Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ced1106" data-source="post: 515103" data-attributes="member: 7551">Re: Re: lament for weapon speedYou bet! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="(:" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; (:"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname="(:" /> I think the trick of introducing complexity into combat is to introduce &quot;realism&quot; that minimizes time spent in combat. For example, we introduce the &quot;realism&quot; that a sword causes more damage than a dagger by playing with variable damage for different weapons. Why? Because the time it takes to add these bits of complexity is done **before** play begins, as we prepare our character sheets. Just imagine if you had to look up the damage a weapon did each time you hit. Just imagine what play would be like if you had a GM with 8 orcs with different weapons and who had each orc deal damage by weapon. Any sort of realism -- weapon speed, reach, shield damage, weapon breakage -- that would add time **to play** is discarded. Heck, the old &quot;roll a die at the beginning of the round&quot; initiative is no longer used, and many of didn't mind this sort of &quot;realism&quot;.Indeed, in EQ RPG, weapons speeds **are** used. However, much of the additional work caused by them is done on the character sheet (extra attacks at lower BABs).Meanwhile, In CRPG's, where the computer does this cumbersome number crunching, we might see weapons speeds and reach (which, IMO, would modify AC or &quot;to hit&quot; rolls), so that players will think more about what weapons to wield, rather than the one they can use that does the most damage.Cedric.aka. Washu! ^O^</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ced1106, post: 515103, member: 7551"] [b]Re: Re: lament for weapon speed[/b] You bet! (: I think the trick of introducing complexity into combat is to introduce "realism" that minimizes time spent in combat. For example, we introduce the "realism" that a sword causes more damage than a dagger by playing with variable damage for different weapons. Why? Because the time it takes to add these bits of complexity is done **before** play begins, as we prepare our character sheets. Just imagine if you had to look up the damage a weapon did each time you hit. Just imagine what play would be like if you had a GM with 8 orcs with different weapons and who had each orc deal damage by weapon. Any sort of realism -- weapon speed, reach, shield damage, weapon breakage -- that would add time **to play** is discarded. Heck, the old "roll a die at the beginning of the round" initiative is no longer used, and many of didn't mind this sort of "realism". Indeed, in EQ RPG, weapons speeds **are** used. However, much of the additional work caused by them is done on the character sheet (extra attacks at lower BABs). Meanwhile, In CRPG's, where the computer does this cumbersome number crunching, we might see weapons speeds and reach (which, IMO, would modify AC or "to hit" rolls), so that players will think more about what weapons to wield, rather than the one they can use that does the most damage. Cedric. aka. Washu! ^O^ [/QUOTE]

Verification