Is it just me or do any of you think Speed Factor on weapons should be brought back?

[Calico_Jack73]

While participating in a discussion on whether the Greatsword is the "end-all be-all" weapon it struck me that in 3E and 3.5E there really isn't any reason not to use the biggest, baddest, most damage dealing weapons. Besides character flair and in-game ease of concealability there is absolutely NO reason to use the lowly dagger. Then it struck me, Speed Factors need to be brought back. In 2E the reason you'd use a dagger is because it was the fastest weapon out there. You'd typically beat a Greatsword or Halberd wielder to the attack almost every time irregardless of what the die rolls were. Typically there was no way that a Greatsword wielder would get his weapon into play before a wizard managed to get a spell off but a dagger was the surest bet to interrupt a spell. Some people say that it overly complicates initiative but come on... everyone has the initiative bonuses worked out in advance of the game. You could add a box by each weapon on the character sheet where you'd put your initiative total for each weapon. Bringing back weapon speed would breath new life into the lesser used, low-damage dealing weapons. Anyone agree?

 

[Belen]

Actually, that might not be so bad. However, it would be easier to develop a mechanic where three classes of weapons exist: Light, Medium, Heavy.

Light weapons grant a +2 bonus to init.
Medium weapons grant a +0 bonus to init.
Heavy weapons grant a -2 bonus to init.

That would seem to offset the lack of damage that a light weapon deals and the massive damage that heavy two-hand type weapons deal.

Speed factors were clunky, but a simple mechanic would be nice.

 

[Li Shenron]

If you give different weapons a modifier to Initiative to represent the speed factor, you need to use the variant to roll initiative every round IMHO.

Anyway I think that on the overall it doesn't match well on how turns work in 3ed, but I am not familiar with AD&D rules... did you use to have 1 single action per round or did you already have the attack+move worth of action?

However, the biggest reason not to use the big weapon is lack of proficiency of course. Martial weapons are supposed to be better than simple weapons, and that gives an edge to the combat-oriented classes. Also, martial weapons are "martial" = used by army exactly because they are better, otherwise there would have been also dagger- or club- armed armies (which there could be occasionally if they have a problem of funds ).

 

[Henry]

I would say no, because of two reasons:

1) Speed Factors never made sense, because Zweihanders were not cumbersome weapons in history; they were used a bit like claymores, a bit like spears, and sometimes like quarterstaves, if you've seen a proficient user use one. Speed means nothing if you don't have the reach - and a Two-handed sword is reach personified.

2) The longsword was the weapon of choice in AD&D, bar none. highest damage for the lowest speed factor - it was even faster than the scimitar!

Gary's 1E initiative system made the most sense compared to the 2E way of doing things, because reach was factored in, but to me the full system was overly complex to foster fast play.

Also, moved to house rules.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

1) Speed Factors never made sense, because Zweihanders were not cumbersome weapons in history; they were used a bit like claymores, a bit like spears, and sometimes like quarterstaves, if you've seen a proficient user use one. Speed means nothing if you don't have the reach - and a Two-handed sword is reach personified.

Gotta disagree with you there as I've whipped around a "Long Sword" (actually a Sudanese sword but it has the same balance i.e. made for slashing). If you and I were at engagement range with sheathed weapons and I were armed with a dagger, you with a Long Sword I'd have my dagger in your gut before you had a chance to unsheath your sword. GURPS reflected the speed issue by requiring someone to "Ready" a heavy weapon for one round before using it (Gurps uses 1 second rounds). You ask a member of the US Fencing team if speed matters and they'll tell you that it definitely does.

It has everything to do with the swing. Piercing weapons tend to be faster because no swing is involved, just a thrust which is a much smaller movement. Think of a professional golfer. Do you think he could get much distance without a decent swing? Nope and that is the same reason slashing weapons should have a high speed factor. The swing and the follow through is what creates the damage. The follow through is what takes your weapon out of position to attack. Most certainly piercing weapons like rapiers and daggers should have low speed factors because of their recovery time which is basically the same as throwing a punch.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Two other suggestions:

1) Iterative attacks at different rates: Small weapons should be +5/+1, medium weapons +6/+1 and large weapons +7/+1. You get the idea. I think it's used in Everquest.

2) Large weapons make you large on the battle mat. If you can't fit with your big weapon (you enter a 5' wide corridor for instance) you have to squeeze and get a -2 on attacks and damage (or whatever it is squeeze penalises). Allies might make you squeeze too.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I think a simplified version would work - maybe 0 for light martial weapons; -2 for light simple weapons & medium martial; -4 for medium simple and heavy martial; and -6 for heavy simple weapons. Exotic weapons are taken on a case-by-case basis.


Right now, there is no incentive, other than role-playing reasons, for NOT taking a greatsword if you are a human or elven fighter. You have to burn a feat to do weapon finesse and there are no advantages in a smaller/lighter weapon otherwise.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I've still got my 2E books which have equivalents to pretty much every weapon in 3E so I may just use that as a guide. Of course if I REALLY wanted to get detailed I could go back to 1E. Certain weapons gave you bonuses to hit against certain armor types and penalties against others. I believe bashing weapons were great against chain mail and other armors that didn't provide a "protective shell" but were less effective against Plate and other shell based armors.

Oh, and to ward off a coming argument. Yes, I know Claymores can be used as a piercing weapon, almost any sword can but as written up in the PHB the Greatsword is a Slashing weapon.

It's kind of funny, in 2E AD&D it didn't make sense to consider weapon speeds because it used 1 minute rounds. In 3E it does make sense since the round has been dropped to 6 seconds but they didn't include it. Go figure... :\

 

[Henry]

Gotta disagree with you there as I've whipped around a "Long Sword" (actually a Sudanese sword but it has the same balance i.e. made for slashing). If you and I were at engagement range with sheathed weapons and I were armed with a dagger, you with a Long Sword I'd have my dagger in your gut before you had a chance to unsheath your sword. GURPS reflected the speed issue by requiring someone to "Ready" a heavy weapon for one round before using it (Gurps uses 1 second rounds). You ask a member of the US Fencing team if speed matters and they'll tell you that it definitely does.

The Two-handers I've seen were made for slashing, piercing, AND bashing. Usually the end third of the blade is sharpened, both for using as a spear-like weapon, and for hacking the heads off of polearms. The bottom two-thirds was left relatively dull for both grip (usually with glove) and for using in a clublike manner. Even the guard and grip were used in some sword techniques. It wasn't a large clumsy slashing weapon, it is a large weapon that, when ready is only marginally slower than a dagger wielder. Slower, yes, but not in the huge disparity that 2nd edition claims.

Also, being "ready" should have nothing to do with weapon speed in combat. You don't have to draw the weapon each time it's used. The speed to recover is balanced by the reach over a dager weilder. If a user had one strapped to his back, limbered up, sure, the dagger weilder would have a dozen strikes in him. But the dagger weilder would need to be skilled to get within range of a two-hander weilder or risk getting stabbed (not slashed) with the point. The en guarde position of a two-hander is not dissimilar to a short spear.

And speed would matter to a fencer because fencing weapons are still comparable. Rapiers deliver quicker, deeper strikes, but don't favor powerful strikes like a saber would - but I have no qualms with saying a rapier is faster than a saber either. Also, a Rapier DOES have reach over a saber, from the ones I've seen.

How would you compensate for reach in speed factor anyway? It's certainly not a nonissue, because the two-handed wielder will always get the first strike in. If you did anything, I'd link weapon speed somehow not to who struck first, but the number of attacks in a round that you would get. The fastest Zweihander wielder will still only get one thrust in for every two or three of a skilled dagger wielder.

 

[Henry]

Darnit, I hit the wrong button above and edited instead of quoted your reply. I think I've fixed it back, now, though. Sorry 'bout that.