A simple fix for twf?

[Crake]

So I was just thinking... what if two weapon fighting had a single attack roll associated with it (including any twf penalties, averaged out between both hands)?

This would result in dual wielding shortswords having the same damage output as a greatsword (2d6+1.5x str). The main benefit you would gain with this would be the ability to have more enchantments on your weapons (since you have 2 of them), at the expense of having the twf penalties and needing to spend feats to gain iterative attacks as you gain them. I would probably also have power attack treat the attack as a one handed weapon.

Anything important that I missed that could swing this into the realm of broken/a bad idea?

Edit: Here's a list of use cases/concerns that have been covered so far:


While there is only one attack roll for each pair of attacks, they are still two individual attacks, similar to manyshot, meaning any effects triggered on attacks, such as Stormguard Warrior, will trigger once for each.
Precision damage triggers as normal per the rules compendium update, once per action, except on a full round action, in which case all attacks trigger SA
In the case of times where only the first attack would trigger sneak attack, such as attacking from regular invisibility, the first two attacks (which would both be under the same attack roll) would trigger SA
Due to this rule, Two Weapon pounce is no longer necessary
There was some consideration on how crit ranges/multipliers would work. Initially I considered having the better of both from each weapon, but perhaps instead average (rounded down) them out between the weapons? So an 18-20/x2 weapon and a 20/x4 weapon would result in 19-20/x3 for the two attacks.
Likewise for weapons with different attack bonuses due to varying enhancement bonuses and feat considerations (such as weapon focus) would be averaged between the weapons. So a +5 weapon and a +2 weapon with weapon focus would result in a +4 attack bonus, -2 for twf penalties.
Multiweapon fighting would be done in pairs rather than all or nothing, with odd numbered limbs having the last pair be a triple attack. Standard action attacks/charges will still only get 2 attacks though.
Oversized two weapon fighting, and wielding two one handed weapons would double the power attack return, since each weapon is now capable of qualifying for the bonus power attack damage.

[GilesTheCleric]

I think this is one of the best twf fixes. It means that mundanes are less effected by rolling a one. That's much more balanced.

Edit: before someone posts some statistics, I'll clarify that it makes rerolls more efficient, and and helps mundanes to better use abilities that are "next attack roll", like truestrike.

[paranoidbox]

So if you have the TWF feat, but not ITWF at Fighter level 6, you would have... +4/+1 iterative attacks, the first attack inflicting the combination of the two weapons and the second attack single weapon damage?

Just trying to see how this would work.

PS: Out of curiosity, why did you choose the WWI shell shock picture as an avatar?

[Crake]

So if you have the TWF feat, but not ITWF at Fighter level 6, you would have... +4/+1 iterative attacks, the first attack inflicting the combination of the two weapons and the second attack single weapon damage?

Just trying to see how this would work.

PS: Out of curiosity, why did you choose the WWI shell shock picture as an avatar?

The penalties would be the same as normal, which i believe would be that the second attack iterative attack still incurs the penalty? I could be wrong about that though... Thinking about it I've never actually come across that scenario where someone had TWF, but not ITWF and 6 bab, so I can't say for sure, and the rules don't seem very clear about it.

As for the picture, it's because it actually looks much like myself.

[heavyfuel]

It would weaken Stormguard Warrior since you get less attacks.

My proposal is to simply have all TWF feats count as 1. This includes TW Defense, Pounce, etc

[Crake]

It would weaken Stormguard Warrior since you get less attacks.

My proposal is to simply have all TWF feats count as 1. This includes TW Defense, Pounce, etc

The attack roll would still resolve as 2 attacks, much like manyshot. This would also mean you would still have double damage reduction applying, and your standard action attack, while still hitting with both weapons (basically removing the need for two weapon pounce) would only be able to get 1 load of precision damage as per the rules compendium update, but on a full attack (or charge, since it's a full round action), all attacks would get the bonus damage.

[paranoidbox]

The penalties would be the same as normal, which i believe would be that the second attack iterative attack still incurs the penalty? I could be wrong about that though... Thinking about it I've never actually come across that scenario where someone had TWF, but not ITWF and 6 bab, so I can't say for sure, and the rules don't seem very clear about it.

As for the picture, it's because it actually looks much like myself.

Oh yeah, I see what you mean. That's cool.

[Extra Anchovies]

My proposal is to simply have all TWF feats count as 1. This includes TW Defense, Pounce, etc

Eh. I'd combine TWF/ITWF/GTWF into one, then Two-Weapon Defense into another. Pounce isn't a feat, so I'm not sure what you mean there.

[heavyfuel]

Eh. I'd combine TWF/ITWF/GTWF into one, then Two-Weapon Defense into another. Pounce isn't a feat, so I'm not sure what you mean there.

TWFers need love. Lots of it. So I don't mind giving them every feat in the book(s) for the price of one. And I meant the feat Two Weapon Pounce. Basically, anything directly related to the TWF feat gets added.


The attack roll would still resolve as 2 attacks, much like manyshot. This would also mean you would still have double damage reduction applying, and your standard action attack, while still hitting with both weapons (basically removing the need for two weapon pounce) would only be able to get 1 load of precision damage as per the rules compendium update, but on a full attack (or charge, since it's a full round action), all attacks would get the bonus damage.

Oh, this clears up a little bit. It's nice, and can work.

[Elkad]

Allow dexmod to offset to-hit penalties, ala 1st edition.

Basically fixed.

Fiddle with it if you want beyond that. Only half dexmod for non-light weapons, combine all the TWF feats, etc.

[Keltest]

Allow dexmod to offset to-hit penalties, ala 1st edition.

Basically fixed.

Fiddle with it if you want beyond that. Only half dexmod for non-light weapons, combine all the TWF feats, etc.

Personally, I like Dexmod for light, half dexmod, half strmod for non-light. So a pure dex character isn't going to go around swinging a pair of longswords, but likewise a pure str character is going to have a harder time keeping his longswords from getting tangled and making them both useful.

[Banjoman42]

A fix I commonly use is to let your weapons have a minimum enhancement (equal to 1/4 your BAB) while you wield them. This allows you to Enchant one sword with all the goodies you want and just leave the other as a slightly weaker +4 sword.
It's not much, but it certainly helps.
Also, I make weapon finesse weapon-specific (including smaller or larger versions of the same weapon, so Weapon finesse longsword and shortsword together), apply to medium weapons, and lets you use DEX on damage.

[Eloel]

You're boning Sneak Attack and similar stuff very bad.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder Unchained does something similar under its "Removing Iteratives" variant. All attacks get resolved with a single d20 roll, including ITWF and GTWF.

There is also a variant to this variant that lets every character move and full-attack even if they lack pounce, though attempting to do so causes you to take accuracy hits the further you move.

[Crake]

You're boning Sneak Attack and similar stuff very bad.

How do you figure? Normally if you move you only get 1 attack and thus 1 sneak attack anyway, rules compendium also limited sneak attack to once on a standard action regardless. However, on a charge you still get 2 SA with your double attack at the end of it (which you normally would only get 1 unless you had two weapon pounce) and in a full attack, all hits would get sneak attacks, so really, precision damage dealers actually come out on top

Edit: Ranged sneak attackers also come out above, say you're dual wielding handcrossbows (with some kind of auto-loading ability) then your first two shots will get sneak attack instead of just the first, after which you become revealed.


Pathfinder Unchained does something similar under its "Removing Iteratives" variant. All attacks get resolved with a single d20 roll, including ITWF and GTWF.

There is also a variant to this variant that lets every character move and full-attack even if they lack pounce, though attempting to do so causes you to take accuracy hits the further you move.

I think I'd like that for large groups, but for smaller groups, that would make it a bit too swingy I think, all or nothing. The full attack after a move sounds interesting though, I might look into that for my game.

[Hellborn_Blight]

Wow, while the manyshot rule was already a thing, and gotten around by Greater Manyshot, that rules compendium rule really takes a dump on the spellwarp sniper. The game already leaned on them hard by on not allowing spells with multiple attack rolls to deal the sneak attack damage on more than the first roll, even if there where different targets, but now on a quickened spell too?

A form of attack that enables an attacker to make multiple attacks during an action other than a full-round action, such as the Many-shot feat (standard action) or a quickened scorching ray (swift action), allows precision damage to be applied only to the first attack in the group.

As for things that would be confusing, what about crit threats and damage in general if you are using two different weapon types, something like a gnome hooked hammer, or if the weapons are simply enchanted differently? I dig the idea by the way. The less I have to role, the fewer possibility for 1's to come up. Any ideas on a multi-weapon fighting version? Or would combining six attacks into one be to swingy?

[Crake]

Wow, while the manyshot rule was already a thing, and gotten around by Greater Manyshot, that rules compendium rule really takes a dump on the spellwarp sniper. The game already leaned on them hard by on not allowing spells with multiple attack rolls to deal the sneak attack damage on more than the first roll, even if there where different targets, but now on a quickened spell too?

A form of attack that enables an attacker to make multiple attacks during an action other than a full-round action, such as the Many-shot feat (standard action) or a quickened scorching ray (swift action), allows precision damage to be applied only to the first attack in the group.

As for things that would be confusing, what about crit threats and damage in general if you are using two different weapon types, something like a gnome hooked hammer, or if the weapons are simply enchanted differently? I dig the idea by the way. The less I have to role, the fewer possibility for 1's to come up. Any ideas on a multi-weapon fighting version? Or would combining six attacks into one be to swingy?

It does say a single action, so if you use a scorching ray followed by a quickened scorching ray, you still get 2 sneak attacks (one for each action), but never more than 1 per action (unless it's a full round action, so a metamagiced scorching ray cast by a sorcerer would actually get SA on all it's hits).

As for how crit range and and crit multiplier works, i was actually thinking about that earlier today and i'm actually kinda tempted to say that you pick the better of the two for each category, and a crit multiplies all the damage on the attack. So someone dual wielding a light pick and a kukri would have an 18-20/x4 crit range/multiplier.

Edit: Missed the bit on multi weapon fighting. I'll admit, for something like a marilith, that would be super swingy, and allowing six attacks after a move is also pretty powerful, especially for something like a marilith, where a single feat would allow it to get that six attack ability without having to invest into improved and greater multi weapon fighting. I'll have to think about that, perhaps run it in pairs of hands, so 6 attacks over 3 rolls, and only a single pair after a move?

[Andreaz]

It works, but I'd make it simpler.
Everyone has baseline TWF. iTWF gives you full iteratives with the offhand. TWF uses full str bonus on both hands. iTWF has no pre-requisites besides bab 5+

[Crake]

It works, but I'd make it simpler.
Everyone has baseline TWF. iTWF gives you full iteratives with the offhand. TWF uses full str bonus on both hands. iTWF has no pre-requisites besides bab 5+

I'm trying to make it on par with THF, your suggestion is putting it toward the realm of better than THF. More str bonus, only 1 feat investment, if you grab oversized two weapon fighting and power attack, then you're just across the board better than THF. I'm looking to balance the two, making it a decent choice for different circumstances, not make one clearly superior (which is currently the case with THF being clearly superior).

[Hellborn_Blight]

It does say a single action, so if you use a scorching ray followed by a quickened scorching ray, you still get 2 sneak attacks (one for each action), but never more than 1 per action (unless it's a full round action, so a metamagiced scorching ray cast by a sorcerer would actually get SA on all it's hits).

Well, the Sorcerer version Spellwarp Sniper is now the strongest version by far. Melf's Unicorn Arrow for the win hahaha.

I don't think it'd be too bad to allow it at the better range OR better multiplier, but I'm not sure on both. You'd have to have player declare a "default" and also by attack if the want to switch it so it wasn't abused. Your way it is what it is, and somewhat encourages different weapon selection (thought the optimal list is small as always). I assume bonuses like weapon focus would count for both as well then? And I know it would be rare, but what about things like the spell Ironguard if one weapon was made of wood and another metal?

And I think pairs sounds fair for milti-weapon fighting. Maybe let a up to three attacks in as one if that is all you have (like with the Athach)?

[Crake]

Well, the Sorcerer version Spellwarp Sniper is now the strongest version by far. Melf's Unicorn Arrow for the win hahaha.

I don't think it'd be too bad to allow it at the better range OR better multiplier, but I'm not sure on both. You'd have to have player declare a "default" and also by attack if the want to switch it so it wasn't abused. Your way it is what it is, and somewhat encourages different weapon selection (thought the optimal list is small as always). I assume bonuses like weapon focus would count for both as well then? And I know it would be rare, but what about things like the spell Ironguard if one weapon was made of wood and another metal?

And I think pairs sounds fair for milti-weapon fighting. Maybe let a up to three attacks in as one if that is all you have (like with the Athach)?

For ironguard you would just ignore the damage from the iron weapon as normal, still one attack to determine a hit, but say you're wielding a club and a dagger, the attack would just deal club damage. For all intents and purposes treat it like two attacks, but rolled into one attack roll/action.

As for multiweapon fighting, yeah, pairs, with the last pair allowing up to 3 combined into one to account for creatures with odd numbers of limbs, but still only 2 attacks if you arent full attacking.

[Andreaz]

I'm trying to make it on par with THF, your suggestion is putting it toward the realm of better than THF. More str bonus, only 1 feat investment, if you grab oversized two weapon fighting and power attack, then you're just across the board better than THF. I'm looking to balance the two, making it a decent choice for different circumstances, not make one clearly superior (which is currently the case with THF being clearly superior).They are tied in my book, and your comparison is unfair. It ignores the fact twf guy is spending all those feats and paying more for weapons. So let's look at things point for point.
Two attacks for weapon + strength damage is stronger than one attack for weapon + 1.5 strength, indeed, but it is not twice better and it is far more onerous.
Compare, because i like high crit weapons, the falchion against dual kukris.
2d4 + 1.5 str against 2(1d4+str). falchion guy has power attack instead of twf.
Baseline, thf guy has a better chance to hit, and can, just with a -2 power attack (thus the same feat investment and attack penalty) hit like twf guy or better until strength 26. He also does more damage whenever he can't full attack, only suffers half the DR, benefits a good deal better from extra attack sources like haste and spends half as much money than twf guy in weapons.

With +2 weapons, twf guy ties with thf guy's damage assuming same same str, str 10+, and same feat/penalty investments. At full +5 weapons, thf guy is 5+ strmod/2 damage behind.

Then comes an enemy with dr 10/- and nullifies twf's tens of thousands of extra gold poured on weapons.

So even with all the feat love of my house rules twf still needs every support the standard system requires to outscale thf's damage: a source of per-attack damage.

It just isn't a feat hog anymore.

[Crake]

They are tied in my book, and your comparison is unfair. It ignores the fact twf guy is spending all those feats and paying more for weapons. So let's look at things point for point.
Two attacks for weapon + strength damage is stronger than one attack for weapon + 1.5 strength, indeed, but it is not twice better and it is far more onerous.
Compare, because i like high crit weapons, the falchion against dual kukris.
2d4 + 1.5 str against 2(1d4+str). falchion guy has power attack instead of twf.
Baseline, thf guy has a better chance to hit, and can, just with a -2 power attack (thus the same feat investment and attack penalty) hit like twf guy or better until strength 26. He also does more damage whenever he can't full attack, only suffers half the DR, benefits a good deal better from extra attack sources like haste and spends half as much money than twf guy in weapons.

With +2 weapons, twf guy ties with thf guy's damage assuming same same str, str 10+, and same feat/penalty investments. At full +5 weapons, thf guy is 5+ strmod/2 damage behind.

Then comes an enemy with dr 10/- and nullifies twf's tens of thousands of extra gold poured on weapons.

So even with all the feat love of my house rules twf still needs every support the standard system requires to outscale thf's damage: a source of per-attack damage.

It just isn't a feat hog anymore.

If you're using those rules in conjunction with my idea, then you need to consider each use case.

Sure the twf guy has to spend two extra feats (two weapon fighting and oversized two weapon fighting), but this will now allow the twf guy to use two scimitars instead of two kurkis, so 2d6 damage. He now has a higher base damage than the THF guy. In addition, he is getting an extra 0.5x str mod and the same returns on power attack. Finally, while he is spending more money on his weapons, he is also getting extra returns from that in extra damage. When you consider that a chained greater magic weapon for the party could easily cover both his weapons with room to spare, it's unlikely that he would have to spend that much extra money on it.

So in return for two feats, the TWF guy is getting +0.5x str, +2 damage from higher base weapon damage and double weapon enhancement to damage, plus equal returns on power attack. That's starting to seem like an overly good deal if you ask me. Sure he's getting double DR applied, but in many cases he could bypass the DR in various ways, and around the time you start hitting DR10/- the TWF guy is likely to be already getting roughly 10 extra damage, depending on your str mod. 22 str at level 10, cleric is lesser chain rod+karma beadsing your weapons for +3, that's +8 damage above the THF guy. Up the str to 24 and it becomes +9. So the TWF guys is behind for 1-2 damage vs DR10/-, but ahead +8-9 (scaling as he goes up in str/enhancement) all the other times.

Throw collision on both the weapons and he jumps even further ahead.

[heavyfuel]

Pathfinder Unchained does something similar under its "Removing Iteratives" variant. All attacks get resolved with a single d20 roll, including ITWF and GTWF.

Is this variant in the PFSRD?

[Psyren]

Is this variant in the PFSRD?

Not yet. Unchained is slated to be posted in a few weeks I think.

Basically how it works is that when you full-attack, you roll your highest attack bonus, and as normal you hit if you match or exceed their AC. For every 5 you beat that target's AC by, you land another "hit" (similar to landing iteratives normally) up to a maximum of your BAB. If you miss by 5 or less, you get a "glancing blow," i.e. only that one hit is recorded (for 1/2 your minimum damage, and no "on-hit" effects trigger like poison or grab.) Missing by 6 or more is a normal miss. You roll damage normally for each "hit" and DR/resistance applies to each as well. They then explain how you handle multiple targets, TWF, Natural Attacks, True Strike, rerolls etc.

The variant to this variant is called "Mobile Melee" and allows you to declare a full-attack, then move before or after taking each attack as part of the full-attack action, up to your speed. The further you move before an attack the bigger the penalty it takes (the penalty does not apply to your first hit however.) This penalty can be reduced with Acrobatics checks while moving, and/or Spring Attack.

[SinsI]

It doesn't fix all the problems of twf.
They are:

- the need to pay for two weapons.
- inability to use one of them with Standard Actions (including Strikes)
- inability to use them for Attacks of Opportunity.
- heavy feat tax

And what I personally dislike about TWF in D&D is that they are spreading the wrong information about true usage of two weapon fighting. Second weapon is there to parry, not to attack...

[Crake]

It doesn't fix all the problems of twf.
They are:

- the need to pay for two weapons.
- inability to use one of them with Standard Actions (including Strikes)
- inability to use them for Attacks of Opportunity.
- heavy feat tax

And what I personally dislike about TWF in D&D is that they are spreading the wrong information about true usage of two weapon fighting. Second weapon is there to parry, not to attack...

Except it covers 2/4 of those, you get to use both weapons for standard action strikes, and also for attacks of opportunity, since one attack covers two strikes. You would of course only get the bonus damage/effect from a strike once, and some maneuvers would become obselete (wolf fang strike and the like). Your post makes me wonder if you read the thread much at all.

[SinsI]

That's questionable. On one hand you have the usual "wizard quality" text in the SRD about TWF:

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
You can even read it as "you are getting that extra attack per round even if you are not using any attack action at all"!

On the other hand you have the following text in Strike description

Because strikes allow for a specific form of attack, you cannot benefit from spells or effects that grant you extra attacks when making a strike (such as haste spell or a speed weapon).

So you can read those rules both ways.

[Andreaz]

If you're using those rules in conjunction with my idea, then you need to consider each use case.
I did not. I brought up my variant on it because i consider yours overly complicated.

[Eloel]

How do you figure? Normally if you move you only get 1 attack and thus 1 sneak attack anyway, rules compendium also limited sneak attack to once on a standard action regardless. However, on a charge you still get 2 SA with your double attack at the end of it (which you normally would only get 1 unless you had two weapon pounce) and in a full attack, all hits would get sneak attacks, so really, precision damage dealers actually come out on top


Number of SAs you can get is limited (amongst other things), by number of attack rolls you make. If you combine 2 TWF attacks into 1, and make them roll 1 attack, they only deal SA once. When full-attacking, this practically halves any precision-damager's damage.

[Crake]

Number of SAs you can get is limited (amongst other things), by number of attack rolls you make. If you combine 2 TWF attacks into 1, and make them roll 1 attack, they only deal SA once. When full-attacking, this practically halves any precision-damager's damage.

Except where it says it doesnt, see greater manyshot, one attack roll, multiple sneak attacks. In this case I've made it pretty clear that each attack roll comprises 2 hits, ala manyshot, and while you are still limited to a single SA per action (as per the rules compendium rule), on a full round action (charge or full attack for example) each attack roll has 2 hits, meaning 2 sneak attacks, and since manyshot explicitly needs to say that you only get 1 crit/sneak attack out of the group of shots, my houserule does not, so you are in no such way limited.

[Eloel]

Except where it says it doesnt, see greater manyshot, one attack roll, multiple sneak attacks. In this case I've made it pretty clear that each attack roll comprises 2 hits, ala manyshot, and while you are still limited to a single SA per action (as per the rules compendium rule), on a full round action (charge or full attack for example) each attack roll has 2 hits, meaning 2 sneak attacks, and since manyshot explicitly needs to say that you only get 1 crit/sneak attack out of the group of shots, my houserule does not, so you are in no such way limited.

What?
Greater Manyshot explicitly says different attack rolls for every attack, and it explicitly clarifies that you get precision damage on every arrow.

Contrast with regular Manyshot, which gets one attack roll, and precision damage once.

[Crake]

What?
Greater Manyshot explicitly says different attack rolls for every attack, and it explicitly clarifies that you get precision damage on every arrow.

Contrast with regular Manyshot, which gets one attack roll, and precision damage once.

Huh, you're right, multiple attack rolls. Ah well, I'm still keeping the clause in my houserule anyway, so regardless, you still get mutliple sneak attack.

[Hellborn_Blight]

The rule is very much taking shape in my head now, but maybe trying to fight a way to make it a little less verbose would help it to stick. Finding that fine line between concise and specific is difficult, but if I introduce this to my players I want them to be able to integrate it smoothly. It doesn't help that I'm also going to be asking for more clarification soon too. I do completely understand that most of the reason it is getting so long is that before the individual feats and such would call out their interaction in their description, and you don't have that luxury.

Something to the effect of, "you make an attack roll that is used for both attacks, except in these cases." could help organize it. Or make a list of ways that it is a single attack, and ways it is two attacks, and when each happens or when it doesn't, that way referencing the rule would be simple. If it goes well in my game I maybe able to use it in friends games and rolling less would be really nice.

And so, more clarification.

"Oversized two weapon fighting, and wielding two one handed weapons would double the power attack return, since each weapon is now capable of qualifying for the bonus power attack damage."

By this do you mean that each weapon now gets -1 to attack and +1 to damage, because when I first looked at it couldn't understand what it was trying to say. It was like you were saying it got the THF bonus of -1, +2 and I doubt that is what you meant. Also I think you should remove the "similar to manyshot" part of the first rule, as it seems like it might confuse the issue, especially from the precision damage during a full round action perspective, as manyshot doesn't allow for this, and greater manyshot has additional attacks roles.

Third rule. It is no longer necessary, but it does limit sneak attacks unlike the original feat did before the rules compendium change. The more I look at that rule (from the compendium), the more I don't like it. It didn't do anything to stop scout pounce or AoO builds, but it did punish the guys using bounding assault/rapid blitz, cleave and Martial Adepts. That seems to quite lopsidedly favor things that didn't need any help. Gonna have to look at modifying that rule or just ignoring it. Maybe make a feat that fills the roll of two weapon pounce that lets you get sneak attack and such on TWF in those cases.

5/6. If you have a keen longsword and a pick is the crit range 18-20 or 19-20? And same for an 8 Attack bonus and a 5 attack bonus. Is it 7 or 6? D&D in general tends to round down, except in certain cases like with the Eilservs School feat from Drow of the Underdark.

Also, TWF on Whirlwind attack, on Bounding Assault/Rapid Blitz and other ways to get multiple attacks on standard actions/abnormal attack situations?

[CashanDraven]

One thing that I have suggested before, and done in games I have ran, is to simply make it not a feat, but rather something built into the game itself. It basically works as follows:

1) TWF, Power Attack, ect are all combat options that anyone can use, instead of just those with the feat.

2) TWF gives you an extra attack, plus an additional attack for each point of your dexterity mod, up to your maximum number of attacks your BAB allows. So +1 is one, +2 is two, but each attack past the first suffers a cumulative -2 penalty.

3) The extra attacks are still granted even if your 'main' attacks miss, and you apply your str mod on all attacks you make. Though the idea of 1/2 str mod for light weapons and full for normal weapons is certainly something I can see being a thing. Extra mass means you hit harder.