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

[Frostmarrow]

The old trick, eh? Fix the opposition's posts!

 

[Ottergame]

This has been discussed to death. Weapon speeds are just another complication that 90% of groups in 2ed ed ignored with glee.

 

[thullgrim]

my suggestion is a feat that lets dagger wieldes move to the monk unarmed BaB table. Then you get dagger wielders getting multiple attacks at increased frequency (more attacks in a round) without messing with the init system or anything else in large a manner. I also don't think it would be terribly unbalanced. Another solution is a feat that gives a Flurry type attack to dagger wielders. ie. an extra attack at your highest BaB with a - penalty...

Thullgrim

 

[CRGreathouse]

Since I don't see it above, here's Sean Reynolds' rant on weapon speeds:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html

I'm not really sure what's meant by weapon speeds and what weapon speeds try to accomplish. If someone would explain that to me, that would be great.

Is it the ability to draw a weapon faster (making a dagger-wielder quick on suprise, but no more 'attacks' in the long run)? Is it the ability to make more attacks over a long time (say, 1 minute)? How does/should it interact with reach -- a bastard sword vs. a punching dagger, for example?

 

[Frostmarrow]

Without disrupting the whole 1st to 20th level game when it comes to speed factors perhaps the easiest thing to do is to make weapon size an initiative tie-breaker. That is, when several combattants have the same initiative, small (and finessed) weapons will strike before medium, and medium before large ones. This would increase the speed of small weapons 10% and medium ones 5%. Perhaps that is a solution that at least one whole gaming group could agree on.

[EDIT] Oh I'm sorry. That's no where near a 10% increase in speed. It's more like 0.5% and 0.25% speed increase. More, if you think that being faster than your mates count.[/EDIT]

 

[Janx]

The flaw in the argument that martial versus simple weapon types accounts for it is partly flawed.

Namely, weapons like ShortSwords versus LongSwords (or similar martial weapons).

If the crit ranges and weapon type is the same, but the damage is different, why would you buy the lower damage weapon.

Speeds are one proposal to "fix" that.

However, since init is rolled once at the beginning, it would only impact the first swing( well actually a faster weapon would basically help you get to be first to attack each round, until someone holds action).

That's not too complicated.

It is another number to have to deal with...

Janx

 

[Kilamar]

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

NO

Kilamar

 

[Plane Sailing]

I remember in Jan 02 Azlan came up with the idea which has been mentioned above... weapon speed not affecting initiative order but coming into play when multiple attacks are available. I don't know if he still posts, but I copied what he said back then

Given the way initiative, number of attacks per round, and reach work in 3E D&D, it seems we should not involve weapon speed with these particular game mechanics. However, weapon speed should still count for something! With all other things being equal, a combatant with a fast, balanced weapon should have some kind of advantage over a combatant with a slow, unbalanced weapon.

After much thinking, devising, and playtesting, here's the idea I finally came up with...

Each weapon should have a speed factor, based primarily on how quick, easy, and opportune it is to bring that weapon's focal point -- its "business end" -- into play. This considers such characteristics as the weapon's weight, length, balance, form, usage, etc.

With 3E D&D, weapon speed should not modify initiative rolls, so it does not affect attack order. (Thus it does not interfere with 3E D&D's cyclic combat rounds.) Nor should weapon speed affect the rules for weapons with reach. (A combatant with reach will still have a certain advantage over one without, even if the former's weapon is slower and less balanced than the latter's.)

However, weapon speed should come into play when a combatant is able to make multiple attacks per round; in which case, he applies his weapon's speed factor as a cumulative penalty to each additional attack after his first. (This, rather than the the flat -5 penalty, cumulative, that 3E D&D applies).

Consider the following weapons and their speed factors...

Shortsword, Size: Small, Damage: d6, Speed: -3.
Longsword, Size: Medium, Damage: d8, Speed: -4.
Bastardsword (2-handed), Size: Medium, Damage: d10, Speed: -4.
Greatsword (2-handed), Size: Large, Damage: d12, Speed: -5.

Hand Axe, Size: Small, Damage: d6, Speed: -4.
Battle Axe, Size: Medium, Damage: d8, Speed: -5.
Dwarven War Axe, Size: Medium, Damage: d10, Speed: -6.
Great Axe (2-handed), Size: Large, Damage: 2d6, Speed: -6.

Notes: Axes and swords of similar sizes are pretty much equal when it comes to reach and damage. But swords are better than axes when it comes to speed. This is due to 1.) a sword being a balanced weapon, and 2.) a sword's focal point -- i.e. its blade -- being available for 3/4 or more of the weapon's length, from either side. An axe, on the other hand, is a hefting, unbalanced weapon; most of its weight is at its end, where its focal point is available only for the final 1/4 of the weapon's length, and from only one side. In this way, swords are better -- quicker, easier, and more opportune -- than axes when it comes to making multiple attacks per round.

With these rules, if a 12th fighter with a total attack bonus of +16 was armed with a longsword (speed -4), the bonuses for his three attacks per round would be +16/+12/+8. If that same fighter was armed with a battle axe (speed -5), the bonuses for his attacks would be +16/+11/+6.

So, a weapon with a good speed factor doesn't give a combatant any additional attacks per round; not with the way combat rounds and numbers of attack per round work in 3E D&D. What a good weapon speed does is make it easier for a combatant to make successive multiple attacks -- but only if he's able to make multiple attacks per round, to begin with.

A poster called Gldm followed up with

Hmm, some of this has potential.
The things I hated about "weapon speed" is that each weapon had a different speed and you ran into weird things like people running past the end of the round because they had slow weapons etc.

I like Azlan's general idea of making it modify how much each successive attack goes down. I've got an idea or two to throw into the mix. Note this is just all coming off the top of my head from reading the posts, so bear with me if it's got some rough edges or I paint myself into a corner somewhere. I have't actually planned and tested this and am suddenly going "oh yeah we have rules for this over here" and pulling a sheet out of my notebook on this one.


Instead of having the speed factor based on educated guesses, let's make it based on size category.
Weapons of your size category wielded in one hand, i.e. human wielding longsword are the base case. Let's call this -5, as that's also the normal case.

Now, let's expand from there. How about, for each size category smaller a weapon is than you, it's +1 relative to the base, and for each size category it is larger than you, it's -1 relative to the base.

So...

dagger (tiny) = -3
shortsword (small) = -4
longsword (medium) = -5
greatsword (large) = -6

This also seems to fit nicely that a monk's reduced to hit penalty with just his fists (probably considered 2 size categories smaller) is -3 in the DMG as per unarmed attack bonus.

The change in the way monks attacks is figured in 3.5e invalidates some of the latter reasoning from a 3.5e point of view, but the general arguments made back then are quite interesting.

Cheers

 

[Henry]

Sweet! Being the first time I've seen that, I like it, and think it shows potential.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

You really don't want to bring back speed factors in 3rd Edition. At least, not as a solitary rule.

Bringing back speed factors is essentially the first step in moving back to a blow by blow version of combat. You are (essentially) strippping away the cloud of uncertianty as to what a person is doing moment to moment during the combat round. How do we know that the dagger wielder isn't dancing around, slashing and using his better speed to finally get that one successful strike in? Well, with weapon speeds we're saying that since the dagger is faster to use, it should go first. Before there was no real concept of 'first' just the order of action resolution. It's assumed that everyone's moving throughout the round.

However, if you want to go into a blow by blow accounting of combat, here are some things you need to take into account:

Range: Range is king. This is why when we sparred, the experts got the short swords, and the novices got the longer ones. A fencer will most likely thrust a dagger user ni the lung, and suffer a cut to the underside of his arm. Having a superior range allows you to control the pacing of combat unless your opponent is able to close (hard to do with out getting hurt).

Refresh speed: A varient of initiative modifiers. This is how long it takes you to get ready for another strike after the first. More skilled wielders have a lower refresh speed. This is the speed modifier you'd use the round after an attack. You may wish to allow players to reduce the delay from refresh speeds in exchange for less damage.

Impact: How much splatter is there when an attack hits? Weapons with high impact (baseball bats, maces, and axes) tend to be weighted heavily towards the end (having a higher refresh speed) and are hard as **** to block. This helps in overcoming things like shields, raised guards, and bones in the way of meaty bits.

Control: How able are you to make the weapon swing and dance around as you please? Light swords and spears (especially the chinese techniques) have a lot of this. How much can you 'Jet Li'ify the fight scene? This translates to an added defense bonus, and faster second attacks after a failed attack. An example of a high control but low refresh speed would be any light sword that relies on the wielder pulling the edge along their opponent to make a critically deep cut.

Mobility: Mostly a factor of high impact weapons, low mobility weapons are those that it's hard to move well with (or in certian directions). These weapons usually use a technique that has limited mobility. Other times they're simply heavyier weapons that require planted feet. Consider a baseball bat.

Ease of use: Some weapons are just easier to use. Maces are a good example of something that almost anyone can pick up and swing.
Draw time: How long does it take to get that initial attack ready. How ackward is it to get into the basic battle stance?​

Additionally, you might want to consider switching from the straight HP system to something more suited to that style of combat. Low HP, more swinging, overbearing, feinting and such.

Actually, that might be a fun system to put together. Now, if we could just take into account combat momentum...

Well, hope that helped.