Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Cobra1117 03-28-07, 12:15 PM	If a character is wielding two speed weapons, do they get two extra attacks at their highest attack bonus, or does the effect only apply to one per round? Thanks!
Evil DM Mk3 03-28-07, 12:16 PM	Only the one. I think the speed weapon description states it does not stack with other scourses of extra attacks.
mvincent 03-28-07, 12:46 PM	From the 3.0 FAQ: "You can use two weapons of speed at a time all right, but you still only get one extra attack, from one weapon or the other, not both. If you are under the effects of a haste spell, you can use the extra attack action from one weapon of speed, or the extra partial action from the haste spell, but not both." Note that the 3.5 speed weapon description is even more explicit in it's restrictions than it was in 3.0.
Cobra1117 03-28-07, 01:27 PM	Ok. Thanks!
KingMarl 03-28-07, 03:10 PM	...Note that the 3.5 speed weapon description is even more explicit in it's restrictions than it was in 3.0. I've read through the 3.5 Speed description several times and I don't see where it restricts two different weapons. I clearly see where it says that the property doesn't stack with Haste and other things that boost your speed - but that also clearly applies to that weapon. The Speed weapon property says nothing about different weapons. I have yet to look at the 3.5 FAQ (it's in an annoying ZIP file instead of a readable file). Given that you're paying +3 for it, and you have to already have a +1 on the weapon in order to get any other special capabilities, you're paying 32,000 gp for a +1 sword that gives you one additional attack. I would not have a huge issue with someone who's willing to blow 64,000 gp on two +1 weapons of speed getting 2 additional attacks per round. They're trading off N attacks at +4 for N+2 attacks at +1. Right off the bat they're losing 3 to hit and 3 damage per attack (6 on a crit). Assume we have a 10th-level fighter who's considering what to carry. If we don't allow dual weapons of speed, he'd be better off with a +4 in the off hand: +9/+4/+9 (+10BAB/+1weap/-2TWF) +12/+7 (+10BAB/+4weap/-2TWF) Our speed guy instead gets two +1 weapons of speed: +9/+4/+9 (+10BAB/+1weap/-2TWF) +9/+4/+9 (+10BAB/+1weap/-2TWF) Assuming AC20, the average damage will be: +4 guy: P:8.525 S:9.375 = 17.9 damage, ignoring Str + Power Attack Sp guy: P:8.525 S:6.975 = 15.5 damage, ignoring Str + Power Attack (note that the above assumes all crits are confirmed - which will hurt the Speed guy even more, since he's less likely to confirm). Clearly having two weapons of speed doesn't create any sort of "broken" condition, in fact it appears to hurt. Even if this same guy has an 18 Str, he still runs behind: AC20/+4: P:20.425 S:15.675 = 36.1 average AC20/Sp: P:20.425 S:13.975 = 34.4 average From the looks of it, they did a pretty good job assessing it as worth +3 in cost, and also, from the looks of it, it would be a mistake to disallow two weapons of speed in terms of balance. Note that the same 18 Str guy with two +4 swords would be at the following in terms of average damage: AC20/2 x +4: P:22.275 S:15.675 = 37.95 average. Looks like he's better off with two +4 swords than one weapon of speed and one +4 sword. Of course, all this probably goes right out the window if we're talking about rogues :)
mvincent 03-28-07, 03:21 PM	I've read through the 3.5 Speed description several times and I don't see where it restricts two different weapons.Geez. Ok. Let's try again: The 3.0 speed description (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdmagicitemsweapons.rtf) said: "It is not cumulative with haste." This caused some players to believe that it that it would still be cumulative with itself, but the 3.0 FAQ corrected that. To reflect this, the 3.5 speed description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#speed) was changed to include: "This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell." Now, to be absolutely clear, the speed ability from one weapon can definitely be considered a "similar effect" to the speed ability from another.
Marcus Majarra 03-28-07, 05:27 PM	Now, to be absolutely clear, the speed ability from one weapon can definitely be considered a "similar effect" to the speed ability from another. mvincent for the win!
KingMarl 03-28-07, 05:39 PM	Geez. Ok. Let's try again: The 3.0 speed description (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdmagicitemsweapons.rtf) said: "It is not cumulative with haste." This caused some players to believe that it that it would still be cumulative with itself, but the 3.0 FAQ corrected that. To reflect this, the 3.5 speed description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#speed) was changed to include: "This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell." Now, to be absolutely clear, the speed ability from one weapon can definitely be considered a "similar effect" to the speed ability from another. Absolutely. I read the same thing. That weapon's effect does not stack with Haste. Thus, if a character is hasted, they will not get two extra attacks with that weapon. But consider what the SRD actually does say (emphasis mine): Speed When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.) Note that it specifically says you get an extra attack with the weapon. Not 'per turn' or 'as part of your full attack.' I'm suspicious of the logic that one weapon's bonus somehow affects another weapon. If you've got a +2 weapon and a +4 weapon, the enhancement bonuses are completely independent - it's not like the +4 'cancels' the +2 leaving you with a plain sword in your off hand, any more than having a +4 and a +2 sword gives you a +6 because they stack or a +4 for each because they overlap. All the Speed description actually says is that if you're Hasted, you won't get 2 extra attacks. With that weapon. Since speed is a quality of the sword and not a spell-like effect cast on you (unlike armor of speed, for example), I don't see where the one sword having speed would affect the other. All the rest was just me working through my interpretation of the rules - and based on the analysis, you're actually worse off with two weapons of speed than with two +4 swords, unless you're fighting something with a really low AC.
lears_fool 03-28-07, 05:45 PM	Absolutely. I read the same thing. That weapon's effect does not stack with Haste. No. .no. . It says 'similar effects' BEFORE haste, not after. So, in essence, ability Q does not stack with things similar to ability Q, like spell J. Ability Q is still exceedingly similar to Ability Q, many would say identical (which is a short way of saying really really really really really really similar) So no, you only get one extra attack per round period, no matter how much gold you spend.
Balseraph 03-28-07, 05:50 PM	Regardless of careful interpretation of the rules, I have always assumed that the spirit of the rule forbids multiple speed weapons from stacking. Do we want to move to multi-weapon fighting with four speed weapons? I know I don't, so I stick with my assumption. Your mileage may vary, of course. :)
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 05:53 PM	Speed When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.) Note that it specifically says you get an extra attack with the weapon. Not 'per turn' or 'as part of your full attack.' I'm suspicious of the logic that one weapon's bonus somehow affects another weapon. If you've got a +2 weapon and a +4 weapon, the enhancement bonuses are completely independent - it's not like the +4 'cancels' the +2 leaving you with a plain sword in your off hand, any more than having a +4 and a +2 sword gives you a +6 because they stack or a +4 for each because they overlap. All the Speed description actually says is that if you're Hasted, you won't get 2 extra attacks. With that weapon. The trouble is that a full-round attack is required to activate the special ability; in this full-round attack you'd use both speed weapons. Using both weapons, with two speed abilities is definitely cumulative, which the description explicitly states it does not allow. It does not say "with similar effects on this weapon", because that would allow haste, it specifies "with similar effects" (implying) in general. Therefore two weapons of speed would not stack with each other although, under a DM's watchful eye, it would certainly be a fair houserule (there is much room for abuse in regards to magic/poison application to such weapons).
KingMarl 03-28-07, 05:59 PM	All awfully finicky, and given that having two weapons of speed appears to be weaker than two +4 weapons (except possibly under limited circumstances), I do not see a reason to interpret this one so strictly. And I still maintain it's a matter of interpretation, I don't see any 'stacking' going on when it's a weapon-specific effect, not an effect with a target of 'you' like Haste is.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 06:14 PM	All awfully finicky, and given that having two weapons of speed appears to be weaker than two +4 weapons (except possibly under limited circumstances), I do not see a reason to interpret this one so strictly. And I still maintain it's a matter of interpretation, I don't see any 'stacking' going on when it's a weapon-specific effect, not an effect with a target of 'you' like Haste is. The spell description is clear and I believe it was implemented entirely to avoid those "limited circumstances" that I also believe would become a lot less "limited" if things like this worked. The RAI have almost always never allowed stackable bonuses of the same name, unless it specifically says, "This stacks with x" so I see no reason why they have become such a gray shade now. Perhaps if you wish to clarify as to what part of the argument I made was "finicky" we could discuss this further, but right now I, and everyone else besides you who has posted in this thread, see the RAWs as being pretty clear in this subject. You obviously don't, since you began this thread with a question in mind. I believe that if these "limited circumstances" are not intended, then by all means houserule it in and it would be perfectly fair, but right now I see the RAW as being 100% clear on this manner.
lears_fool 03-28-07, 06:17 PM	All awfully finicky, and given that having two weapons of speed appears to be weaker than two +4 weapons (except possibly under limited circumstances), I do not see a reason to interpret this one so strictly. And I still maintain it's a matter of interpretation, I don't see any 'stacking' going on when it's a weapon-specific effect, not an effect with a target of 'you' like Haste is. No, but the effect is identical to itself. Which means it's very, very, very, very similar And it does not stack with effects that are similar to itself Including itself. There's not really that much room for interpretation. Whether or not it'd be cost effective is somewhat irrelevant, there. It's also not cost effective that you can't benefit from a shield and shield spell, or bracers of armor and actual armor and mage armor, but that's how ze game works.
Evil DM Mk3 03-28-07, 06:19 PM	speaking as a dungeon master I have to say that a speed dagger or speed short sword (in one instance a speed Kurkri) has appeared in teh off hand of every TWF rogue I have ever seen. In the case of non TWF rogues it was in the primary hand. Allowing two WOULD cause two to exist. The wording is clear, the spirit doubly so. One bonus attack a round is the limit.
mvincent 03-28-07, 07:32 PM	having two weapons of speed appears to be weaker than two +4 weaponsI do not disagree I still maintain it's a matter of interpretationI have no vested interested in changing how you play (i.e. I won't even be playing with you), but I believe that the writer's intent has been made as clear as possible to you here (which is all I strive for). For you to contend it (publicly) at this point it is going to be viewed more as a hit on your credibility (and comprehension abilities) rather than mine. I'm perfectly content with your decision.
Wopple 03-29-07, 11:22 AM	I have a question for you all then: Could a MH Sword of speed give you an extra attack with your offhand? And you will all say no, and then I think you need to wonder about that.
Evil DM Mk3 03-29-07, 11:33 AM	No and here is why: Speed When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)
olshanski_home 03-29-07, 11:38 AM	All awfully finicky, and given that having two weapons of speed appears to be weaker than two +4 weapons (except possibly under limited circumstances), I do not see a reason to interpret this one so strictly. And I still maintain it's a matter of interpretation, I don't see any 'stacking' going on when it's a weapon-specific effect, not an effect with a target of 'you' like Haste is. Two +1 speed weapons are less effective than two +4 weapons. That may very well be true. Did you know that two +4 shields is less useful than a +3 shield and a +3 armor? Also, two +4 amulets of natural armor is less effective than a +3 amulet of natural armor and a +3 ring of protection. Of course having stacking items is less effective than non-stacking items. As far as a single speed weapon vs a non-speed weapon, the speed weapon is almost always superior. Earlier you argued that each speed weapon allows additional attacks "with it" individually, regardless of similar effects that may give you other extra attacks in general. You are saying that if you dual-wield a +1 shortsword and a +1 speed shortsword, that if you are hasted, you can make your extra attack due to haste with the +1 shortsword and still claim the extra attack due to speed weapon with the speed shortsword... since it applies only "with it" instead of in general. (that's your argument for using 2 speed weapons as well). If you want to rule that, fine, but that is clearly not the intention of the rules.
Wopple 03-29-07, 11:50 AM	No and here is why: Speed When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.) That's kindof my point. It dosen't give you a aura where you get this speed, as the spell does. The weapon is just made so that it can do that. Now, offhand weapons are naturally harder to wield, but still I think ther eis a middle ground here. Such as qualifying for 2x or 3x offhand attack feat automatically.
MarkB 03-29-07, 12:55 PM	Just as a point of interest, there is an item in the Magic Item Compendium called a Quarterstaff of Battle (page 54). It's a +1/+1 Quarterstaff, but one of its secondary powers is that it can gain the Speed weapon property to both ends for 5 rounds. Presumably, WotC must have thought there was some point in there being two Speed effects active in a dual-wielding situation, or they wouldn't have bothered doing it.
KingMarl 03-29-07, 12:58 PM	Just as a point of interest, there is an item in the Magic Item Compendium called a Quarterstaff of Battle (page 54). It's a +1/+1 Quarterstaff, but one of its secondary powers is that it can gain the Speed weapon property to both ends for 5 rounds. What's it cost? That's the only book I can't get at from here. Figures :)
MarkB 03-29-07, 01:11 PM	What's it cost? That's the only book I can't get at from here. Figures :) 24,600 gp. But it does do other things as well.
KingMarl 03-29-07, 01:27 PM	What's it cost? That's the only book I can't get at from here. Figures :) 24,600 gp. But it does do other things as well. Hmm. So according to the above interpretation of the RAW, I can't take a +1 longsword of speed and a +1 shortsword of speed for 64,000gp, but I can take two quarterstaffs of battle +1/+1 for 49,200gp, giving me 10 rounds of Speed. And if I'm a monk, I can do a flurry of blows with it. I'll take two quarterstaffs of battle for 49,200gp, Alex! Does kind of support my argument that it is possible to use two weapons of speed, I think.
Someone 03-29-07, 01:41 PM	*clears throat* Time again for my well-rehearsed dissertation on "speed weapons, et al". Speed weapons and the haste spell are a "yes/no?" question, not a "how many?" question. If you are wielding a speed weapon or are under the effects of a haste spell, you may make one extra attack at your full attack bonus. Speed weapons also have a limitation compared to the haste spell in that the extra attack must be made with a speed weapon. If you are wielding more than one speed weapon, you now have a choice in which weapon to make the extra attack, much like the effects of the haste spell. But that's it.
MarkB 03-29-07, 01:44 PM	*clears throat* Time again for my well-rehearsed dissertation on "speed weapons, et al". Speed weapons and the haste spell are a "yes/no?" question, not a "how many?" question. If you are wielding a speed weapon or are under the effects of a haste spell, you may make one extra attack at your full attack bonus. Speed weapons also have a limitation compared to the haste spell in that the extra attack must be made with a speed weapon. If you are wielding more than one speed weapon, you now have a choice in which weapon to make the extra attack, much like the effects of the haste spell. But that's it. In which case, why would anyone, let alone the guys who write the rules, make a double weapon whose identically-enhanced ends both have the Speed property?
Evil DM Mk3 03-29-07, 01:45 PM	*clears throat* Time again for my well-rehearsed dissertation on "speed weapons, et al". Speed weapons and the haste spell are a "yes/no?" question, not a "how many?" question. If you are wielding a speed weapon or are under the effects of a haste spell, you may make one extra attack at your full attack bonus. Speed weapons also have a limitation compared to the haste spell in that the extra attack must be made with a speed weapon. If you are wielding more than one speed weapon, you now have a choice in which weapon to make the extra attack, much like the effects of the haste spell. But that's it. So if I where to put flaming on one end and frost on the other end of the aforementioned staff I get to choose which I get more of... Makes sence.
olshanski_home 03-29-07, 01:46 PM	Hmm. So according to the above interpretation of the RAW, I can't take a +1 longsword of speed and a +1 shortsword of speed for 64,000gp, but I can take two quarterstaffs of battle +1/+1 for 49,200gp, giving me 10 rounds of Speed. And if I'm a monk, I can do a flurry of blows with it. I'll take two quarterstaffs of battle for 49,200gp, Alex! Does kind of support my argument that it is possible to use two weapons of speed, I think. Or, it could support my argument that the Magic Item Compendium is another example of poorly edited, non-playtested "supplements" pumped out by wizards of the cost. The author didn't even look at the FAQ. Also, Magic Item Compendium is not RAW. My best advice to you is just to make your house-rule the way you want, that multiple speed weapons can work in unison. I don't think it seriously breaks the game one way or the other. If you do later decide that it gets out of hand and is broken, you probably should not come crying back here that your game is broken, when you've had ample warning before embarking on your house rule.
mvincent 03-29-07, 01:49 PM	Just as a point of interest, there is an item in the Magic Item Compendium called a Quarterstaff of Battle (page 54). It's a +1/+1 Quarterstaff, but one of its secondary powers is that it can gain the Speed weapon property to both ends for 5 rounds.Can you provide some text on this (for context)? The Quarterstaff of Battle stats that I've seen elsewhere (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Quarterstaff_of_Battle) (also in Magic of Faerûn p143) previously didn't say anything about this, so I'd like to see the new text.
Matthew77 03-29-07, 01:59 PM	In which case, why would anyone, let alone the guys who write the rules, make a double weapon whose identically-enhanced ends both have the Speed property? Notice how low the price is. Apparently, the authors realized that it would only give you 1 extra attack per round, and priced it accordingly. As to why they made it give you a useless duplicate ability? Maybe it was just easier to write it that way instead of saying something like "you can choose one end of the quarterstaff to have the speed enchantment for 5 rounds." Maybe they wanted to allow the wielder to choose which end he got his extra attack with each round. Regardless of why they gave an ability that doesn't stack with itself, I think the price makes it pretty clear that there was no intention of giving two extra attacks each round. King Marl: Why would you want 2 quarterstaves that give you 10 rounds of speed per day, when you could just take your +1 longsword of speed and have speed unlimited rounds per day?
MarkB 03-29-07, 02:05 PM	Notice how low the price is. Apparently, the authors realized that it would only give you 1 extra attack per round, and priced it accordingly. It only works for 5 rounds per day.
Wopple 03-29-07, 03:58 PM	I love that. It is as simple as yes/no. Except it's not yes/no because you have to use the speeded weapon for it. Look, we all know what is going on here. In 'real life,' haste would stack with a sword of speed. Also, you could DW them for 2x extra on each. But that's bad for balance, soooo they changed it. That's basically it. So you can do what makes sense, what is balanced, or make up your own thing inbetween.
lears_fool 03-29-07, 04:31 PM	Of course, if speed bonuses DID stack, then Thri Kreen would rule the world :)
olshanski_home 03-29-07, 04:46 PM	Of course, if speed bonuses DID stack, then Thri Kreen would rule the world :) until they met a marilith, or an awakened giant squid.
Evil DM Mk3 03-29-07, 05:41 PM	until they met a marilith, or an awakened giant squid. Do you mean a Kraken?
weasel0 03-29-07, 11:39 PM	Or you could go off of a similar set of rules for increasing crit threat range. We have Imp. Critical: a feat. We have Keen Wep.: a weapon ability. In all reality, they should stack. One is a weapon specific property, the other an inate ability to use any weapon with an extremly effective eye. But for game balance, they two are ruled to not stack with each other. And isn't the spell used in creating a speed weapon the Haste spell itself?
e7way 03-30-07, 12:13 AM	we have had the same arguements in my group. Heres what we have pointed out. Haste effects your whole body, it increases your inti, your number of attacks, and your speed correct? Speed however DOES NOT do any of those exept increase 1 attack with that 1 HAND wielding that weapon. It enhances the 1 weapon period. Speed is not an all encompassing magic covering the characters whole body like HASTE. So logically what arguements can you put together saying "yes, speed does include your whole body" what language or verbage has anyone written to support that? I guess the one of arguements you could use is that they cancel each other out? or one of the weapons is the stronger and thats the one that works? Just playin devils advocate here:schemes:
mythSSK 03-30-07, 12:38 AM	Also, Magic Item Compendium is not RAW.Wrong. MIC is not core. There's a big difference. The battle staff in the MIC is not the first instance of a staff with speed on both ends. In the Epic Level Handbook (even the updated to 3.5 version, it still exists) there is a similar staff with similar properties. There was also a large number of debates over whether this was legal a while back. I do however agree that the staff in the MIC is written with the intention of only being able to use the speed enhancement on one end at a time, judging by its price. This lends support to those who say no to two speedweapons. Personally though, I would allow it.
Someone 03-30-07, 01:10 AM	So if I where to put flaming on one end and frost on the other end of the aforementioned staff I get to choose which I get more of... Makes senceBingo.
KingMarl 03-30-07, 02:14 PM	I do however agree that the staff in the MIC is written with the intention of only being able to use the speed enhancement on one end at a time, judging by its price. This lends support to those who say no to two speedweapons. Personally though, I would allow it. I do intend to allow it, especially having done math that shows that two +1 Speed weapons is inferior to two +4 non-speed weapons. For fighters, anyways. I suspect the math would work out differently for a rogue, but then again I was surprised by the fighter results. But just FYI, the cost of the Quarterstaff of Battle is precisely what the DMG rules for a double-ended +1/+1 weapon with two spells on it would end up with as a cost. I suspect that having realized that charging the same for a +1/+1 weapon as a +2 weapon is kind of broken, they've thrown in some other minor abilities gratis. (Which would you rather have? A +2 sai in one hand and a masterwork sai in the other (and 4,000gp left over for, say, +2 to an ability), or two +1 sais (with no gold left over?) Math: +1 weapon = 2,000. Double-ended +1/+1 weapon = 8,000. Masterwork quarterstaff = +600. Haste 1/day = 6,000 (CL5 * SL3 * 2,000 = 30000, but x 1/5 because it's only 1 'charge' per day). Adding a second ability makes the lower one cost 1.5 times, so we've got one end at 8,000 (2,000 for +1 & 6,000 for Haste) and one end at 12,000 (+6,000 for the second +1 & 6,000 for Haste), so we go with 1.5x 8,000 for 12,000gp. Total: 12,000 + 12,000 + 600 = 24,600gp. Realizing that 24,600gp is a lot to pay for two +1 weapons with a 1/day 3rd level spell on them, I suspect that they threw in some bonus abilities. After all, two independent weapons would cost 16,000gp instead of 24,000gp.
lears_fool 03-30-07, 02:47 PM	I do intend to allow it, especially having done math that shows that two +1 Speed weapons is inferior to two +4 non-speed weapons. For fighters, anyways. I suspect the math would work out differently for a rogue, but then again I was surprised by the fighter results. I believe that's why they specified the non-stacking rule as much as anything else. For a fighter, it's not a huge benefit. But for a rogue, it IS, and for a multi-armed creature it can border on the absurd. For example, a Thri Kreen level 5 rogue with four +1 kukri of speed could do 8d4+3d6*8 points of damage in a round, averaging out at 104 points of damage before other bonuses, whereas at the same level a fighter would have a negligible benefit. (yeah, I know, how will they get one, but it ramps up even faster the higher your levels get) So, if, in your campaign you've just got fighters looking to stack speed weapons, I wouldn't worry so much, for them the +3 requirement precludes flaming/shock/frost effects that could offset things to an extent. With rogues and anyone else with a major per-hit damage bonus (whether from spells or class features), especially those who have or can obtain more than two attacking limbs, it can ramp up a bit more quickly and might be unbalancing
olshanski_home 03-30-07, 03:06 PM	I do intend to allow it, especially having done math that shows that two +1 Speed weapons is inferior to two +4 non-speed weapons. For fighters, anyways. I suspect the math would work out differently for a rogue, but then again I was surprised by the fighter results. What sort of math are you doing? Lets look a 10th level fighter, 18 strength, weapon focus, greater weapon focus, weapon specialization, two-weapon fighting, wielding 2 shortswords. Lets put him up against a CR12 purple worm AC 19 or a CR9 Bone Devil AC25 With +1 speed swords his attack line is +15/+15/+10(1d6+7) AND +15/+15(1d6+5) Average damage (full round) vs AC 19 is 42.46 Average damage (full round) vs AC 25 is 26.45 With +4 swords his attack line is +18/+13(1d6+10) AND +18(1d6+8) Average damage (full round) vs AC 19 is 37.89 Average damage (full round) vs AC 25 is 25.93 If you figure that most of your combat is not going to be full-round actions, then two weapon fighting is inferior in general... I'll grant that a +4 weapon is better if you are denied the full-round action and the chance to take advantage of speed.
Marcus Majarra 03-30-07, 04:47 PM	I do intend to allow it, especially having done math that shows that two +1 Speed weapons is inferior to two +4 non-speed weapons. For fighters, anyways. I suspect the math would work out differently for a rogue, but then again I was surprised by the fighter results. But just FYI, the cost of the Quarterstaff of Battle is precisely what the DMG rules for a double-ended +1/+1 weapon with two spells on it would end up with as a cost. I suspect that having realized that charging the same for a +1/+1 weapon as a +2 weapon is kind of broken, they've thrown in some other minor abilities gratis. (Which would you rather have? A +2 sai in one hand and a masterwork sai in the other (and 4,000gp left over for, say, +2 to an ability), or two +1 sais (with no gold left over?) Math: +1 weapon = 2,000. Double-ended +1/+1 weapon = 8,000. Masterwork quarterstaff = +600. Haste 1/day = 6,000 (CL5 * SL3 * 2,000 = 30000, but x 1/5 because it's only 1 'charge' per day). Adding a second ability makes the lower one cost 1.5 times, so we've got one end at 8,000 (2,000 for +1 & 6,000 for Haste) and one end at 12,000 (+6,000 for the second +1 & 6,000 for Haste), so we go with 1.5x 8,000 for 12,000gp. Total: 12,000 + 12,000 + 600 = 24,600gp. Realizing that 24,600gp is a lot to pay for two +1 weapons with a 1/day 3rd level spell on them, I suspect that they threw in some bonus abilities. After all, two independent weapons would cost 16,000gp instead of 24,000gp. There's a big logic problem here: a +1/+1 double weapon doesn't cost the same as a +2 weapon. It costs the same as two +1 weapons. A +1/+1 quarterstaff costs 4,600 gp. If it were how you describe it, there would be absolutely no incentive to using a double weapon in the first place.
tos_shai_hulud 04-01-07, 04:28 PM	KingMarl, if your interpretation were correct, what would happen if you had one weapon of speed and were under the effect of a haste spell? The haste spell grants one additional attack with your main-hand weapon. The weapon of speed does not grant any additional attacks with your main-hand weapon, as it only grants an extra attack to itself. So by your interpretation, would a character wielding a weapon of speed in his offhand and under the effects of a haste spell gain one additional main-hand attack (from haste) and one additional off-hand attack (from the weapon of speed's special ability)? If that were the case, anyone with a weapon of speed would want to wield it in their off-hand and get hasted as quickly as possible, right? By your interpretation, the haste effect is not stacking with the off-hand weapon, because the off-hand weapon is gaining no extra attack from haste, and the main-hand weapon, which is gaining the extra attack, is not stacking with the speed effect because the speed effect does not grant an extra attack to the main-hand. I think this is exactly what the rules were trying to avoid. A creative player can come up with any number of ways to break the system. I think two weapons of speed would fall into the same category of manipulating the rules. I think the rules would still make it impossible.
KingMarl 04-01-07, 06:45 PM	What sort of math are you doing? Lets look a 10th level fighter, 18 strength, weapon focus, greater weapon focus, weapon specialization, two-weapon fighting, wielding 2 shortswords. Lets put him up against a CR12 purple worm AC 19 or a CR9 Bone Devil AC25 Okay, and then the purple worm swallows him and he's hosed. :) In general, high-level encounters include high AC opponents unless they've got something else going for them. Your example showed that at AC25, the +4 weapon combo was better than the dual weapon of speed combo. The difference will only get worse as the AC increases. There's a big logic problem here: a +1/+1 double weapon doesn't cost the same as a +2 weapon. It costs the same as two +1 weapons. A +1/+1 quarterstaff costs 4,600 gp. If it were how you describe it, there would be absolutely no incentive to using a double weapon in the first place. Not a logic problem, a "misread the double-headed weapon" problem. But that's good, I was kind of wondering the same thing - who the heck would want a double-ended weapon. Glad you pointed that out. KingMarl, if your interpretation were correct, what would happen if you had one weapon of speed and were under the effect of a haste spell? Haste is pretty specific about that, so unless you're completely ignoring the spell description, it won't work no matter which hand you use it in. At this point, I think we're just beating a dead horse. However, I really would like to see an official WoTC ruling on the Quarterstaff of Battle at some point. I sincerely doubt that it's intended to be a +1/+1 staff that you can Haste twice/day.
unusualsuspect 04-01-07, 07:06 PM	Okay, and then the purple worm swallows him and he's hosed. In general, high-level encounters include high AC opponents unless they've got something else going for them. Your example showed that at AC25, the +4 weapon combo was better than the dual weapon of speed combo. The difference will only get worse as the AC increases. It did? With +1 speed swords his attack line is +15/+15/+10(1d6+7) AND +15/+15(1d6+5) Average damage (full round) vs AC 19 is 42.46 Average damage (full round) vs AC 25 is 26.45 With +4 swords his attack line is +18/+13(1d6+10) AND +18(1d6+8) Average damage (full round) vs AC 19 is 37.89 Average damage (full round) vs AC 25 is 25.93 ???
tos_shai_hulud 04-01-07, 09:35 PM	Haste is pretty specific about that, so unless you're completely ignoring the spell description, it won't work no matter which hand you use it in. You are suggesting that two different weapons of speed might stack because the speed effect is acting upon a different weapon. How is that any different than the argument that a speed weapon in the off-hand might stack with a haste effect which grants a bonus to the main hand? The rules are pretty specific that weapons of speed do not stack with any similar effect. Would it be different if they are not stacking with haste, but might be stacking with another weapon of speed?
KingMarl 04-02-07, 09:01 AM	You are suggesting that two different weapons of speed might stack because the speed effect is acting upon a different weapon. How is that any different than the argument that a speed weapon in the off-hand might stack with a haste effect which grants a bonus to the main hand? The rules are pretty specific that weapons of speed do not stack with any similar effect. Would it be different if they are not stacking with haste, but might be stacking with another weapon of speed? Read the spell. It says very clearly what happens.
KingMarl 04-02-07, 09:36 AM	It did? :) Apparently I need glasses. But clearly there is a crossover point in there - at AC 19, it's +4.7, while at AC 25, it's only +0.5. Give them any sort of DR and the more attacks, the more the speed guy loses. Regardless, if we're debating over 5 or less points of damage per round, it's not the kind of thing that seems horribly broken, and I still have yet to see a clear identification in the rules that dual weapons of speed don't work. Since weapons don't 'stack' with each other (if they did, it would be awesome for overcoming DR), I remain unconvinced that a dweomer on a weapon is affected by one on another weapon. The Speed property is relatively unique - it doesn't confer an ability on the wielder, it's stated as inherent to the weapon. The only other similar ability I can find (in the standard materials, the Magic Item Compendium is difficult for me to access during the day) is the Mighty Cleaving property (which is worthless once a character has the Great Cleave feat).
lears_fool 04-02-07, 09:56 AM	From a pure game balance standpoint, I don't think you have anything to worry about with houseruling that your regular fighter can benefit from the stacking of two speed weapons. The only thing you've got to watch out for (and very likely the reason why Wizards mentioned not stacking at all!) are the precision damage classes (rogues, ninjas, psionic rogues, etc) as well as anyone who can wield 3+ weapons. For THEM, it could quickly become unbalancing. But for a regular fighter I don't see a problem. I personally wouldn't allow it, not because the scenario you described has immediate risk, but because I'd be worried about the day the fighter hands them off to the party rogue or dies and the loot gets distributed accordingly :)
olshanski_home 04-02-07, 10:56 AM	Lets look a small 11th level rogue, 24 Dex, 10 Str , weapon focus, Weapon Finesse, two-weapon fighting, improved invisibility, wielding 2 small shortswords. He is improved invisible, so lets put him up against opponent's flat-footed AC of 20, 25, and 30. In one case, he has 2 speed shortswords, in the other, he has 2 +4 shortswords. His BAB is +8/+3 He gets +7 Dex, +1 size, +2 invisible, +1 Wpnfocus, (+1 or +4 shortsword) With +1 speed shortswords, his attack line is +18/+18/+18/+18/+13 (1d4+1+6d6) Average damage vs AC20 is 121 Average damage vs AC25 is 88 Average damage vs AC30 is 54 With +4 shortswords, his attack line is (+21/+21/+16) (1d4+4+6d6) Average damage vs AC20 is 83 Average damage vs AC25 is 70 Average damage vs AC30 is 46 How exactly was multiple +1 speed weapon inferior to multiple +4 weapon? I'll grant that when you do not get sneak-attacks, and when you do not get a full-round action, the +4 weapon is far superior. When you get your full attack (sneak attack), the speed weapons are way better.
tos_shai_hulud 04-02-07, 11:09 AM	Read the spell. It says very clearly what happens. My point exactly.
olshanski_home 04-02-07, 12:26 PM	Here's the relevent text from "HASTE" When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. The attack is made using the creature’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a weapon of speed, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can’t use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.) Here's the relevent text from "Speed weapon" Speed: When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.) Frankly, the text is nearly identical. Haste is not limited to a single weapon, while the speed weapon is. KingMarl's argument is that the speed weapon seems to allow a specific extra attack with that weapon, since the text says "with that weapon" Haste, also says that it gives an extra attack with any weapon he is holding. Speed is an extra attack with the speed weapon. Both effects seem to be applying to the weapon in exactly the same way, except that haste lets you pick a weapon. Thus, you cannot have a speed dagger in your off hand, and your uber slaying+5 avenger weapon in your good-hand and use the speed dagger to get a free attack with you uber-sword. The argument that "speed works on the weapon" fails in my opinion, because it is the same text as the haste spell. Seriously, kingmarl, if you want to house-rule it go ahead, but your claim that the rules are ambiguous or that the rules somehow allow speed weapons to stack is a display of willful miscomprehension.
DMDaddy 04-04-07, 02:05 AM	I didn't read everything, but can a character with two weopon fight and one of those weapons being speed get Normal attacks plus the TWF additional attack and the speed attact (one extra attack per full round attack).
endofdreams 05-01-07, 10:59 AM	Notice how low the price is. Apparently, the authors realized that it would only give you 1 extra attack per round, and priced it accordingly. As to why they made it give you a useless duplicate ability? Maybe it was just easier to write it that way instead of saying something like "you can choose one end of the quarterstaff to have the speed enchantment for 5 rounds." Maybe they wanted to allow the wielder to choose which end he got his extra attack with each round. Regardless of why they gave an ability that doesn't stack with itself, I think the price makes it pretty clear that there was no intention of giving two extra attacks each round. King Marl: Why would you want 2 quarterstaves that give you 10 rounds of speed per day, when you could just take your +1 longsword of speed and have speed unlimited rounds per day? The staff of Aclarity from the epic level handbook also has the speed property attached to both ends of it, usable at all times and costing in the proper range. Why would it give you a choice of which end to use the ability for if speed uses your highest attack bonus? you don't have a choice if both answers are the sameresult, and it wouldn't be different than an improved monk flurry. I would allow it, but I'm a lenient DM.
Wopple 05-01-07, 11:10 AM	Lets look a small 11th level rogue, 24 Dex, 10 Str , weapon focus, Weapon Finesse, two-weapon fighting, improved invisibility, wielding 2 small shortswords. He is improved invisible, so lets put him up against opponent's flat-footed AC of 20, 25, and 30. In one case, he has 2 speed shortswords, in the other, he has 2 +4 shortswords. His BAB is +8/+3 He gets +7 Dex, +1 size, +2 invisible, +1 Wpnfocus, (+1 or +4 shortsword) With +1 speed shortswords, his attack line is +18/+18/+18/+18/+13 (1d4+1+6d6) Average damage vs AC20 is 121 Average damage vs AC25 is 88 Average damage vs AC30 is 54 With +4 shortswords, his attack line is (+21/+21/+16) (1d4+4+6d6) Average damage vs AC20 is 83 Average damage vs AC25 is 70 Average damage vs AC30 is 46 How exactly was multiple +1 speed weapon inferior to multiple +4 weapon? I'll grant that when you do not get sneak-attacks, and when you do not get a full-round action, the +4 weapon is far superior. When you get your full attack (sneak attack), the speed weapons are way better. Soo.... your point is... that if you did have it set so that you could get multiple attacks from multiple speed weapons.. it would perform differently for different builds..... sometimes being better and othertimes being worse? Isn't that called BALANCE? So you are arguing that we should allow multiple speed attacks from multiple speed weapons. Makes sense to me.
Eightbitmage 05-01-07, 01:16 PM	that if you did have it set so that you could get multiple attacks from multiple speed weapons.. it would perform differently for different builds..... sometimes being better and othertimes being worse? Isn't that called BALANCE? No, items and such are balanced for best case scenerios not across the board. A holy avenger in the hands of a fighter isn't going to do him much good, but it will do a lot more for a paladin so the gold value is balanced for a paladin. This means it must only be balanced against another weapon of equal gold value in the hands of a paladin. Similarly in this scenerio it matters how well a fighter will do with two weapons of speed as much as it does for a bard, druid, or wizard; not one bit. Rogues get the most benefit from such weapons so they are the standard that should be used when determining balance.
Matthew77 05-01-07, 02:06 PM	The staff of Aclarity from the epic level handbook also has the speed property attached to both ends of it, usable at all times and costing in the proper range. Why would it give you a choice of which end to use the ability for if speed uses your highest attack bonus? you don't have a choice if both answers are the sameresult, and it wouldn't be different than an improved monk flurry. I would allow it, but I'm a lenient DM. Would this be an Epic item, with the usual x10 price cost for Epic items?
tos_shai_hulud 05-01-07, 04:09 PM	Would this be an Epic item, with the usual x10 price cost for Epic items? It appears to be a non-epic weapon: Quarterstaff of Alacrity Both ends of this +5 quarterstaff of speed have equal enhancement and special powers, meaning that it allows an additional attack with each end every round. While the quarterstaff of alacrity is held, it grants its wielder a +5 resistance bonus on Reflex saves. It also deflects ranged weapons as if the wielder had the Deflect Arrows and Infinite Deflection feats. Caster Level: 21st; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, protection from arrows, shield; Market Price: 462,600 gp; Cost to Create: 231,600 gp + 14,620 XP.
endofdreams 05-01-07, 04:19 PM	Would this be an Epic item, with the usual x10 price cost for Epic items? Either way, doesn't it illustrate the possibility that it is not an anomaly? "Quarter Staff of Aclarity Both ends of this +5 quarterstaff of Speed have equal enhancements and special powers, meaning that it allows an additional attack with each end every round. ..." (epic hanbook pg 134)
Wopple 05-01-07, 05:19 PM	No, items and such are balanced for best case scenerios not across the board. A holy avenger in the hands of a fighter isn't going to do him much good, but it will do a lot more for a paladin so the gold value is balanced for a paladin. This means it must only be balanced against another weapon of equal gold value in the hands of a paladin. Similarly in this scenerio it matters how well a fighter will do with two weapons of speed as much as it does for a bard, druid, or wizard; not one bit. Rogues get the most benefit from such weapons so they are the standard that should be used when determining balance. Well for rogues this is NOT the biggest balance problem. Especially if you don't use errata (3 cheers for master thrower). But there you go right there, rouges would much rather not be in the thick of it, which means ranged, which means returning dagger of speed + rapid shot +TWF, which gets you the same number of attacks but at a safe distance. Although throwing weps of speed brings a WHOLE new dimension to it... what if you have 9 daggers of speed? etc etc. The rules, if you want to follow them, are very straightforward with this: If you are equipped with a wep of speed you are granted 1 extra attack, as if under haste, and it must be made with that weapon. That's it. No TWF, no bow and arrow, no thrown weapons. You can use any of these things, but it will only ever give you +1 attack. Now how much sense that makes is also debatable. I honestly don't see the balance issue to allow melee only TWF to get 2 extra attacks. Melee guys suck as is, so it's nice to throw them a bone. Maybe you could attach a penalty, use 2 weps of speed and you take a -5 to second speed attack or something, but I'd allow it.
Matthew77 05-03-07, 09:44 AM	Either way, doesn't it illustrate the possibility that it is not an anomaly? Well, my point was simply that Epic items are not bound by the same restrictions as normal items. An Epic or Artifact item that grants two additional attacks per round does not indicate to me that non-epic items should be able to duplicate the same ability. Looking at the some of the numbers posted in this thread and keeping in mind that a full attack can be difficult to execute in high level combat, it doesn't seem as overpowered as I initially thought. Personally, I'd rather allow Haste + one speed weapon to stack instead of two speed weapons. I like it when players build up power by drawing on multiple sources, instead of just finding one thing they like and duplicating it.
endofdreams 05-03-07, 01:17 PM	Well, my point was simply that Epic items are not bound by the same restrictions as normal items. An Epic or Artifact item that grants two additional attacks per round does not indicate to me that non-epic items should be able to duplicate the same ability. You'll have to expound on what you mean by Restrictions. I see your reasoning, I'm just not familair with where it is coming from. This staff is also lowly priced by comparsison, under 1/2 a million, considering its effectively a plus eight weapon on both sides, allows two speed attacks, and confers infinite deflection as a free feat.
Matthew77 05-03-07, 01:46 PM	You'll have to expound on what you mean by Restrictions. I see your reasoning, I'm just not familair with where it is coming from. While not truly an artifact, the epic magic item is a creation of such power that it surpasses other magic items. Epic magic items are objects of great power and value. The following are typical characteristics of an epic magic item. In general, an item with even one of these characteristics is an epic magic item. * Grants a bonus on attacks or damage greater than +5. * Grants an enhancement bonus to armor higher than +5. * Has a special ability with a market price modifier greater than +5. * Grants an armor bonus of greater than +10 (not including magic armor’s enhancement bonus). * Grants a natural armor, deflection, or resistance bonus greater than +5. * Grants an enhancement bonus to an ability score greater than +6. * Grants an enhancement bonus on a skill check greater than +30. * Mimics a spell of an effective level higher than 9th. * Has a caster level above 20th. * Has a market price above 200,000 gp, not including material costs for armor or weapons, material component- or experience point-based costs, or additional value for intelligent items. My only point is that: since epic items are not bound by the same restrictions that apply to non-epic items, saying that an epic item (the staff) can grant two speed attacks is not a convincing argument that a pair of non-epic items should be able to do the same thing. Analogy: Pointing to "Gripsoul" is not a good argument that a non-epic weapon should be able to grant a +6 enhancement bonus to attacks and damage.
endofdreams 05-03-07, 03:10 PM	My only point is that: since epic items are not bound by the same restrictions that apply to non-epic items, saying that an epic item (the staff) can grant two speed attacks is not a convincing argument that a pair of non-epic items should be able to do the same thing. Analogy: Pointing to "Gripsoul" is not a good argument that a non-epic weapon should be able to grant a +6 enhancement bonus to attacks and damage. That offers no insight into your statement that epic weapons have different restrictions. All that says is that epic weapons are powerful, and are stronger than non-epic magical weapons. Not that they gain extra abilities or are less bound by the rulles. The information you have provided, however, has no direct effect on game mechanics as far as how they work, it simply gives parameters that allow you to label the weapon as epic, bestowing nothing greater as far as how they function differently in, or out, of combat. I never attempted to suggest that because an epic weapon has an enhancement bonus, it could be confered onto a non-epic item. I'm pointing out in a general sense that it is possible to use a dual speed weapon as per game content.
Matthew77 05-04-07, 09:17 AM	That offers no insight into your statement that epic weapons have different restrictions. All that says is that epic weapons are powerful, and are stronger than non-epic magical weapons. Not that they gain extra abilities or are less bound by the rulles. Read the SRD quote again. Epic items are not required to abide by the same restrictions on power level as non-epic items. They explicitly are less bound by the rules. Non Epic: cannot grant a enhancement bonus on weapons greater than +5. Non Epic: cannot grant a bonus to an ability score greater than +6 Non Epic: cannot grant a deflection bonus greater than +5 Non Epic: cannot grant a competence bonus to skills greater than +30. Epic items are not bound by these restrictions. Thus, it would be logical to argue that the restriction on 1 extra attack per round from speed weapons is another restriction that applies to non-epic items, but can be achieved by an epic item.
starfire311 05-04-07, 09:47 AM	My take, Speed does not stack with similar effects excellent. Two weapons of speed are not stacking,but each one gives you an additional attack with that weapon. Just like 2 keen weapons are not stacking, each keen doubles the crit range of that weapon. So if you attack with 2, +1 flaming keen shorts words of speed and you have a BAB +6 and ITWF and dex 17 and Weaon focus short sword and weapon finesse shortsword, and strength of 14 your attack routine is Short sword +9/+9/+4 1D6+1D6(fire)+3 crit 17+/x2 and short sword +9/+9/+4 1D6+1D6(fire)+2 crit 17+/x2 niether sword is stacking with the other, niether are granting any beneft to the other sword in anyway. All enhancements only affect that weapon.
endofdreams 05-04-07, 04:17 PM	Read the SRD quote again. Epic items are not required to abide by the same restrictions on power level as non-epic items. They explicitly are less bound by the rules. Non Epic: cannot grant a enhancement bonus on weapons greater than +5. Non Epic: cannot grant a bonus to an ability score greater than +6 Non Epic: cannot grant a deflection bonus greater than +5 Non Epic: cannot grant a competence bonus to skills greater than +30. Epic items are not bound by these restrictions. Thus, it would be logical to argue that the restriction on 1 extra attack per round from speed weapons is another restriction that applies to non-epic items, but can be achieved by an epic item. The staff of alclarity doesn't have have an enhancement bonus greater than +5. And the alleiviated "restrictions" mention nothing about surpassing any other rules. It states, that Epic Magic Items are greater than magic items, then gives the specific reasons why. You're looking very subjectively at this Epic Magic Items rule. Since it doesn't state that it allows greater benefit from magical enhancements, how do you draw you conclusion?
tos_shai_hulud 05-04-07, 05:07 PM	The staff of alclarity doesn't have have an enhancement bonus greater than +5. And the alleiviated "restrictions" mention nothing about surpassing any other rules. It states, that Epic Magic Items are greater than magic items, then gives the specific reasons why. You're looking very subjectively at this Epic Magic Items rule. Since it doesn't state that it allows greater benefit from magical enhancements, how do you draw you conclusion? The Staff of Alactrity grants the use of an epic feat. And a non epic feat which is its prerequisite. Seems kinda epic to me. Lets look at the pricing: Market Price: 462,600 gp Now lets break that down... 600gp = masterwork for both ends. +5 weapon of speed on each end = 128,000x2 = 256,000. +5 Resistance bonus to Reflex saves is tough. +5 Resistance to all saves would be 25,000*1.5 (for being a noncustomary slot) or 37,500. Now, since it is only one save, probably 1/3 of the cost or 12,500. Subtotal: 600+256,000+12,500 = 269,100gp. That leaves 192,500gp for a regular feat and an epic feat. Not sure if the item is epic or not, but it certainly seems more than a non-epic staff to me.
endofdreams 05-04-07, 05:17 PM	The Staff of Alactrity grants the use of an epic feat. And a non epic feat which is its prerequisite. Seems kinda epic to me. Lets look at the pricing: Market Price: 462,600 gp Now lets break that down... 600gp = masterwork for both ends. +5 weapon of speed on each end = 128,000x2 = 256,000. +5 Resistance bonus to Reflex saves is tough. +5 Resistance to all saves would be 25,000*1.5 (for being a noncustomary slot) or 37,500. Now, since it is only one save, probably 1/3 of the cost or 12,500. Subtotal: 600+256,000+12,500 = 269,100gp. That leaves 192,500gp for a regular feat and an epic feat. Not sure if the item is epic or not, but it certainly seems more than a non-epic staff to me. I never disputed that it was epic, as it clearly is since its listed under "epic magic items". I simply stated that it doesn't have a greater enhancement bonus than +5.
tos_shai_hulud 05-04-07, 05:43 PM	I never disputed that it was epic, as it clearly is since its listed under "epic magic items". I simply stated that it doesn't have a greater enhancement bonus than +5. Well, the location of information in the SRD is only occasionally relevant to what it is: Nonepic General Feats Improved Flyby Attack Improved Multiattack Improved Multiweapon Fighting Greater Multiweapon Fighting What's with the Nonepic General Feats? Feats Divine Divine Might Divine Vengeance General Blindsight,5-Ft.Radius Extra Music Eyes In The Back Of Your Head Fleet Of Foot Hold The Line Jack Of All Trades Knock-Down Plant Control Plant Defiance Power Critical Sharp-Shooting Superior Expertise Metamagic Disguise Spell Energy Substitution Persistent Spell Reach Spell Repeat Spell Sacred Spell Subdual Substitution Wait, the list of Divine feats has a total of two divine feats and the rest are general and metamagic?!? Racial Paragon Classes Wait, the variant races have classes that are based on race, but the variant classes have nothing about these Racial Paragon classes?!? What? Craft Construct is a Monster Feat?!? I am sure there are others. When I see something under one of their 'lists', I take that with a grain of salt.
endofdreams 05-04-07, 05:52 PM	But it must be epic, it requires an epic level caster an epic feat to create, and is listed under the specific epic weapons, not sectioned off into non-epic categories, presented under sub-headings, or otherwise substantially regarded as anything else.
crashlogic 05-04-07, 08:38 PM	Well the interpretations offfered here are mostly wrong and do not account for a careful reading of the rules, de differences between effects and abilities, or the application of english. When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.) The speed quality of A weapon does not stack with haste or any similarly related effects. So clearly if I am using one weapon, I do not get an extra attack if I am also hasted. The use of an off hand weapon is not spell like or supernatural effect, nor is it an extraordinary ability, it is a plain attack. Since the speed rule clearly does not include multiple weapons in its ruling, each weapon in a dula wield situation is used independent of the other. Thus one can use a rapier of speed in the main hand, and a shortsword of speed in the off hand, and get an extra attack with both at full BAB subject to the applicable two weapon penalties. The rule as written applies to each weapon seperately and not to the combination. An extra attack with an off hand weapon is not an effect, but an ability. To make this more complicated, if a person who is hasted has a rapier of speed her main hand, and a normal shortsword in her off hand, and then was hasted she would still get an extra attack for each weapon. One extra on the main weapon for its speed quality, and one extra on the off hand for being hasted. What she would not get is a second extra attack with the main wepaon for its speed quality and her haste quality.
Pegasos989 05-07-07, 12:46 AM	I can't understand what's the problem here. They don't stack but two give two extra attacks. You have: Weapon 1: nothing Weapon 2: nothing Now, if weapon 1 is speed, you have Weapon 1: speed Weapon 2: nothing As such, weapon 1 let's you have one extra attack with it. Weapon 2 is unaffected. Now, if both are speed weapons... Weapon 1: speed Weapon 2: speed Weapon 1 is unaffected by weapon 2 so nothing cumulative here. Weapon 1 allows you to make extra attack with it. Weapon 2 is unaffected by weapon 1, so nothing cumulative here. Weapon 2 allows you to make extra attack with it. I don't see how anyone reading the description could logically argue that the enchantment in one weapon - mentioning it affects that weapon - affects the other one too so they would be cumulative. So from a rules' standpoint, two speed weapons allow you to make one extra attack each. From balance standpoint too. If we assume game is balanced so that 3 attacks of two-handed fighting are as good as 6 attacks of two-weapon fighting, it makes sense that either style can get 1/3 more attacks with equal cost. TWFers are already put down due to having buy two! If you think it is too good enchantment, raise it to +4...
Matthew77 05-07-07, 02:45 PM	I can't understand what's the problem here. They don't stack but two give two extra attacks. I'm starting to change my mind about the game balance perspective on dual-wielding speed weapons, but let me try to present a counter-argument to the idea that the weapons are independant. Speed weapons and TWF only function on full attack actions. A full attack action should be considered as one unit, instead of breaking it down into "a full attack with my on-hand" and "a full attack with my off hand." If your full attack action is: 2 attacks with on hand and 2 attacks with off hand, and then you add one speed weapon in your on hand, you get: 3 attacks with on hand, and 2 attacks with off hand. Now add a second speed weapon in your off hand. When you make a full attack action, the second speed weapon attempts to give you a third attack with your off hand, but it runs into this problem; "This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell." This full attack action has already had the benefit of a "similar effect", from the first speed weapon, so the second speed weapon is not cumulative. The key to the argument is to assert that a "full attack action" is an indivisible unit which can only benefit once from the speed property.
mvincent 05-07-07, 03:10 PM	I can't understand what's the problem here.It's usually not a balance issue... speed weapons are over-priced for what they do. Instead, it is the fact that the rules are pretty conclusive about this. As stated earlier: The 3.0 speed description (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdmagicitemsweapons.rtf) said: "It is not cumulative with haste." This caused some players to believe that it would still be cumulative with itself, but the 3.0 FAQ clarified that by stating: "You can use two weapons of speed at a time all right, but you still only get one extra attack, from one weapon or the other, not both. If you are under the effects of a haste spell, you can use the extra attack action from one weapon of speed, or the extra partial action from the haste spell, but not both." To reflect this, the 3.5 speed description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#speed) was changed to include: "This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell." Now, the speed ability from one weapon can absolutely be considered a "similar effect" to the speed ability from another. So, the rules have actually been changed between editions to make this even more clear. Still, if you wish to allow them to stack in your games, then I whole-heartedly encourage you to do so. But if you start playing with a new group and expect them to arrive at a different conclusion from the above information, then you might be disappointed. By providing this information, I'm merely trying to help is all.
crashlogic 05-07-07, 05:03 PM	I'm starting to change my mind about the game balance perspective on dual-wielding speed weapons, but let me try to present a counter-argument to the idea that the weapons are independant. Speed weapons and TWF only function on full attack actions. A full attack action should be considered as one unit, instead of breaking it down into "a full attack with my on-hand" and "a full attack with my off hand." If your full attack action is: 2 attacks with on hand and 2 attacks with off hand, and then you add one speed weapon in your on hand, you get: 3 attacks with on hand, and 2 attacks with off hand. Now add a second speed weapon in your off hand. When you make a full attack action, the second speed weapon attempts to give you a third attack with your off hand, but it runs into this problem; "This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell." This full attack action has already had the benefit of a "similar effect", from the first speed weapon, so the second speed weapon is not cumulative. The key to the argument is to assert that a "full attack action" is an indivisible unit which can only benefit once from the speed property. No! No! No!. It is the item which is subject to the stacking limitation not the action. A two wepon attack, even at full attack, is still using two weapons, and the limitation on similar effects apples to the weapon, not to the action.
crashlogic 05-07-07, 05:13 PM	It's usually not a balance issue... speed weapons are over-priced for what they do. Instead, it is the fact that the rules are pretty conclusive about this. As stated earlier: The 3.0 speed description (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdmagicitemsweapons.rtf) said: "It is not cumulative with haste." This caused some players to believe that it would still be cumulative with itself, but the 3.0 FAQ clarified that by stating: "You can use two weapons of speed at a time all right, but you still only get one extra attack, from one weapon or the other, not both. If you are under the effects of a haste spell, you can use the extra attack action from one weapon of speed, or the extra partial action from the haste spell, but not both." To reflect this, the 3.5 speed description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#speed) was changed to include: "This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell." Now, the speed ability from one weapon can absolutely be considered a "similar effect" to the speed ability from another. So, the rules have actually been changed between editions to make this even more clear. Still, if you wish to allow them to stack in your games, then I whole-heartedly encourage you to do so. But if you start playing with a new group and expect them to arrive at a different conclusion from the above information, then you might be disappointed. By providing this information, I'm merely trying to help is all. Its obviously not clear that the speed abilites are "similar effects" as they pertain to the same item. My belief is that if they did not want weapons of speed to stack in 3.5, they would have said so, as they did with haste. One never makes an attack with two weapons, you make multiple attacks with each weapon in two hands. thus you could never have weapon effects stacking with each other. In contraste, haste affects the character, and thus would apply to both weapons, and would not stack with speed. You just can't use 3.0 rules adjudications in 3.5, the games and intent of the revision is different.
Matthew77 05-07-07, 05:26 PM	No! No! No!. It is the item which is subject to the stacking limitation not the action. A two wepon attack, even at full attack, is still using two weapons, and the limitation on similar effects apples to the weapon, not to the action. Is this statement based on anything other than personal opinion? When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. Since it requires a full attack action to activate the weapon of speed, and it gives a benefit to the full attack action, it seems logical that the limitation would apply to the full attack action. Your position would make more sense to me if the speed property gave a benefit "whenever you attack with this weapon" instead of "when making a full attack action".
mvincent 05-07-07, 05:33 PM	Its obviously not clear that the speed abilites are "similar effects" as they pertain to the same item.It is perhaps not clear to you. It is to others. I have no vested interest in changing your mind, but again: you will likely be disappointed if you believe others must agree with you on this. You just can't use 3.0 rules adjudications in 3.5Yes you can (this has been established: see here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10964000)). The only time 3.0 material is invalidated is when a revision contradicts it. In this case, the material was indeed revised slightly, but the revision not only didn't invalid the 3.0 clarification, indeed it supported it.
crashlogic 05-07-07, 05:44 PM	It is perhaps not clear to you. It is to others. I have no vested interest in changing your mind, but again: you will likely be disappointed if you believe others must agree with you on this. Yes you can (this has been established: see here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10964000)). The only time 3.0 material is invalidated is when a revision contradicts it. In this case, the material was indeed revised slightly, but the revision not only didn't invalid the 3.0 clarification, indeed it supported it. That my friend is based on your authority and does not come from WoTC. Show me the WoTC answer and I will happily conceed defeat.
mvincent 05-07-07, 05:55 PM	That my friend is based on your authorityIt's actually based on the concensus here (as indicated by the thread) Show me the WoTC answer and I will happily conceed defeat.Fair enough: Question sent to custserv@wizards.com: "In general, are clarifications in the 3.0 FAQ's applicable to 3.5?" Reply: "Normally yes, however there are always some that may not be. The DM should decide if they work. Thanks! Steve Customer Service Department Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 *Please quote this e-mail in any reply.*"
crashlogic 05-07-07, 06:09 PM	Is this statement based on anything other than personal opinion? Since it requires a full attack action to activate the weapon of speed, and it gives a benefit to the full attack action, it seems logical that the limitation would apply to the full attack action. Your position would make more sense to me if the speed property gave a benefit "whenever you attack with this weapon" instead of "when making a full attack action". Actually no. Usually the only way to get any multiple attack in any circumstance is a full attack action (or some reats that let you do it as part of a full round action, but you would not get an extra attack in those circumstances). Thus a standard action lets you make one attack regardless of the qualities of your weapon. It is only in full attack that extra attacks, whether they are due to a fighter's level, dual weapons, haste or weapon qualities. You do not limit the full attack to the effects of one die roll, you roll multiple dice, for each weapon used if you have improved two weapon fighting. Similarly AoO's never get extra attacks. So the argument that you get an extra attack whenever you use a weapon of speed is not remotely appropriate. If you read the descriptor for the speed property it says: "When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with IT." This contemplates a situation where you are using only a single weapon. However if one uses two speed weapons, each one is a distinct "it" and therefore each one gets an extra attack. Obviously this does not stack with a haste spell or boots of speed. However two wepaons are two weapons and do not stack. Lets put it this way, there is a +5 limit to any enhancement on a weapon. Yet if I dual wield, I am not limited to having only a +2 weapon and a +3 weapon, the enhancements do not stack with each other, because they are different weapons. I can use an +5 Sword and a +5 shortsword in my off hand. This is true even though I am using each weapon in the same Full Attack. Yet under the logic put forward, since both weapons are used in the single attack, and you cannot have an enhancement bonus greater than +5 I could get the bonus from one or the other of the weapons, but not both.
Matthew77 05-07-07, 09:46 PM	If you read the descriptor for the speed property it says: "When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with IT." This contemplates a situation where you are using only a single weapon. However if one uses two speed weapons, each one is a distinct "it" and therefore each one gets an extra attack. Obviously this does not stack with a haste spell or boots of speed. However two wepaons are two weapons and do not stack. Following your argument that the speed enchantment considers only the weapon being used and not a full attack action, why is it "obvious" that it doesn't stack with haste? By your interpretation, why can't I use a speed weapon in my on hand, and use my extra attack from the haste spell for my off-hand weapon? Since speed is only affecting a single weapon, why can't I use haste with the other weapon? You have not presented any convincing argument against the position that since you are making a single full attack action, regardless of how many weapons you are using, you can only benefit from a single extra attack from speed enchantments. "one per full attack action" is supported by the rules more than "one per weapon wielded". The rules text for the speed enchantment clearly refers to the effect being triggered by a full attack action, and it clearly states that multiple similar effects are not cumulative. The phrase "with it" is a further restriction on which weapon or attack form the bonus attack can made with, not an indication that the limit on bonus attacks are per weapon, instead of per full attack action. Regarding your enhancement bonus analogy: If there was a note in the rules that "the enhancement bonus of a weapon is not cumulative with any similar bonus", then it would be an effective analogy, but there is no such limitation. I will point out that ranged weapons and ammunition do have a restriction on how they stack. My conclusion would be that when the game designers wanted to indicate that similar bonuses were not cumulative they put a specific note in the rules, and that they made a point of doing so for the speed enchantment.
crashlogic 05-08-07, 01:02 PM	My answer is, in fact, yes you could use the extra attack from haste on your off hand weapon, unless it is a speed weapon. Using one weapon of speed in a full attack gives you one extra attack, using two weapons of speed, or being hasted, gives you an additional attack with the off hand weapon. The rules as written do not specifically address two weapons. the language simply does not say what you argue it does say. a better argument is that the decision is based on the effects rules as written, and conforms to those guidelines. this is, in fact true. however, the problem is, under those rules you could not dual wield flaming weapons, as they are not instant effects (there is no trouble with flame burst). My trouble with this ruling with speed is that it flies in the face of the notion that weapon effects are limited to the weapon.
mvincent 05-08-07, 01:08 PM	Show me the WoTC answer and I will happily conceed defeat.Curious: were you being genuine in this statement?
crashlogic 05-08-07, 01:40 PM	Curious: were you being genuine in this statement? yes. Show me where in a 3.5 faq, or any other 3.5 source, where WoTC makes an official ruling on the dual weapons of speed, and I will conceed defeat. As far as the 3.0 Faq, well Haste was radically revised between the two editions. In 3.0 haste was a bout an extra partial action, for which an attack could be used, where as in 3.5 it just gives an extra attack. Haste does not stack with a weapon, because haste is a spell effect on the character, and this conflicts with the item bonus from the weapon. Just like bulls strength does not stack with an item that provides the same bonus to strength. However, I contend speed is a weapon property, and just like you can use two flaming weapons, you can use two speed weapons. However this is because you are allowed to dual wield. I would not suggest that the speed quality of a weapon stacks with another item that grants a general speed bonus, Like boots of speed and such.
Toki_Wartooth 05-08-07, 01:55 PM	yes. Show me where in a 3.5 faq, or any other 3.5 source, where WoTC makes an official ruling on the dual weapons of speed, and I will conceed defeat.Dude, that is not at all what you stated earlier. In response to mvincent saying that 3.0 clarifications can still be used in 3.5, you said: "That my friend is based on your authority and does not come from WoTC. Show me the WoTC answer and I will happily conceed defeat." He then showed you a WotC answer that 3.0 clarifications can still be used in 3.5. I mean, this whole issue was pretty much over within the first few posts of the thread, but I feel compelled to watch your efforts with morbid fascination.
tos_shai_hulud 05-08-07, 01:57 PM	However, I contend speed is a weapon property, and just like you can use two flaming weapons, you can use two speed weapons. However this is because you are allowed to dual wield. I would suggest that the speed quality of a weapon stacks with another item that grants a general speed bonus, Like boots of speed and such. Flaming Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition. I see nothing in the Flaming quality that indicates that it does not stack with similar effects (as there is in the Speed description). Just because the Flaming quality and the Speed quality both happen to be weapon qualities does not mean that they are similar. The Speed quality specifically says that it does not stack with similar effects. The Flaming quality does not. That, in a nutshell, is the argument. Dual-wielding Flaming weapons is NOTHING like dual-wielding Speed weapons. Boots of Speed As a free action, the wearer can click her boot heels together, enabling her to act as though affected by a haste spell for up to 10 rounds each day. The duration of the haste effect need not be consecutive rounds. So in addition to allowing weapons of speed to work with each other, you want weapons of speed to work with haste effects from non-spell sources, which is expressly prohibited. If you allow a weapon of speed to work with Boots of Speed, you are ignoring the definition of the Speed quality, and your argument no longer has basis in the rules.
RealSorceror 05-08-07, 02:04 PM	Well nuts to you guys. I'm attacking twice with both my weapons, thank you very much. :pbbbtt:
crashlogic 05-08-07, 02:07 PM	So in addition to allowing weapons of speed to work with each other, you want weapons of speed to work with haste effects from non-spell sources, which is expressly prohibited. If you allow a weapon of speed to work with Boots of Speed, you are ignoring the definition of the Speed quality, and your argument no longer has basis in the rules. Not what I said at all. I said that a weapon of speed does not stack with the haste effects of a boots of speed, because that is a similar source. What I did say is that given two weapons are distinct entities, the speed qualities apply to each weapon. As far as the language of the weapon of speed, that applies only to a single weapon, and does not apply to dual weapons, which are different. So the speed effects of each weapon will not stack with similar sources on the character. But in the case of a speed weapon, it is the weapon that has the trait of speed, not the character, and therefore the weapons are distinct. The flameblade rules are interpreted under the normal rules for magical effects.
tos_shai_hulud 05-08-07, 02:22 PM	Not what I said at all. I said that a weapon of speed does not stack with the haste effects of a boots of speed, because that is a similar source. What I did say is that given two weapons are distinct entities, the speed qualities apply to each weapon. I quoted you saying that you suggest that the weapon speed quality stack with Boots of Speed. You did not say that it did not stack with the haste effect of Boots of Speed. You suggested that it did stack with the Speed effect of Boots of Speed (which is a haste effect). Additionally, your argument falls apart because the 3.0 FAQ is still valid (as pointed out by mvincent). So, adhering to the RAW, two speed weapons do not stack effects. If you decide that in your games they do, you are free to House Rule otherwise (mvincent's post with the response from WotC Customer Service in fact reinforced that DMs should make their own decisions on the matter). Now, allowing Dual-wielding of Speed weapons does not seem to have too much balance issues. I would allow the effects to stack, but I don't play with a strict adherance to the RAW. Your argument is not without merit. It makes logical sense, and your suggestion to allow stacking of weapons with the Speed ability is not a bad one. It is just not RAW.
crashlogic 05-08-07, 02:27 PM	I quoted you saying that you suggest that the weapon speed quality stack with Boots of Speed. You did not say that it did not stack with the haste effect of Boots of Speed. You suggested that it did stack with the Speed effect of Boots of Speed (which is a haste effect). Additionally, your argument falls apart because the 3.0 FAQ is still valid (as pointed out by mvincent). So, adhering to the RAW, two speed weapons do not stack effects. If you decide that in your games they do, you are free to House Rule otherwise (mvincent's post with the response from WotC Customer Service in fact reinforced that DMs should make their own decisions on the matter). Now, allowing Dual-wielding of Speed weapons does not seem to have too much balance issues. I would allow the effects to stack, but I don't play with a strict adherance to the RAW. Your argument is not without merit. It makes logical sense, and your suggestion to allow stacking of weapons with the Speed ability is not a bad one. It is just not RAW. You were right in what i typed, but I omitted a critcal not. I think it is very clear that the speed effect on a weapon does not stack with any other source. But two weapons, to my way of thinking are seperate sources, since the speed quality belongs to a weapon, and not the character.
tos_shai_hulud 05-08-07, 02:31 PM	You were right in what i typed, but I omitted a critcal not. I think it is very clear that the speed effect on a weapon does not stack with any other source. But two weapons, to my way of thinking are seperate sources, since the speed quality belongs to a weapon, and not the character. And you are free to play that way. But if someone reading this forum wants to play with a strict interpretation of the RAW, they would not allow the effects of two Speed weapons to stack. As I stated, your way of thinking is not a bad way of thinking. It is simply not RAW. There is nothing wrong with playing with "not-RAW" rules when you and your players agree to it. If your players prefer the strict interpretation, then the official ruling from WotC, whether you agree with it or not, was that they do not stack.
mvincent 05-08-07, 02:35 PM	I think it is very clear that the speed effect on a weapon does not stack with any other source. But two weapons, to my way of thinking are seperate sourcesEr... this statement seems to imply that you believe two weapons don't stack. Was that a misprint?
crashlogic 05-08-07, 02:49 PM	Er... this statement seems to imply that you believe two weapons don't stack. Was that a misprint? Just not artfully stated. The speed qualities from the weapon stack with each other, because they are on the weapon, not the character. However the bonuses from something not a weapon do not stack with each other. so boots of speed, or a haste spell do not provide any additional bonus to each individual weapon, but if you can make an additional attack with the weapon, and it is a speed weapon, you can make one more attack, at the appropriate BAB. So a person with a weapon of speed in each hand, makes as a full attack action, four attacks and not three.
tos_shai_hulud 05-08-07, 02:56 PM	Just not artfully stated. The speed qualities from the weapon stack with each other, because they are on the weapon, not the character. However the bonuses from something not a weapon do not stack with each other. so boots of speed, or a haste spell do not provide any additional bonus to each individual weapon, but if you can make an additional attack with the weapon, and it is a speed weapon, you can make one more attack, at the appropriate BAB. So a person with a weapon of speed in each hand, makes as a full attack action, four attacks and not three. Actually, the text for the Speed ability states that it does not stack with similar effects. It does not state (although you are assuming this to be true) that the effect does not stack with similar effects on the weapon. According to the FAQ, your interpretation is wrong. Whether you choose to accept the ruling in the FAQ or not is up to you, but the text of the Speed weapon ONLY supports your argument if you add additional text. By the way it is worded (and the way the FAQ ruled upon it), the restriction is to similar effects affecting your character, not the weapon.
Matthew77 05-08-07, 05:06 PM	Just to throw something else into the mix... Consider the following situation: Bob has a shortsword of speed in his left hand, and a non-magical longsword in his right. He makes a full attack action, using single weapon fighting with only the longsword in his right hand. Does the shortsword of speed being held in his left hand grant him a free attack with it, even though he is not two-weapon fighting, or does he not qualify as "wielding" it? TWF rules: " If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." This indicates that you can wield two weapons, and choose not to make the extra attack to avoid the penalties, while still being considered to "wield" the weapon, and meeting all the criteria for the weapon of speed: full attack action, wielding the weapon.
SALDAR 05-08-07, 06:47 PM	Just an observation. From the SRD: Speed: When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. When you make a full attack action with a speed weapon you get an extra attack. So if you want to get two extra attacks from two different speed weapons you would need to make two full attack actions, one for each weapon in order to gain its extra attack.
Pegasos989 05-08-07, 07:44 PM	Just an observation. From the SRD: Speed: When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. When you make a full attack action with a speed weapon you get an extra attack. So if you want to get two extra attacks from two different speed weapons you would need to make two full attack actions, one for each weapon in order to gain its extra attack. Emphasis mine. So yes, if you want to make two extra attacks with it, you need to take two full attack actions. If you want to make one extra attack with it and another one with another speed weapon...
SALDAR 05-08-07, 08:30 PM	Emphasis mine. So yes, if you want to make two extra attacks with it, you need to take two full attack actions. If you want to make one extra attack with it and another one with another speed weapon... You would need two full attack actions, one for each it, since each it uses a full attack action to gain the extra attack.
tos_shai_hulud 05-08-07, 11:29 PM	Interpretation aside, the point is moot. The 3.0 FAQ gives a ruling. If you don't like it, house rule it differently.
starfire311 05-09-07, 09:39 AM	I see nothing in the Flaming quality that indicates that it does not stack with similar effects (as there is in the Speed description). Just because the Flaming quality and the Speed quality both happen to be weapon qualities does not mean that they are similar. The Speed quality specifically says that it does not stack with similar effects. The Flaming quality does not. That, in a nutshell, is the argument. Dual-wielding Flaming weapons is NOTHING like dual-wielding Speed weapons. Exactly, now lets try this one on for size. Speed When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.) Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, haste; Price +3 bonus. now lets look at Keen This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing weapons can be keen. (If you roll this property randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll.) This benefit doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat). Moderate transmutation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, keen edge; Price +1 bonus. You will notice that keen does not stack with other effects that expand crit range, and speed doesn't stack with other effects tha give you an extra attack. Does this mean if you wield 2 keen weapons, you can only gain the benefit of one?
starfire311 05-09-07, 09:42 AM	Interpretation aside, the point is moot. The 3.0 FAQ gives a ruling. If you don't like it, house rule it differently. here is the problem with the 3.0 FAQ, it is FAQ and not errata, it answers and clarifies questions for 3.0, things have changed and haste and speed were one of those things that changed. According to the 3.0 FAQ I can get an extra partial action from haste or the extra attack from speed, not both... In 3.5 how how do I get a partial action from haste?
tos_shai_hulud 05-09-07, 10:31 AM	here is the problem with the 3.0 FAQ, it is FAQ and not errata, it answers and clarifies questions for 3.0, things have changed and haste and speed were one of those things that changed. According to the 3.0 FAQ I can get an extra partial action from haste or the extra attack from speed, not both... In 3.5 how how do I get a partial action from haste? Correct, both did change. Speed became more specific. Now, not only does it say it doesn't stack with Haste, it says it doesn't stack with other similar effects. The 3.0 ruling didn't mention anything about haste. The particular ruling said that two weapons of speed did not stack. FAQ are rules for the purposes of this forum. If you don't like them, don't use them in your game. That doesn't change the fact that they are rules for the purposes of this forum. So, the 3.5 rules state that haste does not stack with weapons of speed (not the 3.0 FAQ). The 3.0 FAQ states that two weapons of speed (which have only become more restrictive) do not stack with each other. I am not certain how your argument pertained to this discussion at all.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 10:47 AM	No matter how many speed weapons you are wielding you will only get one additional attack per round. The weapons don't make additional attacks, you do.
tos_shai_hulud 05-09-07, 10:54 AM	You will notice that keen does not stack with other effects that expand crit range, and speed doesn't stack with other effects tha give you an extra attack. Does this mean if you wield 2 keen weapons, you can only gain the benefit of one? Note that in the description of the Speed weapons, you are getting an additional attack. Note that with the Keen weapon, the WEAPON is getting an improved critical threat range. No where does it say in the Speed description that the WEAPON gains an additional attack. It says that YOU gain an additional attack with the weapon. These are incompatible abilities for the purposes of your argument. Edit: What Steely Dan said.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 11:07 AM	Note that in the description of the Speed weapons, you are getting an additional attack. Note that with the Keen weapon, the WEAPON is getting an improved critical threat range. No where does it say in the Speed description that the WEAPON gains an additional attack. It says that YOU gain an additional attack with the weapon. These are incompatible abilities for the purposes of your argument. You know, every time I see your one of your posts, I realize we're on the same page – right on.
Pegasos989 05-09-07, 11:08 AM	3.0 faq hardly matters. It applies where nothing has changed and wordings certainly have. Some keep arguing that it changed to further support the 3.0 ruling but still, doesn't matter. The weapon doesn't say "you get additional attack." it says "you get additional attack with it.". The point people keep using is that it doesn't stack with similar effects and I agree. You can't have haste and speed weapon to get many extra attacks with it, nor can you apply speed -property to a single weapon twice to get them stack... But the question isn't whether they stack with similar effects or not when applicable. It is whether it is applicable. If you have two weapons, weapon 1 and weapon two. Weapon one becomes speed and says "you get additional attack with weapon 1.", it doesn't overlap at all when weapon 2 stays "you get additional attack with weapon 2". There has been very few arguments of any kind against this. Somebody mentioned that it takes a full attack to activate it but I still can't see how "When making a full attack, you can take extra attack with weapon 1" and "When making a full attack, you can take extra attack with weapon 2" somehow prevent using both. It is not swift action to activate speed property or anything.
starfire311 05-09-07, 11:11 AM	Note that in the description of the Speed weapons, you are getting an additional attack. Note that with the Keen weapon, the WEAPON is getting an improved critical threat range. No where does it say in the Speed description that the WEAPON gains an additional attack. It says that YOU gain an additional attack with the weapon. These are incompatible abilities for the purposes of your argument. Edit: What Steely Dan said. No speed does not give you an additional attack, it gives you an additional attack with that WEAPON. Just like keen does not improve your crit range, it improves your crit range with that WEAPON. I would also like to point out the 3.0 FAQ is not RAW, heck the 3.5 FAQ is not RAW. The FAQ is someones interpretation of RAW.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 11:15 AM	No speed does not give you an additional attack, it gives you an additional attack with that WEAPON. Just like keen does not improve your crit range, it improves your crit range with that WEAPON. I respect you, but you are wrong on this one starfire311, the wielder specifically gains an additional attack (ala haste) not the weapon, hence wielding two speed weapons means squat.
Pegasos989 05-09-07, 11:16 AM	No speed does not give you an additional attack, it gives you an additional attack with that WEAPON. Just like keen does not improve your crit range, it improves your crit range with that WEAPON. I would also like to point out the 3.0 FAQ is not RAW, heck the 3.5 FAQ is not RAW. The FAQ is someones interpretation of RAW. True and true. This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing or slashing weapons can be keen. (If you roll this property randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll.) This benefit doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat). Keen doesn't stack with similar effects either, yet if you have two keen weapons, both are keen.
Pegasos989 05-09-07, 11:17 AM	I respect you, but you are wrong on this one starfire311, the wielder specifically gains an additional attack (ala haste) not the weapon, hence wielding two speed weapons means squat. attack WITH THE WEAPON. Not additional attack, additional attack with that specific magical weapon. If weapon 2 gives extra attack with weapon 2, it doesn't affect anything at all at the attack sequence of weapon 1 as you get extra attack with weapon 2. EDIT: If it said "you gain additional attack", we would agree with you. If it said "you attack sequence of +10/+5 and +10/+5 becomes +10/+10/+5 and +10/+5" we agreed with you. But it says "the attack sequence of your main hand changes from +10/+5 to 10/10/5", so offhand is unaffected by keen weapon in mainhand... It doesn't change your whole attack sequence but attack sequence with that weapon. Haste instead changes you attack sequence, so stop referring to it.
tos_shai_hulud 05-09-07, 11:19 AM	No speed does not give you an additional attack, it gives you an additional attack with that WEAPON. Just like keen does not improve your crit range, it improves your crit range with that WEAPON. I would also like to point out the 3.0 FAQ is not RAW, heck the 3.5 FAQ is not RAW. The FAQ is someones interpretation of RAW. Whether the extra attack YOU receive is with that WEAPON or with something that drops from your rear end, it is still YOU that must make the attack. Weapons don't have attacks (unless they are dancing). Characters have attacks. Characters do NOT have critical threat ranges. Weapons have critical threat ranges. The target of Speed is YOU. The target of Keen is the WEAPON. These are different. Regardless of which weapons are making the attack YOU are still making them.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 11:24 AM	Keen doesn't stack with similar effects either, yet if you have two keen weapons, both are keen. But the keen enhancement doesn't make the "wielder" keen. The speed enhancement essentially grants the wielder a haste effect.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 11:27 AM	"Speed: When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)" And that my friends, is called, case, friggin, closed.
Pegasos989 05-09-07, 11:30 AM	But the keen enhancement doesn't make the "wielder" keen. The speed enhancement essentially grants the wielder a haste effect. No, it doesn't. There is the "with it."... Haste: When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. Speed: When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. So... Speed makes the wielder effectively hasted concerning his attack sequence on that weapon. However, while haste affects all your attacks, speed just that weapon. Thus, the speed weapon's attack sequence gets extra attack but other sequences are unaffected. EDIT: So keen weapon makes wielder effectively hasted CONCERNING THAT WEAPON ONLY and if other weapon has similar effect ON THAT WEAPON ONLY, they don't affect each other in any way. It doesn't make wielder hasted or give extra attack, it gives extra attack on that weapon without affecting anything else.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 11:34 AM	No, it doesn't. There is the "with it."... Haste: When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. Speed: When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. So... Speed makes the wielder effectively hasted concerning his attack sequence on that weapon. However, while haste affects all your attacks, speed just that weapon. Thus, the speed weapon's attack sequence gets extra attack but other sequences are unaffected. EDIT: So keen weapon makes wielder effectively hasted CONCERNING THAT WEAPON ONLY and if other weapon has similar effect ON THAT WEAPON ONLY, they don't affect each other in any way. It doesn't make wielder hasted or give extra attack, it gives extra attack on that weapon without affecting anything else. See my post above. I think at this point this debate is down to people who want their cake and eat it too…
starfire311 05-09-07, 11:35 AM	I respect you, but you are wrong on this one starfire311, the wielder specifically gains an additional attack (ala haste) not the weapon, hence wielding two speed weapons means squat. I can accept this, and I can even see where you are coming from, but I like to argue sometimes, and this is an issue that I think is up for debate. I can see both arguements, you say that the speed enahncement enhances your ability to use the weapon, thus you can only benefit from one at a time, I say that speed enhances the weapon, and thus you can benefit from it for as many weapons as you have. I also think that only letting you get one attack with a haste/speed effect is un-balanced. It really isnt balanced from a TWF vs THF stand point, haste should grant you 1 extra attack per weapon you are wielding, and speed should grant you an extra attack with it, but you can not get more than one extra attack with it due to haste/speed effects. This is balanced This would give a TWF 2 additional attacks from haste and a THF 1 additional attack, the idea is that 1 THF attack is about even to 2 TWF attacks, thus keeping it balanced, this would be a clear houserule, and soemthing I hope they look at changing in the future. Currently THF benefits much more from haste than TWF. Since, I can see the argument in RAW for letting you wield and fully benefit from 2 weapons of speed, and this is more balanced than not letting you do it, I choose to come down on the more balanced side of the argument.
tos_shai_hulud 05-09-07, 11:39 AM	No, it doesn't. There is the "with it."... Haste: When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. Speed: When making a full attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. So... Speed makes the wielder effectively hasted concerning his attack sequence on that weapon. However, while haste affects all your attacks, speed just that weapon. Thus, the speed weapon's attack sequence gets extra attack but other sequences are unaffected. Ok, let's use an example. A 16th level ranger with two-weapon fighting mastery, Quick Draw, and seven weapons of speed starts off with two weapons of speed. According to you, he can make four attacks (one attack with each weapon, Speed grants him an extra attack with each weapon). Drop both weapons, quick draw two new weapons. Attack with each weapon, gain an additional two attacks at full BAB with these weapons (these are different weapons of speed). Drop those. Quick draw another set of two Speed weapons. Take your next set of iterative attacks with those weapons. Hey, these are new weapons, so he gets another two attacks at full base attack bonus. Drop main hand one. Quick draw another. Make final two attacks. You pretty much are allowing characters with quick draw to double their attacks. 3.0 ruling stands. Edit: Not just double your attacks. Double them at a higher bonus than some of the original attacks.
Pegasos989 05-09-07, 11:41 AM	See my post above. I think at this point this debate is down to people who want their cake and eat it too… Your post didn't even have a point! You just quoted the text we have all quoted and said "I am right!"! And now you even refer to it! Sure, I can stop arguing as this leads nowhere but as it has been proven multiple times you get extra attack with each. As my last post, I will demonstrate once again... NOTHING says you can't have more than one extra attack magically in a round. Just that effects do not stack. A weapon letting wielder make extra attack with itself and another weapon letting make extra attack with itself leads to two extra attacks but at no point is there issue of stacking: they give wielder extra attacks with diffrent weapon and sequences and amount of extra attacks is not limited as they don't affect each other at all... Now, unless somebody brings something new to this thread, this was my last post.
tos_shai_hulud 05-09-07, 11:44 AM	Now, unless somebody brings something new to this thread, this was my last post. I posted while you were posting. If you like granting extra attacks at full base attack bonus equal to the total number of normal attacks per round to any character with Quick Draw, play by your rules.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 11:46 AM	Since, I can see the argument in RAW for letting you wield and fully benefit from 2 weapons of speed, and this is more balanced than not letting you do it, I choose to come down on the more balanced side of the argument. I see it as the opposite – RAW, and totally unbalanced to let a thri-kreen wielding 4 shortswords of speed to get an additional attack with each weapon on top of Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting or what have you.
Pegasos989 05-09-07, 11:49 AM	Ok, let's use an example. A 16th level ranger with two-weapon fighting mastery, Quick Draw, and seven weapons of speed starts off with two weapons of speed. According to you, he can make four attacks (one attack with each weapon, Speed grants him an extra attack with each weapon). Drop both weapons, quick draw two new weapons. Attack with each weapon, gain an additional two attacks at full BAB with these weapons (these are different weapons of speed). Drop those. Quick draw another set of two Speed weapons. Take your next set of iterative attacks with those weapons. Hey, these are new weapons, so he gets another two attacks at full base attack bonus. Drop main hand one. Quick draw another. Make final two attacks. You pretty much are allowing characters with quick draw to double their attacks. 3.0 ruling stands. Edit: Not just double your attacks. Double them at a higher bonus than some of the original attacks. I guess this was new enough. But yes, by RaW, sure. You doubled you attacks by 16th level and have 7 or 8 weapons of speed? So to double your attacks at 16th level, you have spent 220'000 (or 252'000 if it was 8 weapons) of your 260'000 total wealth. Your AC is like 20, saves are bad and you can't get through DRs but hey, you doubled your attacks so it must be unbalanced! EDIT: Oh, and 85% of all your wealth is useless if not making a full attack! And you even spent feats to it! That is very weak character there... And this is assuming DM lets you find/buy 7 +1 speed weapons which is not always said. But even if they do, seems very crippled character.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 11:50 AM	but as it has been proven multiple times you get extra attack with each The opposite – I have been around these boards for years and it has been proven that multiple weapons of speed do not stack. And nothing you have posted has proven otherwise.
tos_shai_hulud 05-09-07, 12:04 PM	I guess this was new enough. But yes, by RaW, sure. You doubled you attacks by 16th level and have 7 or 8 weapons of speed? So to double your attacks at 16th level, you have spent 220'000 (or 252'000 if it was 8 weapons) of your 260'000 total wealth. Your AC is like 20, saves are bad and you can't get through DRs but hey, you doubled your attacks so it must be unbalanced! Ok, let's look at a 15th level fighter, 5th level Tempest who has completed the Two-Weapon Fighting progression. He will have seven attacks per round. He has 760,000 gp. He spends 226,345 on seven bastard swords of speed. Here are his feats: Two-Weapon Fighting, Quick Draw, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Critical: Bastard Sword, Weapon Focus: Bastard Sword, Weapon Specialization: Bastard Sword, Greater Weapon Focus: Bastard Sword, Greater Weapon Specialization: Bastard Sword, Two-Weapon Defense, Improved Two-Weapon Defense, Greater Two-Weapon Defense, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack (plus one--or two if human--more feats). He has 226,345 spent on 7 +1 bastard swords of speed, true, but he still has 533,655 left for more items (like awesome armor and bonuses to saves). Let's use 36,000 for a Belt of Giant's Strength +6 and let's assume average strength and the required Dexterity (19) for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. His attack bonuses are Bastard sword 1: +26/+26 1d10+8 (crit 17-20/x2) Bastard sword 2: +26/+26 1d10+5 (crit 17-20/x2) Bastard sword 3: +21/+26 1d10+8 (crit 17-20/x2) Bastard sword 4: +21/+26 1d10+5 (crit 17-20/x2) Bastard sword 5: +16/+26 1d10+8 (crit 17-20/x2) Bastard sword 6: +16/+26 1d10+5 (crit 17-20/x2) Bastard sword 7: +11/+26 1d10+8 (crit 17-20/x2) Unarmored AC: 19 (10 + 3 Shield + 2 Tempest + 4 Dex) That is nine attacks at full base attack bonus, lots of cushy armor bonuses, etc. Edit: Updated bonuses...
mvincent 05-09-07, 12:11 PM	I would also like to point out the 3.0 FAQ is not RAW, heck the 3.5 FAQ is not RAW. The FAQ is someones interpretation of RAW.Correction: the FAQ is not the "core rules". Semantically though, someone could call it "Rules As Written" because they frequently do present actual rules (just like any supplement is allowed to, and indeed you could refer to any supplement as RAW). Regardless: the RPGA treats the FAQ similarly to the core rules. And resolving debates like this is kinda the whole purpose of having a FAQ in the first place.* * Duh FWIW: I agree with others that believe that allowing stacking would not be unbalancing (and as stated several times: I encourage them to do so)... it is just that the official WotC stance on this issue is about as conclusive as you get. I'm completely amazed that anyone would still debate that point.
Matthew77 05-09-07, 05:08 PM	I want to repeat my argument in simpler terms.. discussing it with crashlogic has allowed me to simplify my position. Assertions: 1) the Speed property adds one extra attack to a full attack action. 2) the Speed property is not cumulative with itself. Conclusions: 1) I have one speed weapon which activates when I make a full attack action. It gives me one extra attack with itself. 2) Any additional speed weapons would also activate when I make a full attack action, but they cannot grant me another extra attack, because the Speed property is not cumulative. Challenge: Can anyone produce a reason why the second speed weapon should be considered independantly of everything else that has happened during the full attack action. Both Crashlogic and Pegasos are assuming the stacking limit applies per weapon instead of per full attack action, but I haven't seen any rules text that supports this assumption. Edit: I thought of a possible analogy... Imagine a weapon property called "strengthening", which gave the ability - "when the wielder of this weapon makes a full attack action, he gains a +4 bonus to strength for that round. This bonus is not cumulative with any similar abiliity." Would anyone argue that dual-wielding two of these weapons would grant a +8 bonus to strength?
crashlogic 05-09-07, 05:24 PM	Well in my mind its the obvious answer: because you have two weapons, and the RAW refer to a single weapon. Using an additional weapon is not the typical consideration in the rules. So if one weapon gives you one extra attack when you use it. Two weapons of speed, one in each hand should give you two weapons. As far as the hows and whys: well every other property imparted on a weapon-enhancement or otherwise (two examples provided: Keen and flameblade) fucntions as if limited to the weapon. Now the basic rules about magical effects are contrary to this. If you apply those basic rules, then flame effects, or better, Keen effects would not be applied to both weapons. The inference is that the property relates to the weapons and does not apply to the character. So why then, is speed the only single property of any weapon to be interpreted in this way? If a speeded weapon imparted the other benefits of a haste spell to the user, then I would conceed the the speed bonus does not stack. But its does not. The speed bonus applies only to the weapon. And since a wielder of two weapons gets the benefit of dual effects in every other case, even as in the case of Keen, the bonus says it does not stack with other effects or feats, it is logical to assume that the properties go to the weapon. The intpretation Mathew offers is in fact, consistent with the rules regarding magical effects. However none of the other weapon propoerties are interpreted in this way, whihc leaves the general impression that magical weapons are "different sources" for the sake of properties associated with a weapon.
tos_shai_hulud 05-09-07, 05:38 PM	Well in my mind its the obvious answer: because you have two weapons, and the RAW refer to a single weapon. Using an additional weapon is not the typical consideration in the rules. So if one weapon gives you one extra attack when you use it. Two weapons of speed, one in each hand should give you two weapons. As far as the hows and whys: well every other property imparted on a weapon-enhancement or otherwise (two examples provided: Keen and flameblade) fucntions as if limited to the weapon. Now the basic rules about magical effects are contrary to this. If you apply those basic rules, then flame effects, or better, Keen effects would not be applied to both weapons. The inference is that the property relates to the weapons and does not apply to the character. So why then, is speed the only single property of any weapon to be interpreted in this way? If a speeded weapon imparted the other benefits of a haste spell to the user, then I would conceed the the speed bonus does not stack. But its does not. The speed bonus applies only to the weapon. And since a wielder of two weapons gets the benefit of dual effects in every other case, even as in the case of Keen, the bonus says it does not stack with other effects or feats, it is logical to assume that the properties go to the weapon. The intpretation Mathew offers is in fact, consistent with the rules regarding magical effects. However none of the other weapon propoerties are interpreted in this way, whihc leaves the general impression that magical weapons are "different sources" for the sake of properties associated with a weapon. Look up to the definition of the Flaming ability. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage. Look up to the definition of the Keen ability. The ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Look up to the definition of the Speed ability. The wielder of the weapon may make one extra attack with it. The flaming ability affects only the weapon. It does not say "The wielder of the weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage with it. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects)." If it did, I would argue that it would not stack with another Flaming weapon. Once it is targeting the wielder and not the weapon, you must look at the wielder to see if the effects stack or not. If Keen stated, "The wielder of the weapon doubles the critical threat range with it. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects)," I would argue that only one Keen effect was possible because again, it would be targeting the wielder. Granted, the bonus is only able to be taken with the specific weapon that granted it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the wielder gaining the bonus, not the weapon.
Theodoxus 05-10-07, 07:26 PM	Count me in the multitude of those who think it's only one attack, period - I'd express my reasons, but I already did, ad nauseum here... http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43324 At any rate, the rediculousness of making a retarded number of attacks in 6 seconds gets beyond silly. Doubling that rate. through any means makes me sick. If nothing else, I pray that the future of D&D and all d20 games follows the Saga Edition SWRPG rules, and just has 1 attack a round, with a very few, select and special, exceptions. Thanks.
starfire311 05-10-07, 07:29 PM	Count me in the multitude of those who think it's only one attack, period - I'd express my reasons, but I already did, ad nauseum here... http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43324 At any rate, the rediculousness of making a retarded number of attacks in 6 seconds gets beyond silly. Doubling that rate. through any means makes me sick. If nothing else, I pray that the future of D&D and all d20 games follows the Saga Edition SWRPG rules, and just has 1 attack a round, with a very few, select and special, exceptions. Thanks. exactly, it is rediculous to think it is possible to swing a sword or fire a blaster more than once per 6 seconds.
Theodoxus 05-11-07, 09:41 AM	exactly, it is rediculous to think it is possible to swing a sword or fire a blaster more than once per 6 seconds. your reply reeks of sarchasm. Tell me, oh wise one, have you attempted to swing a historically acurate medieval weapon at someone defending themselves properly? Explain to the class how many actual telling blows you got off on your victim in six seconds. Six seconds is a remarkably short amount of time. Sure, you can flurry crazily about, looking like a goofy hollywood actor with a floppy sword, but you won't hurt anyone but yourself doing it. Two attacks is reasonable, even in a superheroic fantasy game. I think because it takes minutes to describe a single round, people end up misconstuing how short that round is. Take a bit out of your day and time your standard activities. For instance, it took me 7 rounds to write this paragraph because I was formulating it on the fly. I takes me upwards of 12 rounds to key an invoice into our system at work. Waiting for my computer to boot up is typically a 5 round wait. Driving to work (approximately 6 miles) is a whopping 150 rounds. Imagine waiting for the calvary to arrive like that... Time abstraction in d20 is at the utter extreme. Pumping even more actions into that six second time frame doesn't increase submersion, it kills it.
starfire311 05-11-07, 10:05 AM	your reply reeks of sarchasm. Tell me, oh wise one, have you attempted to swing a historically acurate medieval weapon at someone defending themselves properly? Explain to the class how many actual telling blows you got off on your victim in six seconds. Six seconds is a remarkably short amount of time. Sure, you can flurry crazily about, looking like a goofy hollywood actor with a floppy sword, but you won't hurt anyone but yourself doing it. Two attacks is reasonable, even in a superheroic fantasy game. I think because it takes minutes to describe a single round, people end up misconstuing how short that round is. Take a bit out of your day and time your standard activities. For instance, it took me 7 rounds to write this paragraph because I was formulating it on the fly. I takes me upwards of 12 rounds to key an invoice into our system at work. Waiting for my computer to boot up is typically a 5 round wait. Driving to work (approximately 6 miles) is a whopping 150 rounds. Imagine waiting for the calvary to arrive like that... Time abstraction in d20 is at the utter extreme. Pumping even more actions into that six second time frame doesn't increase submersion, it kills it. 1st point before I get to the meat. Pumping more actions into 6 due to magical effects should not affect immersion one bit, it is magic that is doing it. 2nd have you ever seen a boxing match, it is not uncommon to get a flurry of attacks in a very short amount of time... yes there is sometimes long periods in which no one attacks, but in a short amount of time 5-6 seconds you can see a flurry of 5+ punches landing. Or firing a semi-automatic weapon, I can fire 1 shot a second with good accuracy. I am not very proficient with a Bow, but I was able to get off 3 shots in 6 seconds once, and 2 of them even hit the target, like I said I am not very proficient. However I do understand what you are talking about the whole telling blow thing, because in a boxing match only a handful over 30 minutes(300 DnD rounds) of fighting, in which each person could throw 100+ punches, will actually ahve any real effect. If boxing worked like DnD most matches would be over inside of 30 seconds... yes some don't last that long but that is not a normal occurance. If DnD mechanics made it so that you could get KO'd by a few "telling" blows but it takes 300 rounds of combat to accomplish it, I don't think many people would play.
crashlogic 05-11-07, 12:54 PM	your reply reeks of sarchasm. Tell me, oh wise one, have you attempted to swing a historically acurate medieval weapon at someone defending themselves properly? Explain to the class how many actual telling blows you got off on your victim in six seconds. Six seconds is a remarkably short amount of time. Sure, you can flurry crazily about, looking like a goofy hollywood actor with a floppy sword, but you won't hurt anyone but yourself doing it. Two attacks is reasonable, even in a superheroic fantasy game. I think because it takes minutes to describe a single round, people end up misconstuing how short that round is. Take a bit out of your day and time your standard activities. For instance, it took me 7 rounds to write this paragraph because I was formulating it on the fly. I takes me upwards of 12 rounds to key an invoice into our system at work. Waiting for my computer to boot up is typically a 5 round wait. Driving to work (approximately 6 miles) is a whopping 150 rounds. Imagine waiting for the calvary to arrive like that... Time abstraction in d20 is at the utter extreme. Pumping even more actions into that six second time frame doesn't increase submersion, it kills it. And how many telling blows have you landed with an historically accurate weapon on a trained opponent, defending himself? Six second with an assault rifle is an eternity.
Theodoxus 05-11-07, 01:05 PM	And how many telling blows have you landed with an historically accurate weapon on a trained opponent, defending himself? Six second with an assault rifle is an eternity. And an assault rifle is in any way comperable to a sword or mace or dagger or... really, any melee weapon imaginable? There are rules for going full auto with an automatic weapon that are reasonable. Going 'full auto' with a melee weapon produces no detriment other than possibly your opponent thinking you're off your rocker. And for the record, I have had a number of occasions to mess around with period accurate weaponry. Unfortunately, I didn't have a trained opponent to practice on, but really, that just means I'd miss more often - proving my point. Look at it this way; take a woodaxe, swing at a tree; tell me how many full swings you can make against that tree in six seconds that are productive - ie, will fell the tree as quickly as you can. If you say more than two, you're kidding yourself, or tiring yourself out far faster than will fell a tree (not a sapling, either.) Then, in your imagination, take that tree and make it running around, flailing its branches in an attempt to ward off your attack and in general keeping you off balance and unable to land a telling blow. Then tell me how often you hit. If you're honest with yourself, one attack a round is extremely reasonable.
crashlogic 05-11-07, 02:36 PM	Well I happen to have a pretty accurate Idea of how many attacks I can make with a katana, and six in six seconds is about right for me. I would sumbit that "messing around with period weaponry" does not in any way shape or form qualify you to assess what can be done with that weaponry. Anymore than Kendo and Ia Justu give me any idea of what can be done with a weapon. Neither you nor I have ever been, or ever will be anything close to trained warriors with these weapons, and in all likelihood you, like me, are not even close to the level of a professional athelete or medieval knight in terms of physical condition. If you and I could manage two hits in six seconds on that tree, then some one trained and in the sort of condition we are talking about could manage six fairly easily. And no I am not comparing a full auto assault rifle with a sower. My point was that someone who picks up and assault rifle from the street can do one thing with it. Some one trained to proficiency would seem a bit faster, a navy seal might seem a bit faster, but a combat veteran with a dozen firefights is likely to be superior to either two. It is amzing how much faster and stronger you can be when it comes down to brass tacks adn death. Neither of us has been there with a period weapon. Our characters, presumeably, have. Most importantly, the psycology of someone who depends on wielding a weapon with speed to stay alive makes them a very different animal. In my Iado practice I usually do 50-100 draws every day. A samurai in training might do 500. Ultimately he would be slower than the veteran samurai who learned how to be faster because his life depended on it. So really your comparison with yourself to a trained professional vertern fighter has no meaningful application here, except to support the notion that he just might be three times as good as you are. And then magically enhanced and adding another weapon, just might give him the ability to be four times as good as you are.
Theodoxus 05-11-07, 02:57 PM	Well I happen to have a pretty accurate Idea of how many attacks I can make with a katana, and six in six seconds is about right for me. I would sumbit that "messing around with period weaponry" does not in any way shape or form qualify you to assess what can be done with that weaponry. Anymore than Kendo and Ia Justu give me any idea of what can be done with a weapon. Neither you nor I have ever been, or ever will be anything close to trained warriors with these weapons, and in all likelihood you, like me, are not even close to the level of a professional athelete or medieval knight in terms of physical condition. If you and I could manage two hits in six seconds on that tree, then some one trained and in the sort of condition we are talking about could manage six fairly easily. And no I am not comparing a full auto assault rifle with a sower. My point was that someone who picks up and assault rifle from the street can do one thing with it. Some one trained to proficiency would seem a bit faster, a navy seal might seem a bit faster, but a combat veteran with a dozen firefights is likely to be superior to either two. It is amzing how much faster and stronger you can be when it comes down to brass tacks adn death. Neither of us has been there with a period weapon. Our characters, presumeably, have. Most importantly, the psycology of someone who depends on wielding a weapon with speed to stay alive makes them a very different animal. In my Iado practice I usually do 50-100 draws every day. A samurai in training might do 500. Ultimately he would be slower than the veteran samurai who learned how to be faster because his life depended on it. So really your comparison with yourself to a trained professional vertern fighter has no meaningful application here, except to support the notion that he just might be three times as good as you are. And then magically enhanced and adding another weapon, just might give him the ability to be four times as good as you are. And you're imaging yourself to be also somewhere in the slightly as good as a professional... blah blah blah. And I'm sure the writers of the game are all avid master samurai who are built like supersoldiers and perfect reflexes too. Oh wait - it's all a mental exercise... I just think its more realistic to take some time to physically move a chunk of metal from resting, to full speed, to into somethings flesh, back out, moved to optimal striking range and repeating; all while attempting to predict where the opponent will be opening up his defenses so I can make a telling blow and not just glance off his weapon/armor/shield/belt ring, what have you. What your mental exercises are missing is that last element. Yes, you can shoot a near perfect target with a pistol at range. But that target isn't flailing about, dodging around corners, flinging objects in your direction and forcing you to aim poorly. Yes, you can spray 100 rounds in six seconds into a wall, making pretty pictures as you do - but again, that wall isn't diving for cover, doing everything in it's power to live through your volley so it can attack back when you're reloading. Yes, your Iado practice, and your theoretical master Samuari are doing the same move repeatly until you perfect it, able to take out an opponent in the blink of an eye - but we're not talking surprise round here - we're talking Full Attack Action, where your opponent knows what you're trying to do - ie kill him - and he's actively trying to prevent that. I can swing an axe into a tree three or four times in six seconds, more, if I just make really short, one or two inch 'chops' at it - but its not gonna do anything. Have you ever used a pick ax? A maul, demolition work? Hell, even a garden hoe? The kind of repetitive motions needed to actually move earth and rubble are not successful if you simply make as many as you possibly can. Remember, combat in D&D isn't static. For every blow you land, you're feinting, swinging and missing, dancing around your target - per RAW. Landing an extra attack should be special - your target will be surprised if nothing else. I guess in the end, thats the difference between rollplayers and roleplayers. The mechanical 'whats the total number I get' vs 'what did my attack do?'
crashlogic 05-11-07, 03:19 PM	And you're imaging yourself to be also somewhere in the slightly as good as a professional... blah blah blah. And I'm sure the writers of the game are all avid master samurai who are built like supersoldiers and perfect reflexes too. Oh wait - it's all a mental exercise... I just think its more realistic to take some time to physically move a chunk of metal from resting, to full speed, to into somethings flesh, back out, moved to optimal striking range and repeating; all while attempting to predict where the opponent will be opening up his defenses so I can make a telling blow and not just glance off his weapon/armor/shield/belt ring, what have you. What your mental exercises are missing is that last element. Yes, you can shoot a near perfect target with a pistol at range. But that target isn't flailing about, dodging around corners, flinging objects in your direction and forcing you to aim poorly. Yes, you can spray 100 rounds in six seconds into a wall, making pretty pictures as you do - but again, that wall isn't diving for cover, doing everything in it's power to live through your volley so it can attack back when you're reloading. Yes, your Iado practice, and your theoretical master Samuari are doing the same move repeatly until you perfect it, able to take out an opponent in the blink of an eye - but we're not talking surprise round here - we're talking Full Attack Action, where your opponent knows what you're trying to do - ie kill him - and he's actively trying to prevent that. I can swing an axe into a tree three or four times in six seconds, more, if I just make really short, one or two inch 'chops' at it - but its not gonna do anything. Have you ever used a pick ax? A maul, demolition work? Hell, even a garden hoe? The kind of repetitive motions needed to actually move earth and rubble are not successful if you simply make as many as you possibly can. Remember, combat in D&D isn't static. For every blow you land, you're feinting, swinging and missing, dancing around your target - per RAW. Landing an extra attack should be special - your target will be surprised if nothing else. I guess in the end, thats the difference between rollplayers and roleplayers. The mechanical 'whats the total number I get' vs 'what did my attack do?' I am not imagining myself even somewhere close to a professional swordsman. That is my point. I can't and you can't either. I have a very good corrally in that I can, with authority discuss the difference between what a marine recruit is like with an assault rifle and what a marine veteran is like with an assault rifle. The level of ability is very different. same is true of a pick axe, a maul or a hoe. Someone trained, conditioned and experienced can do it better than you or I can imagine. The trinaing and experience lets thier motions become fat more fluid, particulary with weapons and boxing. I am not talking about super soldiers, I am talking about professionals, with training and experience. The levels in DnD make them supersoldiers and the magic makes them mythical. Unless you don't think that a 20th level fighter some how qualifies as a super soldier. A fist level, a fighter can do it once in six seconds, at 20th they can do it five times in six seconds. If they add another weapon, they can do it, depending on thier level of training, six, seven or eigth times. On top of this we add magic, which, as I undertstand the rules now, allows them with maximum training, and two wepaons, when exerting themselves maximally in a full attack otion to swing a sword and cause a telling blow ten times in six seconds. this does, really sound all the out of line, given training and experience I do grasp the notion that we are discussing moving metal. However strenth, training, technical ability and psychology all impact this. You and I in a back yard struggle with an ax, yet the guys in the professional lumberjack challenge Cut through a log in 18-20 seconds (a lot more than two telling blows a second, btw).
starfire311 05-11-07, 03:28 PM	Oh wait - it's all a mental exercise... I just think its more realistic to take some time to physically move a chunk of metal from resting, to full speed, to into somethings flesh, back out, moved to optimal striking range and repeating; all while attempting to predict where the opponent will be opening up his defenses so I can make a telling blow and not just glance off his weapon/armor/shield/belt ring, what have you. these non-telling blows, these glancing blows, are very important to achieving victory, because they will wear down your opponent and fatigue them. You punch someone and they deflect it with their arm, it may have no affect, you do that 20+ times of the course of a fight and it starts to really wear them down. What your mental exercises are missing is that last element. Yes, you can shoot a near perfect target with a pistol at range. But that target isn't flailing about, dodging around corners, flinging objects in your direction and forcing you to aim poorly. this has more to do with how difficult the target is to hit, and thus is represented by their AC. If your target is just standing their not defending then it would be quite easily to hit them. I can swing an axe into a tree three or four times in six seconds, more, if I just make really short, one or two inch 'chops' at it - but its not gonna do anything. Have you ever used a pick ax? A maul, demolition work? Hell, even a garden hoe? The kind of repetitive motions needed to actually move earth and rubble are not successful if you simply make as many as you possibly can. actually those quick chops with an axe will break a log, ever watch those log chopping competitions, they hit that log really fast, and the cut through it fast. Remember, combat in D&D isn't static. For every blow you land, you're feinting, swinging and missing, dancing around your target - per RAW. Yes, and it is quite unfortunate that RAW uses this fluff, sicne it is unsupported by the mechanics. There is a mechaninc for feinting, there is a mechanic for swinging, and there is a mechanic for missing, and there is a mechanic for dancing. The simple line of fluff about doing all that crap without taking actions, flies in the face of the entire book of mechanics. Why have a mechanic for feinting if it is already assumed I am doing so without the mechanic. Why have a mechanic for moving around my opponent and not provoking AoOs when the fluff says I am already doing so without the mechanic. Landing an extra attack should be special - your target will be surprised if nothing else. I guess in the end, thats the difference between rollplayers and roleplayers. The mechanical 'whats the total number I get' vs 'what did my attack do?' No the difference between rollplayers and roleplayers, are that the people that make the distinction are ussually arrogant snobs that I wouldn't want to be in the same room with.
starfire311 05-11-07, 03:37 PM	On top of this we add magic, which, as I undertstand the rules now, allows them with maximum training, and two wepaons, when exerting themselves maximally in a full attack otion to swing a sword and cause a telling blow ten times in six seconds. this does, really sound all the out of line, given training and experience I would jsut say that these 10 attacks that the fighter is getting in the example are not telling blows, odds are none of them are even if they all hit. In DnD the main telling blow is when tehy go from 1HP to less than 1 HP, because they are not at reduced effectiveness, up untill that point none of the blows are telling, unless ofcourse you have some special ability that would make them telling. So you could have a several round fight between to high level fighters and not have 1 telling blow, untill 1 final gets KO'd. All depends on the fluff use to describe the blows. Heck even looking at a boxing match bewteen 2 high level fightes both with combat reflexes and improved combat reflexes that go full AC could easily last several hundred rounds. Much like a real one.
SALDAR 05-12-07, 01:40 PM	The speed bonus applies only to the weapon. And since a wielder of two weapons gets the benefit of dual effects in every other case, even as in the case of Keen, the bonus says it does not stack with other effects or feats, it is logical to assume that the properties go to the weapon. Actually, this is incorrect. The Speed ability grants the wielder an extra attack when making a full attack action. So the speed bonus applies to the wielder not the weapon as Flaming and Keen do. Since Speed affects the wielder and does not stack with similar effects on the wielder it does not stack with itself. If you think I am incorrect then show me how many attacks a +1 Longsword of Speed gets.