Idea for weapons and iterative attacks

[Kerrick]

I was talking to a friend about the changes in 4E, and I mentioned that speed factor might be coming back. He thought it was a good idea - that someone using, for instance, a dagger should be able to attack faster than someone using a greatsword. I realized later, though, that even if the dagger-wielder can attack faster, the greatsword-wielder still gets the same number of attacks (assuming they're two fighters of equal level). Try swinging a six-foot-long piece of steel around - it's hard. I guarantee you won't be able to do it four times in six seconds.

So I came up with this rule. Now mind you I just thought it up last night, so it's not very refined, but it's fairly simple:

A weapon's size limits how many attacks you can make with it in a round.

So:

Two-handed weapons have a maximum of two attacks per round;

One-handed weapons have a maximum of three attacks per round;

And light weapons have a maximum of four attacks per round.

Bows are treated as one-handed weapons - three attacks/round. Crossbows are unaffected; slings are treated as light weapons. Thrown weapons are treated as light (daggers, shuriken, etc.) or one-handed weapons (throwing axes) as appropriate.

The only part of this system that gets complicated is double weapons and two-weapon fighting.

Double weapons are treated as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon, subject to the rule for two-weapon fighting (see below).

Now personally, I think that a) the TWF feats should've been spaced out a bit more (see below); b) you shouldn't get a 4th attack with the offhand; and c) the number of attacks you can make with the offhand is always less than the main hand.

So with this in mind, if you're using a longsword/short sword combo, you would get three attacks/round with the main weapon, and up to two attacks/round with the secondary.


How does this play out in damage potential? Well... I totalled up the average damage for each weapon type:

Light weapons: 2.6 damage/attack average, or 10.4 points/round.

One-handed weapons: 3.8 damage/attack average, or 11.4 points/round.

Two-handed weapons: 5.2 damage/attack average, or 10.4 points/round.

As you can see, all of them are more or less equal, on average. The greatsword wielder will likely do quite a bit more damage from high Strength and Power Attack; the longsword wielder will do a little more from Strength and/or Weapon Specialization; the short sword wielder will likely be using Weapon Finesse (so no bonus damage), but will likely have sneak attack. The big advantage, though, is that the greatsword-wielding barbarian won't be chopping through the BBEG in 2-3 rounds on his own, and he won't be overshadowing everyone else (like the party fighter) in terms of damage potential.

Note: This has NO effect on your attack bonus. If you're a Ftr 20 using a greatsword, you'll get two attacks at +20/+15. If you switch to a longsword, you'll get three at +20/+15/+10. All this does is limit the number of attacks you can make.


Now, under this system, the TWF feats would remain largely unchanged except for the prereqs:

TWF: Dex 15, BAB +5

Improved TWF: Dex 17, BAB +15

Greater TWF: Dex 19, BAB +23 (if you use the standard progression into epic, change this to +25)

Perfect TWF: no longer a feat. The feat's badly worded anyway - it says you get as many attacks with the offhand as you do with the main hand, so unless you're a fighter with 4 attacks, you'd be better off not taking it.

 

[BRP2]

I've also considered something like this, however I've also been considering "speed" and "type of attack"(like damage or to hit bonus) come in another form and have the attack roll represent how effective that person fights against someone for those 6 seconds. However, I'm getting a bit off topic...



How about Haste? +1 attack? +50% attack, rounded down?

 

[Arkhandus]

The Everquest D20 Player's Handbook has this kind of weapon speed rule factored in to Base Attack Bonus.

Weapons have a delay, ranging from 4 to 6 (from 'quick' to 'slow'), and a delay of 3 can be gained through a feat (double attack) when using a delay-2 weapon or through some Haste effects, while a delay of 2 can be gained through a combination of both. A delay of 7 can be incurred by Slow effects. A delay of 5 is the standard weapon speed, which gives the usual BAB/iterative attack sequence (iteratives at +6/+1 etc.).

The delay is how many points of BAB above +1 it takes to grant an iterative attack. So at delay 4 you get iteratives at +5/+1, +9/+5/+1, etc. At delay 3 you get them at +4/+1, +7/+4/+1, +10/+7/+4/+1, etc. At delay 2 they'd be at +3/+1, +5/+3/+1, +7/+5/+3/+1, etc. At delay 6 it would be at +7/+1, +13/+7/+1, etc. At delay 7 it would be at +8/+1, +15/+8/+1, etc. The EQ D20 rules allow up to 5 attacks per round from BAB at maximum (rather than 4 max), and EQ classes go up to level 30.

 

[BRP2]

The Everquest D20 Player's Handbook has this kind of weapon speed rule factored in to Base Attack Bonus.

Weapons have a delay, ranging from 4 to 6 (from 'quick' to 'slow'), and a delay of 3 can be gained through a feat (double attack) when using a delay-2 weapon or through some Haste effects, while a delay of 2 can be gained through a combination of both. A delay of 7 can be incurred by Slow effects. A delay of 5 is the standard weapon speed, which gives the usual BAB/iterative attack sequence (iteratives at +6/+1 etc.).

The delay is how many points of BAB above +1 it takes to grant an iterative attack. So at delay 4 you get iteratives at +5/+1, +9/+5/+1, etc. At delay 3 you get them at +4/+1, +7/+4/+1, +10/+7/+4/+1, etc. At delay 2 they'd be at +3/+1, +5/+3/+1, +7/+5/+3/+1, etc. At delay 6 it would be at +7/+1, +13/+7/+1, etc. At delay 7 it would be at +8/+1, +15/+8/+1, etc. The EQ D20 rules allow up to 5 attacks per round from BAB at maximum (rather than 4 max), and EQ classes go up to level 30.

How does this fair? Balanced? Complex? Simple?

 

[Arkhandus]

I think it's reasonably fair, and not complex.

Each weapon is listed as having a speed, such as 'quick', which corresponds to a particular delay (4 for Quick); just before the weapons list is a page with the list of BAB progressions by weapon speed/delay; a table for how many attacks you make and at what BAB when using a Delay 2 weapon, a table next to that for Delay 3 weapons, a table besides that for Delay 4 weapons, and then the tables for Delay of 5, 6, and 7 beneath that. It lists BAB through +0 to +30.

It doesn't really help a low-level character wielding a dagger or rapier, for instance (both Quick weapons), nor hurt a low-level character wielding a greataxe or greatsword (both Slow weapons). But once you get to around 5th level it'll kick in; a rapier-wielding Warrior would be making 2 attacks with a full-attack action at 5th-level, while the longsword-wielder would have to wait until 6th to do that, and the greatsword-wielder would have to wait until 7th (though the longsword and greatsword would be doing a bit more damage per hit on average).

Overall, it makes faster weapons advantageous at some levels, but of course the extra iterative attack only helps on full-attack actions and only when the target's AC is low enough that it has a chance of hitting. For a spring-attacker the slower, more damaging weapons are better. Kind of odd that way. The faster weapons, at other levels, are only marginally more accurate with iterative attacks. I'm not sure if it's well-balanced, but it is at least close. The more damaging weapons get one less and slightly-less-accurate iterative attacks at some levels, but the greater damage they deal may make up for it since iteratives are less likely to hit.

 

[Kerrick]

Sorry, folks, forgot about this thread.

How about Haste? +1 attack? +50% attack, rounded down?

Eeh.. I hadn't even thought of that. I'd probably just say +1 attack, at the next lower BAB, instead of the highest BAB. So a Ftr 18 wielding a longsword gets +18/+13/+8/+5; if he were using a short sword it'd be +18/+13/+8/+5/+0. Thereby, haste doesn't really benefit the light weapon wielders so much as the heavy weapon wielders. And if you look at it realistically, that sounds about right - if you're using a light weapon like a dagger, and making 5 attacks in 6 seconds, it's going to be a little wild and inaccurate.

The Everquest D20 Player's Handbook has this kind of weapon speed rule factored in to Base Attack Bonus.

Interesting. It's basically the same approach I took, just from a different direction.

 

[Winterthorn]

A question of speed vs probability

I was thinking about this the other day... I am concerned about confusing weapon speed with the probability to hit. Initially I liked what they did in EQ, but now I've had a second thought: why would speed/delay affect one's BAB? Why would "speed" affect "probability" of successive attacks? Just because a weapon is light and allows one to strike more often, does that mean one strikes with a better chance to hit too?

If our fighter, Redgar, has a BAB of +12, I can see him trying to strike more frequently with a dagger than a sword, but I find it hard to imagine Redgar find's it easier to hit (or is more effective) with a dagger than a sword... Lots of small hits with a dagger vs a few big hits with a sword? Something in the game mechanics has to explain why Redgar is more likely to use a sword vs a dagger - is the the damage difference enough justification?

I haven't sorted my thoughts out on this yet, but I'm wondering if other folks had the same sort of questions.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Try swinging a six-foot-long piece of steel around - it's hard. I guarantee you won't be able to do it four times in six seconds.

Well, maybe you can't attack with a great sword 4 times in 6 seconds, but I can and I'm almost certain that Umbran and the other SCAdians and ex-SCAdians on this board can as well.

In addition, I'll get an attack of opportunity against your dagger. And unless you're also wielding a tower shield I'll probably score a critical hit on you as well.

Which reminds me of a story…

One time while I was watching a match at an SCA tourney I saw a fascinating maneuver. Sir Bardolph Windlauffer was wielding a great sword and his opponent sword and shield. The S&S combatant was in full defensive mode blocking Bardolph left and right with his shield but failing miserably at attacking. So Bardolph took a step back and raised his greatsword straight up so that the pommel was at chin level. The S & S combatant took this as an opening in Sir Bardolph's defence, took a step forward and swung at his mid-section. Sir Bardolph however was faster and brought the greatsword crashing down upon the S & S combatant's helm before the sword could make contact with the chest.

…

Which leads me to my points (pun intended):

Point One is that speed is not the only factor in deciding who strikes first.

Point Two is that iterative attacks are a function of skill (combination attacks) moreso than weapon speed

Point Three is that someone who opens up their defence for a great swing is either a fool (who will draw an attack of opportunity) or wants you to think he's a fool.

 

[Felnar]

here's an essay/rant on the subject by Sean Reynolds

 

[comrade raoul]

I haven't sorted my thoughts out on this yet, but I'm wondering if other folks had the same sort of questions.

Yes--that's exactly right!

I'm pretty confident if you did some math you'd get precisely this result. A longsword deals 2 points of average damage over a dagger--that's not enough, at high levels, to justify the loss of accuracy (to say nothing of the possibility of additional attacks), as well as the other benefits of wielding a light weapon.