Is duel wielding actually useful?

[Shrapp Hamnier]

We are thinking of making a Minotaur (which is large) have the "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" feat and duel wield Fullblades.

• Fullblade — Huge; 100gp; Damage 2d8; Crit 19–20/×2; 23 lb.; Slashing

But from what I can tell, that may actually be less effective than wield 1 even better weapon and just use it multiple times. It seems as though duel wielding is dwarfed by the rules, probably so that people don't try and abuse it. But if no one can effectively duel wield, then why even allow it in the rules? Are there times where it would be better to duel wield one set of weapons, and then just wield another weapon the rest of the time?

 

[Dandu]

Rogues do well with dual wielding, since they get bonus damage dice on each attack.

 

[Grogg of the North]

Pros of Dual Wielding:
Extra bonus dice from sneak attack/skirmish/sudden strike
Flair/Flavor/Rule of Cool
Depending on weapon choices you can attack and defend (Spiked Shield and bashing?)

Cons of Dual Wielding:
Math is hard (I've got a negative 15 to hit?)
Feat Intensive (TWF, ITWF, GTWF, Defense?, Oversized TWF?)
Not as efficient as THF (Only 1 or 0.5 str bonus instead of 1.5, Power Attack FTW)
Restricts weapon selection (Light off-hand weapon)
Your off-hand is occupied (Climbing, torches, potions, opening doors all require a free hand)

Really it all comes down to the concept of the character you have, what you think works for the character, and if you're having fun.

 

[delericho]

It can be, but it's really conditional. Your minotaur with fullblades probably shouldn't bother - it's almost certainly better to use a single two-handed weapon and Power Attack.

And all that said, bear in mind that even that's in the context of melee combatants, which are all relatively weak compared to the phenomenal cosmic power of casters in 3.5e.