Expanded weapons charts.

[Corvo]

There are plenty of evidence of dual-wielding fighting styles specially in Asia, so it's not impossible or far-fetched (from Wikipedia):

The use of weapon combinations in each hand has been mentioned for close combat in western Europe during the Byzantine,[2] Medieval, and Renaissance era.[3] The use of a parrying dagger such as a main gauche along with a rapier is common in historical European martial arts.[4] Traditional schools of Japanese martial arts include dual wield techniques, particularly a style of classical Japanese swordsmanship conceived by the Miyamoto Musashi involving the katana and wakizashi, two-sword kenjutsu techniques he called Niten Ichi-ryū. Eskrima, the traditional martial arts of the Philippines teaches Doble Baston techniques involving the basic use of a pair of rattan sticks and also Espada y daga or Sword/Stick (...).

However, does it fit in the setting?

I would make it exceptional yet possible. In Dark Ages Europe looks like it was all about the shieldwall and certainly a two weapons fighting style would be out of place. But we are speaking about adventurers who do not fight in close formation and learn to fight mostly on their own (if they survive long enough, that's it).

I haven't played much because I can't find a group of players, so I can't say much in that respect. But I would make it:
- Hard to get (you need to get some other skills in order to get this one and maybe minimum Attributes score).
- Better chances to hit but no more damage than usual, so only really strong guys would go for it.

Just a minor quibble. The text from wikipedia cites Miyamoto Musashi, whose two-swords school is famed -in the Internet sense-. Yet in his book he advocates the use of two swords at once just when surrounded by numerous foes. And from what I read, there is no record of him ever using two swords in any of his duels (he was a famed duelist). What is sure is that Musashi advocated the study of both katana and wakizashi, to use the one that better adapted to the circumstances... But not both at once.

Excuse me if I use your post to talk about it, but that "dual sword" thing of Musashi is pretty famous.
That said, I agree with you: "does it fit in the game?" And "exceptional but possible" are sensible stances about the matter.

...oh, and I agree with Elfcrusher's comparison with dual wielding pistols: plenty in the fiction, exceptional but possible in facts (or the old western's shooting from the hip, for what is worth).

[Otaku-sempai]

As I think you're agreeing, there's a difference between characters occasionally holding two weapon-like objects... Aragorn with two torches, Sam with two short swords, Butterbur with two mugs of ale...and evidence for a 'two-weapon fighting style'.

And technically, Sam's two "short swords" were actually daggers, sized for Men and Elves, rather than for Hobbits.

Dual-wielding as a chosen fighting style should be limited as it requires dedication and expertise. It makes some sense for Silvan Elves, especially if limited to the use of light weapons. Rangers travel light and might prefer not to use a shield in standard combat. Corsairs would probably not be burdened with shields very often, especially not while on ship, and might prefer to fight with two light or medium weapons (or one of each).

[aramis]

The text from wikipedia cites Miyamoto Musashi, whose two-swords school is famed -in the Internet sense-. Yet in his book he advocates the use of two swords at once just when surrounded by numerous foes. And from what I read, there is no record of him ever using two swords in any of his duels (he was a famed duelist). What is sure is that Musashi advocated the study of both katana and wakizashi, to use the one that better adapted to the circumstances... But not both at once.

Drawing the second sword in a duel would have been a damage to his honor. Musashi is said to have used his Niten Ichi-Ryū style in non-duel combats. He didn't get in all that many non-duel combats.

Excuse me if I use your post to talk about it, but that "dual sword" thing of Musashi is pretty famous.
That said, I agree with you: "does it fit in the game?" And "exceptional but possible" are sensible stances about the matter.

Those who make efforts at it should get more than just a +1 Parry and +1 Damage - but an automatic second attack is too much. (I say this as one who has learned to fight rapier, including case of rapier.) On the time scale of a round, the odds are good of getting an extra on target strike...

Note that I've known several SCA-Heavies who use dual weapons - usually paired axes, paired swords, or paired maces; less commonly, madu and sword, or axe and sword. They hit about 30-50% more often than sword and board (albeit not as evenly distributed as the percentage might suggest)... Which leads me to suggest that it should be a parry bonus (add off-hand weapon skill level?), and on a T-rune, an attack with the off-hand instead of the damage bonus.

[Corvo]

Aramis, I understand your points, I have done similar choices in other games (WHFRP for ex).
Keep in mind that in TOR the shield's bonus is relatively small, so you got little room for modifiers before going overboard: a +1 to parry is already stepping on the small shield territory.

That said, I'm not critiquing your stance, just offering my 2c

[aramis]

Aramis, I understand your points, I have done similar choices in other games (WHFRP for ex).
Keep in mind that in TOR the shield's bonus is relatively small, so you got little room for modifiers before going overboard: a +1 to parry is already stepping on the small shield territory.

That said, I'm not critiquing your stance, just offering my 2c

A shield is, in most hands, not that good for defense - a second weapon is usually as good or better. The difference is that a shield is (1) good against missiles and (2) useful in a passive mode.

[Glorelendil]

A shield is, in most hands, not that good for defense - a second weapon is usually as good or better. The difference is that a shield is (1) good against missiles and (2) useful in a passive mode.

Really? By "in most hands" do you mean that most people don't have any training? Or that even if you've trained with a shield it's "not that good for defense"?

[Beran]

A shield is, in most hands, not that good for defense - a second weapon is usually as good or better. The difference is that a shield is (1) good against missiles and (2) useful in a passive mode.

Historically speaking you could not be more wrong. "Not that good a defense"? I can point to hoplite warfare as an example where a shield was paramount to defense.

1) Good against missiles-True.
2) Useful in a passive mode [only]-Ever hear the term shield bash? Or, using the edge of a shield to finish off a downed opponent? Shields were much more useful pieces of kit then most RPGs assume.

[Hermes Serpent]

@Beran, your response seems to show that you seem to have failed to read what aramis actually wrote.

He's talking of defence and a shield is good vs missile weapons and it's useful as a passive defence and a hoplite shield is very much a passive defence -- you can't wave around a hoplon while in a phalanx with other men each side of you. A bronze bell cuirass was the defence against the overhand thrust of the spear and greaves a defence against attacks below the shield with the helmet protecting the head and face.

Things like a shield edge being used to strike an opponent on the ground generally are not possible with many shields as they don't reach down far enough when in a shield wall or a phalanx and stepping out of line is death under those circumstances. The sort of shields used to bash an opponent seem to have been much smaller than a hoplon and probably equate to an Iron Age/Early Medieval/Viking style round shield with a boss of iron or bronze. The much later 'target' shields used with a sword in the Renaissance which were little more than a dinner plate with a boss could certainly be used to strike an opponent in a punching manoeuvre but were hardly capable of finishing off someone with an edge.

[Beran]

Apparently I wasn't clear. He had stated that the shield wasn't useful in combat ("A shield is, in most hands, not that good for defense") and that a second weapon was more useful. To which I countered with the Hoplite warfare point. Now, I can agree with this statement if he is referring to untrained peasant levies, but in the hands of a trained warrior a shield is not only a part of his active defense, but can also be a deadly weapon. The direction I was going with the mention of the shield bash and use of the edge was in reference to later medieval uses of the shields of the time. I didn't think I needed to make the distinction as my thoughts were separated in my post.

[aramis]

Apparently I wasn't clear. He had stated that the shield wasn't useful in combat

Bull. You're (willfully?) misinterpreting.

I said it's not very effective as a defense. (It's not - it's heavy; it blocks your view, and is easier to work around because of that fact than an offhand weapon in the hands of a skilled user; rounds don't even allow good control over where it deflects.)

And the game seems to agree -
A shield is at most +3. For a Barding, Beorning, or Lakeman, they run 2-4, so, a tower may be as good as their wits in their defense, and a heater or round as good for the clumsy. But for a hobbit, the largest they can wield is +2 to a base of 4-6 (5-10 vs big folk); dwarves as well. Elves, +3 of 5-7 parry; woodmen +3 of 5-7, or 6-10 in woods.

The bonus for a cautious attack stance is 6 points - more than the effect of a great shield by double.

As is truly the case, footwork and perceptiveness far outweigh the defensive benefits of the shield.

The Laketown book has a virtue allowing active shield-striking - it's bloody impressive, too. And it's a bit steep, a frequent free attack, and looks about right.