First, the initiative. It boils down to the weapon carried at the end of the round affects the standing next round. A ranged weapon adds +5, a light +3, a normal 0, and a heavy -2. This is not cumulative, it is added to initiative which is rolled each round. This prevents it endlessly stacking so a new combatant comes in way ahead, or way behind.
Second is how it affects iterative attacks. What it does it to change the penalty.For instance, a long sword might attack at +0, -5, -10, -15, but a short sword might attack at +0, -2, -4, -6. A dagger would attack as a short sword, but retain being thrown. A greatsword would attack at +0, -8, -16, -24. Character classes would just note when the second attack is gained, the third attack is gained, and the 4th attack is gained, instead of adding a penalty.
The third change is a change to weapon damage itself. Strength bonus and magic tends to over ride the damage, so a minor change to magic weapons actually fixes this. Mundane weapons have to be changed to use only one die. A +1 weapon adds both +1 die to damage, and +1 to hit. So a +1 longsword is doing 2d8 damage, but a +1 greatsword is doing 2d12, making weapon damage valuable in spite of strength. Strength is added only to attack, but every 4 points of strength bonus adds another die. Dexterity is added to attacks with ranged weapons, but damage remains the same, except for with magic, and weapons like the sling, and composite bows. In addition to strength, size adds dice, at +1 for large, +2 for huge, +3 for gargantuan and +4 for colossal. A small character deals damage as a medium, but a tiny takes off -1/2 a die, a diminutive also takes off -1/2, and a fine takes off 3/4. Power attack would work like strength, and add dice, while being limited to multiples of 4 taken off. In addition, power attack on the 1st person gets an additional
While it seems unbalancing at first, consider some totally reasonable possibilities. A 20th level character, with a +5 great sword, and 30 strength(17+6 from gauntlets +5 from level, and +2 from a tome). By default they are doing 2d6+20 damage(average 27) (keeping in mind the two handed weapon bonus, which is naturally removed). With the new system they are dealing 8d12 damage(average 60.5). However, there are two things to keep in mind. First, the first fighter may well hit with the 1st three attacks, getting power attack from them, but the second fighter will be hitting only twice, and with power attack, the second attack wont work(at -20) and the first will lose a lot of the chance of hitting. Not worth it for either of them.
That comes in total to 81 damage +0 from power attack the first round, 6 the second round, and 12 the third round, just going from the difference, coming to a total of 99 damage. The second fighter hits only twice, but still does 121 damage. So that puts him ahead. However, with a multiclass into rogue, for only 7 levels(leaving all 4 attacks), will give a total of +12d6 sneak attack damage for the first character, but only +8d6 for the second. In addition, a single miss will hit the second character harder than the first, and it is fairly likely. With sneak attack, the first fighter deals an average of 123 damage, and the second only does 149 damage. That is still an advantage, however consider two more things. This extra damage helps normal characters more than Tome of Battle characters, who are widely regarded as stronger. It also helps them both against casters, who are stronger than either of them.
I've been toying with using weapon speed in a totally different manner. Characters no longer receive automatic iterative attacks. You may make one attack at your full bonus, or may make multiple attacks beyond that by taking a -3 penalty to each attack. So a 12th level fighter could get a +12, a +9/+9, or a +6/+6/+6 base attack. Weapon speed would determine the maximum number of attacks that could be made. A great ax would have a weapon speed of 1, allowing only one attack per round.
I find this system of yours fascinating. Care to alaborate?
A great axe is a completely different animal. A 20th level barbarian wielding a great ax can only get one attack at a +20. Period. The weapon is designed to deliver a single grievous wound, not to make multiple attacks. It's a weapon for downing big critters, not fighting a bunch of goblins. When fighting a low AC opponent the barbarian is going to use power attack instead of making multiple attacks. To balance the advantage of the rapier making multiple attacks, a feat could be required to make multiple attacks.
Also you could tie multiple attacks to Weapon Specialisation - in past editions it granted extra attacks, in 3E it doens't and in fact many people don't even bother with it. Maybe Weapon Mastery increases the effective speed of a weapon by 1? Masterwork weapons might also have better speed (since they are better balanced). Some weapons might have multiple speeds (a bastard sword in two-hands would be faster than one used in one hand).
The only problem is balance at low levels - at level 1 why use a rapier and not a greataxe? you could just give the Weapon spec. an extra attack as an option (again a fighter in 1-2e had multiple attacks (3 attacks every 2 rounds) from level 1 and it never seemed overpowered.
That idea seems utterly imbalancing, when you consider that base weapon damage makes up for practically zilch of a fighter's total damage output at higher lvs, and the bulk constitutes of misc damage modifiers such as weapon enhancement bonus, weapon spec tree, str mod, power attack etc), which applies to any fighter, regardless of what weapon he wields.
It's not utterly unbalancing at all. What does where damage bonuses come from have to do with it? If you choose to make multiple attacks, you reduce your chance of gaining those damage bonuses.
You could also up the damage for weapons that grant less attacks - it seems weird that a greataxe does less than a greatsword. Since your system affects balance you should increase the damage for all weapons that allow few attacks.
Also you could tie multiple attacks to Weapon Specialisation - in past editions it granted extra attacks, in 3E it doens't and in fact many people don't even bother with it. Maybe Weapon Mastery increases the effective speed of a weapon by 1? Masterwork weapons might also have better speed (since they are better balanced). Some weapons might have multiple speeds (a bastard sword in two-hands would be faster than one used in one hand).
The only problem is balance at low levels - at level 1 why use a rapier and not a greataxe? you could just give the Weapon spec. an extra attack as an option (again a fighter in 1-2e had multiple attacks (3 attacks every 2 rounds) from level 1 and it never seemed overpowered.
I don't think I need to mess with weapon damages. The great axe already does more damage than the rapier and combined with power attack remains the far superior weapon for bringing down a big creature with DR.
I like the idea of bastard swords having two speeds, and was thinking of having weapons of speed add one to the weapon speed. This would be kind of useless for already quick weapons though, as a weapon speed of 6 is only better than a 5 when you have a BAB of 30 or better. That second attack for a great axe or greatsword is nice though.
As for low levels, nothing changes. There is absolutely no change until 6th level, when the first iterative attack becomes available. Remember that you can't reduce your BAB by more than half, so a 5th level fighter can't make two attacks as this would reduce his attack bonus to +2. Characters that want the increased crit range use a rapier, if you want more damage use the great ax.
It's not utterly unbalancing at all. What does where damage bonuses come from have to do with it? If you choose to make multiple attacks, you reduce your chance of gaining those damage bonuses.
Lets consider a lv20 fighter with 30str, and the spec tree fully filled out.
With a +5 weapon, his damage is as follows...
+10 str (or +15 with a 2-handed weapon).
+5 weapon enhancement
+6 weapon spec/greater weapon spec/melee weapon mastery
Any excess from power attack
Note that technically, all the rapier entry states is that you cannot wield it 2-handed to get extra str damage. It does not say anything about not being able to wield it 2-handed to benefit from an improved power attack damage ratio. Alternatively, replace rapier with a scimitar, which has an excellent threat range, and can be wielded 2-handed.
Say I wield a greataxe, and get just 1 attack. I deal 1d12+26.
Now, wielding a rapier, I can opt to attack using the following combinations:
2 attacks: -3bab, (1d6+21)*2, or 2d6+42. Compare this to a greataxe in tandem with a 3-point PA for 1d12+32 (so they have the same attack-roll). The rapier gets the advantage with a 10-point damage bonus.
3 attacks: -6bab, 3d6+63, as compared to a greataxe with a 6-point PA for 1d12+38. The damage disparity is now even greater at 1d6+25, or 28 point damage average.
4+ attacks: this is reserved only for foes with ridiculously crap ACs, but at least the option is there is such a scenario ever pops up, and needless the say, the multi-attacking rapier fighter outdamages the greataxe fighter by an even wider margin.
The reduction in hitting chance is largely irrelevant, IMO, when you consider that the option to make more attacks at a reduced bab is exactly just that - an option, not an obligation.
The greataxe wielding fighter is really at an advantage only vs foes with a very high AC (one so high that you cannot afford to PA 1 bit) or in very specific AoO oriented builds. Against foes with lower AC, you will always be better off taking the extra attacks (since they are all made with the same attack roll) rather than a single powerful strike. One nice side-effect is that more attacks also means higher chances of making a crit (and the rapier has a very nice threat range, especially in tandem with improved crit).
Considering that I will always be able to custom-tailor the number of attacks I want to best suit the foe I am facing at any one time (since this really runs off the same rationale as power attack), I should really never be any worse off than the greataxe fighter.
Or am I missing something?
Or reduced crit chance (so a single rapier attack crits on 18-20, but 2 attacks only on a 19-20 and anything more only on a natural 20).
Alternatively high BAB with low speed weapons allows a fighter type (I mean Fighter, Barbarian, ranger or Paladin) to increase the damage die? Maybe every 5 levels of fighter lets you up the damage die size by one on certain weapons (mean, slow weapons like axes, picks, halberds and stuff).
I think the first option is my personal favorite, with this option you can ignore the BAB req. and just say that any proficient user can make multiple attacks by taking the penalty (-3 to hit and -2 to damage). Low level fighters won't because its useless, but in theory they could.
another thing is that for TWF types the penalties from both weapons should stack (so if I take 2 attacks with my dagger and 2 with my sword then I take a -8 to hit penalty).
Instead of making all this crap, why not just say (This weapon adds +X to your innitiative)?
A light mace might add +3, a club might add -1. If you don't use a weapon (unarmed, natural attack, spells) you have a 0 modifier. Some weapons have a 0 modifier too!
This also helps sense people sometimes (not too often, but a couple) complain that inniative doesn't go anywhere, it never changes and just is stagnent. Well, now it's not!
As mentioned, faster weapons adding initiative have the problem of fighters swapping weapons during combat. In this case, everyone would be starting off with daggers for that initiative bonus, than swapping them out for greatswords after initiative has been rolled.:P
What if a person had multiple weapons (say a marilith with 6 different weapons). Or even a simple fighter TWFing with a greataxe and his unarmed strike. How are you going to determine initiative for it?
Or am I missing something?
Damage resistance for one. The great axe fighter can blow through high DR creatures that the rapier wielder has a lot of trouble with.
Also keep in mind that the number of attacks and the total attack penalties are nearly identical to the core system, the penalties are only evenly distributed. Rules as written means the first attack almost always hits and the last attack almost always misses. New rules lets the warrior tailor his attacks to the situation, giving more flexability. When facing opponents with low ac the rapier wielder does have the advantage. Many warriors may as a result carry multiple weapons for multiple situations.
I disagree. At least ranged weapons should get a bonus, as someone with a crossbow is going to get a shot in at someone with a sword even if their crossbow isn't being used in a readied action(it does have to be loaded though). Secondly take a rapier against a longsword. Similar reach, rapier is faster. Or take a long spear and a glaive. Long spear would be faster, equal reach.
Real life weapon speeds are closer than you'd think when you involve experienced fighters. Also, rounds are extrapolations and not directly mappable to real life.
Someone may parry and dodge a half dozen attacks, roll out of the way of a fireball, catch an arrow, throw it back, dash 30', slash someone, and attack another three people that moved near him, all within the span of 6 seconds. In real life, that's pretty much impossible.
Also, weapon speed is just generally a bad idea from a game play perspective. Play any game that involves fluid initiative and you'll quickly see how much time is wasted when people are constantly shifting their order of combat. Granted, weapon speed only effects initiative when people start dropping and drawing items, but it happens and for what little spice you add to the game by doing it, it's not really worth it.
So what is your opinion on the weapon speed method in the original post, which is actually built to deal with how worthless the base damage can be.
OK, I don't see why you get an extra die for a+1 weapon, but need +4 from strength or PA to get an extra die.
As to changing weapons, the weapon speed number should be added both when you draw a weapon, and when you put it away - so that would be detered.
If your going to do this then spells should have a casting time too.
Check out the old school initiative on OSRIC (the old school SRD).
Having the weapon speed affect the attack penalty for extra attacks is the most interesting aspect.
I'm talking spear versus dagger, greatsword versus rapier, or flail versus spiked guantlet.
See, reach means you will always have the opportunity to strike first - no matter how "fast" a person could theoretically swing a lighter weapon (which is completely subjective BTW. An 8 STR little girl won't be swinging a longsword faster than a 28 STR Orc swings a greatsword).
I hate to say this, but weapon speeds were bunk then, and are bunk now. Infact, in 30 of the conception of weapon speeds for this game they decided to do away with them - it was done for a reason.
BUT, don't let my negative point of view deter you.
Infact, I have something to add - strength based weapons and dexterity based weapons.
For strength based weapons (ie: weapons that cannot be finessed, and ranged weapons that would normally recieve a bonus to damage thanks to high strength) you should have a character's strength modifier apply against the speed - this would allow strong characters to really whip around those greatswords and axes.
For dexterity based weapons (ie: weapons that can be finessed, and ranged weapons that do not normally recieve a damage bonus from strength) have dexterity apply against the speed modifier, but only if the character has the weapon finesse feat. This means that characters with things like rapiers would truely be lightning-quick.
BAB does not, on its own, determine the number of attacks a character can make. For every 5 points of BAB, a character can make an additional attack to a maximum of the weapon's speed factor.
A character deals extra damage with each attack equal to (5 - weapon speed) * BAB.
A character with a rapier (speed 5) can make up to 5 attacks as a full attack, provided his BAB is high enough. A character with a greataxe (speed 1) can never make more than 1 attack per turn without magic, but deals 4 * BAB bonus damage with each attack.
What about this system then?
BAB does not, on its own, determine the number of attacks a character can make. For every 5 points of BAB, a character can make an additional attack to a maximum of the weapon's speed factor.
A character deals extra damage with each attack equal to (5 - weapon speed) * BAB.
A character with a rapier (speed 5) can make up to 5 attacks as a full attack, provided his BAB is high enough. A character with a greataxe (speed 1) can never make more than 1 attack per turn without magic, but deals 4 * BAB bonus damage with each attack.
At that point I think the greataxe becomes a far more powerful weapon. Doing 50 points of damage in one blow is better than doing 50 points of damage with 5 blows. The 50 point blow requires a save or die, and makes DR insignificant.
(Oh, and in this system I would make katanas 1d8 18-20/x2, speed 2)
Why not change the initiative system entirely. In fact, if you swapped it for the initiative system of Exalted, it would take hardly any effort to shoe-horn it into place. Assign some speeds for spellcasting, adjust some base speeds a little, and account for increasing level reducing attack speeds. Bam. Done.
I'm not too familiar with Exalted, but I don't like the idea of initiative bonuses for holding certain kinds of weapons - I do think, however, that a dagger-wielder should be able to get more attacks in than an axe-wielder.
Is anyone familiar with the supposed ninja practice of carrying a wakizashi in a katana sheath so it could be drawn faster than expected?
Why not change the initiative system entirely. In fact, if you swapped it for the initiative system of Exalted, it would take hardly any effort to shoe-horn it into place. Assign some speeds for spellcasting, adjust some base speeds a little, and account for increasing level reducing attack speeds. Bam. Done.
How does Exalted's initiative work? My favorite initiative so far was Alternity's, which divided each round into 5 segments, with all characters rolling to see which segment their first action can be taken in. All actions in a segment were considered to be simultaneous.
How does Exalted's initiative work? My favorite initiative so far was Alternity's, which divided each round into 5 segments, with all characters rolling to see which segment their first action can be taken in. All actions in a segment were considered to be simultaneous.
That's almost exactly like 1E AD&D.
Why not change the initiative system entirely. In fact, if you swapped it for the initiative system of Exalted, it would take hardly any effort to shoe-horn it into place. Assign some speeds for spellcasting, adjust some base speeds a little, and account for increasing level reducing attack speeds. Bam. Done.
How would that work?
Say I was TWFing with boot blades and a 2-handed weapon. Would the fast attack speed of the boot blades (say) allow me to somehow swing faster with my 2-handed weapon? How would you resolve multiple different initiatives for the same PC? What if it was a marilith with 6 different weapons?:P
Doesn't fit with 3E's initiative at all.
> in than an axe-wielder.
A round of attacks is an abstraction of six seconds worth of attacking, considering all factors. If you want to break away from that and make each attack a specific "stab" based on speed* then fine - but you're also going to have to substantially crank up the per-stab damage of most slower weapons - because if it was solely a case of "how hard it hits when you hit with it", the difference between a dagger and a greatsword is going to be much more than an average of 2.5 vs 7.
* Which is bogus anyway, because the number of attacks you get to make in an actual fight has relatively little to do with the speed of the weapon.
IIRC, in 2E Exalted (which is what I believe the above poster was referencing), instead of combat being in discreet "rounds," it's done as one long continuous round. You roll initially to see on what "tick" (a tick is one second) you join the combat. Highest roll acts on tick 1, second highest on tick 2, etc. All actions have a speed, which determines how many ticks you must wait before acting again. So, say you join on tick 3 and use a speed 5 weapon. You act initially on tick 3, then on tick 8, then 13, 18, etc until combat ends. Any actions that happen on the same tick happen simultaneously, so it is possible for two people to kill each other.
1E works more like the systems some have suggested, where your weapon speed adds to or subtracts from your initiative roll. Initiative is re-rolled each round.
Weighing in on the debate as a whole, I really have to agree with SKR. Doing the work to add and balance weapon speeds in D&D just isn't worth it. Combat is an abstraction; attack bonuses, iterative attacks, AC, HP, these are all abstractions and have absolutely no bearing on reality. Trying to add realism just bogs down an already complex system. It's fine just the way it is.
Mor
Spear- 1d8 damage, init +5/-3
Long Sword-1d10 damage, init +2/-3
Rapier- 1d6 damage, init +2/-2
Heavy Axe-1d12 damage, init +3/-5
Show
So lets say spear rolls a 14, sword a 16, rapier a 13, and heavy axe a 19. With the bonuses that becomes.
S:19
L:18
R:15
H:22
Then heavy axe attacks
S:19
L:18
R:15
H:17
Spear attacks
S:16
L:18
R:15
H:17
Sword attacks
S:16
L:15
R:15
H:17
Heavy axe attacks
S:16
L:15
R:15
H:12
Spear attacks
S:13
L:15
R:15
H:12
Rapier attacks, since its faster.
S:13
L:15
R:13
H:12
Longsword attacks
S:13
L:12
R:13
H:12
Rapier attacks
S:13
L:12
R:11
H:12
Spear attacks
S:10
L:12
R:11
H:12
Longsword attacks
S:10
L:9
R:11
H:12
Axe attacks
S:10
L:9
R:11
H:7
Rapier attacks
S:10
L:9
R:9
H:7
Spear attacks
S:7
L:9
R:9
H:7
Rapier attacks
S:7
L:9
R:7
H:7
Longsword attacks
S:7
L:6
R:7
H:7
Rapier attacks
S:7
L:6
R:5
H:7
Spear attacks
S:4
L:6
R:5
H:7
Axe attacks
S:4
L:6
R:5
H:2
Axe is out of attacks, and waits out the rest of the turn. Sword attacks.
S:4
L:3
R:5
Rapier attacks
S:4
L:3
R:3
Spear attacks
S:1
L:3
R:3
Spear is out of attacks. Rapier attacks
L:3
R:1
Rapier is out of attacks. Longsword attacks
L:0
Round over.
So its a bit complex, and wouldn't work in D&D well at all. Also two weapon fighting would be covered by removing 1 from the weapon speed. Short swords would probably have a weapon speed(x/weapon speed is before initiative) of 3. It then goes down to 2. The initial bonus covers reach.
Over this combat Spear attacked 6 times, Sword 6 times, Rapier 7 times, and Axe 4 times. That means 6d8 damage, 6d10 damage, 7d6 damage, and 4d12 damage respectively. Maximum damage of 48, 60, 42, and 48 damage. However axes early attack may have finished someone, and spears early attacks may have managed the same thing. Plus if someone is against mail(DR 2) the damage changes to 36, 48, 38, and 40 damage. Against plate(DR 3) the damage drops again, down to 30, 42, 31, and 36 damage. This is for maximum, with average things look even better for the axe.
So lets say spear rolls a 14, sword a 16, rapier a 13, and heavy axe a 19. With the bonuses that becomes.
S:19
L:18
R:15
H:22
Then heavy axe attacks
S:19
L:18
R:15
H:17
Spear attacks
S:16
L:18
R:15
H:17
Sword attacks
S:16
L:15
R:15
H:17
Heavy axe attacks
S:16
L:15
R:15
H:12
Spear attacks
S:13
L:15
R:15
H:12
Rapier attacks, since its faster.
S:13
L:15
R:13
H:12
Longsword attacks
S:13
L:12
R:13
H:12
Rapier attacks
S:13
L:12
R:11
H:12
Spear attacks
S:10
L:12
R:11
H:12
Longsword attacks
S:10
L:9
R:11
H:12
Axe attacks
S:10
L:9
R:11
H:7
Rapier attacks
S:10
L:9
R:9
H:7
Spear attacks
S:7
L:9
R:9
H:7
Rapier attacks
S:7
L:9
R:7
H:7
Longsword attacks
S:7
L:6
R:7
H:7
Rapier attacks
S:7
L:6
R:5
H:7
Spear attacks
S:4
L:6
R:5
H:7
Axe attacks
S:4
L:6
R:5
H:2
Axe is out of attacks, and waits out the rest of the turn. Sword attacks.
S:4
L:3
R:5
Rapier attacks
S:4
L:3
R:3
Spear attacks
S:1
L:3
R:3
Spear is out of attacks. Rapier attacks
L:3
R:1
Rapier is out of attacks. Longsword attacks
L:0
Round over.
So its a bit complex, and wouldn't work in D&D well at all. Also two weapon fighting would be covered by removing 1 from the weapon speed. Short swords would probably have a weapon speed(x/weapon speed is before initiative) of 3. It then goes down to 2. The initial bonus covers reach.
Over this combat Spear attacked 6 times, Sword 6 times, Rapier 7 times, and Axe 4 times. That means 6d8 damage, 6d10 damage, 7d6 damage, and 4d12 damage respectively. Maximum damage of 48, 60, 42, and 48 damage. However axes early attack may have finished someone, and spears early attacks may have managed the same thing. Plus if someone is against mail(DR 2) the damage changes to 36, 48, 38, and 40 damage. Against plate(DR 3) the damage drops again, down to 30, 42, 31, and 36 damage. This is for maximum, with average things look even better for the axe.
First of all, if you imagine weapons like greataxes and greatswords being heavy and clumsy, you're simply mistaken. Those suckers move fast, and in fact, the business end moves much faster than it's humanly possible to move a dagger blade thanks to the simple mathematics that determine the circumference of a circle. There just isn't a meaningful sense in which a dagger is faster.
Secondly, as has already been pointed out, reach trumps speed. Suppose a dagger could, contrary to fact, get in meaningfully more attacks in a given amount of time than a halberd. Who cares if you're dead before you can reach the halberdier? If you want to model a difference between weapons that isn't currently modelled in D&D, this is the one to run with (followed closely by differential effectiveness against different armour types, IMO). Attacking someone with a bigger weapon should provoke an AoO or something; the existing reach rules and the existing rules for unarmed combat are both gestures in this direction and would, under this proposal, simply be special cases of this rule. And the AoO should definitely cancel the attack that provoked it. Perhaps one could add the rule that if the AoO misses and the provoking attack hits, the guy with the dagger is now inside the reach of the guy with the halberd and the AoO situation is now reversed. This is the one scenario where a dagger does have a legitimate advantage, but "speed" has nothing to do with why.
This entire idea is misconceived. If daggers were "faster" than swords and the like in any sense that mattered in actual battle you'd see armies equipped with them and such; but no historical army used daggers as their primary weapons.
First of all, if you imagine weapons like greataxes and greatswords being heavy and clumsy, you're simply mistaken. Those suckers move fast, and in fact, the business end moves much faster than it's humanly possible to move a dagger blade thanks to the simple mathematics that determine the circumference of a circle. There just isn't a meaningful sense in which a dagger is faster.
Daggers are faster in the sense that switching from one attack to the next is faster than with heavy weapons, though the speed they are moving is way slower. And as people will usually die quickly once hit, reach does give a significant advantage(as in the initiative bonus. A knife might get in more attacks, but a longer weapon will get in a few first, which will often kill the person. Not to mention a knife is next to useless against armor unless you get in a really nice shot. Which is where most of the damage where it would go. The great axe moves fast once it starts moving, but the time between stop and starting up again is longer than with a dagger, because it has more momentum.
Reach gives a bonus to initiative, because it takes time to close. Secondly an attack of opportunity is ridiculous, a decent lunge can deal with over a foot difference in length, the only case would be where there is a huge difference in reach(dagger against spear. Unarmed strike against sword. Sword against pike).
This entire idea is misconceived. If daggers were "faster" than swords and the like in any sense that mattered in actual battle you'd see armies equipped with them and such; but no historical army used daggers as their primary weapons.
But Roman legions did use short swords when long swords were available.
First of all, if you imagine weapons like greataxes and greatswords being heavy and clumsy, you're simply mistaken. Those suckers move fast, and in fact, the business end moves much faster than it's humanly possible to move a dagger blade thanks to the simple mathematics that determine the circumference of a circle. There just isn't a meaningful sense in which a dagger is faster.
Secondly, as has already been pointed out, reach trumps speed. Suppose a dagger could, contrary to fact, get in meaningfully more attacks in a given amount of time than a halberd. Who cares if you're dead before you can reach the halberdier? If you want to model a difference between weapons that isn't currently modelled in D&D, this is the one to run with (followed closely by differential effectiveness against different armour types, IMO). Attacking someone with a bigger weapon should provoke an AoO or something; the existing reach rules and the existing rules for unarmed combat are both gestures in this direction and would, under this proposal, simply be special cases of this rule. And the AoO should definitely cancel the attack that provoked it. Perhaps one could add the rule that if the AoO misses and the provoking attack hits, the guy with the dagger is now inside the reach of the guy with the halberd and the AoO situation is now reversed. This is the one scenario where a dagger does have a legitimate advantage, but "speed" has nothing to do with why.
Which is why once you get into the reach of a longspear he can't attack you without backing up.
But Roman legions did use short swords when long swords were available.
True, but the reasons had nothing to with speed. I forget if it was to do with the nature of formation fighting or a simple matter of cost, but it wasn't "this lets me get more attacks in than people with bigger weapons". Also, the heavy use of shield walls (not viable in most dungeon crawl scenarios, but very effective when many well-trained men fight in formation) negated many of the usual advantages their opponents might be expecting to get from reach.
Lowering iterative penalties will be a boon rogues at the expense of dedicated warriors. Weapon Finesse becomes a stronger feat for rogues.
Switching between bow and melee weapon and thus initiative order can literally be a life and death choice since the bad guy could possibly now go before a character instead of after a character.
Improved Initiative now becomes a must have feat or else you're doomed.
3E getting rid of weapon speeds and casting times was a good idea. Adding weapon speeds make dedicated warriors weaker.
True, but the reasons had nothing to with speed. I forget if it was to do with the nature of formation fighting or a simple matter of cost, but it wasn't "this lets me get more attacks in than people with bigger weapons". Also, the heavy use of shield walls (not viable in most dungeon crawl scenarios, but very effective when many well-trained men fight in formation) negated many of the usual advantages their opponents might be expecting to get from reach.
True, it was for formation reasons. It could be used in direct stabbing motions far more effectively than heavier weapons. Long swords would have required not only more space, but more time to recover after each strike. This is where weapon speed comes in. It's not necessarily the speed of the attack, but often the speed of the recovery.
Lowering iterative penalties will be a boon rogues at the expense of dedicated warriors. Weapon Finesse becomes a stronger feat for rogues.
Not necessarily. A 10th level fighter could make a single attack at +10, or two attacks at +7/+7. The rogue could make a single attack at +8, or two attacks at +5/+5. I don't see how this significantly ups their power when compared with +10/+5 vs. +8/+3.
Thats what both systems simulate, with the first working more for D&D, and the second in general. Also, keeping casting times in as a penalty to initiative works for me, as well as only allowing one spell in general(so while a weapon might be Init +7/-3, a Spell is going to be anywhere from Init 0/-10 to Init 0/-19.)
True, it was for formation reasons. It could be used in direct stabbing motions far more effectively than heavier weapons. Long swords would have required not only more space, but more time to recover after each strike. This is where weapon speed comes in. It's not necessarily the speed of the attack, but often the speed of the recovery.
Okay, first of all, now I want to know what you mean by "longsword". If it's what D&D means by it, then this is largely nonsense. Recovering from a thrust with either type of weapon is the exact same motion, and the longsword is not so much heavier or more awkward as to slow the process down much. What it does do is make it more tiring and thus harder to do over and over again with enough power to kill or wound. But that's not well-simulated by making one slower from the get-go, especially in 3.5 with its tendency toward very short (in game time) fights. The effect wouldn't be noticeable over the < 1 minute of game time most fights take under the current rules.
If it's what is normally meant by academics and recreationists, which is more like what D&D translates as a bastard sword, then the speed argument, even if it's not without merit, just doesn't apply; those fighting styles just aren't compatible with Roman shield tactics.
Not necessarily. A 10th level fighter could make a single attack at +10, or two attacks at +7/+7. The rogue could make a single attack at +8, or two attacks at +5/+5. I don't see how this significantly ups their power when compared with +10/+5 vs. +8/+3.
Because rogues already tend to use the weapons that would get the better iteratives. They get a bump in power. Dedicated warriors tend to use weapons that would get the worse iteratives. Since at worst they go by normal rules, depending on the weapon they'll get some benefit but it forces them to use those weapons and not the "big ones" like greatsword or great axe. Dedicated warriors will find they need to graduate towards shorts sword or something. (Picked a weapon as an example of illustration.)
Still, even if one is ok with rogues getting a power up, noncasters are still falling further behind spellcasters.
Okay, first of all, now I want to know what you mean by "longsword". If it's what D&D means by it, then this is largely nonsense. Recovering from a thrust with either type of weapon is the exact same motion, and the longsword is not so much heavier or more awkward as to slow the process down much. What it does do is make it more tiring and thus harder to do over and over again with enough power to kill or wound. But that's not well-simulated by making one slower from the get-go, especially in 3.5 with its tendency toward very short (in game time) fights. The effect wouldn't be noticeable over the < 1 minute of game time most fights take under the current rules.
If it's what is normally meant by academics and recreationists, which is more like what D&D translates as a bastard sword, then the speed argument, even if it's not without merit, just doesn't apply; those fighting styles just aren't compatible with Roman shield tactics.
I'll concede both points. Roman formation combat is probably a bad example. A better example would be ye old great axe vs. may favorite weapon, the rapier. Miss with a rapier, a little shuffle and shift puts you right back in a striking position. Miss with a great axe, well, just don't miss. The rapier wielding swashbuckler is about to give you a bad day. That's why I want to give lighter and faster weapons more attacks as opposed to quicker initiatives.
Because rogues already tend to use the weapons that would get the better iteratives. They get a bump in power. Dedicated warriors tend to use weapons that would get the worse iteratives. Since at worst they go by normal rules, depending on the weapon they'll get some benefit but it forces them to use those weapons and not the "big ones" like greatsword or great axe. Dedicated warriors will find they need to graduate towards shorts sword or something. (Picked a weapon as an example of illustration.)
Still, even if one is ok with rogues getting a power up, noncasters are still falling further behind spellcasters.
It depends on the situation. If you're facing a high AC critter, you become a little weaker due to losing your +5 pot shot. You don't get to cross your fingers and hope for a 20. If your facing an opponent in which your +5 attack has a good chance of hitting, I'd rather have +7/+7 than +10/+5.
Only some dedicated fighters would be using slower weapons. Hulking brutes would take the great axe, doing massive amounts of damage with their one attack. Take an 18 str 14 dex fighter 10 with a great axe specialization and power attack. If he faces a creature with a low ac he can take a single swipe at a +10 and do 1d12+18 points of damage. If he's feeling froggy he could attack with a +5 and do 1d12+28. A 14 str 18 dex fighter 10 with a rapier specialization and weapon finesse could take two attacks at +12/+12 doing 1d6+4/1d6+4 points of damage. Which is better?
Same could be said when fighting high AC creatures. Both characters would probably pass on a second attack, with the Great Axe doing more damage with his single attack. The Rapier wielder COULD risk a +12/+12, but it's a crap shoot. The rapier's only better if the opponent can only be hit with a 20.
One place the rapier would shine is against multiple opponents, which is realistic. It's a better weapon in a room full of people trying to do you harm. The axe will end one of them, but his buddies will dive on you afterwards.
If you're measuring against a rogue, the differences are even greater due to the rogue's lower BAB. Firstly he has less chance to hit, and secondly he still gains iterative attacks at a slower rate.
Measuring against spellcasters, well I nerf casters anyways.
Miss with a great axe, well, just don't miss. The rapier wielding swashbuckler is about to give you a bad day.
Not really true. Each swing should leave you positioned for the next, and thus in a relatively defensible position. There's also the fact that the haft of your weapon should be in your opponent's way a fair amount of the time, though most actual blocking with weapons is incidental (contrary to the constant edge-clanging you get in most movie swordfights). You're also forgetting that your feet should be moving constantly (something that's easy to forget when you're looking at relatively static figures on a grid). Most dodges consist of a simple step backward, something the axeman is in no worse a position to do than the swashbuckler. (Again, short of the point where fatigue becomes a factor.)
Mind you, I'm thinking of something like a poleaxe here (as well as my somewhat more firsthand, though by no means expert, knowledge of fighting with what D&D would call bastard swords and greatswords). I'm not sure what, if any, real-world weapon a D&D greataxe is supposed to model; off the top of my head I can't think of anything two-handed with an axe-like head that wouldn't also have reach, even in the very rudimentary reach system in the current D&D rules. It's possible that such weapons would have the problems you describe, but if so, that would be why it's so hard to actually think of examples of them.
(I here ignore the fact that the poleaxe wielder is likely to have armour that the swashbuckler will be hard-pressed to penetrate...)
Not really true. Each swing should leave you positioned for the next, and thus in a relatively defensible position. There's also the fact that the haft of your weapon should be in your opponent's way a fair amount of the time, though most actual blocking with weapons is incidental (contrary to the constant edge-clanging you get in most movie swordfights). You're also forgetting that your feet should be moving constantly (something that's easy to forget when you're looking at relatively static figures on a grid). Most dodges consist of a simple step backward, something the axeman is in no worse a position to do than the swashbuckler. (Again, short of the point where fatigue becomes a factor.)
Mind you, I'm thinking of something like a poleaxe here (as well as my somewhat more firsthand, though by no means expert, knowledge of fighting with what D&D would call bastard swords and greatswords). I'm not sure what, if any, real-world weapon a D&D greataxe is supposed to model; off the top of my head I can't think of anything two-handed with an axe-like head that wouldn't also have reach, even in the very rudimentary reach system in the current D&D rules. It's possible that such weapons would have the problems you describe, but if so, that would be why it's so hard to actually think of examples of them.
(I here ignore the fact that the poleaxe wielder is likely to have armour that the swashbuckler will be hard-pressed to penetrate...)
I've always assumed the great axe is in the mold of the bearded axe, which I wouldn't give reach. And the bearded axe is indeed a weapon you don't want to miss with. You simply can't swing it and not be exposed for a moment afterwards. The strength required to halt the momentum of a swing like that would be immense. I simply won't buy any argument that you can attack twice with a bearded axe as quickly as you can with a rapier. That's what rapiers do, that's their whole purpose. Quick, direct strikes while maintaining a defensive position.
The armor penetration is another subject. AC is a stupid rule for just that reason.
I've always assumed the great axe is in the mold of the bearded axe, which I wouldn't give reach. And the bearded axe is indeed a weapon you don't want to miss with. You simply can't swing it and not be exposed for a moment afterwards. The strength required to halt the momentum of a swing like that would be immense. I simply won't buy any argument that you can attack twice with a bearded axe as quickly as you can with a rapier. That's what rapiers do, that's their whole purpose. Quick, direct strikes while maintaining a defensive position.
The armor penetration is another subject. AC is a stupid rule for just that reason.
Most bearded axes I've seen would be D&D battleaxes (and thus compatible with shield use, greatly mitigating the problem - shields are *hell* on rapier attacks), but I'll admit to being no expert in just how wide a range of sizes they came in.
EDIT: A Danish axe is a pretty plausible candidate for a greataxe, and those were popular for a long time. I don't know why I didn't think of that earlier.
I wasn't arguing that you could make two poleaxe attacks as fast as rapier duelist could make two jabs, I was arguing that you could make one without compromising your defence, at least not to the extreme degree you seemed to be depicting. Halting in mid-swing, or say rather attempting to, would indeed be more likely to injure you than anyone else (I mean screwing up your arm, not hitting yourself), though changing direction slightly is doable.
Most bearded axes I've seen would be D&D battleaxes (and thus compatible with shield use, greatly mitigating the problem - shields are *hell* on rapier attacks), but I'll admit to being no expert in just how wide a range of sizes they came in.
EDIT: A Danish axe is a pretty plausible candidate for a greataxe, and those were popular for a long time. I don't know why I didn't think of that earlier.
I wasn't arguing that you could make two poleaxe attacks as fast as rapier duelist could make two jabs, I was arguing that you could make one without compromising your defence, at least not to the extreme degree you seemed to be depicting. Halting in mid-swing, or say rather attempting to, would indeed be more likely to injure you than anyone else (I mean screwing up your arm, not hitting yourself), though changing direction slightly is doable.
The fact that the rapier can make two attacks faster than a heavier weapon is the entire basis of my argument that weapon speed should be represented by the maximum number of attacks the wielder could make in one combat round.
The fact that the rapier can make two attacks faster than a heavier weapon is the entire basis of my argument that weapon speed should be represented by the maximum number of attacks the wielder could make in one combat round.
That this doesn't matter in practically any reasonable scenario is the entire basis of my argument that the mechanics shouldn't represent speed at all.
(Well, not the entire basis. I also think the number of occasions on which it's even true in the first place is, while not zero, a lot smaller than many people think.)
GameSpy: Then can you look back and say, 'This was a mistake, I shouldn't have done this?'
Gygax: Oh yeah. There's a number of things in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons that I never should have done. I shouldn't have put Psionics in there, but somebody talked me into it. Some of the combat, weapons vs. armor, and weapon speeds I just would have dropped.
Disclaimer: I play Exalted, but I play 1st Edition. I'm only vaguely familiar with 2nd Edition rules, so anyone who knows better please feel free to correct me.
IIRC, in 2E Exalted (which is what I believe the above poster was referencing), instead of combat being in discreet "rounds," it's done as one long continuous round. You roll initially to see on what "tick" (a tick is one second) you join the combat. Highest roll acts on tick 1, second highest on tick 2, etc. All actions have a speed, which determines how many ticks you must wait before acting again. So, say you join on tick 3 and use a speed 5 weapon. You act initially on tick 3, then on tick 8, then 13, 18, etc until combat ends. Any actions that happen on the same tick happen simultaneously, so it is possible for two people to kill each other.
1E works more like the systems some have suggested, where your weapon speed adds to or subtracts from your initiative roll. Initiative is re-rolled each round.
Weighing in on the debate as a whole, I really have to agree with SKR. Doing the work to add and balance weapon speeds in D&D just isn't worth it. Combat is an abstraction; attack bonuses, iterative attacks, AC, HP, these are all abstractions and have absolutely no bearing on reality. Trying to add realism just bogs down an already complex system. It's fine just the way it is.
Mor
Yup, that's what I was referencing.
To expand a little, depending on your action, it might take different numbers of Ticks to "ready" again. Like if you went for more defense and the like, had a special ability, that kind of thing.
It seems that these discussions hinge on the idea of 1 "attack" per round, or multiple "attacks" when a character becomes proficient enough with the weapon. I had always thought that D&D combat was more abstract than this, and that D&D combat assumed there was a lot of feinting, dodging, swinging, parrying, and movement within a single round. I thought the "attack" in D&D represented a single opening created by all of the feinting, dodging, swinging, parrying and movement. What I mean is that characters aren't assumed to only be taking 1 or 2 swings per round, but that their expertise and experience gives them 1 or 2 openings per round in which to possibly injure or kill their opponenet.
For me, this distinction is important as a DM when describing combat. When I view combat as a fluid and constantly moving piece of action, it seems that things like reach and weapon speeds matter less. I mean, reach is covered in the 3.5 rules to give an initial edge to reach, but it is still abstract enough that it doesn't seem to jam things up. And weapon speeds don't seem to factor in for me when I picture the combat as fluid and more action than single swings. A man who has little training with a fast dagger doesn't seem to me to deserve any additional attacks against an experienced opponent just because the dagger is faster. In my mind's eye, it seems that it is more important that the wielder of the weapon have the skill to create an opening (through feinting, movement, etc.) with that weapon than any inherent speed of the weapon. I'm not trying to be adversarial with the view of a need for weapon speed in D&D, I'm just trying to explain my visualization of combat as it relates to the D&D rules, and trying to see for myself how weapon speeds added to my visualization of combat would work.
I'm curious to hear how others perceive combat in relation to what is happening outside of the "attacks" in the D&D combat round. I love the granularity of D&D on many levels, and anything that enhances the "real feel" and grittiness of combat gets my vote for sure.
Here's the view of Gygax on the issue:
Well, his view is no more important than someone elses regarding a significantly different system that doesn't have as many loop holes(actually, just having the initiative is determined at the beginning of the round by held weapon gets rid of a few). His system probably shouldn't have been used, and neither should early psionics, which were kind of off until 3.5(and their still a bit off, but no more than arcane casters).
It seems that these discussions hinge on the idea of 1 "attack" per round, or multiple "attacks" when a character becomes proficient enough with the weapon. I had always thought that D&D combat was more abstract than this, and that D&D combat assumed there was a lot of feinting, dodging, swinging, parrying, and movement within a single round. I thought the "attack" in D&D represented a single opening created by all of the feinting, dodging, swinging, parrying and movement. What I mean is that characters aren't assumed to only be taking 1 or 2 swings per round, but that their expertise and experience gives them 1 or 2 openings per round in which to possibly injure or kill their opponenet.
Yeah, I just made a similar point on another board. It's yet another reason why it's pointless to try to model weapon speed in most RPGs, particularly D&D.
Well, his view is no more important than someone elses regarding a significantly different system...
Oh totally
...that doesn't have as many loop holes(actually, just having the initiative is determined at the beginning of the round by held weapon gets rid of a few). His system probably shouldn't have been used, and neither should early psionics, which were kind of off until 3.5(and their still a bit off, but no more than arcane casters).
Not sure about the loopholes, 3E seems to have it's own as Pun Pun testifies). But people always complained about caster - so why on Earth did 3e make them MORE powerful?
But I think a lot of stuff comes from this mixed up attitude - some rules made with an attack representing a combat, and others representing blow by blow. The original game had all weapons as doing 1d6 damage and no weapon speed (so totally abract) and all later versions tried to make it more realistic (but based on a mechanic designed for absract play)
Furthermore in 3e d&ds turn system changed radically, in 1e a fighter with 3 attacks might make one first, then the second two after his opponent - more like the Exhalted system some are proposing.
A dagger may seem faster than a longsword, but for every opening the dagger user has to close in past the longsword - that footwork takes time and means there are probably less openings for the dagger wielder (given equal skill).
Actaully if multiple ttacks represent opeings, then the biggest factor would be the difference in skill - say for every 3 points of BAB more than the best opponent you get an extra attack - so you get lots of attacks versus weaker opponents but just one versus you equal.
The problem then is that the HP system is based of that - so you'd have to lower HP to do that.
You could maybe scrap iterative attacks altogether and simply add the amount you hit by to damage (or roll an extra damage die for every 5 BAB/or 5 points you hit by). Of course Power Attack would have to be re-jigged. Against mulitple opponents you could split the extra dice before making the attack roll.
But again here you start to move into homebrew system as opposed to mere houserule territory.
From the questions and fallacies pointed out about drawing a new weapon if you are armed with another "faster" weapon" The way all the groups I have played in, when drawing a new weapon you suffer an initiative penalty because that is not the weapon you started with in the round. So that argument holds little for me.
Multi-armed attackers is weapon speed really helps... the wrist flick of a dagger, versus the arm swing of the ax, there is a noticeable difference...
Having said that... I can and do see where reach can and does in many cases negate speed...
Using many of the weapons described in most dungeon or urban settings, just would not happen... either too heavy or too large (reach) to bring to bear. In an open battlefield man catchers, pole arms, foot lances and such bring the reach factor to normalize the "speed factor" if for no other reason than all combatants are expecting a fight.
Something else we did in our 2nd Ed games long before 3/3.5, we did use a shorter "combat round" and I think we did use the 6-second round. It was still abstracted a bit, but with the shortened round we;
a. rationalized less attacking and feinting
b. the D.M. described our battles (as most do anyway) in a blow-by-blow method that appealed to the group's desire for RP and roll play.
One thing that I miss by not having weapon speeds and casting times... the thrill of having a PC slay the evil wizard prior to the completion of his or her diabolically evil spell that will just ruin the PC's lives, and believe me I was running one of the PCs at those times.
So personally I have avoided trying to implement weapon speeds in this edition of the game though I miss it.
Not sure about the loopholes, 3E seems to have it's own as Pun Pun testifies). But people always complained about caster - so why on Earth did 3e make them MORE powerful?
I was talking only about the weapon speed system. 3.x in general is loaded with loop holes. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to do 264d6+144 con damage and 288 strength damage in one turn. Granted its an epic level character, but its a non caster. How exactly I manage this is secret.
Also hitting someone armed 4 times in 6 seconds is ridiculous unless they are asleep...
And yet another person with the misbegotten impression that medieval weapons were slow and clumsy wanders into the discussion...
Hitting a moving target, which probably has a weapon its both blocking and threatening you with(implying in melee range) your only going to hit them 4 times if they are totally incompetent.
Also wanders into the discussion? I started this freaking thread.
They aren't slow and clumsy, but people are going to block. Even a modern fencing sword, which is very light, and very fast, is unlikely to hit someone 4 times in six seconds, or even two times in six seconds, because they are actively trying not to be hit. If someone is asleep, you could probably hit them 12 times with a fencing sword, and at least 8-9 with almost any medieval weapon.
Hitting a moving target, which probably has a weapon its both blocking and threatening you with(implying in melee range) your only going to hit them 4 times if they are totally incompetent.
I've seen it done, albeit rarely, but at the same time, by people who would be nowhere near 16th level. You have to confuse your opponent something fierce to do it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the opponent is completely incompetent.
(Which brings up the very large role Intelligence ought to play, and doesn't, in melee combat - yet another thing that would be far ahead of weapon speed on my personal list of things to model in D&D combat that it currently doesn't.)
Which brings up the very large role Intelligence ought to play, and doesn't, in melee combat
I was under the impression that there was feats and a core class for that... maybe not the best ones, but still swashbuckler is a neat idea.
I was under the impression that there was feats and a core class for that... maybe not the best ones, but still swashbuckler is a neat idea.
It's a neat idea that I'd have done as a Charisma-based character. (That, and one that didn't totally suck.)
Non-finnesable weapons still maintain their full damage bonus on itinerative attacks. And, of course, 2-handed weapons have their 1.5 bonus to damage due to strength.
> maybe not the best ones, but still swashbuckler is a neat idea.
A better example would be the ToB Warblade, who gets class features which are based on Int and also wants it for its indirect benefits to combat (he has access to a lot of skills, and many of those associate with and even improve the performance of his attacks) - more Int = more skills.
A better example would be the ToB Warblade, who gets class features which are based on Int and also wants it for its indirect benefits to combat (he has access to a lot of skills, and many of those associate with and even improve the performance of his attacks) - more Int = more skills.
Well I sadly don't have tome of battle, but based on the way everyone praises it to the skies maybe I should have a look after all.