Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Palin the Wizard 02-04-07, 12:04 AM	I have always felt that weapons in RPGs should be governed by their speed—something which is sorely lacking from 3rd Edition D&D. Therefore I have crafted these rules in order to begin incorporating weapon speed, both to satisfy my own feelings and to balance out some things which I have always felt were not balanced (daggers, for instance). These are just the basic idea, mind—there are many, many factors which would have to be taken into account for this to become a fully-incorporated part of the combat system. Off-hand, I can think of attacks of opportunity (a big one), sneak attacks (another big one), dual-wielding, the haste spell, and the speed magical weapon effect; I am certain there are others. Here are the rules as I have written them for now. Please examine and critique honestly. Weapon Speed Delay Every weapon will have a new statistic: "speed delay", or spd. A dagger, for instance, is a low-delay weapon, owing to the speed with which you can attack with a dagger. A greataxe, on the other hand, is a high-delay weapon, as it takes more time to swing a greataxe than a normal longsword. Low-delay weapons deal less damage than average-delay weapons, which deal less damage than heavy-delay weapons. What weapon speed delay means is basically a rework of the current combat system of iterative attacks. Currently, you receive iterative attacks based on base attack bonus divided by 5; in my system, you receive iterative attacks based on your base attack bonus minus the weapon's delay modifier. For example, if you have a dagger with a delay speed of 3, you will receive iterative attacks on +4, +7, +10, +13, +16, and +19 for a total of 7 attacks (+19/+16/+13/+10/+7/+4/+1). While at first glance this may seem overpowered, remember that the dagger is a very weak weapon, with a mere 1d4 damage. On the other end of the spectrum, we have a greataxe, with a delay speed of 7. You will receive iterative attacks on +8 and +15 for a total of three attacks (+15/+8/+1). In order to balance this out, the greataxe has its critical range increased to 19-20/×3 rather than simply ×3, a significant increase for keen and Improved Critical-specialists. Alternatively, the damage could be increased. No weapons should have a delay speed of 2 or below, and no weapons should have a delay speed of 8 or above, with the exception that very strict rules could be laid out to balance the increase/decrease in number of attacks. I have attempted to balance out rules for the Martial Weapons table from the SRD to serve as an example. (Please forgive the crudeness of the table; I cannot seem to make a proper table using the code.) Table: Weapons Range Speed Martial Weapons Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Increment Weight Type Delay Axe, throwing 8 gp 1d3 1d4 ×2 10 ft. 2 lb. Slashing 4 spd Hammer, light 1 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 20 ft. 2 lb. Bludgeoning 3 spd Handaxe 6 gp 1d4 1d6 ×2 — 3 lb. Slashing 4 spd Kukri 8 gp 1d3 1d4 19-20/×2 — 2 lb. Slashing 3 spd Pick, light 4 gp 1d3 1d4 ×4 — 3 lb. Piercing 5 spd Sap 1 gp 1d4 1d6 ×2 — 2 lb. Bludgeoning 4 spd Shield, light special 1d2 1d3 ×2 — special Bludgeoning 5 spd Spiked armor special 1d4 1d6 ×2 — special Piercing 5 spd Spiked shield, light special 1d3 1d4 ×2 — special Piercing 5 spd Sword, short 10 gp 1d4 1d6 ×2 — 4 lb. Piercing 4 spd Battleaxe 10 gp 1d6 1d8 19-20/×3 — 6 lb. Slashing 6 spd Flail 8 gp 1d6 1d8 ×3 — 5 lb. Bludgeoning 6 spd Longsword 15 gp 1d6 1d8 19-20/×2 — 4 lb. Slashing 5 spd Pick, heavy 8 gp 1d4 1d6 ×4 — 6 lb. Piercing 6 spd Rapier 20 gp 1d4 1d6 19-20/×2 — 2 lb. Piercing 4 spd Scimitar 15 gp 1d4 1d6 19-20/×2 — 4 lb. Slashing 4 spd Shield, heavy special 1d4 1d6 ×2 — special Bludgeoning 6 spd Spiked shield, heavy special 1d6 1d8 ×2 — special Piercing 6 spd Trident 15 gp 1d6 1d8 ×2 10 ft. 4 lb. Piercing 5 spd Warhammer 12 gp 1d6 1d8 19-20/×3 — 5 lb. Bludgeoning 6 spd Falchion 75 gp 1d6 2d4 19-20/×3 — 8 lb. Slashing 6 spd Glaive 8 gp 1d10 1d12 ×3 — 10 lb. Slashing 7 spd Greataxe 20 gp 1d10 1d12 19-20/×3 — 12 lb. Slashing 7 spd Greatclub 5 gp 1d8 1d10 19-20/×2 — 8 lb. Bludgeoning 7 spd Flail, heavy 15 gp 1d10 2d6 19-20/×2 — 10 lb. Bludgeoning 7 spd Greatsword 50 gp 1d10 2d6 19-20/×2 — 8 lb. Slashing 6 spd Guisarme 9 gp 1d8 1d10 ×3 — 12 lb. Slashing 7 spd Halberd 10 gp 1d8 1d10 ×3 — 12 lb. Piercing or Slashing 7 spd Lance 10 gp 1d6 1d8 ×3 — 10 lb. Piercing 7 spd Ranseur 10 gp 1d6 2d4 ×3 — 12 lb. Piercing 7 spd Scythe 18 gp 1d6 2d4 ×4 — 10 lb. Piercing or Slashing 7 spd Longbow 75 gp 1d6 1d8 ×3 100 ft. 3 lb. Piercing 5 spd Longbow, composite 100 gp 1d6 1d8 ×3 110 ft. 3 lb. Piercing 5 spd Shortbow 30 gp 1d4 1d6 ×3 60 ft. 2 lb. Piercing 5 spd Shortbow, composite 75 gp 1d4 1d6 ×3 70 ft. 2 lb. Piercing 5 spd
Neutronium_Dragon 02-04-07, 10:53 AM	Quite simply, this adds a massive amount of power to the small weapons vs the larger ones, especially given the potential for bonus dice stacking. (Do you realize how much damage a dual-wielding rogue with daggers is going to be able to do like this?) The weapons in the PHB were balanced without speed being a requirement for their balance. Adding speed "advantages" to some of them will throw them OUT of balance. Moreover, the system is sufficiently abstracted that any attempts to add speed will get in the way - or if you want to do so, you'd better de-abstract reach so that Mr. Dagger gets skewered by an AoO with every attack he attempts against Mr. Longsword. That's the summary of the problems. Here's a good 3E designer rant on the subject, which covers the issue in more detail: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html
Palin the Wizard 02-04-07, 12:54 PM	Quite simply, this adds a massive amount of power to the small weapons vs the larger ones, especially given the potential for bonus dice stacking. (Do you realize how much damage a dual-wielding rogue with daggers is going to be able to do like this?) Yes, I fully realize how deadly rogues are going to be with daggers. The weapons in the PHB were balanced without speed being a requirement for their balance. Adding speed "advantages" to some of them will throw them OUT of balance. Which is why I have removed or added advantages to every weapon on that list which doesn't have a weapon speed delay of 5. Moreover, the system is sufficiently abstracted that any attempts to add speed will get in the way - or if you want to do so, you'd better de-abstract reach so that Mr. Dagger gets skewered by an AoO with every attack he attempts against Mr. Longsword. What? No, I most certainly don't have to do that. Melee works in 5-foot increments; adding smaller increments would be detrimental to the flow of the game. That's the summary of the problems. Here's a good 3E designer rant on the subject, which covers the issue in more detail: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html I have read Mr. Reynolds' thoughts on the subject, and I disagree with many of his opinions regarding adjusting iterative attacks. For one thing, monks do not use unarmed attack bonuses any longer.
Cifer 02-04-07, 01:03 PM	Yes, I fully realize how deadly rogues are going to be with daggers. Please ask yourself why humanity's warfare generally has gone towards higher distance weapons - why have longswords been developed when daggers are more lethal? Possibly because in real life, anyone with a dagger has to get past the longsword with the greater reach and doesn't neccessarily deal the same kind of injuries as the one with the sword?
Palin the Wizard 02-04-07, 01:12 PM	Please ask yourself why humanity's warfare generally has gone towards higher distance weapons - why have longswords been developed when daggers are more lethal? Possibly because in real life, anyone with a dagger has to get past the longsword with the greater reach and doesn't neccessarily deal the same kind of injuries as the one with the sword? I didn't say it wouldn't need adjustment--in fact, I mentioned that it would in the original post. I said these are just the basic rules and that any such adjustments would have to be made for it to be a fully-incorporated part of the combat system.
Neutronium_Dragon 02-04-07, 01:30 PM	Then frankly, the non-tiny weapons are going to need a far greater cranking up of power than you've allowed for. Being able to make more attacks per round is a far more powerful benefit than simply increasing the damage a bit, especially since the damage from a weapon is eventually dwarfed by the damage from other sources. The end result of something like this is that inevitably, all of the epic battles of the world are fought with daggers because they're far more effective than any other weapon known to man.
Illithid_Tentacles 02-04-07, 01:57 PM	No. Bad. *swats with newspaper*
Palin the Wizard 02-04-07, 02:15 PM	Then frankly, the non-tiny weapons are going to need a far greater cranking up of power than you've allowed for. Being able to make more attacks per round is a far more powerful benefit than simply increasing the damage a bit, especially since the damage from a weapon is eventually dwarfed by the damage from other sources. It is? How so? The few "other sources" I can think of are Power Attack, Sneak Attacks, poisons, and magical weapon properties such as flaming and flaming burst. Power Attack has restrictions for light weapons and bonuses for two-handers, Sneak Attack needs adjustment. Poisons, the flaming and flaming burst properties becomes more powerful with smaller, faster weapons, yes--I see no cause for alarm in this, as this is very easily adjusted. And keep in mind that there are benefits for slower weapons as well--Whirlwind Attack, for instance, and Cleave. The end result of something like this is that inevitably, all of the epic battles of the world are fought with daggers because they're far more effective than any other weapon known to man. There is absolutely no reason to assume anything of the kind. Could you back your statements up with facts and not claims?
Palin the Wizard 02-04-07, 02:18 PM	No. Bad. *swats with newspaper* Would you mind adding some actual constructive criticism rather than simply saying "Bad" while giving no actual reasons for such a comment? You are quite frankly insulting.
MasterOfPsychic 02-04-07, 02:53 PM	I think that your idea is great. This is something I have been thinking about adding to my campaigns for a long time. If you have read the EverQuest d20 RPG, you would find the rules very much like yours there. Only there, weapon delays only vary between 4 and 6, but I see no problem in extending the variation. However, there are enchantments and a feat that could increase the speed by one. So both together should not stack in such a case, or else some weapons could go down to a 1 delay, which would be extreme. To balance the weapons, the weapons in EverQuest which are faster (4) have their critical range, critical multiplier OR damage dice reduced by one category. Slower weapons have one incensement. Very much like your idea, in other words. When a published RPG use such rules, you can count on that they are balanced to at least an acceptable degree.
Illithid_Tentacles 02-04-07, 08:44 PM	Would you mind adding some actual constructive criticism rather than simply saying "Bad" while giving no actual reasons for such a comment? You are quite frankly insulting. Well, let's see. First of all, it adds another damn number to keep track of in combat (aren't there enough already?). Second, you're reworking the whole damn combat system, for what? Realism? Are you concerned about realism in a game that lets you throw huge balls of fire merely by speaking some gobbledeygook and waving around a handful of bat turds? Thirdly, I can't see how this adds ANYTHING to ANY part of the game, except more stuff to keep track of, and more stuff get lost in the shuffle. Fourth, keep in mind that weapons are more than just how much damage they do. You know magic weapons? Say you get a Flaming, Frost, Shocking, Corrosive +4 dagger of Returning. That's an additional 4d6+4 points of damage per hit. While the d4 it does is still unimpressive, there's the fact that you can throw it at anyone within range every round, and if you can get a set of seven, then the damage potential becomes insane. True, this is also possible with the current rules, but three extra attacks per round can make a big difference. As has been pointed out by Neutronium_Dragon, beyond a certain point, this makes daggers superior to just about any other weapon you could want. Fifth, what happens if I, say, make five attacks with my dagger, throw it for the sixth, then quickdraw a battleaxe? Do I get an attack with it? What if I'm dual-weilding a dagger and a longsword? Which weapon speed do I use? How many attacks do I get with each weapon? Also, how are daggers not balanced? They're 1d4, 19-20x2, and throwable with a range of 10 feet. That's a point BETTER than a comparatively sized longsword, which would have identical stats, except it would deal slashing instead of piercing damage and wouldn't be throwable. Do you consider longswords to be underpowered? Weapon speeds in 3.X have come up MANY times before. It has always, ALWAYS been regarded as a bad idea by the majority.
Illithid_Tentacles 02-04-07, 08:52 PM	Oh, and one more thing: Sean Reynolds wrote up an article on weapon speeds you may want to look at. http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html
Palin the Wizard 02-05-07, 12:46 AM	Well, let's see. First of all, it adds another damn number to keep track of in combat (aren't there enough already?). Another number? Nonsense. You wouldn't keep track of this anymore than you are already keeping track of current iterative attacks, and this would replace them. Second, you're reworking the whole damn combat system, for what? Realism? Are you concerned about realism in a game that lets you throw huge balls of fire merely by speaking some gobbledeygook and waving around a handful of bat turds? Believe me, I wrote the book on not adding complexity to the game. This, however, is not complex. It's simple, straight-forward, and it makes more sense than the current system. Thirdly, I can't see how this adds ANYTHING to ANY part of the game, except more stuff to keep track of, and more stuff get lost in the shuffle. No one forces you to use them. What I am asking for is whether or not this is balanced. Fourth, keep in mind that weapons are more than just how much damage they do. You know magic weapons? Say you get a Flaming, Frost, Shocking, Corrosive +4 dagger of Returning. That's an additional 4d6+4 points of damage per hit. While the d4 it does is still unimpressive, there's the fact that you can throw it at anyone within range every round, and if you can get a set of seven, then the damage potential becomes insane. True, this is also possible with the current rules, but three extra attacks per round can make a big difference. As has been pointed out by Neutronium_Dragon, beyond a certain point, this makes daggers superior to just about any other weapon you could want. "Corrosive"? There's no "+1d6 acid damage" in my DMG. Maybe yours is different. In any case, I already said I saw no cause for alarm in this, as it is truly a very simple adjustment. Besides, who allows for both a flaming and a frost enchantment on the same weapon? It makes absolutely no sense. A weapon can't be both covered in ice and fire at the same time. Fifth, what happens if I, say, make five attacks with my dagger, throw it for the sixth, then quickdraw a battleaxe? Do I get an attack with it? What if I'm dual-weilding a dagger and a longsword? Which weapon speed do I use? How many attacks do I get with each weapon? These are all good points, and they need to be taken into consideration before these rules are finished. They are not finished at the moment, however. That's why I posted it here. Also, how are daggers not balanced? They're 1d4, 19-20x2, and throwable with a range of 10 feet. That's a point BETTER than a comparatively sized longsword, which would have identical stats, except it would deal slashing instead of piercing damage and wouldn't be throwable. Do you consider longswords to be underpowered? A longsword isn't a dagger, and are not made in Tiny sizes for medium-sized creatures. To answer your question, a dagger isn't balanced because there is absolutely no mechanical reason to wield one aside from the fact that it can be thrown (which isn't a benefit at all as soon as you hit higher levels unless it has the returning quality). Not even when dual-wielding, where the off-hand usually was a dagger or a dirk historically. Weapon speeds in 3.X have come up MANY times before. It has always, ALWAYS been regarded as a bad idea by the majority. Perhaps. That doesn't mean the idea should be scrapped before it can even get off the ground. Oh, and one more thing: Sean Reynolds wrote up an article on weapon speeds you may want to look at. http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfile...ponspeeds.html I already commented on that article earlier in this thread. I disagree with Mr. Reynolds on various points, especially since the article was written at least before 3.5e--which makes it at least almost 4 years old. The game has evolved since then.
Illithid_Tentacles 02-05-07, 03:13 PM	Another number? Nonsense. You wouldn't keep track of this anymore than you are already keeping track of current iterative attacks, and this would replace them. But with the current system, iterative are always the same number of attacks, with the same BAB, no matter what weapon you use. Your system would require that you keep track of a new attack string for EVERY weapon you carry. Believe me, I wrote the book on not adding complexity to the game. This, however, is not complex. It's simple, straight-forward, and it makes more sense than the current system. I'm sorry, but I truly and honestly don't see how it's any of those things. The current system is simple and straightfortward, and everyone knows it and is familiar with it already. Yours just adds more stuff to keep track of. No one forces you to use them. What I am asking for is whether or not this is balanced. In a word, no. The higher damage potential from heavier, slower weapons doesn't make up for the fact that you get fewer attacks with them at higher levels. In any case, I already said I saw no cause for alarm in this, as it is truly a very simple adjustment. Besides, who allows for both a flaming and a frost enchantment on the same weapon? It makes absolutely no sense. A weapon can't be both covered in ice and fire at the same time. IT'S MAGIC. By definition it doesn't make sense. And I've seen LOTS of DMs who allow a weapon with both the flaming and frost enchantmets to be active at the same time. And Corrosive is in Magic of Faerun, I think, though maybe they called it something else. A longsword isn't a dagger, and are not made in Tiny sizes for medium-sized creatures. My point is that when you adjust for size differences, the dagger comes out ahead, even before your proposed changes. To answer your question, a dagger isn't balanced because there is absolutely no mechanical reason to wield one aside from the fact that it can be thrown (which isn't a benefit at all as soon as you hit higher levels unless it has the returning quality). Not even when dual-wielding, where the off-hand usually was a dagger or a dirk historically. You're forgetting that they can also be used while grappling. And what about clubs? Mechanically, aside from being able to use Power Attack with them, there's no reason to weild one instead of a light mace, since a light mace is a light weapon, but does the same damage. How about the fact that, aside from cost-wise, darts are in every way inferior to light crossbows? How about the fact that scimitars and rapiers are both one-handed martail weapons, but rapiers can be finessed and scimitars can't? Mecanically, there's no reason to use a scimitar over a rapier unless you're a druid or you're fighting something resistant to piercing damage. What do you think of tridents? They're martial, 1-handed, and do 1d8 x2, meaning they're less powerful than longswords and battleaxes, which are both 1 handed martial as well. Do you plan to address all these as well? I already commented on that article earlier in this thread. I disagree with Mr. Reynolds on various points, especially since the article was written at least before 3.5e--which makes it at least almost 4 years old. The game has evolved since then. Magic-wise, yes. Feat-wise, yes. Combat-wise? Not really. Aside from having a few more options due to new feats and magic items, at it's core, combat is still the same as it was when 3.0 first came out.
Lord_Tirian 02-05-07, 03:54 PM	I already commented on that article earlier in this thread. I disagree with Mr. Reynolds on various points, especially since the article was written at least before 3.5e--which makes it at least almost 4 years old. The game has evolved since then. Combat mechanic has not evolved at all. We're still rolling iterative modified d20s for iterative attacks. And I'll quote his relevant parts: So, even after going through all of these complex motions, the dagger fighter only gets an extra attack half the time (10 levels out of 20, compared to the longsword fighter ). The work necessary to make these variant iterative progressions balanced isn't worth the small reward for doing so. And you would have to rewrite the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (since it gives an explicit -5 penalty on the off-hand weapon's attack, which doesn't reflect the speed of "faster" weapons). And would these small, fast weapons have different iterative values for when you were using them in melee or in ranged? And regardless of the above answer, if you had a +15 BAB (which would normally get you three attacks under the current D&D system), what would happen if you chose to throw two daggers (fast) and a throwing axe (not so fast)? They're going to have different iterative attack values, so you shouldn't just get one or the other. And of course: And the smaller weapons' speeds are canceled out by larger weapons' reach anyway. ;) In short: You get a massive reworking, you have a hassle with a bunch of rules, you get strange balance shifts (Sneak Attack Rogues?), that suddenly resets itself for half of the levels, meaning that the very idea only applies to a small part of the game - and it has to be balanced for both. => When your light-weapon wielder has an additional attack, he'll be faster and more powerful, thus - to maintain balance - his weapons should be less powerful, but then, he's half of the time nerf'd, because he has the same number of attacks as a normal mid-weapon wielder. Or the reverse, half the time over-powered, then suddenly normal. AND slower weapons will encounter the same problem. Additionally, a single attack roll doesn't represent a single attack, just as HP don't really reflect the physical resiliency of the body (otherwise, you'll have bodies withstanding punishment, that could shatter a wall): The attacks just represent attacks with a sufficient chance of landing a blow - it is abstracted, you could say, smaller weapons have their higher speed already factored in in their damage, or factored with their lower reach, granting the heavy weapon-wielder more openings.
UnknownMourner 02-05-07, 10:45 PM	Are you prepared to make these changes to every monster you run? And what about wierd spells and creature abilities? Grapples, Hydra bytes, Bladeling sprapnel, What about swarms and black tentacles? Is the change worth the gain? I've played almost every system since 1985 and complex initiative/action points/messing with the turn structure is something I've sworn off of. Since you're asking for feedback, I'd say spend more time on your campaign story tahn on this stuff.
Palin the Wizard 02-06-07, 03:34 AM	But with the current system, iterative are always the same number of attacks, with the same BAB, no matter what weapon you use. Your system would require that you keep track of a new attack string for EVERY weapon you carry. This honestly is not that big of a deal. You have different attack bonuses for different weapons already without it being a problem. I'm sorry, but I truly and honestly don't see how it's any of those things. The current system is simple and straightfortward, and everyone knows it and is familiar with it already. Yours just adds more stuff to keep track of. Just because the current system is more simple than mine, it doesn't make my system complex. It really isn't. In a word, no. The higher damage potential from heavier, slower weapons doesn't make up for the fact that you get fewer attacks with them at higher levels. This is more what I had in mind, yes, but I'd still like to see some basis for this. IT'S MAGIC. By definition it doesn't make sense. And I've seen LOTS of DMs who allow a weapon with both the flaming and frost enchantmets to be active at the same time. And Corrosive is in Magic of Faerun, I think, though maybe they called it something else. Magic doesn't mean it can ignore basic laws of physics when it doesn't specifically say it does. My point is that when you adjust for size differences, the dagger comes out ahead, even before your proposed changes. Well, duh. A longsword is balanced as a medium-sized weapon, not as a tiny one. You're forgetting that they can also be used while grappling. And what about clubs? Mechanically, aside from being able to use Power Attack with them, there's no reason to weild one instead of a light mace, since a light mace is a light weapon, but does the same damage. How about the fact that, aside from cost-wise, darts are in every way inferior to light crossbows? How about the fact that scimitars and rapiers are both one-handed martail weapons, but rapiers can be finessed and scimitars can't? Mecanically, there's no reason to use a scimitar over a rapier unless you're a druid or you're fighting something resistant to piercing damage. What do you think of tridents? They're martial, 1-handed, and do 1d8 x2, meaning they're less powerful than longswords and battleaxes, which are both 1 handed martial as well. Do you plan to address all these as well? I do not feel that any of these are as imbalanced as the dagger except the rapier, which is a rather overpowered weapon. (Didn't think of it when I adjusted the table for weapon speed; I'll need to look into it more closely.) Tridents deal 1d8 damage and can be thrown; darts are thrown weapons and crossbows aren't; clubs can be used with Power Attack. Magic-wise, yes. Feat-wise, yes. Combat-wise? Not really. Aside from having a few more options due to new feats and magic items, at it's core, combat is still the same as it was when 3.0 first came out. Combat itself, no, but a lot of factors involved with combat did. Classes aren't the same, and Mr. Reynolds used the monk's unarmed base attack bonus reason for not changing the system (it doesn't exist anymore). Combat mechanic has not evolved at all. We're still rolling iterative modified d20s for iterative attacks. No, but classes have. And I'll quote his relevant parts: Irrelevant. Mr. Reynolds is basing his comments on an iterative of 4, I'm basing mine on an iterative of 3. Yes, thrown weapons would use the same iterative for both ranged and melee, and if you were to switch in-combat, you simply recalculate from there. For example, someone with BAB +10 tries to throw two daggers and a throwing axe (speed delay 3 and 4, respectively). +10/+7/+3. Had he thrown just daggers, he would've been able to throw four times (+10/+7/+4/+1). And of course: That's an assumption, and not one I agree with. In short: You get a massive reworking, you have a hassle with a bunch of rules, you get strange balance shifts (Sneak Attack Rogues?), that suddenly resets itself for half of the levels, meaning that the very idea only applies to a small part of the game - and it has to be balanced for both. It is a massive reworking yes, but it doesn't actually shift the balance of the game anywhere. This adjustment is only partially to adjust for imbalances in weapons. The real reason is because it makes sense. => When your light-weapon wielder has an additional attack, he'll be faster and more powerful, thus - to maintain balance - his weapons should be less powerful, but then, he's half of the time nerf'd, because he has the same number of attacks as a normal mid-weapon wielder. Or the reverse, half the time over-powered, then suddenly normal. AND slower weapons will encounter the same problem. You're still basing everything on Mr. Reynolds' article, which really doesn't apply here. Additionally, a single attack roll doesn't represent a single attack, just as HP don't really reflect the physical resiliency of the body (otherwise, you'll have bodies withstanding punishment, that could shatter a wall): The attacks just represent attacks with a sufficient chance of landing a blow - it is abstracted, you could say, smaller weapons have their higher speed already factored in in their damage, or factored with their lower reach, granting the heavy weapon-wielder more openings. It's abstract, which means my own view is just as valid. Mine is simply less abstract. Are you prepared to make these changes to every monster you run? And what about wierd spells and creature abilities? Grapples, Hydra bytes, Bladeling sprapnel, What about swarms and black tentacles? Is the change worth the gain? I've played almost every system since 1985 and complex initiative/action points/messing with the turn structure is something I've sworn off of. Since you're asking for feedback, I'd say spend more time on your campaign story tahn on this stuff. That's just the thing--I don't have to. I can standardize all monsters' attacks to 5 spd, meaning they stay as balanced as they are now, and only adjust when and where I think it's necessary. All new monsters would be balanced with the attack speed in mind, of course.
Wolfkiller 02-06-07, 01:07 PM	The second edition of Exalted has a similiar rule. Rounds of combat are not used at all. Instead, time in combat is measured by "ticks". Each weapon or combat manuever has a speed rating, which basically represents the number of ticks in between that action and the character's next action. This system eliminates the whole debate over multiple actions per turn because you get one action every tick. Unfortunately, it requires some work to fit into D&D unless you want every attack the character makes to be at full BAB. That can be nasty.
Tichondrus 02-07-07, 09:31 AM	Personally, if you did that, I think you should also add a delay to spells similar to that of seccond edition. Weapons in third edition are ment to not use that kind of speed because it's reflected on their critical chances and concealment. I seriously think that is a lot of B/S and agree with you taht they must have a delay, but again, add it to spells and skills as well. A good example would be -1 to init per spell level or -5 for a bard to sing and so on. Edit: also take into account that when you aply the delay, if combined with a good damage bonus/flanking/whatsoever, there's no enemy left alive.
Tichondrus 02-07-07, 09:34 AM	No. Bad. *swats with newspaper* http://boards1.wizards.com/community_coc.php all for you
Palin the Wizard 02-07-07, 03:20 PM	Personally, if you did that, I think you should also add a delay to spells similar to that of seccond edition. Weapons in third edition are ment to not use that kind of speed because it's reflected on their critical chances and concealment. I seriously think that is a lot of B/S and agree with you taht they must have a delay, but again, add it to spells and skills as well. A good example would be -1 to init per spell level or -5 for a bard to sing and so on. Spells already have it reflected with casting time.
JustinA 02-08-07, 12:25 AM	What? No, I most certainly don't have to do that. Melee works in 5-foot increments; adding smaller increments would be detrimental to the flow of the game. Then your system isn't going to work right. In the current game system, issues of weapon speed and reach are both abstracted into the combat mechanic. If you reach into the combat mechanic and try to pull one of them out without extrapolating the other, you will find that it's literally impossible to realistically balance the different weapons. For example, take the classic example of the dagger vs. the longsword. You can't reach in and give the dagger a bonus because it's a "faster" and lighter weapon than a sword without simultaneously reaching in and givin the longsword an advantage because it's a longer weapon with a larger reach. If you only choose to model the dagger's advantage and not the longsword's advantage, you're unrealistically favoring the dagger. While at first glance this may seem overpowered, remember that the dagger is a very weak weapon, with a mere 1d4 damage. This, BTW, reveals a neophytish understanding of the way the game works in actual practice. In actual practice, the die type of a weapon quickly becomes only a small part of the damage being done. And this is even more true of weapons with small damage dies. For example, let's take the dagger and the longsword again. We'll keep it simple and make them both moderately magical (+3 flaming) and put them in the hands of a 10th level fighter with Strength 18 and Weapon Specialization. The "very weak dagger" does 1d4 points of damage (average 2.5). The longsword does 1d8 points of damage (average 4.5). The dagger in the hands of our 10th level fighter, however, does 1d4+3+1d6+4+2 = 1d4+1d6+9 points of damage (average 15). The longsword does 1d8+1d6+9 points of damage (average 17). Although the 2 point difference remains, the actual difference in percentage terms is now minor at best. (And it just keeps getting worse and worse as you add in more powerful abilities.) (Crits are irrelevant, since you've given the kukri -- which does 1d4 damage and has the same crit range as a longsword -- the same speed as a dagger.) Why is this such a problem? Well, let's look at the practical effects of your system. Our 10th level fighter gets 2 attacks in the current system. Assuming he's fighting something that he hits 50% of the time, his average per round damage will be 15 with a dagger and 17 with a longsword. In your system, the 10th level fighter gets 3 attacks. Now, with the same assumptions, his average damage per round will be 22.5 with the dagger. (It's still 17 with the longsword.) That skew will get worse and worse as time goes by. At 20th level, for example, the dagger is now doing 52.5 points of damage per round while the longsword is doing 34. (And, in truth, it's even worse because a 20th level character is going to have more than a +3 flaming weapon and Weapon Specialization being added to their damage rolls.) Meanwhile, back in reality, we observe that no one brings a dagger to a duel when they know their opponent is bringing a longsword. Why? Because, all other things being even, the longsword's longer reach will generally keep the knife-fighter from ever getting close enough to land a blow. So your system fails the game balance test and it fails the reality test. You might be able to balance out some of these issues by messing around with the crit values, but you're going to have to be careful not to leave loopholes like the kukri. (Note that you can't balance those loopholes by changing the price of the weapons. As soon a you dump your first +1 on a weapon the difference between a weapon costing 1 gp and a weapon costing 50 gp is essentially irrelevant.) And even then you're trying to use the crit mechanics to balance reach issues -- despite the fact that the crit mechanic (and its supporting feats, etc.) wasn't designed to do that. So you'll have to go in and redo the supporting infrastructure of the crit mechanics so that they'll be consistent with your new reach-based crit system. I have read Mr. Reynolds' thoughts on the subject, and I disagree with many of his opinions regarding adjusting iterative attacks. That may be, but you're still going to have to deal with some of the holes his supposedly "out of date" piece is poking in your system. For example, how do you handle two-weapon fighting and other weapon-mixing? Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Palin the Wizard 02-08-07, 03:12 AM	Then your system isn't going to work right. In the current game system, issues of weapon speed and reach are both abstracted into the combat mechanic. If you reach into the combat mechanic and try to pull one of them out without extrapolating the other, you will find that it's literally impossible to realistically balance the different weapons. For example, take the classic example of the dagger vs. the longsword. You can't reach in and give the dagger a bonus because it's a "faster" and lighter weapon than a sword without simultaneously reaching in and givin the longsword an advantage because it's a longer weapon with a larger reach. If you only choose to model the dagger's advantage and not the longsword's advantage, you're unrealistically favoring the dagger. Not at all. There is no reason to weigh the two as equal except for convenience. I choose to ignore weapon reach smaller or greater than 5 feet (but not extending to 10), and the fact that a larger weapon has the same reach as a smaller weapon balances this out every bit as much. This, BTW, reveals a neophytish understanding of the way the game works in actual practice. In actual practice, the die type of a weapon quickly becomes only a small part of the damage being done. And this is even more true of weapons with small damage dies. Hold it right there. All things being equal, the dagger is a weaker weapon than the longsword. Any and all modifiers you give to the dagger CAN ALSO be given to the longsword, thus this is completely moot. Yes, it becomes less of a factor the more modifiers you give the weapon. So what? The fact that it does doesn't remove the basic imbalance. Oh, and thanks for the completely unnecessary insult. I understand the rules perfectly. "Neophytish", indeed. For example, let's take the dagger and the longsword again. We'll keep it simple and make them both moderately magical (+3 flaming) and put them in the hands of a 10th level fighter with Strength 18 and Weapon Specialization. The "very weak dagger" does 1d4 points of damage (average 2.5). The longsword does 1d8 points of damage (average 4.5). The dagger in the hands of our 10th level fighter, however, does 1d4+3+1d6+4+2 = 1d4+1d6+9 points of damage (average 15). The longsword does 1d8+1d6+9 points of damage (average 17). Although the 2 point difference remains, the actual difference in percentage terms is now minor at best. (And it just keeps getting worse and worse as you add in more powerful abilities.) (Crits are irrelevant, since you've given the kukri -- which does 1d4 damage and has the same crit range as a longsword -- the same speed as a dagger.) Why is this such a problem? Well, let's look at the practical effects of your system. Our 10th level fighter gets 2 attacks in the current system. Assuming he's fighting something that he hits 50% of the time, his average per round damage will be 15 with a dagger and 17 with a longsword. In your system, the 10th level fighter gets 3 attacks. Now, with the same assumptions, his average damage per round will be 22.5 with the dagger. (It's still 17 with the longsword.) That skew will get worse and worse as time goes by. At 20th level, for example, the dagger is now doing 52.5 points of damage per round while the longsword is doing 34. (And, in truth, it's even worse because a 20th level character is going to have more than a +3 flaming weapon and Weapon Specialization being added to their damage rolls.) Meanwhile, back in reality, we observe that no one brings a dagger to a duel when they know their opponent is bringing a longsword. Why? Because, all other things being even, the longsword's longer reach will generally keep the knife-fighter from ever getting close enough to land a blow. So your system fails the game balance test and it fails the reality test. You completely ignore the benefits and drawbacks to having a non-light weapon. -cleave -power attack -whirlwind -attacks of opportunity They all become substantially less powerful (and in one case, cannot even be done) with a light weapon that deals little damage. I'm certain there are others. What feats benefit light weapons? Weapon Finesse? Especially Power Attack is a powerhouse with the right weapon and build, and coincidentially, it's the one that can't be done with a light weapon. And would you stop bringing up the reach thing? You might be able to balance out some of these issues by messing around with the crit values, but you're going to have to be careful not to leave loopholes like the kukri. (Note that you can't balance those loopholes by changing the price of the weapons. As soon a you dump your first +1 on a weapon the difference between a weapon costing 1 gp and a weapon costing 50 gp is essentially irrelevant.) And even then you're trying to use the crit mechanics to balance reach issues -- despite the fact that the crit mechanic (and its supporting feats, etc.) wasn't designed to do that. So you'll have to go in and redo the supporting infrastructure of the crit mechanics so that they'll be consistent with your new reach-based crit system. I can balance weapons around price. The Player's Handbook DOES this already. Scimitar. Rapier. Exact same stats, except for the price, and that for some reason, the rapier counts as a light weapon. As for "loophole", where? I reduced the Kukri's crit range as a result of making it faster, just as I improved the greataxe's crit range as a result of making it slower. And these are really not set in stone. This was meant as a quick example. That may be, but you're still going to have to deal with some of the holes his supposedly "out of date" piece is poking in your system. For example, how do you handle two-weapon fighting and other weapon-mixing? "Other weapon-mixing"? I haven't looked into how I should handle two-weapon fighting yet, because I wanted to be sure the basic system was balanced first.
Neutronium_Dragon 02-08-07, 10:14 AM	> I choose to ignore weapon reach smaller or greater than 5 feet (but not > extending to 10), Which is why this won't work. The system needs to account for both factors, not just one. There's also the point that the "realism" of a dagger being faster is kind of off-base. In practice the longsword is apt to be faster because you've got far more leverage on it and can swing it about with a relatively small motion of your wrist/forearm, whereas the dagger requires you to flail your whole arm about, which is a substantially slower process. The same amount of motion on a longsword will have it covering far more distance far more quickly than the dagger would. In any case, the system assumes that, on balance, the differences in speed, reach, precision, and so on cancel each other out and don't need to be individually modeled.
JustinA 02-08-07, 03:02 PM	Not at all. There is no reason to weigh the two as equal except for convenience. No offense, but you need to start reading for comprehension. I never said that you should "weigh the two [daggers and longswords] as equal". You should weigh them realistically, which you can't do if you decide to explicitly model the dagger's advantages without modeling its disadvantages. I choose to ignore weapon reach smaller or greater than 5 feet (but not extending to 10), Which is why your attempt to model weapon speeds doesn't work. and the fact that a larger weapon has the same reach as a smaller weapon balances this out every bit as much. The fact that a longsword has the same reach as a dagger in your system "balances this out every bit as much" as the fact that exactly opposite is true in real life? That doesn't make the least bit of sense. In the rules-as-written, you understand, this reach difference in real life is irrelevant because it's being balanced against the faster speed of the dagger in real life. Both are subsumed into the abstract combat mechanic. But when you reach in and pull out the faster speed, you've lost that balance. Hold it right there. All things being equal, the dagger is a weaker weapon than the longsword. Any and all modifiers you give to the dagger CAN ALSO be given to the longsword, thus this is completely moot. Yes, it becomes less of a factor the more modifiers you give the weapon. So what? The fact that it does doesn't remove the basic imbalance. So what? The fact that it does doesn't remove the basic imbalance. No offense, but I did the math for you with multiple examples. What part of them didn't you understand? :confused: Here, we'll try it again for you: At 10th level, in your system, our identical fighters with +4 strength bonus are wielding a dagger (1d4+4, avg. 6.5 damage) and a longsword (1d8+4, avg. 8.5 damage). Assuming that 50% of their attacks hit, the dagger has an expected damage per round of 9.75 (6.5 x 3 / 2). The longsword has an expected damage per round of 8.5 (8.5 x 2 / 2). See that? The dagger is now doing more damage than the longsword. The imbalance no longer exists. In the rules-as-writen, the imbalance is always present. In the same example in the rules-as-written, the dagger only has an expected return of 6.5 -- the two point edge of the longsword is preserved (and is always preserved). But your system, by giving extra attacks to the dagger, breaks the imbalance. And the more bonus damage you add to the basic die type, the more broken your system becomes. Oh, and thanks for the completely unnecessary insult. I understand the rules perfectly. "Neophytish", indeed. No offense, but your reply only confirmed that not only did you fail to do the math when you designed your system, you also falied to understand the math when it was done for you. Neophytish indeed. You completely ignore the benefits and drawbacks to having a non-light weapon. [...] I'm certain there are others. What feats benefit light weapons? Weapon Finesse? The fact that there are feats which benefit non-light weapons and feats which benefit light weapons is why I didn't try to do a complete breakdown. You cite Power Attack as something that benefits non-light weapons and Weapon Finesse as something that benefits light weapons. Both true. But the analysis of how those benefits measure up in both the rules-as-written and your variant are complicated and dependent on the combat situation. Plus, such a comprehensive analysis is impossible (even if I were inclined to waste my time doing your design work for you) since one of the key advantages in the rules-as-written of a light weapon is in two-weapon fighting... and you admit that you don't have a system for handling two-weapon fighting yet. More importantly, the distinction between light and non-light weapons is a meaningless one in critiquing your system. You've got speed differences between light weapons with different real-world reaches and you've got speed differences between non-light weapons with different real-world reaches. The comparison between daggers and longswords is iconic in discussions of this type, but it's hardly the only speed mismatch you've got -- and there are plenty of speed mismatches which don't cross the light/non-light barrier. And would you stop bringing up the reach thing? Well, I suppose that's one way to deal with one of the two huge problems your system has: Just ignore it. :rolleyes: I can balance weapons around price. The Player's Handbook DOES this already. Yes. And it works because in the rules-as-written, for example, the two point edge of the longsword is preserved (and is always preserved). But we've already established that, in your system, it ISN'T preserved. The dagger starts out less powerful and then becomes more powerful. And becomes even more powerful once you start adding in magical bonuses. As a result, you can't try to "balance" the extra damage a dagger does above BAB +4 when you drop 18,000 gp on it in magical enhancements (vs. the same amount dropped on a longsword) by making it 14 gp cheaper than a longsword. No one's going to pass up on the opportunity to do 20+ points of extra damage per round (as established in my previous reply) because you're asking them to spend an extra 14 gp to do it. As for "loophole", where? I reduced the Kukri's crit range as a result of making it faster, To repeat myself: If you try to balance the dagger's greater power in your system by giving the longsword a larger critical threat range, you can't leave the kukri in the game with a faster speed and the same critical threat range as the longsword. You can't use critical threat ranges to balance weapons against each other if you leave loopholes for avoiding it (like a different weapon with the same stats as a dagger but a crit range equal to a longsword). Of course, you still won't even acknowledge the problem you need to fix. "Other weapon-mixing"? For example, throwing different types of weapons. Or dropping a weapon and then quick-drawing another one. Any situation, basically, where you change weapons or use different types of weapons during a full-attack action. Since you've based the number of attacks you get in a turn on the weapon you're using, how do you handle the simple scenario where different weapons are used in a single turn? Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Archangel62 02-08-07, 03:18 PM	Weapon speeds are generally a bad idea for several reasons. 1) If we do this then we also need to add incrimental rules for weapon size and reach, otherwise it is simply blatantly powering up rogues. 2) We'd have to alter the rules for materials, since they alter the weight and balance of the weapon they could greatly increase or reduce weapon speed. 3) In exchange for a small bit of realism you deal a death blow to internal consistency. The thing you have to ask yourself is how this affects the gameworld. Daggers become a lot more lethal, and if you want 'realism' then also work out the size of the weapons of a large enemy and work out their reach, soon anything huge or bigger has an almost 20-25 foot reach if they have an appropriately sized greatsword. 4) Do stats factor into weapon speed? If I have a strength of 40 I think I should have a higher weapon speed for my maul than the guy with the 14 strength, or the 8 strength... 5) Would weapon focus and specialization also give bonuses to speed, I mean if you focus this heavily on a weapon then you should also be getting boosts to using it in terms of speed and balance with it. 6) The CR system would need to be entirely rebalanced when dealing with multi-limbed creatures or beings like the Ettin. Suddenly they could get off dozens more attacks with this little design of yours . 7) Attacks of opportunity also get odd with this, is there any incentive now for me not to focus on a spiked chain AOO monster if I'm a fighter? Since apparently I won't get off enough attacks with my greatsword and the rogue can get off dozens more attacks and deal far more damage than me. 8) Monks. 9) Two weapon fighting becomes atrociously strange unless you use two identical weapons. 10) Shield bashing 11) Suddenly sundering is an even greater fear for players. 12) What happens when you have to switch weapons mid-fight? 13) This actually ends up nerfing melee classes and strengthening classes like the rogue as well as caster classes. 14) Work out natural weapons on this thing, work out each type and design, it will only get clunkier. 15) Weapon balance rules are problematic enough as it is, with this I could make a weapon with a speed of 1 and really poor damage, make it an exotic weapon, and be the friend of rogues everywhere.
Palin the Wizard 02-08-07, 06:43 PM	No offense, but you need to start reading for comprehension. I never said that you should "weigh the two [daggers and longswords] as equal". You should weigh them realistically, which you can't do if you decide to explicitly model the dagger's advantages without modeling its disadvantages. You assume they cancel each other out, thus weigh one advantage as equal to the other. So yeah, you kind of did. If they are not equal, they do not balance each other out. I'm saying they are not equal, and thus do not balance each other out. See? Which is why your attempt to model weapon speeds doesn't work. Really. The fact that a longsword has the same reach as a dagger in your system "balances this out every bit as much" as the fact that exactly opposite is true in real life? That doesn't make the least bit of sense. The balancing part I am talking about is that disregarding the reach for larger weapons (though not to 10 foot reach) balances the fact that I disregard reach for shorter weapons as well. In the rules-as-written, you understand, this reach difference in real life is irrelevant because it's being balanced against the faster speed of the dagger in real life. Both are subsumed into the abstract combat mechanic. But when you reach in and pull out the faster speed, you've lost that balance. All right, then what balances the slower speed of an axe? He can wield it faster. Why, exactly? Because he's too close to swing it properly? Uh. Right. I do not agree that a weapon being faster or slower is cancelled out by reach, and the designers did so for sake of convenience only. No offense, but I did the math for you with multiple examples. What part of them didn't you understand? :confused: Here, we'll try it again for you: At 10th level, in your system, our identical fighters with +4 strength bonus are wielding a dagger (1d4+4, avg. 6.5 damage) and a longsword (1d8+4, avg. 8.5 damage). Assuming that 50% of their attacks hit, the dagger has an expected damage per round of 9.75 (6.5 x 3 / 2). The longsword has an expected damage per round of 8.5 (8.5 x 2 / 2). See that? The dagger is now doing more damage than the longsword. The imbalance no longer exists. I was stating that, all things being equal, the dagger--in RAW--will always be weaker than the longsword. My statement was misleading, as I neclected to include the RAW part. Mea culpa. In the rules-as-writen, the imbalance is always present. In the same example in the rules-as-written, the dagger only has an expected return of 6.5 -- the two point edge of the longsword is preserved (and is always preserved). Precisely. But your system, by giving extra attacks to the dagger, breaks the imbalance. And the more bonus damage you add to the basic die type, the more broken your system becomes. Obviously. I have never disputed this. I concede that magic is currently an unbalancing factor. What I disagree with is you completely disregarding basic weapon damage. No offense, but your reply only confirmed that not only did you fail to do the math when you designed your system, you also falied to understand the math when it was done for you. Neophytish indeed. You failing to understand what I'm telling you does not mean I do not understand your math. Keep your insults to yourself. The fact that there are feats which benefit non-light weapons and feats which benefit light weapons is why I didn't try to do a complete breakdown. You cite Power Attack as something that benefits non-light weapons and Weapon Finesse as something that benefits light weapons. Both true. But the analysis of how those benefits measure up in both the rules-as-written and your variant are complicated and dependent on the combat situation. Plus, such a comprehensive analysis is impossible (even if I were inclined to waste my time doing your design work for you) since one of the key advantages in the rules-as-written of a light weapon is in two-weapon fighting... and you admit that you don't have a system for handling two-weapon fighting yet. I've also stated why, but I suppose that two-weapon fighting is too incorporated with the basic system for me to set it aside. I'll have a look at it. More importantly, the distinction between light and non-light weapons is a meaningless one in critiquing your system. You've got speed differences between light weapons with different real-world reaches and you've got speed differences between non-light weapons with different real-world reaches. The comparison between daggers and longswords is iconic in discussions of this type, but it's hardly the only speed mismatch you've got -- and there are plenty of speed mismatches which don't cross the light/non-light barrier. You're quite right, but all those speed mismatches have had modifiers meant to balance them. Whether or not they do so is a different matter entirely; I concede that they do not when magic becomes involved. Well, I suppose that's one way to deal with one of the two huge problems your system has: Just ignore it. :rolleyes: For the last time: I do not believe they cancel each other out. I'm not ignoring it, I'm DISAGREEING with it. You keep stating it as fact, where I am saying it isn't, and you keep using it in your favor. Thus: Stop bringing up the reach thing. I do not agree with it, and I do not acknowledge it as fact as you do. Yes. And it works because in the rules-as-written, for example, the two point edge of the longsword is preserved (and is always preserved). But we've already established that, in your system, it ISN'T preserved. The dagger starts out less powerful and then becomes more powerful. And becomes even more powerful once you start adding in magical bonuses. As a result, you can't try to "balance" the extra damage a dagger does above BAB +4 when you drop 18,000 gp on it in magical enhancements (vs. the same amount dropped on a longsword) by making it 14 gp cheaper than a longsword. No one's going to pass up on the opportunity to do 20+ points of extra damage per round (as established in my previous reply) because you're asking them to spend an extra 14 gp to do it. The point is not to preserve the basic imbalance between the two weapons, but to try and balance them. I do see your point, and yes, the dagger will become more powerful than the longsword when magic is involved if nothing is done to counterbalance it. I have not disputed this. You claim, however, that weapon damage in and of itself is of no consequence due to powerful magic, which is total and complete non-sense. The system should not be balanced around high-level play, but on every single level. What good does it do for the 6th level dagger-rogue if the 13th level dagger-rogue has enchanted his dagger so the average damage per round becomes closer to that of the longsword? To repeat myself: If you try to balance the dagger's greater power in your system by giving the longsword a larger critical threat range, you can't leave the kukri in the game with a faster speed and the same critical threat range as the longsword. You can't use critical threat ranges to balance weapons against each other if you leave loopholes for avoiding it (like a different weapon with the same stats as a dagger but a crit range equal to a longsword). Of course, you still won't even acknowledge the problem you need to fix. I haven't TOUCHED the longsword. I used it as the basic weapon, the one which I kept the same. All I did was add that it had a speed delay of 5. Again, this was meant as a quick example and the examples are not set in stone in any way. For example, throwing different types of weapons. Or dropping a weapon and then quick-drawing another one. Any situation, basically, where you change weapons or use different types of weapons during a full-attack action. Since you've based the number of attacks you get in a turn on the weapon you're using, how do you handle the simple scenario where different weapons are used in a single turn? I responded to this already. You recalculate the iterative attacks. I made the example of two daggers and a throwing axe, iterative 3 and 4 respectively, and with a character who had +10 base attack bonus. If he throws two daggers then switches to throwing an axe, the total attack looks like this: +10/+7/+3. Had he thrown nothing but daggers, he would have gotten four attacks: +10/+7/+4/+1. The same holds true for melee.
Palin the Wizard 02-08-07, 06:51 PM	Weapon speeds are generally a bad idea for several reasons. 1) If we do this then we also need to add incrimental rules for weapon size and reach, otherwise it is simply blatantly powering up rogues. No. 2) We'd have to alter the rules for materials, since they alter the weight and balance of the weapon they could greatly increase or reduce weapon speed. Eh, what? No. 3) In exchange for a small bit of realism you deal a death blow to internal consistency. The thing you have to ask yourself is how this affects the gameworld. Daggers become a lot more lethal, and if you want 'realism' then also work out the size of the weapons of a large enemy and work out their reach, soon anything huge or bigger has an almost 20-25 foot reach if they have an appropriately sized greatsword. Daggers only become "more lethal" the moment you add powerful magic, something I admit I didn't have in mind when I made the example. 4) Do stats factor into weapon speed? If I have a strength of 40 I think I should have a higher weapon speed for my maul than the guy with the 14 strength, or the 8 strength... Good point. No, they don't. 5) Would weapon focus and specialization also give bonuses to speed, I mean if you focus this heavily on a weapon then you should also be getting boosts to using it in terms of speed and balance with it. Not necessarily. You already get a bonus with the weapon. 6) The CR system would need to be entirely rebalanced when dealing with multi-limbed creatures or beings like the Ettin. Suddenly they could get off dozens more attacks with this little design of yours . Assuming that the weapon system itself becomes as balanced as the current system... no. 7) Attacks of opportunity also get odd with this, is there any incentive now for me not to focus on a spiked chain AOO monster if I'm a fighter? Since apparently I won't get off enough attacks with my greatsword and the rogue can get off dozens more attacks and deal far more damage than me. I have already stated that attacks of opportunity is something which needs to be looked at. AoO will most likely become substantially less powerful for light weapons than for two-handed weapons. 8) Monks. What about them? 9) Two weapon fighting becomes atrociously strange unless you use two identical weapons. I haven't yet worked out the two-weapon fighting rules as well as I need to. I'll get to work on this. 10) Shield bashing What about it? 11) Suddenly sundering is an even greater fear for players. I really don't see why. 12) What happens when you have to switch weapons mid-fight? Answered this already (twice by now). 13) This actually ends up nerfing melee classes and strengthening classes like the rogue as well as caster classes. Uh? The rogue only benefits from this due to the sneak attack mechanic which is something I've also said I need to work on--I simply want the basic system balanced first. 14) Work out natural weapons on this thing, work out each type and design, it will only get clunkier. Answered already. Average all natural weapons to 5 iterative, and their powerlevel will remain the same. Adjust when and where you believe it is necessary and makes sense. 15) Weapon balance rules are problematic enough as it is, with this I could make a weapon with a speed of 1 and really poor damage, make it an exotic weapon, and be the friend of rogues everywhere. No weapon should have a speed delay of 2 or lower. In the original post. How about you actually read what I wrote?
Palin the Wizard 02-08-07, 06:53 PM	> I choose to ignore weapon reach smaller or greater than 5 feet (but not > extending to 10), Which is why this won't work. The system needs to account for both factors, not just one. According to YOU. I do not believe they balance each other out. How many times do I need to state this? There's also the point that the "realism" of a dagger being faster is kind of off-base. In practice the longsword is apt to be faster because you've got far more leverage on it and can swing it about with a relatively small motion of your wrist/forearm, whereas the dagger requires you to flail your whole arm about, which is a substantially slower process. The same amount of motion on a longsword will have it covering far more distance far more quickly than the dagger would. Nonsense. Stabbing with a dagger is much faster than swinging with a sword, and you'd do far less damage with the dagger by slashing than by stabbing. In any case, the system assumes that, on balance, the differences in speed, reach, precision, and so on cancel each other out and don't need to be individually modeled. The system assumes; I disagree.
JustinA 02-08-07, 09:12 PM	You assume they cancel each other out, thus weigh one advantage as equal to the other. So yeah, you kind of did. Except, of course, I didn't say that. What I actually said: "If you only choose to model the dagger's advantage and not the longsword's advantage, you're unrealistically favoring the dagger." Now, you were politely corrected on this once. So at this point I can only conclude that you're actually incapable of reading that simple sentence for comprehension or that you're choosing to deliberately lie about what I said. Either behavior is annoying, so please stop. Thus: Stop bringing up the reach thing. I do not agree with it, and I do not acknowledge it as fact as you do. You don't acknowledge that no one experienced in martial weaponry ever brought a knife to a swordfight? Given that basic failure on your part to understand the way in which melee combat actually works in the real world, I think it's impossible for you to ever design a system which accurately reflects the way that melee combat works in the real world. The balancing part I am talking about is that disregarding the reach for larger weapons (though not to 10 foot reach) balances the fact that I disregard reach for shorter weapons as well. You understand that this is complete nonsense, right? It's like you're trying to model cars for a racing game and you said, "The fact that I ignore the speed of a car that can do 100 mph balances the fact that I ignore the speed of a car that can do 150 mph." Part of your apparent comprehension problem here is that this section of the argument isn't about game balance. This is the argument about you failing to model reality accurately. Your failure to balance your system, OTOH, lies entirely in the fact that you've transformed daggers into uber-weapons. But we're coming to that subject right now... Obviously. I have never disputed this. I concede that magic is currently an unbalancing factor. Sigh. Did you somehow fail to notice that the math you were responding to in that message didn't feature ANY magic? It was a plain vanilla dagger vs. a plain vanilla long sword. The only bonus damage came from the fighters' Strength bonuses. The problem becomes even worse once you add in magical bonuses to damage. But it exists as soon as you allow ANY bonuses to damage. You failing to understand what I'm telling you does not mean I do not understand your math. And yet you failed to understand the math again. You claim, however, that weapon damage in and of itself is of no consequence due to powerful magic, which is total and complete non-sense. I never said that. What I actually said: "In actual practice, the die type of a weapon quickly becomes only a small part of the damage being done. And this is even more true of weapons with small damage dies." (emphasis added) You'll notice that "small part" and "no consequence" are, in fact, not the same thing. Please stop lying about what other people are saying. It is very immature. I haven't TOUCHED the longsword. I used it as the basic weapon, the one which I kept the same. All I did was add that it had a speed delay of 5. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. First, I never said you had changed the stats of a longsword. Second, the fact that you didn't change the stats of a longsword is irrelevant: You've put those stats into a completely different system. That changes the balance of the longsword when compared to other weapons. How can you not understand that? I responded to this already. You recalculate the iterative attacks. I made the example of two daggers and a throwing axe, iterative 3 and 4 respectively, and with a character who had +10 base attack bonus. If he throws two daggers then switches to throwing an axe, the total attack looks like this: +10/+7/+3. Had he thrown nothing but daggers, he would have gotten four attacks: +10/+7/+4/+1. The same holds true for melee. This creates weirdness. For example, you get a different number of attacks depending on the order in which you use your weapons: +10/+7/+4/+1 (axe/dagger/dagger/dagger) +10/+6/+3 (dagger/axe/dagger) This happens even if you change the subtraction (so that you subtract a number based on the weapon you just used rather than the weapon you're about to use): +10/+6/+3 (axe/dagger/dagger) +10/+7/+4/+1 (dagger/dagger/dagger/axe) You can also end up using the same number of attacks and the same combination of weapons, but with different attack bonuses. For example, at +13 (using your version): +13/+10/+6/+3 (dagger/dagger/axe/dagger) +13/+9/+6/+3 (dagger/axe/dagger/dagger) Why am I suddenly less effective as a fighter because I threw me axe second instead of third? So, to sum up, we've established that your system: 1. Isn't realistic. 2. Isn't balanced. 3. Is sloppy and inconsistent. And we've also established that you're unwilling to accept that any of these things are true. As a result, we can rest assured that you're never going to fix these things. And even if you did want to fix it, you don't seem to understand (or don't want to understand) the math which could potentially lead you to a solution. ... Good luck. You're going to need it. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Palin the Wizard 02-09-07, 01:45 AM	You are constantly being condescending. Argue the point, or don't argue. I have no reason to subject myself to this.
Neutronium_Dragon 02-09-07, 09:57 AM	Look, Palin - you asked for a [PEACH] and you got it. The fact that you don't like the points being raised is no excuse for being dismissive of those points being raised and of the people raising them. In fact, you're pinging on my troll-o-meter, so this is the last time I'll bother looking at this thread.
Palin the Wizard 02-09-07, 01:37 PM	[PEACH] is not an excuse for being condescending.
JustinA 02-09-07, 02:01 PM	[PEACH] is not an excuse for being condescending. And designing a flawed weapon speed system is not an excuse for lying about what other people said. I'm with Neutronium Dragon. If you sound like a troll, look like a troll, and act like a troll, I don't really see any reason to continue participating in this thread. Like I said: Good luck... you're going to need it. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Illithid_Tentacles 02-09-07, 02:11 PM	Yeah, after reading your reply to my last post and the fact that you're getting pissy now that people are pointing out how your system is flawed and overall a bad idea, has convinced me that you don't actually want people to "Evaluate And Criticize Honestly", which is what the EACH part of PEACH stands for. I'm betting you just want everyone to agree with you and tell you you're doing God's work, or something. You misinterpereted my last post on several points, meaning that you're either deliberately trolling or lacking in reading comprehension skills, which is a seriously bad thing when you're just trying to play D&D, much less trying to design a whole new combat system. So, yeah, to echo JustinA's sentiment: Good luck with this, you're going to need it. I'm done trying to be helpful towards you.
Palin the Wizard 02-09-07, 04:39 PM	I asked for [PEACH], I didn't ask for insults, which is what I got. Whatever. I'm done here.
Archangel62 02-10-07, 09:18 AM	Alright, first off I was listing all the issues I saw with weapon speed rules in D&D period. As for the question about materials, it's this. Adamantine makes items much heavier and denser, so does the weapon speed drop? Or is it only for large adamantine weapons? What about Mithryl, it makes things lighter, does that make the weapons faster? Good point. No, they don't. ok, well that's one strike against realism Not necessarily. You already get a bonus with the weapon. Yes, but now I have no real incentive to go this route with my weapon since more attacks will almost always be prefereble. Assuming that the weapon system itself becomes as balanced as the current system... no. In other words you're not even asking to integrate this, your idea here is more having to rewrite the entire system for the sake of a little 'realism' I have already stated that attacks of opportunity is something which needs to be looked at. AoO will most likely become substantially less powerful for light weapons than for two-handed weapons. Again, part of the issue, weapon speeds can foul up AoOs because now the only real reason to focus on it is for the spiked chain or something in that vein for the fighter. What about them? How does a monks unarmed attack count? Is it a natural attack? A unique weapon speed? What about different monk weapons, since they can all be used in flurry does their speed reset to the monks weapon speed? The monk and classes like it are a good example for why weapon speeds are a bad idea. I haven't yet worked out the two-weapon fighting rules as well as I need to. I'll get to work on this. Again, weapon speed rules will mean a need to almost totally rewrite this mechanic. Which again begs the question as to how good of an idea it really is to add it. What about it? What are the weapon speeds of shields? How do the shield bashes factor into weapon speed rules? Do the shield spikes alter the weapon speed? Does the material the shields are made from alter the weapon speed? I really don't see why. Sundered weapons means needing to change to a different weapon, different speed. And, for the sake of realism getting the weapon might count as one of it's attacks. Answered this already (twice by now). Really, I haven't seen it answered anywhere. Uh? The rogue only benefits from this due to the sneak attack mechanic which is something I've also said I need to work on--I simply want the basic system balanced first. Except you need to factor in the core classes of the system that you are using. If rogues have sneak attack or another class has some big potent ability that the number of attacks effects then you need to consider that when you design the system. You're trying to make something to integrate with the D&D system, we're trying to explain why it doesn't. Answered already. Average all natural weapons to 5 iterative, and their powerlevel will remain the same. Adjust when and where you believe it is necessary and makes sense. No, no it doesn't work at all here. The adjust part basically means that the DM would have to make constant shifts on the fly to make things work properly and that will generally not work well. Rend and other features like it would be problematic, as would features like multiple limbs, or the ettins dual brain control system. For players this smacks the monks again and further breaks any hope of internal logic. No weapon should have a speed delay of 2 or lower. In the original post. How about you actually read what I wrote? No weapon should, true, but with the exotic weapon rules an item like that could easily be created. Especially since the internal rules for weapon speed are so wonky anyhow that something like this coming out aren't impossible. Supplimental weapons can come down on the close to obscene side sometimes and with your rules they would only get worse. And more importantly, do not invent quotes from me, I find it to be rude and frankly it shows how poor your arguments are if you have to literally invent these things just so you can try to prove your point. You haven't given a single good reason to implement these rules and get angry when people try to point out the holes in it. If you want an honest analysis you have to put up with the criticisms and arguments.
Palin the Wizard 02-10-07, 03:58 PM	As I have already given up this idea, I won't comment on the rest of your post. However, I need to address this: And more importantly, do not invent quotes from me, I find it to be rude and frankly it shows how poor your arguments are if you have to literally invent these things just so you can try to prove your point. I didn't "invent" those quotes. I mistakenly pasted the attribute to you when I quoted Neutronium_Dragon's post and split the quote into segments, and I apologize for the mix-up. It's fixed now.