2nd Edition Weapon Speeds - Anyone Else Miss Them?

[barsoomcore]

What Makes A Two-Handed Sword Slow?

If I point my five-foot-long greatsword right at you, and you've got a dagger, I'm so going to hit you first. You walk towards me, I've got five feet of sharp blade for you to get past before you get to swing your "speedy" dagger.

How is that slow? I don't have to wind the thing up behind my head for a minute and a half in order to threaten you with it. Just pointing it at you will do the trick.

Weapon speed is nonsense.

 

[Humanophile]

They were all right in 2e, but in 3e, they're kind of pointless.

One of the nice things about 3e is the initiative rounds, which patch up some problems round-by-round based games get into while at the same time keeping things mostly simple. Now if you were stuck using the same weapon each round, it might work, but there's too much room both for abuse and confusion in letting people change their initiative each pass. If you want to use the optional "roll initiative each round" rules, be my guest to add weapon speeds, but I'd like them kept well out of the main book.

And while the EQ rules sound good in theory, in practice they miss the mark for several reasons. First, as any 2e veteran knows, more attacks are almost always better. (Leaving aside the two weapon fighting issue, the drawbacks of which wouldn't apply here.) Be prepared for a great many knife fighters. Second, watch as fighters swap weapons as their levels grow (fifth level fighters fight with daggers, sixth level with swords, and seventh with greataxes, f'rex). While that's more variety than your average fighter has, it's still too metagamey for my tastes. And finally, how would other speed-based influences apply? I'd hate to see different rules say different things about dexterity, weapon speeds, and spells. I'm a fan of keeping similar effects focused on one mechanic, as opposed to a 2e hodgepodge.

 

[Pbartender]

The trouble with weapon speeds as modifiers to initiative, is what happens to your initiative when you swap weapons...

The kobold has an initiative of 15.
I have an inititive of 16.
However, I haven't yet drawn my longsword that provides a -2 encumbrance penalty to initiative.

I want to draw my longsword and attack the kobold, but who goes first? When do I draw the sword? When do I attack?

It's just more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I don't miss weapon speeds, but I do wish they would have given weapons initiative modifiers. Made smaller or lighter weapons slightly faster than larger weapon and heavier weapons slightly slower weapons. this would have been reasonable in my opinion.

For example, use the longsword as a base initiative modifier of 0. Then give the shortsword an initiative modifier of +2 and the Greatsword a -2. Then everything else somewhere inbetween.

I didn't like the old weapon speed rules because it made no one want to use 2 handed weapons. A minor bonus for using smaller, quicker weapons I can understand, but a large discrepancy between weapon speeds like in second edition I cannot.

 

[trickey]

No, I don't miss them. Sean K Reynolds has put the reasons why speed facotrs are silly for 3E rather well:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html

Sean's two main points are as follows:

Weapon Speed factor vs. Reach: Sean says that weapon speeds are negated by reach, in essence the fact that the dagger is 'quicker' than a longsword is cancelled out by the added reach of the longword. I have two problems with this theory. First and foremost, there is already a mechanic in place to handle reach (the 'reach' designator on some weapons) that grants a specific advantage (the ability to hit opponents 10 feet away without entering the 5 foot area they threaten). Second, if you try and get detailed enough about the reach of weapons to say that it negates the weight or awkwardness of some weapons, you must consider that some weapons, especially lances and long spears, become useless if your opponent is right 'in your face'.

Realism Sean goes into a lengthy set of examples trying to prove that the speed factors are unrealistic. IMO, he missed the point completely. Weapon speeds were, as far as I'm concerned, never intended to make combat more realistic. They are a game balance issue. Light, quick weapons usually have low damage potential, so to prevent everybody and their brother from walking around with greatswords, you give the lighter weapons a small advantage. This also makes things more fair for classes that can't use the 'big gun' weapons (though 3e makes this point almost moot with the exotic weapon feats) and the small sized races that can't weild the big, heavy weapons. Sean's argument is well thought out and documented, but IMO it's trivial, since I don't feel that it addresses the proper points.

Sean also completely neglects to mention the issue of Weapon Speeds vs. Casting Times. IMO, this amount of balance is critical, and is a key reason I've put weapon speeds back in 3e. Why is it that the more potent spells take longer to cast (essentially a game balance issue, since although it makes sense that the big spells require more arcane energy to be channeled, which of course would take a bit longer, there is no serious way to say anything about 'realistic' spell casting) but the big weapons strike just as quickly as the small ones.

I simply use the weapon speeds that 2e gave the various weapons, and subtract them from the character's (or monster's) initiative roll. This may not be the most realistic way to do things, but it achieves the game balance I'm looking for.

It is worth noting that I don't use 3e's cyclic initiative system either, simply because my group unanimously decided we prefer the old 'roll every round' method. Sure, it makes combat chaotic, but have you ever seen a fight that wasn't?

 

[hong]

Second, if you try and get detailed enough about the reach of weapons to say that it negates the weight or awkwardness of some weapons, you must consider that some weapons, especially lances and long spears, become useless if your opponent is right 'in your face'.

... Well, yes. Note what the threatened area of these weapons are in 3E.

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: nope

im just sick of the repetiviness that weapon damages do to fighters. no one uses polearms. and they were damn good weapons.

Your experience seems atypical. I've seen many polearms used, both by PCs and NPCs. The advantages of reach are quite significant, and useful enough to make polearms very attractive as weapons, especially for individuals who gear their characters towards taking advantage of those benefits.

 

[Storm Raven]

Light, quick weapons usually have low damage potential, so to prevent everybody and their brother from walking around with greatswords, you give the lighter weapons a small advantage.

There are plenty of other reasons to use smaller, lighter weapons in 3e. You don't really need to add weapon speed for them to be attractive. Light weapons can be finessed. Light weapons weigh less (a consideration for individuals with abilities like Evasion that require light encumbrance). Light weapons are superior for two weapon fighting. Lighter weapons can be used with a shield (while greatswords and greataxes usually cannot). Many light weapons can be concealed if necessary. There is no need to add an artificial speed characteristic to encourage the use of light weapons.

This also makes things more fair for classes that can't use the 'big gun' weapons (though 3e makes this point almost moot with the exotic weapon feats)

But this dilutes the power grnated by the ability to use the big gun weapons. Classes that can use martial weapons are supposed to be better off in physcal combat than classes that cannot. Giving an advantage to the simple weapons to 'offset' the benefits of the heavier martial weapons throws this off.

and the small sized races that can't weild the big, heavy weapons.

Small races have other advantages that already make up for the fact that they cannot use the larger weapons: higher AC, better attack bonuses and so on. It is part of being Small sized that you cannot use heavy weapons as well, this is a trade-off of choices. Adding weapon speeds to make lighter weapons "better" throws off this balance and eliminates the trade-off aspects, essentially a Small character can have his cake and eat it too.

Sean's argument is well thought out and documented, but IMO it's trivial, since I don't feel that it addresses the proper points.

Since your arguments in favor of weapons speeds generally seem to result in throwing off game balance, I don't think your "weapon speeds are for game balance" argument holds water. If anything, weapon speeds are an anathema to game balance at worst, and game balance neutral at best.

 

[Umbran]

Weapon Speed factor vs. Reach[/iFirst and foremost, there is already a mechanic in place to handle reach (the 'reach' designator on some weapons) that grants a specific advantage (the ability to hit opponents 10 feet away without entering the 5 foot area they threaten).

The game's current reach mechanic is for really, really long reach. Sean's point is that you'd have to deal with "reach" on a smaller scale - under 5 feet. Do you want to start to have to start dealing with 1 foot increments of who can hit who?

 

[WizarDru]

essentially a Small character can have his cake and eat it too.[/B]

I am in complete agreement with Storm Raven. I think his argument is well-reasoned and agree with it. But a minor pet peeve of mine: the phrase is 'eat your cake and have it, too'. Makes more sense, that way.


As to the issue of weapon speeds, this is already modeled in more esoteric fashions, with factors like damage, critical range, weight restrictions, and so forth. Combat is a fairly complex applecart to upset for one aspect of verisimilitude. Speed and reach are only two of the many things that COULD be modeled in 3E combat. However, the designers opted for a streamlined system that works well in a timely fashion, rather than a highly convulted exercise in mathematical combat simulation. For those who like that aspect, they're fine, I'm sure. However, to me it seems too much work for too little benefit. Combats can take quite a bit of time already...adding lots of extra calculations and new mechanics for a minor change doesn't enhance the fun, IMHO.