Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shadowdragon 08-26-06, 04:49 PM	I really like the idea of weapon speeds from AD&D and am currently trying to add them to D20. Basically, each weapon has a weapon speed to reflect how slow and clumsy the weapon is. A dagger is a very fast weapon, while a great axe is very slow and clumsy. The weapon speed counts as a penalty to the wielders initiative. There are two problems I'm having: the first is when to subtract the weapon speed from the character's initiative. Should it be at the start of the round the character attacks with the weapon, or should it be the round following the attack, or should it apply as long as the character has the weapon drawn? Also, what if a character uses two weapons? Should the weapon speeds for both weapons be added together, or should just the highest weapon speed be applied, or should there just be a flat weapon speed increase for using two weapons, or should each weapon have it's own initiative count?
Fargren 08-26-06, 05:04 PM	This rule is not neccesary, adn causes a lot of problems. First, caster who don't use weapon have better initiative. Second, what happens if you gain initiative duriong your action by drawing a faster weapon? you lose a round, because your inititive is higher and you turn has ended. Then, two weapon fighting. Then, small weapons should be fster because they are easy to use, but slow because you are farther form your opponent, so it takes more time for your weapon to thit him. It's just to complicated, and doesn't bring anyhting fun opr usefull to the game.
Shadowdragon 08-26-06, 05:24 PM	This is how I want initiative to work (it's basically lifted right out of AD&D): At the begining of the round each character declares an action (move, attack, cast a spell, etc. Characters can only make 1 action each round, not 2). Once all the actions are declared initiative is rolled and modified by the chosen action (weapons have weapon speeds, spells will have casting speeds, etc). Actions are then performed in initiative order. If a character wants to change his action after initiative is rolled he must go last in the iniative order. I'm not sure if I want initiative to be rolled each round or keep it the way it is (one initiative roll for the entire combat). Personally I'm thinking that weapon speeds (and casting speeds) would only modify the action they are performed on. For two weapons I think that each weapon should get its own initiative count. But I'd still like to hear what others think. For short weapons like daggers and even unarmed attacks maybe they should have a reach of 0, forcing you to enter the opponents space. I would like to read posts on how to make it work instead of posts about how stupid the idea supposedly is. I asked for help making it work, not whether I should even do it. It makes sense that big clumsy weapons would slow a character down more than light balanced weapons and I want to find a way to represent this in D20.
Fargren 08-26-06, 09:56 PM	First, I'm sorry that I'm posting why I think this is a bad idea, but I think I'm actually helping. I'm only telling you this because I honestly believe it's a bad idea to add weapon speed to D&D3.X, and it will be bad for your game. Whenever you think of a house rule, the first thing you have to think of is what does this rulke accomplish. Balance, realism, or fun are the basic three answers. In this case it's obviously realism. The second thing you need it to consider is wether does the gain surpass the effort. In this case, I really belive it doesn't. You gain a very small amount of realism, and you lose tons of time making this house rule, balacing it, teaching it to your players, and(more importantly) at the beggining of each combat. It's just not worth it. Sorry for the negative attitude, I'm just trying to help.
Wayside 08-27-06, 04:39 AM	This sounds like a worthwhile thing to add if you want to run your rounds with everyone declaring what they plan to do ahead of time. I personally like that idea since it helps symbolize the chaos of battle, if something happens that changes your plan you either have to react to it (forcing you to go last in the round) or continue through with the action you previously stated. I would consider changing it from forcing the person to go last to making them go later. Here is the best way i can see handling your mechanic: Everyone declares their intended action at the start of the round. Initiative is then rolled taking into account the weapon their attack (if they are making one) is using. If they are not making an attack do not impose the penalty or give them the bonus. Then if something happens before their turn that makes them want to change their action simply apply a penalty to their initiative that is reduced by either their dex or reflex to represent their reaction time. It could be made much more detailed (and hence astoundingly more complex) by making only the attack part of the action itself affected by the weapon speed, but that causes far too many problems. Also rolling initiative at the start of each round is essentially a must for this style of gameplay. Using this house rule will lengthen the amount of time it takes to run a combat, but in my opinion the extra time is worth it if you and your group are patient enough to deal with it.
Benny BBQ 08-27-06, 05:37 PM	I guess you could simply apply the weapon modifier to one's initiative at the end of the round (so that it affects the next rounds). This would reflect the time it takes to swing a heavy weapon compared to a light one (it'd mostly take into account the difficulty of bringing a weighty weapon back into "striking position" fast...). Also, I think you shouldn't give weapons bonuses to initiative as much as you should simply assign penalties to slower ones (this deals with the issue of "improving your initiative" using a specific weapon, which does not make sense...). Furthermore, when it comes to two-weapon fighting, you could apply the unwieldiest weapon's modifier + half the other one's (I have no solid reason why to do so, but I think it'd make sense, since fighting with 2 weapons harmonically is hard as hell). Also, it'd encourage the "traditionnal sword and main-gauche" style of fighting... (since I assume the dagger/knife/main-gauche wouldn't have an initiative penalty). In this case, roling for initiative each round doesn't make sense, since it basically breaks the system (this'll save you time as well :) ) 'my humble opinion... -Ben
UnknownMourner 08-27-06, 06:51 PM	Short version: not worth it. The problem is sometimes someone will go twice and thus not be penalized for whacky things they do like power attack, etc. You also have to make rules for area moved taking up initiative. For example: wizard declares he is going to disintegrate me. i declare I am going to go dagger stab an earthworm down the hal land out of the wizard's LOS. Declaring actions is opening a can of cheese that I, and most players, and WotC, left behind a long time ago. It is sort of from the silver age of pen and paper games, and best left dead in my opinion. Having said that, here's two compromise fixes I'd suggest: The first is what everquest the rpg does: Slower weapons have worse consecutive attack modifiers. Like, a normal weapon has base attack -5/-10/-15, a dagger has like -4/-8/-12, and a greatsword would have -6/-12/-18, etc. Then a hasted person moves down the chart and a slowed person moves up the chart. I've also toyed with making this the final form of weapon spec. That's not really an initiative thing tho. For that i'd recommend "fast" weapons moving your initiative up one per turn, and slower ones moving your initiative down one per turn. Then you eventually get a bonus/penalty for it. Keep in mind, you'd need to create modifiers for non attack stuff too. Drawing weapons, opening doors, etc.
Soulmage 08-27-06, 11:56 PM	If you're thinking about incorporating weapon speed into your game, read this first: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html
Bertuccio 08-28-06, 10:40 PM	If you're thinking about incorporating weapon speed into your game, read this first: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html I really don't get this article, I've read it, and it seems to almost entirely miss the point. The first part on the "realism" of speed factors is fair enough, you can make the agrument that the range cancels out the speed, or that over the course of a round it dosen't make any difference, but equally, there's enough fantasy stuff out there where the fast guy with daggers darts in and out of the huge axe's reach during the fight, so this is really a matter of style. The rest of the article seems to not be about "Why speed factors don't work" but "Why speed factors rammed badly into the existing 3.x round system don't work", far as I can see, all the problems he discusses go away if the monsters and players declare actions before rolling initiative, without knowing what the other side is doing, and initiative is recalculated each round - just like 2e, which isn't surprising, since that is where speed factors came from.
demon666fast 08-29-06, 12:01 AM	The rule for weapon speed not only creates problem for the game, but it is also not realistic at all. In real combat the "speed factor" of a weapon is not important to determinate who attacks first, thus, should not modify the initiative roll. John Clements said it: "Further, a weapon's "speed", or rather its maneuverability as it relates to weight, is a factor in its ability to hit, not whether it gets in the first attack." Source: http://www.theriddleofsteel.net/whatis/jccombat.htm
Fargren 08-29-06, 06:13 PM	If you attack for ten rounds with one ttack per round, you get ten attacks. With a faster weapon, if ti modifies initiative, you don't get more. So if you wan't weapon speeds, don't make them affect initiative.
Ltheb Liadon 08-29-06, 06:46 PM	I saw some interesting weapon speed rules while browsing (Surprisingly) The EQ d20 book. I think it basically split weapons into catagories, and the heavier/slow the weapon, the higher level you had to be to get extra attacks from BAB. (Like a Great Axe would get a secound attack at 8 bab, at +8/+1) It looked cool. A tad confusing if you haven't used it. Definitely favors Enchanted Daggers of Flame and Speed more than Vorpal Greatswords.
Shadowdragon 09-03-06, 12:39 AM	It was my players that suggested adding some Player's Options rules to D&D3.5 to make combat more complex, so I don't think they'll mind if things like weapon speeds slow down combat. One thing I was considering was making initiative and weapon speed determine how many actions a character gets in a round. A fast, lightly armoured, character with a fast weapon will be able to do more in a round than a slow, heavily armoured, character with a big weapon. I'm still working on how exactly it would work though.
Elrabin 09-03-06, 01:03 AM	My opinion: Doesn't make sense. Doesn't add anything to the game except variety, assuming you don't care that it doesn't make sense. If you still want it, take into account the balancing that would be necessary and ask yourself if that large amount of work is really worth the tiny bit of variety that makes no sense from a realistic stand-point that you are attempting to add.
Shadowdragon 09-06-06, 03:11 PM	My opinion: Doesn't make sense. Doesn't add anything to the game except variety, assuming you don't care that it doesn't make sense. If you still want it, take into account the balancing that would be necessary and ask yourself if that large amount of work is really worth the tiny bit of variety that makes no sense from a realistic stand-point that you are attempting to add. It may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to me. Say you have a character in heavy plate armour swinging a huge greatsword. Then you have a character in leather armour and wielding a dagger. How many chances to score a hit will the armoured character get compared to the dagger-wielding character? A lightly armed and armoured character will always be faster than a heavily armed and armoured character. As it is the benefits to having a lightly armed and armoured character in D&D are very slight (no armour check penalty and slightly faster movement) so every fighter will go for the biggest weapon and heaviest armour, just because there's no reason not to. With some minor changes to the initiative system it opens combat up to a variety of different fighting styles.
starfire311 09-06-06, 03:40 PM	Say you have a character in heavy plate armour swinging a huge greatsword. Then you have a character in leather armour and wielding a dagger. ok stop right there... in this situation who do you think would get the 1st attack. I would guess the guy in heavy armor with the weapon that has more reach, the guy in less armor will have to try and dodge, while waiting for a good openning to close with his shorter weapon. IMO Weapon speeds are awful, and rewarding extra attacks for having faster weapons is even worse.
The_One_True_Boris 09-06-06, 05:36 PM	Considering what others have posted, I think I've found a way to incorporate this without much fuss, but it will be different from a normal game, no way around this. Each weapon as an initiative modifier: melee- light = 0, one-handed = 1, two-handed = 2 ranged - thrown weapons have their corresponding melee initiative modifiers, bows = 1, cross-bows = 0 spells - 1/3 the spell slot used to cast, (round down), i.e. 0 through 2nd level spells = 0, 3rd through 5th = 1, etc. Initiative at the beginning of combat is rolled normally, make sure to record the actual values, they become important. Every round a character attacks using a weapon or casts a spell with an initiative modifier, they subtract that modifier from their starting initiative score. Every round, the DM compares the scores and assigns a new initiative order. Its not for everyone, but I find it a simple way to emphasize the effort of attacking and a character's fatigue throughout a battle.
starfire311 09-07-06, 02:07 PM	spells - 1/3 the spell slot used to cast, (round down), i.e. 0 through 2nd level spells = 0, 3rd through 5th = 1, etc. what is the logic behind this? Some higher level spells are ment to be cast faster than their lower level counter parts, IE expeditious retreat and swift expeditious retreat... why would the longer casting time one have a faster initiative.
Andrew 09-07-06, 05:20 PM	Keep with the idea that initiative is only rolled once per combat, as standard for 3.x. Come up with a standardized penalty for weapon size. This should probably be based on "handedness"- probably take the scale of existing modifiers for disarm rolls in reverse, and re-zero it so that a creature with a light weapon has no penalty. Adjust based on results. Get something dynamic to track initiative on, like the combat pad (http://www.openmindgames.com/omg_products.htm) referenced in the first D&D podcast.What we'll end up with is a round that covers the same time and content as in standard D&D. However, within that round we will go through several cycles of fractional actions (attacks, movement, spellcasting). So, here's the procedure: Roll initiative. Apply the penalty for anyone that has weapons ready (if multiple weapons are used by the same person, just use the worst). Proceed through the order. Whenever someone takes an action to ready a weapon, drop their position in the order by the appropriate penalty. Every cycle through the order within each turn, each character can take 1 part of their action and as many free/swift/immediate actions as appropriate. For example, they could use their move action and move their speed. They could make an attack as a standard action. They could take one of their attack rolls from a full attack (with their one five-foot step for the round as a free action, if appropriate). They could cast a spell. For spellcasting, higher-level spells might take more cycles to complete. 1 cycle should be needed for every 3 levels of the spell, so a 1st-3rd level spell can be started and completed in one cycle, while a 9th level spell would take 3 cycles to complete. Add one more cycle if casting as a full-round action, such as applying metamagic to a spontaneously cast spell. The reason to do all of that is to keep the activation of a spell on par with iterative attacks - a high-level fighter needs to go through 4 or more cycles to get all his attacks, so a wizard's coolest spells should also be delayed. Your discresion on when you need to worry about damage disrupting the spell. Note that this applies only to spells that should normally take "1 standard action" to cast. "1 round" spells take casting every cycle. Swift/immediate spells are free actions. Edit: Forgot charging. A charge that covers your speed or less should be resolved within 1 cycle. A longer charge will "hang" for the next cycle, where in the first you can move your speed (and start to recieve the AC penalty), and in the second you pick your target, finish your movement if appropriate (allow some flex in the "straight line" limit), and make your attack at +2 (your first attack, if pouncing or the like). For each combat round, run through the cycle until everyone is out of actions or parts of actions that they can complete. Then begin the next round. Still, I think it's a needlessly complicated goal and a bad idea. Speed and turn-by-turn initiative are good in skill-based games, like White Wolf, Serenity, or d6 Star Wars, because you tend to have relatively fixed damage you can take regardless of experience, and that puts a high emphasis on dodging, cover, and the general idea that getting shot at is not a rip-roarin' good time. d20 combat is a slugfest, and it is busy enough already without trying to put such complex and subtle finesse into the mix. Edit: As for declaring actions, and assigning a penalty for doing so, I think it's a mistake for what we have to work from with the d20 system. Each turn can cover enough different actions that it's improbable to efficiently declare actions - "I'm going to disarm this orc's shield with my first attack. If I pooch my roll and lose my flail, I want to quick-draw another one. My attacks will then be basic swings at him. If he drops, I'm going to cleave into his buddy, and then do a five-foot step into the space he took up so that I can threaten the caster, who can take the remainder of my attacks until he drops. If he does, I want to Great Cleave back to the first orc's buddy, and then continue my attack against him."
The_One_True_Boris 09-07-06, 07:28 PM	what is the logic behind this? Some higher level spells are ment to be cast faster than their lower level counter parts, IE expeditious retreat and swift expeditious retreat... why would the longer casting time one have a faster initiative. Because the penalty is applied in the following round. It also assumes that casting a high-level spell requires a similar amount of effort to swinging a greataxe. You cannot take a swift action out of turn, which means if you want to cast a spell with a casting time of "1 swift action" before everyone else, you must win initiative first. It is also to note that "swift" does not mean "fast". Yes it is less time-consuming than a standard or move action, but that is only within the context of your turn. It has no effect on your reaction speed (initiative). I also note that "IE" may not mean what you think it means.
Illithid_Tentacles 09-07-06, 08:02 PM	Wepaon speeds are generally considered a bad idea, because they're just another damn number to keep track of, and they don't really add anything to the game. Except another damn number to keep track of.
starfire311 09-08-06, 09:07 AM	Because the penalty is applied in the following round. It also assumes that casting a high-level spell requires a similar amount of effort to swinging a greataxe. but is this the case? Some spells are made higher level because they are quicker to cast. The casting time is reduced by increasing the spell level it takes up. You cannot take a swift action out of turn, which means if you want to cast a spell with a casting time of "1 swift action" before everyone else, you must win initiative first. correct, just like casting a swift spell should not affect your reaction time, holding a greatsword in yor hand should not affect it either. Just because I have a light weapon in my hand and 10 greatswords strapped to my back doesnt mean I should react faster than the monk holding a quarterstaff, that just has his clothes on his back. Reacvtion time has nothing to do with what weapons you have drawn, or what spells you are casting for that matter. It is also to note that "swift" does not mean "fast". Yes it is less time-consuming than a standard or move action, but that is only within the context of your turn. It has no effect on your reaction speed (initiative). correct jsut like no spell being cast should have an effect on your reaction speed.
Ltheb Liadon 09-08-06, 10:04 AM	Rather than having weapons impact innitiative, why not armor? That guy in full plate over there can't even lift his own arms above his head, and makes more noise than some armys. (of drow that is) Let's jump him. Oh no, he has ninja-skills, and destroyes us because even with all that gear, he is no slower. Well, encuberance and Maximum Dexterity for some silly reason, don't impact your innitiative one bit. If you want something like that, just rule that it does. No more 30 Dex Platemail wearers then :)
The_One_True_Boris 09-08-06, 05:30 PM	A) Full-plate isn't near as restrictive as you seem to think it is. It is heavy, but the weight is dispersed across your body. B) A human's speed without full plate is 30 ft. A human's speed in full plate is 20 ft. 20 ft. is slower than 30 ft., correct? C) Initiative is the mind's ability to recognize you are under attack and respond accordingly. In normal D&D, this is never effected by anything you are carrying, it is purely a mental quality. D) If you have anyone with 30 Dex wearing full plate, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. However in my suggestion, your mind and body tire as the battle wears on. The more physical effort you put into battle, the more mental strain it causes. If you don't like, don't use it! I would refute starfire311's posting, but it's obvious they just are not reading what has been posted. If you want to be "right" at the expense of understanding a set of VARIANT RULES, go ahead and declare yourself the victor. I just don't care.
demon666fast 09-08-06, 11:38 PM	Then you have a character in leather armour and wielding a dagger. How many chances to score a hit will the armoured character get compared to the dagger-wielding character? Since you are trying to make the combat more "realistic", I feel okay to answer it properly. The answer is none. The dagger wielder will have no chances to hit the plate armored guy, because, uh, he is wielding a dagger and the other guy is wearing a plate mail with a 3 feet long blade in his hands. He will probalby die before he reaches the plated guy, or even if he hits, the dagger will probably breake. He should look for a Great Maul, or use his 30 ft speed get da hell out of there. :crazy: There is a video of a guy wearing a full plale armor and wielding a greatsword in the ARMA.org site, look for it in the videos section. He is trainning and making some exercices. After you watch it you will never ever think of trying to hit a guy like that with dagger :shocked: maybe with a sniper rifle... Here is the video: http://www.thearma.org/Videos/fullarmor.avi Almost forgot, even if with all that the dagger guy tries his luck, all the greatsword guy has to do is to grip that half of his blade and use the half-swording techine, and the only pseudo-advantage the dagger guy had instantly disappears ;)
starfire311 09-11-06, 09:12 AM	A) Full-plate isn't near as restrictive as you seem to think it is. It is heavy, but the weight is dispersed across your body. B) A human's speed without full plate is 30 ft. A human's speed in full plate is 20 ft. 20 ft. is slower than 30 ft., correct? C) Initiative is the mind's ability to recognize you are under attack and respond accordingly. In normal D&D, this is never effected by anything you are carrying, it is purely a mental quality. D) If you have anyone with 30 Dex wearing full plate, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. I agree with all of this However in my suggestion, your mind and body tire as the battle wears on. The more physical effort you put into battle, the more mental strain it causes. If you don't like, don't use it! under your system what about multiple attacks? If I swing a greatsword 1 time does that require the same physical effort and thus mental effort as swinging it say 10+ times. I would refute starfire311's posting, but it's obvious they just are not reading what has been posted. If you want to be "right" at the expense of understanding a set of VARIANT RULES, go ahead and declare yourself the victor. I just don't care. That's fine, basically my point was that you apply the penalty to initiative for swinging a weapon, but not for running around on the battlefield fully encumbered. You feel that swinging a sword requires more physical effort that carrying 10 swords.
058 09-11-06, 04:24 PM	Hm. What about something like a rapier? Anyone wielding a rapier who knows how to use one is like to get a good two or three jabs in the space of a few seconds, and isn't a round in D&D considered to be around fifteen seconds? I have difficulty seeing someone wielding a rapier or similar weapon and only taking one shot during that time.
The_One_True_Boris 09-11-06, 05:49 PM	If I swing a greatsword 1 time does that require the same physical effort and thus mental effort as swinging it say 10+ times. D&D's never been about common sense. I'm keep with the tradition. isn't a round in D&D considered to be around fifteen seconds? A round is only six seconds long, no matter how many turns it may contain.
058 09-11-06, 07:07 PM	Erm. Hm. I wonder where I got fifteen from, then.
starfire311 09-12-06, 08:46 AM	Erm. Hm. I wonder where I got fifteen from, then. Palladium uses 15 second rounds D&D's never been about common sense. I'm keep with the tradition. then my apologies, I thought you were trying to make it more realistic
Illithid_Tentacles 09-12-06, 03:14 PM	Hm. What about something like a rapier? Anyone wielding a rapier who knows how to use one is like to get a good two or three jabs in the space of a few seconds, and isn't a round in D&D considered to be around fifteen seconds? I have difficulty seeing someone wielding a rapier or similar weapon and only taking one shot during that time. Okay, see, not all of the attacks a fencer makes are meant to connect; most of them are intended to gauge your opponent's level of skill and attempt to get him to parry a feint, thusly leaving him open for your real attack. The fact that you only get a few attacks per round in D&D is because, even though you're feinting and bluffing and blocking etc., only a few of the attacks you make are actually going to count for anything. And incedentlly, yes, D&D rounds are six seconds.
058 09-12-06, 04:29 PM	Hm. Well, I suppose with the Feint (Bluff Check), that works. :)
Seldriss 09-12-06, 05:38 PM	To support you in your effort, Shadowdragon, I would say that weapon speeds are not new to D&D. They were used a while ago, in AD&D 1st and 2nd Editions. I am also a partisan of weapons speeds and casting time. In my opinion, it brings order in the chronology of the actions of a round. Here is the system I use : - Initiative is rolled every round, on a d10 (not d20). It represents 10 segments of a round. - Each side rolls 1d10, and each member modifies the result with its own bonus/malus. Bonuses are substracted to the roll, maluses are added to the roll. This means the lower your init score, the faster you act in the round. But whatever your modifier, you cannot get lower than 1. - Weapons have a speed factor : +1 for light weapons, +2 for one hand weapons and bows, and +3 for two-handed weapons. - Spells have a casting time : +1 per spell level. - Dexterity bonus is of course substracted, and Dex penalties are added. Same for feats which give bonuses (like Improved Initiative). Ex #1 : Frill the halfling is fighting an orc. Frill has a 16 in Dex and carries a dagger. The orc has 11 in Dex and fights with a heavy battleaxe. Frill : 6/d10 -3 (Dex) +1 (dagger) = Init 4 Orc : 4/d10 -0 (no Dex) +3 (battleaxe) = Init 7 Frill wins the Initiative and attacks first. On the following round, the oppponents roll again. Ex #2 : Saradaar the sorcerer is fighting an evil cleric. Saradaar has a 14 in Dex and casts Lightning Bolt. The cleric has 12 in Dex and is casting Cure Moderate Wound to heal himself. Saradaar : 8/d10 -2 (Dex) +3 (spell lvl 3) = Init 9 Cleric : 5/d10 -1 (Dex) +2 (spell lvl 2) = Init 6 The cleric heals himself before the lightning bolt fries him, and doesn't even have to make a Concentration check. Voila :)
theblindman 09-12-06, 06:07 PM	Soulmage, good link. I think I just wasted three hours on that site ;)
058 09-12-06, 06:21 PM	Isn't a 16 a +3 modifier, Seldriss? :/ EDIT: Gah, nevermind, misread your post.
Shadowdragon 10-17-06, 09:07 PM	OK, I've looked over the suggestions here, checked out a couple other rpgs, and read a bunch of threads from other forums. I figure that each combat round is made up of multiple combat maneouvers performed by all combatants. The actual attack roll represents the character trying to create and take advantage of an opening in an opponent's defences. Initiative determins who can act on an opening first (which means that initiative should really be rolled every round). Multiple attack rolls due to high combat skill represent the ability to create and take advantage of multiple openings in a round. So, do weapons effect how quickly you can act on openings (modifying initiative), how many openings you can make in a combat round (gaining additional attacks at a faster or slower rate), how well you take advantage of openings (giving an attack bonus or penalty), or something else? Or would the weight, size, and balance of weapon have no effect on creating and taking advantage of openings in an opponent's defence?
Oneiros 10-18-06, 12:47 PM	So, do weapons effect how quickly you can act on openings (modifying initiative), how many openings you can make in a combat round (gaining additional attacks at a faster or slower rate), how well you take advantage of openings (giving an attack bonus or penalty), or something else? I really, really advise against giving additional attacks for lighter weapons, else rogues (with sneak attack) will dominate combat using the lightest, fastest weapon they can find. In 3E, the base damage of the weapon starts to become insignificant compared to other factors, like sneak attack, power attack, magic weapon enhancements, etc. These are the things the extra attacks will multiply. Or would the weight, size, and balance of weapon have no effect on creating and taking advantage of openings in an opponent's defence? All of the things you mention do affect combat. However, so does the weapons reach, the wielder's Str, and (especially in a fantasy game) the wielder's Size. Armor is also a factor as others have mentioned. Plus a half a dozen other factors one could cite as "realistic" considerations. How do spells fit in? What about ranged weapons? Does it take longer to throw a dagger accurately than to strike with it in melee? How does weapon speed affect Attacks of Opportunity? What happens if a character decides to change actions in the middle of the round (cast a spell instead of swing a sword?) What about special actions like a dragon's breath weapon? It's a ripple effect. If D&D combat is an abstraction of factors A, B and C, and you want to make factor B more realistic and less abstract, how does that impact A and C? Why are they not being brought out of abstraction as well? Remember, too, that any increase in the complexity of combat is multiplied for the DM compared to the players, since he'll have to remember to figure this stuff out for all of his NPCs in action. Also, going back to rolling initiative every round just seems like an insane idea to me. I'm sure you'll find it'll slow things down immensely. Plus, especially if you allow multiple attacks, you could see a scenario like: Rd 1 - Ftr wins Init, hits rogue once with a battleaxe power attack. Rog hits Ftr 3 times with dagger sneak attack. Rd 2 - Rog wins Init, hits Ftr 3 times with dagger sneak attack. Ftr is dead. With the massive amounts of damage characters can dish out in 3E, I think it's important to keep the init order as is. The first time the players are hit with two fireballs from the same sorcerer without a chance to even move inbetween, they'll be begging to go back to a single initiative roll. More randomness hurts the players. Plus, it goes against what you're trying to do with weapon speeds. Does it make sense that the low dex brute with a two-handed greatclub can get two back-to-back attacks before the guy with the supposedly swift dagger can do anything? I'll have to say I'm squarely against weapon speed factors (hated them even in previous editions), but you asked for some suggestions, so here's mine: Attacks give an "Order Modification" to the combat round. Basically, whenever you make an attack, you apply the mod to your current initiative, which will probably adjust the order of your turn in the next round. Keep it simple. Don't give every single weapon a speed - just give them to the light, one-hand and two-hand categories. One possible addition (stealing a page from GURPS) is to distinguish between balanced and unbalanced weapons. Unbalanced weapons are basically those with the bulk of their weight at one end, and you have to fight against the momentum of your swing to ready it again to strike (hammers, axes, picks). That leaves most blades and thrusting weapons (javelin, shortspear) as balanced. Thrusting weapons, however, require a smaller range of motion to use, so any long (one or two-handed), balanced melee weapon which does piercing damage only is a little quicker compared to one that has to be swung. This makes both the spearman and the rapier-using fencer a little more attractive to play. So: WPN TYPE ORDER MOD Natural 0 Light* -4 One-Hand** -6 Two-Hand** -8 Ranged, One-Hand* (including Thrown Wpns) -4 Ranged, Two-Hand* -6 Spell -1 per lvl Adjustments: Unbalanced melee weapon, add -2 Piercing melee weapon (one or two-handed only), add +2 Creature size, -2 per category above Medium *Add 1/2 Dex Modifier **Add 1.2 Str Modifier Each round, subtract the order mod from the character's original init roll after they have acted, based on what they did on their turn. This represents the "recovery time", causing a delay before they can find the next opening, and doesn't penalize a character at the start just because he's holding a sword (since he might not use it.) Note that this means after a couple of rounds, character inits order numbers will start going into the negatives. You could add 20 or even 50 (heck, 100) to the initial roll for everyone to keep this from happening. Some things to consider: • I added Natural weapons as the fastest category, to make unarmed attacks (monks) have a little edge. • To reflect the fact that a strong character is going to be able to bring that warhammer around faster for another hit, the penalties for one and two-handed melee weapons can be offset by 1/2 the character's STR modifier, to a maximum of zero. • Light and ranged weapons are more about accuracy than strength, so their penalty can be offset by 1/2 of their weilder's Dex modifier, to a maximum of zero. • Large creatures have to work against their own weight and momentum when they attack physically, so their weapons (including natural) suffer an added -1 penalty to their Order Mod for every size category they are above Medium. • Unbalanced weapons like axes are made really unattractive with this system, so to make them a more "balanced" option, allow one-handed weapons of this type to add STR bonus x 1.5 to their damage, and two-handed add STR bonus x 2. So a greatsword is a little faster than greataxe, but the axe packs a little more wallop. Players should probably write each weapon's Order Modifier next to it on their character sheet, after adjusting for all of the factors above. The DM should also probably have this stat figured out for the NPCs beforehand. AoO's are another kettle of fish. I'd say leave them alone, since they represent the opponent leaving themselves more open than normal, not you searching for an opening. The most[i] I would do is maybe give a penalty to the attack roll equal to 1/2 the weapon's adjusted Order Modifier. One final suggestion: If you [i]do allow more attacks per round for lighter weapons, make armor count more. One way to do this is the method used in Iron Heroes. All classes get a Defense Bonus (like d20 Modern), and Armor counts as DR. Take the armor's AC value, and convert it to a die value. Roll the die each time the character takes physical damage to see how much is stopped. For example, Plate Mail (AC 8) would stop 1d8 points of damage on each hit. Magical bonuses are added at their flat value - Plate Mail +2 has DR 1d8+2. Any special effects which rely on actually injuring the target (poison, sneak attack, flaming, frost, ect.) only work if the weapon actually penetrates the armor's DR. So this way, the tank isn't totally at the mercy of the sneaky rogue. Again, there's always other things to consider. (Legal Disclaimer: This post is completely off the top of my head and carries no guarantee or warrenty against damage it might do to your game.)
RecycledDM 10-20-06, 02:13 PM	If you want to come up with some kind of reason to explain why a greatsword wielder in fullplate can be just as "fast" as a dagger wielder in leather armor, how about this: Assign a minimum Str rating to weapons and armor; for example: Dagger: no minimum str rating to wield Longsword: requires minimum 8 str to wield Greatsword: requires minimum 13 str to wield etc. Leather armor: no mimimum str rating to wear Chainmail: requires minimum 8 str to wear Fullplate: requires minimum 13 str to wear etc. This will, in all likelihood, have little or no actual mechanical effect on your PC, as it isn't likely to limit the weapon and armor choices you would have made anyway. But it explains why the fullplate-wearing, greatsword-wielding character can still maneuver well...he's just dang strong.
Oneiros 10-20-06, 03:03 PM	That's also something GURPS does, and why I suggested allowing STR to decrease the speed factor number for larger weapons in my (admittedly lengthy) post above. Actually, ShadowDragon, maybe you want to look at GURPS, since it does have a more "realistic" slant to combat than D&D.
RecycledDM 10-20-06, 04:04 PM	That's also something GURPS does, and why I suggested allowing STR to decrease the speed factor number for larger weapons in my (admittedly lengthy) post above. Yeah, I know. But my suggestion doesn't require any calculations. It also explains why not all the king's men run around in fullplate and greatswords...they just aren't strong enough!
zombiehands 10-20-06, 11:09 PM	I started playing D&D in 1980, when weapon speed orginally in AD&D on a tie in intative. Then combat broke down into what I recall was "flurries" and the lower weapon speed really won out. When the weapon speed intative system came out I really loved it and thought it made sense. When I started fencing and later SCA and learing Martial arts (the broad sword, katana, staff) I realized how wrong weapon speed was. If two people are equally skilled a guy weilding a dagger fighting a guy with a great axe will more likely then not just retreat again and again unless the axeman makes a big mistake. The axe will likely attack many times "first". The end of an axe is moving much much faster then a dagger. My Karate instructer use to say if two guys fight that are equally skilled the guy with the weapon wins 9 times out of ten. That said if you really want to make weapon speed important, I suggest that it should be the tie breaker on intiative roll. It may not be realistic since more then likely on a tie the longer weapon should go first but it does pay omage to early editions of D&D. That is my 2 cents