Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="trickey" data-source="post: 373103" data-attributes="member: 7387">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?</blockquote>

Verification