Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rumple_Cragstan 04-10-05, 11:32 PM	I'm one of those people who have a serious problem with the lack of weapon speeds. I think that someone armed with a dagger SHOULD be able to strike at least twice as fast as someone wielding a greataxe. I've seen and even written many faulty 'fixes' that I later see the flaws in and abandon, but I still always try to find ways to make it balanced and workable without ridiculously complicate rulings. And so here I've come up with another one. Its somewhat complicated, but not as much as it seems at first glance. I suggest to change the base attack bonus/multiple attacks system. In my weapon speed variant ruling, your number of attacks still depends on your BAB but also relies on your weapon in hand. Light weapons (like a dagger) would get an extra attack for every 3 points of base attack bonus (instead of the current 5) One-Handed Weapons (like a longsword) gain an extra attack for every 5 points of BAB (just as the current ruleset stands) Two-Handed Weapons (Like a Greatsword) gain an extra attack for every 7 points of BAB (instead of the current 5) If you are non-proficient with the weapon, add another 2 to the BAB required for an additional attack (5 for light, 7 for one-handed, 9 for two-handed). I know that this makes light weapons much better, while two-handed weapons get the shaft. I propose to lessen the damage a light weapon does, while increasing the damage of two-handed weapons to compensate for the speed of attacks. I don't know quite yet how much to modify the damage, which is why I'm posting this here, I need help from everyone to see if this idea has any merrit and could possibly work into a balanced house ruling.
HailSpork 04-11-05, 12:03 AM	Actually, you would have more trouble finding an opening with a dagger due to it's reduced reach. A dagger would be much faster than an axe against a helpless opponent, but you forfeit that extra speed by having less openings.
EGD Eric 04-11-05, 01:32 AM	In 2nd edition, weapon speeds were only there to modify individual initiative. Have you ever played in AD&D with the Player's option: Combat & Tactics? In that system, there were 5 phases of combat: very fast fast average slow very slow Weapons would fall under categories of fast, average and slow. A medium creature could move in the fast phase, then attack in the average, if the weapon has average or faster speed, or just attack in the slow, if its something like a battle axe. This basically made fast weapons like daggers, rapiers, shortswords, etc.. be good against mages because you'd be more likely to hit them before they got their spell off, therefore making their spell fizzle. Everyone would declare what they're doing before rolling initiative. (initiative wasn't the be-all end all. Even an Ogre with a great club who won initiative would move and/or attack later than a medium creature with a longsword. But an unarmed ogre who won initiative would attack in the average phase, beating the same longsword-wielder. Initiative was done on a group basis. I'm thinking of maybe adopting a system like this for 3e, but for now, I'm having fun with the system the way it is. Maybe some day my players will get tired of the "declare action then roll initiative system, and I'll try adopting that old system.
Lina_Inverse 04-11-05, 07:08 AM	so fighters will run around with only daggers?lets compare this for a moment. dagger at lvl 20 20/17/14/11/8/5/2 1d4 damage. long sword 20/15/10/5 1d8 damage. greatsword 20/13/6 2d6 damage now which weapon is better?clearly the dagger.your strengh and magic bonuses make up almost all damage by mid-high levels.so the base damage is meaningless. any form of more attacks for higher BAB will always favor the extra attacks weapon. you fail on both logic,a long sword should always be a better choice than a dagger.and balence. how many people remember 2E where the dart was the best weapon in the game?
Rumple_Cragstan 04-11-05, 11:01 AM	I know that this makes light weapons much better, while two-handed weapons get the shaft. I propose to lessen the damage a light weapon does, while increasing the damage of two-handed weapons to compensate for the speed of attacks. I don't know quite yet how much to modify the damage, which is why I'm posting this here, I need help from everyone to see if this idea has any merrit and could possibly work into a balanced house ruling. I've already stated your point, Lina.
Lina_Inverse 04-11-05, 12:15 PM	I've already stated your point, Lina. how much lower can you go from d4? and no,you havent noticed my point.THIS is my point. weapon spec +2dmg weapon specials +buncha six siders Strengh +4-10 damage magic weapon +1-5 damage Rage +2-4 damage no matter how you slice it.your gonna end up with daggers being the best weapon.fighters will just grab the great sword early(when the 2d6 matters) and start useing daggers later.daggers should never be one of the flat out best weapon choices. bonus!additional math for saner/smaller edits every 4 BAB 20/16/12/8/4 every 6 BAB 20/14/8/2
Rumple_Cragstan 04-11-05, 01:18 PM	After taking a second look at your idea, I like it. I think that 4/5/6 is better than 3/5/7 by far. But that still makes daggers and other light weapons more dangerous based on modifiers. Well scince two-handed weapons get 1-1/2 Str mod, why don't light weapons get 1/2 str mod instead? This would help to cut down the modifiers (if not by too much). And as for two-handed weapons, would making all the crits x3 (or if it was x4 before stick with that) and adding an extra dice to the damage (greatsword 3d6, scythe 5d4, greataxe 2d12) be too much of a boost to balance the slowness?
HailSpork 04-11-05, 01:31 PM	One-handed weapons also deal 1.5x your strength mod if you use them in two hands. The names "one-handed" and "two-handed" with respect to weapon size is misleading, as you can use a one-handed weapon in two-hands (and in some cases, a two-handed weapon in 1 hand). It works like this: Between your two hands, you get 1.5x your strength mod added to damage. If you use a weapon in two hands, you get 1.5 on it. If you use a one-handed weapon (and the other hand uses a shield, torch, etc), you only get 1x str to damage and the other .5 goes to waste (since there's no weapon in your off-hand). If you have two weapons, one getts 1x str and the other gets .5x str. Whether things are light or not has no bearing on str to damage, the same way that whether or not a weapon is two-handed has no bearing on str to damage. If you base str multiplier to damage based on weapon size, it'll lead to people dual weilding one-handed weapons for the full str mod on both. Or, better yet, double weapons only count as smaller weapons for purposes of two-weapon fighting; now both my weapons can deal 1.5x str.
Rumple_Cragstan 04-11-05, 07:18 PM	One-handed weapons also deal 1.5x your strength mod if you use them in two hands. The names "one-handed" and "two-handed" with respect to weapon size is misleading, as you can use a one-handed weapon in two-hands (and in some cases, a two-handed weapon in 1 hand). IMC you hafto have a weapon made for two-handed capability. If you buy any old longsword the handle won't be long enough to use in two hands reliably (-2 to attacks), so you hafto consign it from a blacksmith (extra 1gp because it's not the norm) if you want it to be two-hand equippable. And if its made for two hands, then you take a -2 to attack if you're using it 1-handed because the handle is awkwardly long. The only exception to this is the bastard sword, in which case you can take the feat to weild it no problem in either situation. Whether things are light or not has no bearing on str to damage, the same way that whether or not a weapon is two-handed has no bearing on str to damage. But it SHOULD. I believe that momentum is a big part of damage (and the more strength you have the better momentum you can achieve), and that you just can't get the same momentum with a light mace that you can with a longsword. If you base str multiplier to damage based on weapon size, it'll lead to people dual weilding one-handed weapons for the full str mod on both. I think that the -4 to all attacks taken in this manner (I'm presuming you're smart enough to have TWF if you're trying this move) is a balancing factor. Or, better yet, double weapons only count as smaller weapons for purposes of two-weapon fighting; now both my weapons can deal 1.5x str. Ok, so they're an exception to a rule for TWF now, why not make them an exception to the str damage rule? If they're treated as one-handed/light for the purposes of TWF, then they are treated as the same for purposes of adding strength to damage.
HailSpork 04-12-05, 05:19 AM	Umm... a longer handle does not make the blade handle poorly when used 1-handed. Historically, there's nothing wrong with putting 2 hands on a longsword. There are ways around the -4 *cough* dervish *cough*.
Lina_Inverse 04-12-05, 07:59 AM	And as for two-handed weapons, would making all the crits x3 (or if it was x4 before stick with that) and adding an extra dice to the damage (greatsword 3d6, scythe 5d4, greataxe 2d12) be too much of a boost to balance the slowness? adding an extra die doesnt work.it needs to be a blanket boost(of about the same average) and still has the "use a great sword early and a better weapon later".as a general flavor rule,i prefer my pcs to always have there weapon of choice. also the crit multiplier idea doesnt work.again math stuff.
Grigori 04-12-05, 02:45 PM	Weapon speeds has been beaten to death on multiple forums and message boards. The simplest way I've seen it done is +1/-1 for heavier/lighter weapons. i.e. Medium weapons still progress normally: +6/+1 While light weapons would progress faster: +5/+1 and heavier weapons prgress slower: +7/+1 All in all, it's tinkering with a mechanic that doesn't need it. If you want it in your game and it works, use it.
Rumple_Cragstan 04-12-05, 08:48 PM	The simplest way I've seen it done is +1/-1 for heavier/lighter weapons. i.e. Medium weapons still progress normally: +6/+1 While light weapons would progress faster: +5/+1 and heavier weapons prgress slower: +7/+1 Wow, this is what I'm suggesting. In case anyone didn't understand my idea, Grigori has said it in a much simpler manner. I'm not playing with it just yet, but I plan to playtest it in my next campaign (introducing a rule like that mid-game would be suicide)