Having nothing in either hand should count as dual-wielding unarmed

Because why not?

Because you aren't *wielding* anything while you are unarmed?

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

Dual wielding without wielding anything would just be "Dual"

Insert Dual Fisting joke here.

For an interesting example of a game making 'dual-wielding unarmed' work see final fantasy 11 monk class and how they derive a weapon damage value without a weapon. A skill gem approximating that would fit very well in this game. It would be a melee skill that acts more like a spell skill gem in terms of base damage values.

The interactions with one handed/dual-wield/damage while wielding shield passives with the gem applying damage values to each hand could be pretty interesting.

Would be a lot of fun.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

cero88 wrote:

Because you aren't *wielding* anything while you are unarmed?

Correct. Dual wielding without wielding anything would just be "Dual"

You're wielding justice and freedom.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

cero88 wrote:

Because you aren't *wielding* anything while you are unarmed?

Correct. Dual wielding without wielding anything would just be "Dual"

I think the OP is saying you should be able to use (2) fists by also compromising your shield. It should not behave the same as dual wield but personally I think a martial artistry passive and active skill set would be neat. Dex side of tree between the shadow and the ranger somewhere with it's own set of rules and baseline definitions. Not sure if enough people play unarmed to justify the time necessary to make this a reality but it would definitely introduce some interesting mechanics/builds.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

cero88 wrote:

Because you aren't *wielding* anything while you are unarmed?

Correct. Dual wielding without wielding anything would just be "Dual"

Dual wielding your rage and anger! RAWR!

All jokes aside, you'd think that if you're not holding a shield that you'd be making an offensive choice, and thus that getting the "Dual Wielding" bonus while unarmed and not holding a shield might be reasonably leggit?

I mean, shields are pretty OP things.

But I've never played an unarmed build, so it hardly bothers me either way.

The question is just if you want to allow unarmed builds to have the option of using the dual-wielding sections of the passive skill tree, and if you want them to be allowed the attack speed bonus (if not holding a shield.)

Apparently they don't? And that's fine too.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

cero88 wrote:

Because you aren't *wielding* anything while you are unarmed?

Correct. Dual wielding without wielding anything would just be "Dual"

Well, you are wielding your fists as weapons or there wouldn't be any damage.