Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aramil_silverwind 08-22-04, 08:09 AM	I've been thinking about reality, and though I know that D&D will never through any amount of tweaking be balanced as well as realistic, there's a fact of combat that's been bugging me lately. A fighter can swing a greatsword just as fast as he can a longsword. yes, he DOES need 2 hands for it, but even then the swing should be slowed quite a bit. But at the same time, there need to be a balancing factor for that loss of speed, for game balance. Here is my solution: Two handed weapons (weapons usually wielded two handed, not a longsword in two hands) will do one higher dice of damage and the user will get twice his str bonus on damage (ie a greatsword will deal 2d8+(STR mod x2)) But here's the kicker about speed. for BAB 1-5 - swinging the sword is a full rond action. 6-10 is a standard. once they manage to reach BAB +11 they get thier FIRST extra attack. At +16 they'll get another attack. Also, you cannot attack any target more than 5 feet (diagonal is OK) away from your last target. Not sure how balanced this is, I havn't had a chance to play test it yet, but then againthats why I'm here - to see if I should play test it.
Zonorhc 08-22-04, 08:22 AM	I assume the actual attack roll represents a single attack in a series during the round that actually had a potential to do some damage. It just seems less realistic that even the level 5 Fighter can take three seconds (I assume that's how long your average standard action is) to press a quick attack and only be able to swing once, or even take SIX seconds and only be able to swing once.
Derren S. 08-22-04, 08:30 AM	Oh, not again weapon speeds. At least a new approach this time. Yes, you can swing a dagger or a longsword faster than a greatsword, but not by much. Also the one with the greatsword has a higher reach than the one with a longsword. So while the longsword wielder can swing faster, the greatsword wield can hit eariler and in the end both hit the same time.
akiir 08-22-04, 09:07 AM	on your thought of the greatsword there is the fullblade that is bigger and better.But on the thing of speed's that would bring more realistic themes to the game i admit but it would just have to be up to the dm to use it is suppose.
Autosponge 08-22-04, 09:24 AM	Yes bigger weapons weigh more. No you don't get fewer attacks with a bigger weapon. Here's why: 1. The combat round is 6 seconds long. The number of attacks you get has nothing to do with the time it takes to swing your weapon in 6 seconds. It has to do with the number of opportunities you can CREATE to harm your opponent. 2. Large weapons penetrate armor, shields, parrying weapons, bone, small pillars, etc. The point is that large weapons help create just as many opportunities to harm an opponent by bashing through obstacles as they loose due to their heft. 3. Attacking 35 times per round still won't help you if you are punching a tower shield. You'll never get through. However, a well-placed hit with a flail could shatter that shield in one hit or at least knock it to one side while the tip strikes the target. The concept of weapons speed is completely useless in this game. Disregard any attempt of anyone to tell you otherwise. Disregard any personal notions that you would be making the game better by doing this.
Random bloke 08-22-04, 09:48 AM	Sean Reynolds on the subject (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html)
Lord Stigius 08-22-04, 09:57 AM	I was about to send my opinion on old weapon speed in new disguise, but Derren S. has already covered it. I concede.
DrMorganes 08-22-04, 01:08 PM	Weapon Speed was included in the game in earlier editions. Essentially, each weapon had a number that modified one's initiative score. However, due to the cumbersome nature of the additional number crunching nearly every DM I ever played with in those days simply ignored it. I was happy to see it completely removed when 3.0 was released. It's one mechanic better gone and forgotten ;)
striderII 08-22-04, 01:25 PM	A fighter can swing a greatsword just as fast as he can a longsword. yes, he DOES need 2 hands for it, but even then the swing should be slowed quite a bit. Wait - you say "...can swing a greatsword just as fast as he can a longsword...", and then, in the *same sentence*, you say "...the swing should be slowed quite a bit." Which one of these were you really going for? In any event, the first part is correct - a greatsword can be swung as quickly as a longsword. Not only that, but it has a bit of a reach advantage - now, this doesn't mean that the greatsword has the Reach ability, like spears, polearms, etc., but that the greatsword wielder can reach out and touch somebody a little further away then the opponent can. Trust me, this is a big deal - I don't know how many times I've been fighting, and had either my opponent's blade just an inch from my chest or head, or the other way around. Lucky when they're the guy not quite hitting, but very frustrating when it's you that just needs the extra little bit (although, sometimes, a quick passing step is all you need to get that last little bit of umph). :) As much as I'm for making combat (and weapon weights, and the freaking illustrations!) as realistic and historically accurate as reasonably possible, weapon speed is not the way to do it. on your thought of the greatsword there is the fullblade that is bigger and better. No, it's not. Well, sure, I guess it does more damage, and other things that go into the "look, I've got more kewl powerz, and can kick your ass with my 1337 skillz" category. But really, the fullblade, and other ridiculous pieces of crap (mercurial weapons come to mind) should go the way of the dodo, reality shows, and other poorly thought out concepts. strider