conjunction with it.

The reason I added that last sentence is that I feel no player should be allowed to roll the feat die more than twice. It also reduces the chance of this virtue being used for power gaming purposes to multiply effects with other abilities. i don't know them all by heart but the hobbit sword thing comes to mind.

I might allow the player to roll one feat die with his or her primary weapon and then decide if they want to keep their basic bonus or roll the second feat die.

Is that fair?

Is it too much?

By the way how does the shield fighting of the lake men work? Is it comparable in power to this mastery I created? A friend of mine bought the Lake town supplement but I didn't have a chance to look over it in detail yet.

Sorry for resurrecting the thread. My computer died and it took me a while to get a new one.

About two weapons in the Dark Ages, I agree it wasn't common at all mainly because the popularity of the shieldwall (how can you fight in a shieldwall with no shield?). But this game is not about battles, is about exceptional individuals. So, in short, I see nothing wrong allowing somee eccentric (or foolish) adventurer to fight with two weapons if he wants to.

On the other hand, I'm against making it cultural. It should be rare because normal warriors would be trained to fight with shield.

Have you seen the first episode of the last season of Spartacus? There is a guy training with two swords fighting his master armed with sword and shield. I know is not to be taken as a serious historical study of how this style worked, but I think it can provide some hints.

- Obviously a warrior with a shield is better protected.
- A warrior with a two-handed weapon (i.e. huscarls) does more damage.
- A warrior with two weapons has better chances to hit.

Then why was not so popular the two weapons style? I guess it's because while a blow of a two-handed weapon may kill your oponent, a blow of your one hand weapon will allow him to survive and fight back (and then you will miss your shield).

Game mechanics:

- To attack, use the average of the skill level of the weapons you are using.
- You get a bonus to the attack roll depending on the lesser encumbrance of your weapons:
- Encumbrance 1 - 2: +1
- Encumbrance 3: +2

Please note this is the same as the parry modifier for shields.

- With a normal success you hit with your lesser weapon.
- With a great success or better, you hit with the greater one.
- With a Gandalf rune in the feat dice AND an extraordinary success or better, you hit with both weapons.

And then, I'll let the Two Weapons Combat Virtue as Cynan has described it:

Arthadan, I agree with the way you've analysed two weapons/two handed weapons/shields, however, I disagree a bit with the normal success=lesser weapon. What if the character is fighting with sword and dagger? He/she would be far more likely to hit with the sword than the dagger, so your ruling doesn't make sense in that instance. Other than that, I agree with you

Interesting ideas you posted for dealing with the default situation!

One comment on how would have to use the average skill ratings if they used two different weapons.... this may encourage players to learn to fight with twin weapons so they don't have to keep up extra weapon skills, but there is no problem with that really.

In case a player does chose to use 2 different weapons however I think you should round up in taking the average. For example I have a starting character with: (axes) 2 and dagger 1 and I'm using an axe with a torch (covered by the dagger skill), you cant give me 1.5 skill, so round it up to 2. You could make it round down, but personally I think that may be a little harsh. If the ratings in the two weapons were 3 and 0, or 4 and 1 you'd lose 2 dice!

I'm glad you commented on the mastery that I invented! I had been second guessing it... for one, no one responded.... also it's slightly clunky.... re-rolling the feat die and then choosing which weapon to attack with.... and then rolling the appropriate skill dice.... anyway I liked the idea enough to post it it's nice to see someone else likes it!

I thought that it was funny that it turned out, very shortly after I made that post and suggestion I had a new prospective player come over to my place to discuss what his character would be like and he asked me "Are there any rules for 2 weapon fighting?" I had to smile...

I noticed at some point that Rich H made a book of house rules, I'm not saying his is strictly simpler but it doesn't involve re-rolling feat dice! One thing he does that I'm not a giant fan of is it works differently based on what stance you take. I feel this is too complicated. However one thing he does which I LOVE, and I'm thinking of adopting it instead of my original suggestion is this he says if the character chooses a forward stance it reduces the edge of the primary weapon by 1. What this does is it means you will score slightly more piercing blows. I like that because increasing the number of piercing blows makes it seem like the character is hitting more often.

I'm thinking of actually keeping most of what I have posted for when people use 2 weapons without a mastery, and keeping the requirements that I made up for the mastery but instead of implementing a re-roll of the feat die, stealing the idea of the lowered edge but make the following changes:
1 Say that If they got the edge only because it was a lowered edge that they hit with their secondary weapon.
2 Use this rule for all stances
3 I'll allow them to keep any attack bonus for using a weapon with 1 endurance cost or more.

I'll give an example of someone taking this mastery in case I didn't illustrate well and compare it to an alternate reward.

I have a new dwarf character who starts with (axes) 2 and short sword 1. I figure that I'll go into battle with an axe and a shield, and have a short sword tucked in my belt! i also have 2 valor and 1 wisdom.

I do an adventuring phase, and have my shield is broken early on. I decide to try fighting with my axe and short sword for the remainder of the adventuring phase rather than trying to build a new shield in the field or going home. I decide to keep the axe as my primary weapon because I'm better with it and use the short sword as a secondary. This means not that much has changed (had i chosen the short sword as my primary though I would have had only 1 skill die instead of 2). The only change is that instead of having +2 parry for by shield I have +1 attack for my short sword secondary weapon. The lore master is nice and tells me that I can take the 3 fatigue from the shield off of my character after the first nights rest following the loss of the shield. This also benefits me because I'll be a little hard to tire out and helps offset the loss of defense. I do a couple of more fights just using my axe and sword combo, and it goes okay for me. I decide that I kinda like the idea of my dwarf fighting with an axe and a short sword.

At the end of the adventuring phase it turns out that I have enough experience to afford to raise my wisdom. Thinking that I like fighting with 2 weapons I decide to purchase the mastery of 2 weapon fighting. The LM allows this because I fought almost all the battles in that adventuring phase with an axe and sword.

Now when I attack with my axe and short sword, I still use my axe as my primary and short sword as my secondary. I therefore keep +1 to attack, and keep rolling 2 skill dice whenever I attack. For most purposes every attack counts as though I was attacking with an axe (even though my character is really attacking with 2 different weapons and in the narration sometimes I'm stabbing monsters with my short sword. When i roll a "G" rune it does a piercing blow with the injury rating of my axe. However when I hit on a "10" I do a piercing blow based off the injury of the short sword.

If I decided that I wanted to fight with 2 axes and no short sword the only thing it would do is change my injury rating when I rolled a "10" and increase my fatigue because an axe is heavier.

Okay so for purposes of determining if it is balanced say we had an equivalent dwarf, say the first dwarf's brother, who has the same starting weapon skills... but let's reverse wisdom and valor. Let's also say that his shield survives the entire episode.

At the fellowship phase he raises his valor, and chooses "keen" for his axe. This decreases the axes edge rating by 1.

now let's compare the two characters, actually lets compare the 3 possible builds: 1 is keen axe + shield, 2 is dual axes, 3 is axe and short sword.

1: +2 parry (shield is 3 fatigue) edge 10 (keen axe) injury 18

2: +1 attack (axe is 2 fatigue) edge 10 (two axes) injury 18

3: +1 attack (short sword is 1 fatigue) Edge 10 (on "G" hit with axe, on 10 hit with sword) injury 18, or 14

I think they are all relatively balanced, but the higher ones may be a little better. which is okay since we really want to encourage most heroes to chose shields over 2 weapon fighting. Still, none are clearly superior to the others.

Also of note: one can not take the keen trait twice so the keen reward does not make this mastery obsolete because in theory said dwarf dual wielder might take "keen" on a future fellowship phase and have his edge lowered even further.

I thought about Beleg's comment... And I have a suggestion for you: What if you said a normal success did the primary weapon's damage, and a great success (since it happens less often) uses the secondary weapon's damage (plus the character's damage rating of course) and an exceptional success hits with both weapons and grants the base damage of both weapons plus the damage rating, (instead of one weapon's damage rating plus the character's damage rating x2)

Just a thought.

A dagger has encumbrance 0, so it will give no bonus to the attack roll and makes little sense as a secondary weapon. However in your example I'm not sure which weapon would be used to hit. I think it would make sense to use the longer blade to deflect blows or parry and the smaller and faster to take advantage and stab.

Mechanically yes, a dagger makes no sense. However, a dagger is probably the simplest secondary weapon, and the easiest. I suppose it would be easier to parry with the longer blade, but then, it's also further to reach with the smaller one

My example of the torch was just a random example aimed at the scene from fellowship of the ring movie where Aragorn uses a torch and long sword combo to attack a Nazgul, he might have attacked some times with one and other rounds with the other?

I do some sort of simulation of late period fencing, and have played with a fake dagger. This is not full contact though... so take all I say with a grain of salt....

You'd use both weapons for attack and defense, depending on how close you are to your opponent and which side he's atacking you on, (right or left) how high, where your weapons are located at the moment and if they are free or bound, etc.... typically sword thrusts are made at longer range, sword cuts long to medium or even short range and dagger thrusts are made at very short range.... attack and defense are somewhat interchangeable since by binding a weapon with either your sword or dagger you are defending yourself but you are also creating openings to attack... let's not start with fencing theory this is for a role-playing game, and anyway 17th or 18th century fencing is not equivalent to viking era fighting.... believe me I've done both, they are quite different! In fencing I use my dagger mostly to bind my opponent's sword to tag him with my sword... but that's just fencing....

The way I'm going to handle it is fairly abstract and has no bearing on how things would actually operate, only hint at the advantages that you should get. It's my observation that the more detailed game mechanics are the worse and the more broken they are. I'll always use the stats of the primary weapon and only use the secondary to determine what the defensive bonus is. simple.

Yah as far as dagger getting no real bonus: It's mostly a question of game balancing encumbrance, but if you want real world reasons.... sometimes having a free hand isn't useless, you can grab an opponent's shield and open him up to a quick attack, you can grab an opponent's sword wrist, it's really useful for some disarms where you end up holding your opponent's sword too! I wouldn't make rules for all that stuff though! Do you get what I'm saying?

I thought about my last suggestion (on my way home from fencing practice) using the (lesser) weapon for great successes has one problem - while adding the character's base close combat rating to the damage will make it do more damage, the injury and edge rating may be lower and may cost the attacker a chance for a piercing blow. The problem of course is that a great success should be unqualified better. A player should never say -I might have taken that guy out if only I had not rolled a great success!

I have therefore an alternate suggestion: (this only applies if the secondary weapon is different from the primary)
-normal success use the stats of the primary weapon (player may choose which one is his primary weapon on a given round)
-great success, (or better) use the best stats from each weapon (that is if you had a short sword and axe, you would have the injury rating of the axe (18), and the edge of the short sword (10), and 5 damage since they both deal 5 damage), and add the character's damage rating normally. This may sound really good but considering that the character may have a lower skill rating taking the average of two weapon skills rather than just using their favorite weapon skill I think this advantage is a small benefit to offset the severe penalties of potentially having a lower skill rating. again having a dagger still is of little benefit, since it is inferior to every other weapon listed in every way, but at least it will not decrease your chance of scoring a telling blow on your foe! mixing a spear and sword, or axe and sword or axe and spear would all give you some advantages (especially axe and spear).

Come to think of it I am not sure how comfortable I am suggesting something that might encourage someone to use a 6 foot spear in dual wielding... kinda crazy really.... but I have lots of strong opinions on 6 foot spears used in one hand so don't get me started on that.... If you have the same woozy feeling I do on the subject, you might want to say that to fight with a spear in one hand it has to be 4 feet long instead of 6 feet but give it the same stats as a normal spear.

Again everything I give you is just suggestions, take whatever you like and discard the rest!

Hasn't the Lake Town supplement opened the door to the "two weapon fighting style" with the virtue Shield-Fighting?

Shield-Fighting:
"You have learnt to wield a shield like the boatmen of Esgaroth do when they fight to repel enemies trying to board their ships.
• If you are fighting using a shield of any type, when you successfully hit an enemy roll the Feat die again: on a roll of 8+ you inflict an additional loss of Endurance equal to your Damage rating plus the Encumbrance value of the shield you are using (1 for Buckler, 3 for Shield, 5 for Great Shield)."

Something similar could be done but swaping the shield by an off-hand weapon and increasing maybe the damage dealt to account for the lack of parry...

Cheers,
Yepes