Bringing back weapon speed!

[BelgarathTAO]

I am sure this has been brought up in the past, but has anyone come-up with a viable system of re-adding weapon speed as a factor in initiative?

It always frustrates me when a lumbering Ogre can move 30 feet and swing a great axe faster than my rogue can toss a throwing dagger. I know that in most cases this should not happen, but even with an init bonus of +10, it is not very hard for the DM to roll higher.

The system I imagine would be based on the size of the weapon that is readied. Example: a medium size weapon does not modify your initiative. For each step larger, you get –2, and for each step smaller, you get +2.

I see two problems with this, but I think that they can be worked out:

Spells: What is their initiative? Does it add or subtract? My first thought would be no change.

Changing weapons in combat: Since init. is only rolled once, if you change your weapon, you would still have the faster init. Many people feel that after the first round it no longer matters, but I highly disagree with that. I propose that any change of weapon would re-adjust your init as if you rolled it with that weapon.

Any thoughts on this, or alternates as to what you have used?

Belgarath the Ancient One

 

[Drawmack]

Or you could use a get the drop on mechanic, using a weapon one size increment smaller then your size (i.e. medium using small, small using tiny, large using medium) allows you to get the drop on the opponent.

This allows you to act during the surprise round even if otherwise you shouldn't

No hinkey stuff with init and it's based on char size vs. weapon size so it scales nicely.

Though you should have an equal penalty for a weapon one size increment bigger, first round of combat is only a partial round?

Also this simulates weapons that are too small or too large being harder to use effectivly by not giving them the bonus or detriment.

Anyway just my thoughts.

 

[BelgarathTAO]

Interesting. I am not sure that it fits all situations. What about two opponants medium size using small weapons? They both can't get a drop on, can they?

And with multiple opponants, I could see it getting out of hand.

"I have a small weapon, so I can go first!"

"But I have a tiny weapon, so I can go first!"

"But I am Huge with a small weapon, so I can go first!"

At least with the init system, once you have the number, everyone knows who goes when.

Belgarath the Ancient One.

 

[Obryn]

I've always had a BIG problem with weapon speed factors. Honestly, they're not realistic in the way xD&D uses them. In fact, the AD&D system is plain backwards.

Joe Fighter has a 2-handed sword. Bob Rogue has a dagger. Who gets to hit the other one first, everything else being equal? When speed factors are used, Bob Rogue does. In reality, Joe Fighter has a much longer weapon and would get in a blow before Bob Rogue could close.

I much prefer the current system where, at least for some weapons, reach the critical factor.

-O

 

[cerberus2112]

Max Dex bonus to initiative idea

How about weapons limiting your dex bonus to initiative based on size? For example, a Large weapon (for a medium character) would give you a max dex bonus of +1 to initiative. A medium weapon would have a max dex bonus of +3, a small weapon would have a max dex bonus of +5, and a tiny weapon would have a max dex bonus of +7. This would scale with size as appropriate.

 

[Drawmack]

Interesting. I am not sure that it fits all situations. What about two opponants medium size using small weapons? They both can't get a drop on, can they?

Sure that would just be a slight misnomer in the name, something all RPGers should be used to by now.

And with multiple opponants, I could see it getting out of hand.

"I have a small weapon, so I can go first!"

"But I have a tiny weapon, so I can go first!"

"But I am Huge with a small weapon, so I can go first!"

At least with the init system, once you have the number, everyone knows who goes when.

Someone doesn't know how a surprise round works.

You roll initiative and act in initiative order. It's a half a round that takes place before the first round of battle.

BTW: By my suggestion the huge with small wouldn't get any advantage because there is too much of a size difference between the character and the weapon making it more difficult to use.

 

[Drawmack]

Re: Max Dex bonus to initiative idea

How about weapons limiting your dex bonus to initiative based on size? For example, a Large weapon (for a medium character) would give you a max dex bonus of +1 to initiative. A medium weapon would have a max dex bonus of +3, a small weapon would have a max dex bonus of +5, and a tiny weapon would have a max dex bonus of +7. This would scale with size as appropriate.

That's a great idea, kind of an extension of the AC max dex rules, though I think you're numbers are a bit off, should just make it relational. Also maybe instead of max dex bonus just give a dex bonus/penalty.

For each size category larger you are then your weapon add 1 to your initiative.

For each size caregory smaller you are then your weapon subtract 1 from your initiative.

Changing weapons in battle can change initiative.

 

[BelgarathTAO]

Re: Re: Max Dex bonus to initiative idea

For each size category larger you are then your weapon add 1 to your initiative.

For each size caregory smaller you are then your weapon subtract 1 from your initiative.

Changing weapons in battle can change initiative.

Isn't this pretty much back to my original suggestion, except that the bonus\penalty is based on relative weapon size rather than actual weapon size? I do like that modification, though I would make it +2/-2 for each step.

Someone doesn't know how a surprise round works.

You roll initiative and act in initiative order. It's a half a round that takes place before the first round of battle.

Then your first suggestion doesn't really address the issue. A good init. roll will still come before an attack that logically should come first, and weapon size is still not part of the equation, except that it allows you to act. Also, this only comes into play when there is a suprise round, not just normal combat. Besides, in the case of a suprise round, the person being suprised (suprisee?) shouldn't get any attack before the (suprise-er?) in any case.

Belgarath the Ancient One

 

[Judas]

I feel it's fine the way it is. You're trying to make it more realistic, which I applaud by the way, but there's other factors besides size.

Weight:
A weapons weight is actually what should ultimately determine weapons speed, not size. A 6' Bo staff is a very quick weapon that in DnD "got the shaft" in game terms. TWF IMHO, should not apply to a Staff, and all other double weapons should be removed completely. Take a staff made of wood and a identical sized staff made from made from metal (Such as a pipe) and try swinging them around. The two weapons are identical in size, yet the wood staff is quick, and the metal is slow.

Strength:
A characters strength then alters the relative weight of the weapon. Different fighting styles with the same weapon could change the weapon speed. Doubling up on a longsword would give you a faster reaction with the weapon than fighting with the same sword and a shield. Fighting with a staff, using both ends to attack can be faster than swinging the same staff like a club.

There's even your dexterity which gives you a higher degree of control as your wepon gets lighter. There's just too much "weapon math" to be done to make the game fast and enjoyable. Added realism just slows down game play (for the most part).

Just my thoughts.

 

[DreamChaser]

Added realism just slows down game play (for the most part).

I agree. If I wanted realistic, I'd stick with reality. (please notice the first person...I'm not attacking anyone.)

I remember once I was inspired by Final Fantasy III to create an inititive system that was not round based but instead was cyclical. The count started at 0 and each person would roll initiative. They had a complex fomula based on their weapon, dexterity, size, and number of attacks to determie weapon speed and then they added a d10. This determined the count they would go on. if they got multiple attacks with a weapon the would add just the speed the number of times they were attacking before they would roll the "spacer die (d10)" again and add it to their previous amount.

It was a great system. My players loved it. When we got to 100, we'd start over at 0 (with full carryover, so 105 became 5). If someone forgot to reroll intitiative then they had to roll from the CURRENT number rather than their orginial (they lost track of what they were doing). Spells had a speed equal to their level (or 2x their level for cleric spells). A round was defined as being 20 counts and combat lasted on average to 150 count.

The problems:
the math: if someone picked up a new weapon in the middle of combat we had to figure out the weapon speed for them using the weapon.

the math: keeping track of all the NPC combatants was a nightmare for me

the length: combat on average took 2 hours to resolve because I would have to go through each count.

the fixed nature: players had to decide what their characters were doing before they rolled and couldn't change it (because the would mess with their count). I finally allowed them to change actions by simply adding their modifier for the new action rather than having to reroll their count completely and start over. Still it sucked when the target of your melee attack has died and you have no one else in range.

I still love the system and if I were running a tactical game, it is what I would use. I also have a different armor system (Attack v Defense / Damage vs Soak+Armor) but again it is more time consuming, more math intensive, and more suited to a tacsim game.

Just my .35 cents (I always spend more than I mean to.)

DC