Anyone else miss weapon speed?

[Larry Fitz]

Storm Raven opined:

"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."

The question isn't just who swings first (That's really a matter of reach, not speed) but who would realistically swing more often. Florentine daggers will carve up someone using a Claymore quite nicely if you get inside his reach. As for who will strike first, that would go to the person with the quicker missile weapon (like say... a dagger?). If 3E were intended to be a realistic combat simulation things like reach and weapon speed would be much more important. It's not though, it's an approximation of tactical combat, not a "How to" course on medieval combat. As such weapon speed rules would be cumbersome and impractical.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

If 3E were intended to be a realistic combat simulation things like reach and weapon speed would be much more important. It's not though, it's an approximation of tactical combat, not a "How to" course on medieval combat. As such weapon speed rules would be cumbersome and impractical.

I don't expect it to be a hundred percent realistic, but i like the idea of weapons have some speed advatage.

Maybe allowing people with fast weapons to take a feat that allows them to get multiple attacks at lower BAB would work.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I don't expect it to be a hundred percent realistic, but i like the idea of weapons have some speed advatage.

Maybe allowing people with fast weapons to take a feat that allows them to get multiple attacks at lower BAB would work.

Perhaps you could change the penalty for iterative attacks...

Fast: +13 / +9 / +5 / +1 (i.e. -4)

Average: +16 / +11 / +6 / +1 (i.e. -5)

Slow: +19 / +13 / +7 / +1 (i.e. -6)

If this is too great a benefit, perhaps it would only apply to the first iteration--with the standard -5 applying thereafter...

Fast: +15 / +11 / +6 / +1 (i.e. -4)

Average: +16 / +11 / +6 / +1 (i.e. -5)

Slow: +17 / +11 / +6 / +1 (i.e. -6)

 

[Vaxalon]

The question isn't just who swings first (That's really a matter of reach, not speed) but who would realistically swing more often. Florentine daggers will carve up someone using a Claymore quite nicely if you get inside his reach.

That would make all kind of sense, if there was such a thing as "inside a claymore wielder's reach." A greatsword wielder can easily strike at someone who is standing nose-to-nose with him. He can pivot and raise his arms, striking sideways to his body, or flip his grip and strike at his attacker's back.

The fact is, the length of the weapon has always been a major advantage, which is why variations of the spear were popular for everyone from levies to professional troops well into the age of gunpowder. A bigger weapon lets you hit first and hit harder.

As for a dagger being quicker to wield in the sense of more strikes per round compared to a greatsword, that too is a spurious argument. Because of the greater mass and huge lever arm, a strike with a greatsword need not require anything more than a snap of the wrists, and many, many of them can be delivered very quickly.

On the other hand, a strike with a dagger involves a movement of the entire arm at least, usually the entire upper body.

Ultimately, the whole issue boils down to this:

In reality, smaller weapons don't hit first, and they don't hit more often

In game terms, the larger weapons are balanced against the smaller weapons already, and don't need any other balancing factors added.

There's no game-based argument and there's no reality-based argument that sticks with regard to weapon speeds.

 

[Fenes 2]

As far as game-based arguments go, do you really want a game where heroes drop their longswords and axes, their spears and maces to grip their puny daggers in dire situations "because they are faster"? Nothing in history does support such a course of action, and nothing in fantasy fiction either.

 

[Seule]

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.

So if I am holding a great long stick and you have a little short stick, and we advance on each other, who gets to hit the other person first?
I think it's obvious that at least as much argument can be made that the person with the longer weapon should get in the first shot, as the other tries to close into reach of that dagger. And if arguments can be made either way, why not declare that the two factors (length versus wieldiness) cancel each other out?

--Seule

 

[Storm Raven]

The question isn't just who swings first (That's really a matter of reach, not speed) but who would realistically swing more often.

Realistically? The greatsword wielder will swing more often and more effectviely than the dagger wielder, because most effective greatsword swings require a very short motion to cause terrible damage while maintaining the blade at the guard position (or near enough for a very fast recovery).

Florentine daggers will carve up someone using a Claymore quite nicely if you get inside his reach.

There is no "inside" of a claymore's reach. A modestly skilled user can use the weapon quite effectively at close quarters, just like most other long bladed or long hafted weapons.

And it is dubious that you can realistically expect to "get inside" his reach without being killed to begin with.

As for who will strike first, that would go to the person with the quicker missile weapon (like say... a dagger?).

Assuming you want to throw your weapon and engage me unarmed, a dubious and likely suicidal option for you. (On the other hand, realistically speaking, engaging someone wielding a greatsword while you are armed with a dagger would basically be suicidal to begin with).

If 3E were intended to be a realistic combat simulation things like reach and weapon speed would be much more important. It's not though, it's an approximation of tactical combat, not a "How to" course on medieval combat. As such weapon speed rules would be cumbersome and impractical.

Weapon speeds would be unrealistic too.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

All i got to say is, it works in the movies!

 

[Ravellion]

All i got to say is, it works in the movies!

No it doesn't, that's why they armed the thieves in the D&D movie with longswords

Rav

 

[shurai]

Storm Raven opined:
The question isn't just who swings first (That's really a matter of reach, not speed) but who would realistically swing more often. Florentine daggers will carve up someone using a Claymore quite nicely if you get inside his reach.

Wow, you guys all beat me to the punch, as it were. The other posters are very much correct. A greatsword can be wielded in a surprising diversity of ways, such that although the guard positions all have their weaknesses, there is no such thing as being 'inside' in a permanent way. You can swing it in two hands, conan style. You can thrust with it held in front of you like a spear. You can grab the lower part of the blade in your (gauntletted) hand and use it a bit like a quarterstaff. And to top it all off, if some smart-aleck cutpurse tries to get too personal, you can conk him with the pommel, guard, or your fists on the hilt, targetting his guts or head, or thrust at his feet or cut at his groin from a hanging guard that still protects you. You can even use the blade or your hand to bind or grab his thrusting dagger-arm, if you're quick, and then use the pommel on his head or gut. And if he breaks the close-in fighting, you can probably cut at him whilst he disengages.

But, though you did not mean it this way, you are partly correct. You can get inside any sword's reach if you can capitalize on the moment between stepping in and when he corrects his guard or steps back in response. Basically if he cuts down at you, sidestep and move forward at the same time, hold his arm or grab the bit of exposed swordhilt between his hands, and hopefully stab him in the guts. Or, if he has poor control and his sword is near the ground, you can pull the same trick and cut his throat while holding his arms or sword down instead of up.

Greatswords and two-handed swords in general are a very subtle art, much moreso than most people think. I've barely hinted all the grappling techniques, for instance. I know of a technique that is simple to do, but pretty hard to describe, whereby my opponent's downward cutting attack is blocked and in a moment he finds himself lying face-down on the ground with his sword-arm securely locked and twisted out of joint. To make it work all he has to do is pressure my block as if to drive me down or back, which swordsmen do all the time.

-S
Armchair swordsman