Anyone else miss weapon speed?

[Deadguy]

I disagree, it makes sense that someone can strike faster with certain weapons. The problem is there's never been a system that deciently handles it.

A friend of mine had a reasonable approach with a home-brewed system of his. He divided a round of combat into a fixed set of 20 segments. Every weapon had, as part of its defining stats, a Speed score. He also assigned Speed scores to spellcasting and other likely in-round actions, plus a Movement Rate per Segment. Basically you acted on the Segment which was your Weapon Speed, and again every multiple of your Weapon Speed. If you needed to move first, you added in enough Segments to reach your opponent. Characters could buy a skill in a given weapon type to increase its Speed (but limited to a maximum of halving the Speed).

It's a little more complicated than most people would want, and it did require the players to work out their combat stats in advance, but it also meant that it was a real choice between high-damage-but-slow weapons and low-damage-but-fast ones. The system went through some refinements later (modifying Speed by a reaction modifier based on a character's Quickness attribute, opening up the round, so that you just kept running the count forward rather than putting in arbitrary boundaries for rounds), but was okay in play.

That said, do I want something similar in D&D3e? Hell no! 3e's system is simple, and focusses instead on tactical combat, which suits me fine.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Nope. I don't miss them at all. I'm glad they're gone. Like a lot of things about 2e, they weren't right at all (for most of the reasons Sean K Reynolds wrote).

 

[Agamon]

No. In fact, I never used it when it was a rule back in the day. Too unweildy. Combat takes long enough without complex minutae that adds so little to the experience.

 

[Fenes 2]

I am glad weapon speeds are gone.

 

[Joker]

How can u even recognize them as being horses dagger?

They're nothing but a bloody steaming pulp now.

 

[nsruf]

I was just thinking about it and really did like weapon speed factored into intiative. It just makes sense to me that some weapons can be wielded faster then others.

So am i alone on this, or do any of you guys agree?

I don't miss it, for sure. And it does not even make sense in the 3E rules system, as you declare your actions after you roll for initiative. So if you do not attack with a weapon/the weapon you were holding when rolling for ini, why should you get a bonus?

 

[Zappo]

No, I don't miss them. I don't miss anything from previous editions, really.

 

[jasper]

No never ! wjadc!

 

[Storm Raven]

Re: lament for weapon speed

IMHO, it makes more sense that a dagger is faster than a two handed sword, plus, at times it was more dramatic. In many encounters, fighters dropped their swords to wield daggers to ensure a faster initiative. Now, just let the rogue up front (or in back) with a 20+ dex and improved initiative...

I'll tell you what. You arm yourself with a dagger, I'll take the greatsword. Let's see who gets their swing in first. I don't think it will be you.

 

[shadowlight]

I'm glad their gone, but I woudn't have minded it as an optional rule... seems like something simple to add...