Bringing back weapon speed!

[Coredump]

Here we go....

My statement was not made out of arrogance, it was made out of experience. You're the one being arrogant, assuming most likely that because I play D&D I must have no real knowledge of anything. You need to come to the real world, man.

The arrogance is that you assume that *your* experience qualifies you to 'end the argument'. I never questioned your experience, just the conclusions that you have drawn from them. I never assumed you had no real knowledge, you are being defensive. I just assumed that maybe, just maybe, others may have had a different experience; or a similar experience, yet a different conclusion. Your arrogance is in totally being blind to the other possiblities.

What YOU try to pass off as weapon speed is actually a strength issue, not a weapon speed issue.

Again, you are adding variables into the equation. First it was 'being a master' and now it is 'being stronger'. Ignore all the other variables. **which weapon is faster, easier to move, quicker to attack with** THAT is the point. Yes, being a master will change things, being stronger will change things, but we are discussing an inherrent characteristic of the weapon.

Pick someone with a 12 str, and someone with a 16 str. You state that the 16str will be just as fast with a GS as the 12str with a dirk. Fine. But that ignores the inherrent speed of the weapon. Compare the 12 str with the dirk, compared to the 12str with the GS. Now compare the 16str with the dirk vs. the 16str with the GS. The results will not be the same. You insist on bringing outside conditions into a discussion about inherrent characteristics.

Weapon speed as a game mechanic, however, is something that happened REGARDLESS of weapon mastery, which is how it is so easily identifiable as an unrealistic and problematic mechanic.

Huh? no one has proposed a system yet. You are now making assumptions. You could very easily implement weapon speed, and still take expertise into account. There are a number of variables that influence how quickly you can move/attack with a weapon, but at least some of that is inherrent to the weapon itself.


To make an analogy, the Weapon Speed of the weapon is similar to the CR of a monster (In the UK system) It is inherrent to the weapon/monster. Now, there may also be 'situational modifiers' that effect these; such as strength, level, expertise, feats, etc. But to say that all weapons are the same is similar to saying all monsters are the same.

"I saw a master fighter kill that troll in one hit, and then I saw him kill an orc in one hit. See, all the monsters are the same."

In fact, for a figher of high enough level, killing a troll or an orc is probably the same, that does not make the monsters inherrently the same.

.

 

[Coredump]

oops, missed some

I guarantee a master greatsword wielder will be just as "fast" as a master dagger wielder

Despite your offer to 'guarantee' this, I disagree. a dagger is just much faster, it is lighter, can be held in one hand, has no real momentum, can be flipped around for various strikes, etc. A GS master may be just as *effective*, but he will not be as fast. He is not *supposed* to be, he did not pick his weapon based on speed, he picked it for range, defense, power.

Then again, it's also not just about speed, but rather technique. The greatsword wielder can strike as fast as the dagger wielder, but he does it differently to compensate for weapon weight.

Partial agreement. He will not be as fast, but he will compensate for the weight, and may be just as effective. (probably moreso) But assuming both are in range of each other, and you say GO. the dagger will hit 3 times before the GS can hit three times. Assuming the 'situational modifiers' are equal.

And the arrogance returns...

Oh, and yes, any real weapon master would support what I'm saying here.

Okay, so please elaborate on what/whom you would consider a 'real' weapons master? Out of curiousity, just how many of them have you actually asked about this? If you are willing to give me their names, I would be willing to email them myself.
And the mere concept that all 'real' masters would agree with you is ludicrous; you probably couldn't get them to agree on what day it was.

You need to drop your damn attitude or just keep your mouth shut.

you mean, I better start agreeing with you? Only 'attitude' I think I have displayed is in calling you for your arrogance and pompous statements. I have stated my case without any attitude; you just never like being disagreed with, another sign of arrogance.

.

 

[Anubis]

Ya' know, for once in my life, I'm not gonna get into a fight just because someone is being an . Coredump, I have already stated my case in full. There is nothing left to explain. You simply need to learn that weapon speed is not about "speed" speed as much as it is about "effective" speed. For instance, in your little scenario with the dagger and the greatsword, I can assure you the dagger will not land three blows to the greatsword's one. In fact, if they are both equal in their weapons, neither will likely land a blow on the other.

I'm gonna stop now, because you're obviously hopeless. You came here trying to pick a fight and it simply won't work. As such I will no longer from this point forward even acknowledge anything you say until you drop the attitude and perhaps even give an apology.

 

[Coredump]

It is interesting that you have completely opposite claims for weapons and creatures. You emphatically claim that weapon speed is all relative, and can only be interpreted with other factores involved, nothing can be inherrent; yet you claim the exact opposite for creatures and CR, specifically that CR is completely inherrent, and should be calculated with disregard to any other factors.

Further, it is interesting that when you offer multiple 'explanations' and I systematically show how they do not apply, you decide that my 'attitude' is the problem, and refuse to address the issues. Not that you have ever bothered to show where my 'attitude' has impacted my assertions. At least I gave clear examples of your arrogance. You simply make a claim, and assume that is enough to get you off the hook of having to back up what you state as 'fact'.

OTOH, if you *really* want to claim, here in public, that a GS fighter and dagger fighter, standing in range, will not even hit each other..... well, I am willing to let that stand for your credibility all by itself.

As for reading comprehension: I never made the claim of 3:1 for the GS:dagger fight. You should pay more attention before trying to blow someone off. I made very detailed assertions, and you have chosen to disregard them, I spent time and energy disputing your claims, and you decided to disregard them. Fine, but if you are going to abandon your position, don't make excuses about my attitude.

Attitude; yes, my initial post was directed pretty pointedly right at you. But re-read that post, (and several since) you have made far reaching claims, as if you are the only one with enough knowledge to have "The Answer"; The arrogance in claiming that *your* opinion would be the end of the discussion was amazing. But it was not the only case of arrogance. Of course, I documented those, you just cast random dispersions and run.

I wish Dave would have come back and responded, it would have been interesting to hear what he had to say.

.

 

[Coredump]

Oh, BTW

You simply need to learn that weapon speed is not about "speed" speed as much as it is about "effective" speed.

First, more arrogance, stating what I "need to learn". As if you know what I do and do not already know. Which is really funny, since:
I have never stated otherwise; in fact, I have already 'learned' that a long long time ago--despite your claims (again, you really need to read what I wrote before blowing it off...) All I have said was that the inherrent qualities of a weapon can be a factor in its "effective" speed. You, however, keep claiming that it has no effect whatsoever.
The problem seems to be that your arrogance makes it difficult for you to see anothers stance. From what I can tell from dealing with you; you are always right, so why bother trying to understand anothers point. Sorry if that is not accurate, but I have seen evidence in a few threads now. Actually, it seems in this case, the main mistake you made, was assuming that you knew exactly how others intended on using 'weapon speed' as a mechanic. You never asked, or offered opinions regarding the mechanic. Just made your claims....

.

 

[Aaron2]

Experiment

Ok, I just did an test in my backyard.

I'm standing about four feet from a post. First I used a longsword* (what D&D calls a bastard sword). I could hit the post with force about two times a second. Next, I used an arming sword (a D&D longsword); I could only make about one forceful strike per second. Finally, I used a dagger (actually a six inch stick). With this I could strike slightly slower than 1 hit per second.

When using the bastard sword, I could strike opposite sides of the post just by moving my hands about 8". With the longsword, I had to move my entire forearm up about two feet back and forth. Finally, with the dagger, I had to move my entire arm and shoulder almost all three feet. To hit faster with the dagger, I had to step within arms length of the post (for me, about 2 1/2 feet). This close in, I could stab about 5 to 6 times a second but not with much force.

Take that as you wish.


Aaron

*Not an actual sword, but a waster...

http://www.woodenswords.com/WMA/index.htm

Every gamer should buy a couple of these and run around their backyards smacking things.

 

[Anubis]

Re: Experiment

Ok, I just did an test in my backyard.

I'm standing about four feet from a post. First I used a longsword* (what D&D calls a bastard sword). I could hit the post with force about two times a second. Next, I used an arming sword (a D&D longsword); I could only make about one forceful strike per second. Finally, I used a dagger (actually a six inch stick). With this I could strike slightly slower than 1 hit per second.

When using the bastard sword, I could strike opposite sides of the post just by moving my hands about 8". With the longsword, I had to move my entire forearm up about two feet back and forth. Finally, with the dagger, I had to move my entire arm and shoulder almost all three feet. To hit faster with the dagger, I had to step within arms length of the post (for me, about 2 1/2 feet). This close in, I could stab about 5 to 6 times a second but not with much force.

Take that as you wish.


Aaron

*Not an actual sword, but a waster...

http://www.woodenswords.com/WMA/index.htm

Every gamer should buy a couple of these and run around their backyards smacking things.

That is actually a very good experiment. It shows exactly how little the weapon actually matters when it comes to "speed". If the weapon itself had an inherent speed, you would have struck at the same rate regardless of positioning. The fact that the force behind the blows and the rate of attack changes with your positioning shows that technique is the true "speed" factor.

Not that the experiment is flawless, but it is a good reference point.

 

[Anubis]

Re: Experiment

Ok, I just did an test in my backyard.

I'm standing about four feet from a post. First I used a longsword* (what D&D calls a bastard sword). I could hit the post with force about two times a second. Next, I used an arming sword (a D&D longsword); I could only make about one forceful strike per second. Finally, I used a dagger (actually a six inch stick). With this I could strike slightly slower than 1 hit per second.

When using the bastard sword, I could strike opposite sides of the post just by moving my hands about 8". With the longsword, I had to move my entire forearm up about two feet back and forth. Finally, with the dagger, I had to move my entire arm and shoulder almost all three feet. To hit faster with the dagger, I had to step within arms length of the post (for me, about 2 1/2 feet). This close in, I could stab about 5 to 6 times a second but not with much force.

Take that as you wish.


Aaron

*Not an actual sword, but a waster...

http://www.woodenswords.com/WMA/index.htm

Every gamer should buy a couple of these and run around their backyards smacking things.

That is actually a very good experiment. It shows exactly how little the weapon actually matters when it comes to "speed". If the weapon itself had an inherent speed, you would have struck at the same rate regardless of positioning. The fact that the force behind the blows and the rate of attack changes with your positioning shows that technique is the true "speed" factor.

Not that the experiment is flawless, but it is a good reference point.

 

[Aaron2]

Hmmm, I didn't want all conversation to cease. I'm always interested in new ways to more accurately reflect the difference among the various weapons and fighting styles.


Aaron

 

[Victim]

I am sure this has been brought up in the past, but has anyone come-up with a viable system of re-adding weapon speed as a factor in initiative?

It always frustrates me when a lumbering Ogre can move 30 feet and swing a great axe faster than my rogue can toss a throwing dagger. I know that in most cases this should not happen, but even with an init bonus of +10, it is not very hard for the DM to roll higher.

The system I imagine would be based on the size of the weapon that is readied. Example: a medium size weapon does not modify your initiative. For each step larger, you get –2, and for each step smaller, you get +2.

I see two problems with this, but I think that they can be worked out:

Spells: What is their initiative? Does it add or subtract? My first thought would be no change.

Changing weapons in combat: Since init. is only rolled once, if you change your weapon, you would still have the faster init. Many people feel that after the first round it no longer matters, but I highly disagree with that. I propose that any change of weapon would re-adjust your init as if you rolled it with that weapon.

Any thoughts on this, or alternates as to what you have used?

Belgarath the Ancient One

Why is the problem the lack of weapon speed? Wouldn't it be more egregious if the ogre charged from 30 ft away and stabbed with a 2 inch pen knife (ie, no reach at all) before you threw the dagger?

In a turn based system like DnD, characters complete their entire move at once. This facet of the system is responsible for the apparent problem in original poster's argument.