I think that a warrior as a second class should get able to gain access to dual wield. They do not have the spell perks of a paladin or blackknight so don't have any real advantages. Many people pick blackknight as a second because of animate dead, but clearly you don't have that as a warrior second. Also, they are warriors, and seems natural that a warrior should at least have dual wield, even if it is their second class.

What do you guys think? Blobbie told he it is under consideration but wanted a discussion about it on the forum.

I agree. I feel that warriors are lacking as a secondary class. Be it giving them dual wield or some other skill(s) the knight classes do not get, I feel they need something to make them stand out. They need something to be different from these classes other than what they lack. If we go without adding any skills for them then I feel dual wield would be the best skill to switch. My reasoning is as follows. Warriors to me are more offensive than knights hence, why they would wield two weapons leaving the knights to be left holding a shield. Dual wield isn't a skill that you can get that just gives you something, it provides you with a choice and has draw backs associated with it's use, for example it's an extra attack, however unlike third attack you have to give up something in order to use it.

I agree with the comments posted above and think secondary class warriors having access to dual would provide a valid reason for choosing that option where currently it seems to have no real advantage over paladin or knight.

I agree as well but I see the counter argument being ...

Warriors can get bash door, and ground smash (as 2nd class I believe) and that warriors will be getting more skills.

I don't see dual being re-added to warrior subclasses unfortunately as this was a change long in the coming.

But yea, it sure would be nice to be able to make a shaman/warrior.

Ground smash is a dedicate only skill, however they do get door bash. As for the change in dual wield becoming a dedicate only skill, was that not a change made due to the number of classes that had it? There is now a potential to allow it's use as a subclass skill for warriors making the class a bit more unique without new skills. More skills will be added for warrior sure, but at some point all classes will get new skills.


You can still make a shaman/warrior without dual wield.

Nod - ditto

yeah dual should be back on second classes

This is about second classes in general, it's about warrior only.

sub class warriors shud get dual wield. (I also think paladins shud lose dual wield but instead get third attack. Paladins/Knights holding shields seems more appropriate. )

I do see paladins and knights as being more of a shield wearing class being that they bring to mind heavy armour. I'm curious though do you mean they should get third attack as a primary class only or as a secondary class? I would assume it's to replace dual wield in the primary class as that would defeat the purpose of removing dual wield from their secondary and giving it to warriors as a secondary.

yup i did mean third attack for primary paladins/bks only.

Just wondering what the status of dual wield with respect to a second class warrior is. I have not heard anything about the issue in a long time.

Warriors have dual wield as a second class currently.