4e Fan Creations and House RulesWorking on variant powers? Statting up a PC race or your version of a monster? Creating or converting an adventure? Put it here!
I was perusing the Paizo boards, blasphemy I know, and came across a thread that I found to be pretty interesting and made me have nostalgic feelings. The thread was about introducing weapons speeds into Pathfinder. After reading it, I was thinking how it could apply to 4e.
For those who aren't familiar with 2nd edition, weapons (and spells) had a speed factor that applied to your inititative roll. The idea was that if you were using a small, light weapon you generally were quicker and if you were using a bigger bulkier weapon (that generally did more damage) you often were slower. 2e also was the last edition to have players roll initiative round after round and thus weapons speeds played a big factor in when you went.
4e seems to encourage build types, particularly with regards to fighters, your choice of weapons is very important. If you have a high con, str or dex you are more apt to choose certain types of weapons. I like this idea. They even took it a step further by encouraging choices in powers. For example, certian powers give you bonuses if you are using a certain type of weapon such as extra damage or extra effects.
While I am not proposing rolling initative every round like 2e, I do think that weapons/implement speeds could be applied in 4e or perhaps in future editions.
Keep in mind, this proposal hasn't had any concrete rules thoughts behind it, just perliminary thinking, but using weapons speeds would give designers or players another element in character design or creation and can be used as a blancing factor to some of the builds out there.
Basically, at its simplest, all weapons/implements (maybe even holy symbols) have an init mod from +0 to +5. Quick weapons give +5, slow weapons give +0. Players using 2 weapons take the average weapons speed of the weapons. Players changing weapons in mid-fight have their init adjusted on the following turn to the new weapon speed modified by a penatly, say a -2, for the time it took to swap weapons.
This idea opens up some new dynamics in play, want to hit harder? On average you will go later. Want to hit sooner? Use a less damaging weapon. Want to move you init around without delaying or readying or possibly go before the bad guy who is just before you to hopefully kill him before he attacks you? Change weapons. It will also give more flavor to DM monsters as those that hurt more (brutes) will be slower and those that deal less may get an extra turn out of this system because they will more often go sooner in the round. I understand that the W die is pretty small in 4e compared to the static damage bonus you can get from ability mod, enhancement, feats, etc but this is really about differentiating weapons/implements a bit more than they are now.
The biggest issue I can see is power durations that trigger at the end of your next turn (or things of that nature) but I am sure they can be worked around.
I think this could be pretty cool in play, though not sure the added complexity is worth it.
So how about it, is this something that you think could fit into 4e? Would you want to see this in future editions? Do you have any other thoughts or comments? Let's hear them!
Hmmmm. Mostly what I recall from the days of running 2e is that weapon speed factors were universally and utterly ignored, lol. Even spell casting times were pretty much ignored unless you were talking about a multi-round casting time.
Mechanically it probably could be made to work in 4e and it would probably be less of a pain to deal with than it was in 2e where it had to interact with multi-attacks, dual-wielding, etc. Still, the initiative shifting aspect is a bit troublesome, though probably not more so than delay and ready are now. Switching weapons is pretty unusual in 4e anyway, so it would probably come up only when characters switch to auxiliary ranged weapons or a few odd situations.
I guess the main reason it doesn't necessarily seem all THAT exciting just that mostly I don't see a big need to differentiate weapons more than they are now. Most players I've played with would actually probably be happier with LESS mechanical distinction between weapons. Weapon choice is largely driven by character concept for a pretty high proportion of players and further narrowing the best choices for specific builds probably won't excite them. As for the min/maxers they don't really care that much what its called as long as its the best thing and if all weapons were pretty much identical it would just be one less thing for them to optimize, which is fine with me.
I was actually QUITE happy with original D&D's weapons where basically you had one-handed and two-handed weapons and there were no other differences.
Of course the final question would be how would you rebalance all the weapons if you did this in 4e? They are reasonably well balanced now and for example making all maces really slow or all larger weapons slower is going to necessitate some other change to get them back into par with the smaller and faster weapons. Seems like a lot of tinkering for what looks like a small gain at best.
2e speed factors were kinda ridiculous. Believe it or not, I'll take 1e here, any day.
By the 2e rules, a guy with a dagger gets to attack before a guy with a greatsword nine times out of ten. In real life, the guy with the dagger gets cut in half before he can close with the guy with the greatsword.
On the other hand, 1e has a much more "simulationist" approach. In any charge, the one with the longer weapon goes first. After you close the distance, speed factor rarely matters - but in some cases, it can matter quite a lot; then your dagger guy might get a few choice stabs on the greatsword guy before the greatsword guy gets to react. (In many games, this was houseruled so speed factor is really just a tiebreaker.)
So yeah. IMO, it's backwards. A small weapon is generally disadvantaged in all but the closest combat, and while I'm dandy with ignoring disadvantages for flavor reasons, I'm sketchy on giving advantages to them instead.
Hmmmm. Mostly what I recall from the days of running 2e is that weapon speed factors were universally and utterly ignored, lol. Even spell casting times were pretty much ignored unless you were talking about a multi-round casting time.
Interesting, in my area, they were used and well liked. I guess the idea wasn't for everyone and it WAS only an optional rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbdulAlhazred
Mechanically it probably could be made to work in 4e and it would probably be less of a pain to deal with than it was in 2e where it had to interact with multi-attacks, dual-wielding, etc. Still, the initiative shifting aspect is a bit troublesome, though probably not more so than delay and ready are now. Switching weapons is pretty unusual in 4e anyway, so it would probably come up only when characters switch to auxiliary ranged weapons or a few odd situations.
You are right in that switching weapons in 4e is rare. I was thinking ahead, though, in that once a rule exists for weapon speed, it can be abused. A person normally wielding a bastard sword might min/max their approach by carrying a dagger around to use until the fight starts. Essentially, the idea was to prevent metagaming to some degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbdulAlhazred
Of course the final question would be how would you rebalance all the weapons if you did this in 4e? They are reasonably well balanced now and for example making all maces really slow or all larger weapons slower is going to necessitate some other change to get them back into par with the smaller and faster weapons. Seems like a lot of tinkering for what looks like a small gain at best.
Beats me. Haven't thought about it THAT much yet. Just throwing the idea out to gauge interest.
2e speed factors were kinda ridiculous. Believe it or not, I'll take 1e here, any day.
By the 2e rules, a guy with a dagger gets to attack before a guy with a greatsword nine times out of ten. In real life, the guy with the dagger gets cut in half before he can close with the guy with the greatsword.
On the other hand, 1e has a much more "simulationist" approach. In any charge, the one with the longer weapon goes first. After you close the distance, speed factor rarely matters - but in some cases, it can matter quite a lot; then your dagger guy might get a few choice stabs on the greatsword guy before the greatsword guy gets to react. (In many games, this was houseruled so speed factor is really just a tiebreaker.)
So yeah. IMO, it's backwards. A small weapon is generally disadvantaged in all but the closest combat, and while I'm dandy with ignoring disadvantages for flavor reasons, I'm sketchy on giving advantages to them instead.
-O
Is it the term "weapon speed" that is the issue? What if it was called Fighting Style or some such name. Basically, a guy with a dagger is likely to get more jabs/strikes in before a guy with a big axe would. Simulating it by allowing the dagger attacker to be "on average" faster is one way to display this. Just curious if reskinning it gives a different taste or if its the mechanic you are not fond of.
Is it the term "weapon speed" that is the issue? What if it was called Fighting Style or some such name. Basically, a guy with a dagger is likely to get more jabs/strikes in before a guy with a big axe would. Simulating it by allowing the dagger attacker to be "on average" faster is one way to display this. Just curious if reskinning it gives a different taste or if its the mechanic you are not fond of.
IMO, that's best handled by assuming that the guy with the dagger is making more jabs and the guy with the big sword is making fewer, but that the mechanics already reflect both of these.
Also, and more fundamentally, Initiative is all about the first strike. If you give the guy with the dagger an initiative bonus, he'll get the first strike over the longer weapon. I have a big problem with that. Getting in more jabs is different from swinging first, and I don't know that I need a dagger-wielding rogue to get extra attacks in combat, either.
I think I'd be iffy on using them to alter generic initiative, but could see using them in some fashion for settling tie breakers or contesting timing on immediates or readied actions...
Also, you'll have to put some hard thought to people who can casually switch weapons or wield multiple weapons. For example, my artificer actually swaps between four different weapons with the aid of his familiar. If one of my weapons gave me an initiative bonus I'd cheerfully start every combat wielding that one before switching to the one I actually wanted to use.
By the 2e rules, a guy with a dagger gets to attack before a guy with a greatsword nine times out of ten. In real life, the guy with the dagger gets cut in half before he can close with the guy with the greatsword.
Maybe in your world, but in my world the guy with the greatsword gets one swing that is easy to predict and therefore easy to dodge before the guy with the dagger is slitting his throat.
Most people seem to make nieve assumptions about how two handed weapons are used and games present them heavier than they ever really are or were ...(ok I will admit the latest D&D books are closer than they ever have been a 6 or 7 pound two handed sword is huge in a historical context..)
Two handed weapons do not normally even weight twice what a singlehanded one did... surprise, they are normally "faster", and used in short strokes that keep the weapon between its user and the enemy making them awesome as a threatening defense (particularly later designs with pointed ends). In other words say hello dagger wielder to a fast and deadly opportunity attack when you try to close.
However, there are a few respected sources that do give some valuable statistics. For example, the lengthy catalog of swords from the famed Wallace Collection Museum in London readily lists dozens of fine specimens among which it is difficult to find any weighing in excess of 4 pounds. Indeed, the majority of specimens, from arming swords to two-handers to rapiers, weigh much less than three pounds.
Note the article describes the myth of the lumbering cumbersome over large sword quite a bit, its not just about innacuracy in weight portrayal.....
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
- Lazarus Long via Robert Heinlein.
Last edited by Garthanos; 16th October 2009 at 07:09 AM..
Maybe in your world, but in my world the guy with the greatsword gets one swing that is easy to predict and therefore easy to dodge before the guy with the dagger is slitting his throat.
I think my world is closer to reality than yours.
Um, okay? No, but okay.
Unarmored peasants preferred spears and polearms over kitchen knives for a reason. Tall guys with long arms have advantages over short guys with small arms, too. In every combat, up until the point you're basically wrestling with one another, you have the advantage if you can reach them and they can't reach you. If your weapon is shorter, you need the other guy to be unaware of you in order to make it work - or within their effective reach already.
Speed factors in 2e get it exactly wrong. Look, for instance, at spears vs. daggers. Spears are in no way, shape, or form slower than daggers. They are long, giving you a lever-type effect at the end, allowing you to move the point very quickly. Stabbing is a similar action in both cases. And yet, spears get the shaft (ha!) on speed factors.
Finally, look, I'm not one to claim that anything like SCA or Belegarth-style boffer-combat gives you any kind of real combat training or experience. It doesn't, and people who think it does are ridiculous. However, certain principles are rather universal to all fighting, real or fake. Reach is one of these.
This whole "dodging a clumsy blow" thing is a fantasy - which, I might note, is just dandy for D&D, hence my reluctance to include reaches and speed factors in D&D combat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keterys
Reach is a very big consideration on any melee combat. Whether that's boxing or greatswords.
Also, optimal greatsword use is not necessarily in dramatic huge swings that are easy to predict, mm?
Yep, exactly. Heck, in medieval sword manuals, you'd sometimes do crazy stuff like grabbing your sword's blade and hitting someone with the pommel.
An enchanted weapon that grants a bonus to initiative equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus might be cool, but I don't see it as a common thing for all weapons.
An enchanted weapon that grants a bonus to initiative equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus might be cool, but I don't see it as a common thing for all weapons.
Such a weapon might make you more aggressive ... and see openings sooner.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
The biggest problem I see with 4e weapon speed vs. 2e is the point of rolling initiative every round. You would need to go to this in 4e if you wanted speed to be a factor past the 1st round in combat. You simply fall into the same order the next round and it is moot.
You can go back to rolling init every round, which would slow combat a bit more than it is now. Another idea is to subtract the speed from your init every round making you slower progressivly the longer the fight goes on. I'm not a big fan of this either, as it would slow play down as well.
Reach is an over-estimated advantage. It only gives you an advantage until someone can close the distance and take the advantage away. If you want to talk fantasy, it's a fantasy that reach is the be all and end all. It's also a fantasy that the really long swords like claymores and zweihanders were fast. You swing something that large, it doesn't matter what weight it is, the momentum alone will pull you off balance.
Someone with a dagger can move faster than someone with a greatsword. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it.
Reach is an over-estimated advantage. It only gives you an advantage until someone can close the distance and take the advantage away.
And its simple to drop back (or usually push your enemy and self back - a common trained technique so you aren't losing ground) so effectively if they aren't killed before closing, then after closing if they didn't kill their enemy they will end up having to do it again "every time"
Actual usage techniques of the big weapons neither throw the user off balance nor make closing easy... because they use the weapons presence itself as a very offensive defense - closing is very risky.. . the markedly shorter weapon takes far more effort to get an attack in at far greater risk.
Your physics is questionable too... Momentum = mass x velocity (the weapons momentum cant be an issue unless its either got an unwieldy amount of mass read the article about real sword weights ... and pretend when they say weight they mean an easy measure of mass) ... velocity is the speed you are claiming these weapons don't have and they are realistically frequently faster than many other 1 handed blades.
Axes are end balanced sounds like they ought to throw there users out of balance right? but frequently the longest strokes that are used with the weapon are downwards and never spin or otherwise mess with their users balance "in a unplanned for way".
A knife can be hidden inside jacket or used at a dinner table... those are there main historical appeal and why they are still in use today. (the other advantage throwability is kind of questionable -- throwing your weapon is not as common in real life as in the movies because it does suck to be disarmed.. and if the range changes suddenly on you ...the attack will fall flat ;-))
I recommend you take up Kendo ;-) or study it... nope its not real fighting its fun. (the bamboo sticks are only marginally lighter than the real blades I have decorating my living room and library walls).
Sticking to ignorance is usually considered a less than admirable thing but whatever floats your boat.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
- Lazarus Long via Robert Heinlein.
Last edited by Garthanos; 17th October 2009 at 08:09 AM..
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
Yes, it is all coming back to me now. The 2e weapon speed system was preposterous.
Kzach, you can poopoo SCA style rattan fighting techniques if you want, but observe. The weapons are historically accurate in weight, size, and balance. Experience with this style of fighting may not be exactly the same as the real thing, but consider that very similar training techniques were used historically to train warriors, so I have to question exactly how unrealistic they are. Boffers are a whole other story and have very little to do with any kind of realism, but then again nobody who's handled period weapons or fought with rattan ones would claim otherwise.
Reach is a huge advantage in real world fighting. There is a VERY high probability, verging on 100% that any attack by someone wielding a dagger or shortsword is going to take a blow while attempting to close. The real issue is you can't STOP it. What are you going to do, parry my swordthrust with your knife which is 1/5th its length? Even if you manage to do that without being forced back a 2-hander is easily fast enough to cut you again before you get close enough and in the process of making that riposte I've also stepped back and/or driven you back. Remember too, I have 2 hands on my weapon, which means I have twice the muscle power to move it around with and several times the leverage. The tip speed of my weapon is 6-8 times higher than yours.
The fact is a longer reach weapon, particularly a sword which is an especially wieldy weapon, will win out 9 out of 10 times in such a matchup. It will probably win 8 out of 10 times against a longsword. Usually the fight will last 3 seconds. Now, throw in a shield for your guy with his short weapon and things are MUCH more even, but you still have the problem of trying to actually get the longer weapon user to stay close. Barring some terrain which stops them from simply backing, circling, or using an en-passant attack you basically have to just force them to keep beating on your shield while you hold out for that chance to get inside. A skilled fighter can do it and I've seen some very good sword and buckler fighters, but still all other things being equal the longer weapon wins hands down.
Smaller weapons were cheaper, easier to make, easy to conceal, worked well in situations where there was limited space, etc. In open melee skirmish type combat similar to what D&D depicts they would be mostly inferior weapons. One of the main reasons they were ubiquitous wasn't their quality as a weapon, it was the fact that a knife was simply a common implement carried by almost anyone at all times. Thus you simply HAD one handy and its a heck of a lot better than nothing if you get attacked and a perfectly deadly weapon if you can attack with surprise or in a restricted space like indoors.
Anyway. To get back to the original topic, I think things like weapon speed factors or maybe more usefully weapon reaches in theory are something you really need to factor into any realistic combat system, but the detail level of the 4e combat system isn't really high enough to make it worthwhile. Beyond that so many huge inaccuracies already exist in the 4e combat system that tacking on one realistic factor atop that really won't make sense. First you'd have to ditch most of the weapons in 4e and introduce accurate versions. Then you'd have to do a lot of other stuff. It probably wouldn't be as fun a game either. 4e ignores a lot of the distinctions between weapons and amplifies others simply so they can all interestingly be used together in one context. Realistically most of the weapons portrayed would simply be inappropriate in many cases and there would be just a few really good choices for any situation. A "realistic" fighter probably would have a variety of weapons at his disposal to use as appropriate vs the "I always use my big sword" kind of thing that the game promotes.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
