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

[Frostmarrow]

I'm officially impressed, Thought Bubble, but no - it didn't help.

Right, so I've been thinking about the iterative attacks. -What Everquest refers to as Weapon Delay. First we must pretend to agree on a couple of points:

* The greatsword is the best weapon there is. All characters who can should use greatsword to the exclusion of all else.

* A PC fighter should be a master of the greatsword at high levels.

Now if we say that the Weapon Delay is 6 for a greatsword we effectively nerf all those 20th level fighter-types with greatsword. That's not good since that would put the entire CR-system out of whack.

* Sometimes players don't go with the greatsword for flavor reasons. For this they are penalised with lower damage output.

This means that if any changes should be made it's the rest of the weapons that need to become better. Not the greatsword that needs to become worse. Ergo, greatsword has a Weapon Delay of 5. Other weapons should have lower weapon delays than that.

This won't unbalance things in the same way, as it can be argued that if the greatsword is so much better anyway, people in the world would know about this and only greatswords would be used. At least by the NPCs. Cityguards, dwarves, rogues, harlots. They would all use greatswords. So, if the rest of the weapons become a little bit better it will only bring (or more explain the) versimillitude to the choice of weapons.

 

[Grayhawk]

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

I remeber seeing this before, and while it does have some appeal, there are a couple of reasons as to why I wouldn't use it.

With that system someone using a dagger would get 7 attacks at BAB +19 vs a greatsword wielder's 4 at BAB +19. If you add greater weapon specialization, the dagger wielder deals 45.5 HP on average if all attacks hit vs the 44 HP of the greatsword wielder. When you also factor in bonuses from strenght, magical weapons (plusses and energy damage, etc), the dagger wielder will be leaving the greatsword wielder in the dust.

(Obviously, if this is the goal of the change, it works to that end...)

Also, while it seems pretty simple in theory, I can see it getting complicated in play when you pick up a new weapon, when you're dual wielding weapons of different sizes, etc.

While I happily used speed factors in 1st and 2nd ed. AD&D, I agree with Sean K. Reynolds on why it shouldn't be implemented in 3e.

Slightly off topic, I'm doing something else to make daggers more appealing to two-weapon fighters, by having them lessen the attack roll penalty by 1 when used for two-weapon fighting. This gives you a reason to be wielding a dagger in your off hand instead of a shortsword, and someone dual wielding daggers can get their penalties reduced to -1 with each hand.

 

[Coredump]

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.

Before I disagree, what is 'engagement' range? If we are standing next to each other at a bar having a drink, sure you win. But if I turn a corner, and you are still 15 feet away... sorry. My sword is out, and you are dead.
Further, under normal situations, why is my sword away at all?
Let me ask you this... if we are standing 15' apart, weapons drawn, me with a longsword, you with a dagger, who do you think will get the first attack?

You ask a member of the US Fencing team if speed matters and they'll tell you that it definitely does.

Um... no kidding. Speed always matters. But try this. You get an 18" stick, and have a friend get a 6 foot stick. See who hits first. I would bet you $50 that I could hit you at least *twice* with the 'greatsword' before your 'dagger' threatened me.

It has everything to do with the swing.

Most fights are more about range than speed

Piercing weapons tend to be faster because no swing is involved, just a thrust which is a much smaller movement.

You keep missing the piont. The question is not who is faster, but who gets to cause damage first. And while the initial thrust may be 'faster', it tends to leave one more vulnerable *and* is harder to recover from than a swing.

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.

No, it is why anyone that swings a sword like a baseball bat or golf club will quickly die

The swing and the follow through is what creates the damage. The follow through is what takes your weapon out of position to attack.

I think this is the crux of your problem. You keep thinking of a sword swing as a baseball swing. "follow-through" does not have to be so dramatic. It is *much* more controlled than that. (that and you keep ignoring range...)

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.

Sorry, but your body mechanics are way off. To throw a sword blow, you basically twist your body. By twising to the left, you are also 'cocking' your body to twist to the right for another blow.
Thrusting is forward. *before* you can thrust again, you need to pull back and reset. Commited thrusts, while quick, and deadly; are inherrently slower to recover from.


*PLUS*
You ignore the advantage of range. (as covered)
You ignore the advantage of parry/block.
If I have a greatsword, against your rapier, you are dead meat. I can parry your sword with my *hand*. You can't even parry with your sword. I have fenced with a foil against an epee... that sucked. My parry's had to be HUGE to get the epee off line. (the damn foil would just bend otherwise.)
You ignore the advantage of weight
Not only can I attack *through* your weapon, but your shield isn't as useful either. (More so for axes and such)

 

[CRGreathouse]

First we must pretend to agree on a couple of points:

* The greatsword is the best weapon there is. All characters who can should use greatsword to the exclusion of all else.

* A PC fighter should be a master of the greatsword at high levels.

I really just don't see these, and as a result your weapon speed proposal. Greatswords don't do that much more damage than comparable weapons, and don't have any of the special functions that most other weapons have (reach, good disarm, set against a charge, double damage while charging, etc.). While greatswords see combat in my game, fighters (who can afford the feats) generally disdain their use, prefering a weapon with reach or some special ability, since the damage difference effectively disappears at high levels.

 

[Aaron2]

Bringing back weapon speed would breath new life into the lesser used, low-damage dealing weapons. Anyone agree?

I strongly disagree. It would be better to use the variable weapon length rules from Bushido. Those at least have some bearing on reality. The point of a greatsword can move significantly faster than a dagger. To attack with a dagger you have to use your entire arm and shoulder to generate force. With a two-handed weapon, each hand only has to move a small distance to generate a much greater movement on the point end. Forex, if I move my hands about six inches, the point of the blade will move at least three feet. Try this at home.


Aaron

 

[Tuzenbach]

Why oh why is there no way for a person to delete entirely his own double post!?

 

[Tuzenbach]

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.

Call me Mr. Extreme, but I'd actually do:

light = +5 on intiative
medium = + 0
heavy = -5

That'll inspire more interest in daggers and knives, surely. It'll also discourage reliance upon the Two-handed (Oops! I really mean the dumbed-down terminology of "Great") Sword.

 

[Coredump]

Call me Mr. Extreme, but I'd actually do:

light = +5 on intiative
medium = + 0
heavy = -5

Okay Mr. Extreme....

But the problem is there is *no* reason to suspect that a light weapon is going to hit before a heavy one. In fact, I would bet money on the opposite.

Do you *really* want to take a dagger to a greatsword fight?

Of course, it would explain all of those swiss mercenary groups that used only daggers... oh wait...

 

[Plane Sailing]

With that system someone using a dagger would get 7 attacks at BAB +19 vs a greatsword wielder's 4 at BAB +19.

Sorry, some of the original conversation didn't really get saved by me. The suggestions that were being talked about back then didn't affect the number of iterative attacks, only the relative penalty for each attack. So at BAB +11 some weapons would have base attacks of +11/+6/+1, others would be +11/ +7/+3 or +11/+8/+5

Cheers

 

[NPC]

Call me Mr. Extreme, but I'd actually do:

light = +5 on intiative
medium = + 0
heavy = -5
. . . .

So I suddenly move faster if I pick up and wield a dagger vs. not attacking?

With these house rules what's the speed factor for spell casting? Using a shortbow, a longbow, a light crossbow, a sling? Opening a door? Opening a heavy door?

As has been said, this just adds a layer of complication.

And I agree with Aaron2, I think weapon length is a much more important factor than weapon "speed".

I just thought of something else, weapons really don't have speed all on their own. Their wielder's generate the speed. I'm sure Conan can swing a greatsword faster than Mr. Burns from "The Simpsons" . . .