Is it just me or do any of you think Speed Factor on weapons should be brought back?
- Thread starter Calico_Jack73
- Start date
thullgrim said:
Personally I dont see it as necessary to be honest. The pre-requisites are pretty decent, so the person involved has dedicated themselves to the study of the weapon. I have seen fighters wielding 15 lb. two handed battle axes faster than I could wield a rapier. Also there are some large weapons that are designed to be fast dependent on the style in which they are used such as a spear or ransieur (or oriental versions like the lajatang). So there is no hard and fast rule based on weapon size, it is more based on style and training.
For example, some schmuck who picks up a Greataxe for the first time (even if proficient in all martial weapons) is going to be average with its use at best. However, if you take say a dwarf fighter who has been using using the great axe for the last 40 years - I think he is going to be much more intimately familiar with its use, its weighting, its balance and how to most effectively swing that monster around. Thus if he spent the time specifically training in finding the most economic use of motion - he could get these feats.
My only personal issue, something I have toyed with but always tossed due to the annoyance of implementing it, is that I have a problem with all weapons available to all PCs. In this regard I am refering to weight/size of the weapon and Strength. I think some weapons should have a minimum strength rating on them. I am sorry but Joe Schmoe guard fighter with a 14 Strength shouldnt be out there running around with a Dire Flail or Great Axe. Thats JMHO.
Anyway, hope that helps the thought processes. Take it with a grain of salt, as always.
Aaron2
Explorer
Khaalis said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "partial action with the dagger". A grapple and using a dagger are both attack actions and can be freely split among your iterative attacks. A similar situation would be Legolas in FotR. His first iterative attack is used to kill and orc with an arrow (wielded as an improvised melee weapon) and his second iterative attack would be to fire the arrow with the bow. How does that work with an variable iterative attack penalty?
Aaron
Wonko the Sane said:
Only if 'cogent' means "circular": he looks at a rules set designed not to take weapon speed into account and discovers that, within this rules set, it is difficult to take weapon speed into account.
A few points:
1) range/reach counts more than "speed". Yes; a greatsword's length will provide an advatage, even in the face of a dagger's ease of use. So use a short bow against a greatsword (from range, of course).
2) given two weapons of about equal range/reach, it may be the case that one is "faster" than the other. Compare a crossbow to a longbow or a flail to a longsword.
3) even if one weapon has range/reach superior to another, a greater "speed" may provide an advantage. Drawing a dagger vs. drawing a greatsword when standing within a foot of an opponent, for example.
4) it's likely that D&D is too abstract a system to accomodate any of this. But perhaps an occasional situational modifier is appropriate.
ThoughtBubble
First Post
Frostmarrow said: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.
Well, I WAS trying to point out that there are other elements to using a weapon equally (or more) important than speed. So I guess I wasn't being helpful unless you want to completely rewrite the combat system. And there are elements we havn't gotten into yet!
So, now I'm pretending that I agree that the greatsword is the most ultimate weapon ever, and anyone serious about combat should buy one and master it (though in real life, we all know the most ultimate weapon ever is the katana
). You know what I see? I see everyone looking at fellows carrying a greatsword and avoiding them. Obviously they're the sort who lives for combat. THey're going to cause trouble. The guards probablly are going to call for help then have about 20 of them try to confiscate the weapon. The shortsword on the other hand, that's a gentleman's weapon. After all, people might be travelling through some rough neiborhoods, and need to defend their lady friend. But they're not looking for a fight, if they were the sort to go looking for a fight, obviously they'd be carrying a greatsword.
And very few people would be using a greatsword. I mean, harlots aren't going to be able to afford them, and certianly wouldn't wear them if they could. It'd scare away their customers. City guards most places would use the simpler maces and short-swords, and the tough guys trained for combat in big cities would use Great Swords because when they're out, they're looking for trouble. Greatswords would be kind of like longbows, when someone has one you KNOW they can use it.
So, do you want to re-write the entire combat system, or just apply a little glue?
I am in the camp that weapon speed rules are a bad idea.
That being said, I'd say that variant rule you all have posted about changing the iterative mod on attacks is one of the best I've seen. It doesn't change the number of attacks which is good, but does give a nod to the speed of weaker weapons.
The main issue I could see with it as at higher levels. By that point, the base damage of the weapon matters little, all the extra is important. So the fact that the dagger's multiple attacks will hit more often may allow it to overdo the greatsword in damage. That should never happen since the greatsword requires a martial feat to use, and you can conceal a dagger a bit easier than a greatsword as well
That being said, I'd say that variant rule you all have posted about changing the iterative mod on attacks is one of the best I've seen. It doesn't change the number of attacks which is good, but does give a nod to the speed of weaker weapons.
The main issue I could see with it as at higher levels. By that point, the base damage of the weapon matters little, all the extra is important. So the fact that the dagger's multiple attacks will hit more often may allow it to overdo the greatsword in damage. That should never happen since the greatsword requires a martial feat to use, and you can conceal a dagger a bit easier than a greatsword as well
I actually enjoy the iterative attacks table from Everquest as you can have weapons with seriously slow or fast speeds making many more or many less attacks each round...which just kinda makes sense. I don't care if you are a 20th level fighter...4 attacks in a round with a longsword seems much more possible than with a halberd.
Here's a quick example of the different iterative charts and unmodified weapons for those speeds:
BAB +10
Weapon Delay 2*:10/8/6/4/2
Weapon Delay 3 Very Quick:10/7/4/1
Weapon Delay 4 Quick:10/6/2 Dagger/Rapier/Scimitar
Weapon Delay 5 Standard:10/5 Shortsword, battle axe, bastard sword
Weapon Delay 6 Slow:10/4 Broad Sword, Heavy Pick, Morningstar, Greatsword
Weapon Delay 7 Very Slow:10/3
*No weapon has a delay of 2, but this column would be used for characters with a delay 3 weapon and the Double Attack feat or under the effects of a Haste spell, for example.
No weapon is listed as being Very Slow either so I'm not sure when you would use that chart...except maybe when a Slow type spell has been cast on you. You never gain more than 5 attacks in a round with these charts either, however, if you can use Delay 2 you obviously have a much better attack bonus on each than someone using the delay 5 chart (BAB+20 gives 20/18/16/14/12 for Delay 2 and 20/15/10/5 for Delay 5)
So apparently most of you have gamers who don't give a crap about what actually goes into making an interesting character and just bow down to the damage god? Sounds that way from reading the thread. In our group we rarely have anyone choose a greatsword. Sure we'll occasionally have one getting used, but usually there's someone wielding an axe...a bow of some sort...maybe a scimitar or falchion. I made a 3E bard once who used a whip in 1 hand and a shortspear in the other. He was interesting to play and I thought he was a lot of fun.
Heck if you really wanted to point pimp you'd be using a Scythe. Scythe is 2d4 with a x4 crit. Get a keen one made, take Improved Critical, etc etc and be dealing 8d4 20% of the time or better. Numerically speaking tho Falchion is likely a better choice for that. 2d4 with a threat range of 18-20/x2. Keen and Imp Crit make it 12-20 or 45% of your attacks dealing 4d4.
Hagen
Here's a quick example of the different iterative charts and unmodified weapons for those speeds:
BAB +10
Weapon Delay 2*:10/8/6/4/2
Weapon Delay 3 Very Quick:10/7/4/1
Weapon Delay 4 Quick:10/6/2 Dagger/Rapier/Scimitar
Weapon Delay 5 Standard:10/5 Shortsword, battle axe, bastard sword
Weapon Delay 6 Slow:10/4 Broad Sword, Heavy Pick, Morningstar, Greatsword
Weapon Delay 7 Very Slow:10/3
*No weapon has a delay of 2, but this column would be used for characters with a delay 3 weapon and the Double Attack feat or under the effects of a Haste spell, for example.
No weapon is listed as being Very Slow either so I'm not sure when you would use that chart...except maybe when a Slow type spell has been cast on you. You never gain more than 5 attacks in a round with these charts either, however, if you can use Delay 2 you obviously have a much better attack bonus on each than someone using the delay 5 chart (BAB+20 gives 20/18/16/14/12 for Delay 2 and 20/15/10/5 for Delay 5)
So apparently most of you have gamers who don't give a crap about what actually goes into making an interesting character and just bow down to the damage god? Sounds that way from reading the thread. In our group we rarely have anyone choose a greatsword. Sure we'll occasionally have one getting used, but usually there's someone wielding an axe...a bow of some sort...maybe a scimitar or falchion. I made a 3E bard once who used a whip in 1 hand and a shortspear in the other. He was interesting to play and I thought he was a lot of fun.
Heck if you really wanted to point pimp you'd be using a Scythe. Scythe is 2d4 with a x4 crit. Get a keen one made, take Improved Critical, etc etc and be dealing 8d4 20% of the time or better. Numerically speaking tho Falchion is likely a better choice for that. 2d4 with a threat range of 18-20/x2. Keen and Imp Crit make it 12-20 or 45% of your attacks dealing 4d4.
Hagen
Here's a bit of an example. Borrowed a bit and my response to it from Monte's boards as I started a thread about this there as well.
Tiburon said:
Monster attacks would be figured in the same fashion. Unarmed would be delay 3, weapons would be defined as normal.
I dislike the cap on strength...I mean otherwise why have high strength? A strong fighter who chooses to use a dagger should receive all the benefits. Ok here's an example. Human Fighter 10th level w/18 strength w/no focus or specialization, but using a dagger (10/6/2) or a greatsword (10/4).
Let's say he hits all 2 or 3 times for each weapon. Avg damage on a dagger is what...3(1d4)+Str? Avg damage on a greatsword would be 7(2d6)+Str. 3(3+4)=21 damage dealt in the round by the dagger. 2(7+4)=22 damage by the greatsword.
Greatsword still has the edge and strength damage is not doubled on crits so no real increase there either. Does it put them on more even footing and make the greatsword less of the uber weapon most folks view it as? Yes. I kind of think this is a good thing. Encourage more variety in the armaments of players. Not a problem in my group, but from reading on ENWorld it sure is a problem out there.
Hagen
Tiburon said:
Unarmed Strikes are Delay 3 I believe, so 10/7/4/1 from my previous example. It's trashing or improving your BAB as another way of showing that your weapon is slower. Works just as effectively as changing your initiative number for the same abstract reason.
Monster attacks would be figured in the same fashion. Unarmed would be delay 3, weapons would be defined as normal.
I dislike the cap on strength...I mean otherwise why have high strength? A strong fighter who chooses to use a dagger should receive all the benefits. Ok here's an example. Human Fighter 10th level w/18 strength w/no focus or specialization, but using a dagger (10/6/2) or a greatsword (10/4).
Let's say he hits all 2 or 3 times for each weapon. Avg damage on a dagger is what...3(1d4)+Str? Avg damage on a greatsword would be 7(2d6)+Str. 3(3+4)=21 damage dealt in the round by the dagger. 2(7+4)=22 damage by the greatsword.
Greatsword still has the edge and strength damage is not doubled on crits so no real increase there either. Does it put them on more even footing and make the greatsword less of the uber weapon most folks view it as? Yes. I kind of think this is a good thing. Encourage more variety in the armaments of players. Not a problem in my group, but from reading on ENWorld it sure is a problem out there.
Hagen
ThoughtBubble
First Post
SSquirrel said:
Let me repeat myself: Against a skilled spear wielder, a person with a longsword will get fewer attacks in. The last time I tried that, it wound up with me (using the sword) getting in less than 10 swings to more than four times that amount from my dad (using the spear). While I was trying to close the distance, he was attacking and forcing me backwards.
And, in fact, I think a dagger wielder would find it harder to make an attack on a second target with an iterative attack than someone weilding a saber or a spear.
Here's a question for you. What do those four attacks represent? Do they represent four swings? Do they represent 'four of the arbitrarally many attacks you made in the round'? Personally, since we've got the electron cloud going anyway, I just assume that those four attacks represent the character's damage potential.
D&D combat is an aproximation. The system is fairly arbitrary. I like this because it allows me to be more creative with fight-scenes and effects. My stance is that trying to make the system more 'realistic' is actually going to do more damage than good, since it's not a realistic system to start with. That's why I'm arguing for adding impact, control and range as factors. Why? Because it makes sense, allows you to get a more realistic feel and it gives you more factors to balance weapons with.
If, on the other hand, all that's wanted is a way to balance out 2-3 points of damage per swing from the high end to the low end weapons to make them a more attractive choice, then there's more things to be worked out.
Drop the superior attitude and read the thread. Don't be such a jackass.
Just because a few people have a percieved problem with a (fairly unimpressive) local maximum in the D&D combat system and thus begin a conversation of the relative merits of making an alteration to said system does not mean that the people involved in this conversation have "gamers who don't goive a crap about what actually goes into making an interesting character". Personally, since I enjoy system design, I've found this discussion quite enjoyable. It's more enjoyable since we've also ranged into the reasons and the necessity of the change.
Now, my biggest problem with the system you proposed is that a hasted rouge using fists has the potential to be a heavy damage machine. In the same fashion, that +1D6 fire damage just got doubled. In fact, the normal + on a weapon just got more useful, as it now adds more to your attack and more damage. Another minus is since the base damage is so close, you lose nothing by taking a dagger then grabbing a shield. On the plus side, you could have weapons of quickness work in a much more satisfying fashion.
Myself, I'd be sad the moment the guy wielding the huge weapon doesn't have higher damage potential than the guy with the dagger. I mean, it's huge! He should tear stuff apart!
Some examples, just to be devil’s advocate, for those saying the Dagger will do more damage than the greatsword in the long run. If this isn’t what was meant – my apologies ahead of time.
At BAB +20
Core Weapon Damage
Dagger (1d4) @ Weapon Speed Iteration -4
* 5 Attacks @ 20/16/12/8/4
* 5 Hits @ Average (2.5)*5 = 12 OR @ Max.Dam. (4)*5 = 20
Greatsword (2d6) @ Weapon Speed Iteration -5
* 4 Attacks @ 20/15/10/5
* 4 Hits @ Ave.Dam. (6)*4 = 24 OR @ Max.Dam. (12)*4 = 48
Core Weapon Damage w/ 18 Strength
Dagger (1d4) @ Weapon Speed Iteration -4
* 5 Hits @ Ave.Dam. (2.5+4)*5 = 32 OR @ Max.Dam. (4+4)*5 = 40
Greatsword (2d6) @ Weapon Speed Iteration -5
* 4 Hits @ Ave.Dam. (6+6)*4 = 48 OR @ Max.Dam. (12+6)*4 = 72
Even if you hasted the Dagger to a -3 iteration it still could not match the base damage output of the great sword.
Dagger (1d4) @ Weapon Speed Iteration -3
* 7 Attacks @ 20/17/14/11/8/5/2
* 7 Hits @ Average (2.5)*7 = 17 OR @ Max.Dam. (4)*7 = 28
Add an 18 Strength you still aren’t coming out ahead of the great sword.
* 7 Hits @ Average (2.5+4)*7 = 45 OR @ Max.Dam. (4+4)*7 = 56
The rogue vs. fighter argument is mute. Even in the core rules the rogue out damages the fighter due to their sneak attack.
Rogue vs. Fighter: Core Rules (assume all iterations hit)
Fighter BAB = +20 (20/15/10/5); Rogue BAB = +15 (15/10/5)
Fighter w/ 18 Str (+4) + Greatsword (2d6):
Ave.Dam. (6+6)*4 = 48 OR @ Max.Dam. (12+6)*4 = 72
Rogue w/ 10 Str + Sneak (10d6) + Dagger
Ave.Dam. = (2.5+30)*3 = 97 OR @ Max.Dam. = (4+60)*3 = 192
Just some number crunching. Take it with a grain of salt.
At BAB +20
Core Weapon Damage
Dagger (1d4) @ Weapon Speed Iteration -4
* 5 Attacks @ 20/16/12/8/4
* 5 Hits @ Average (2.5)*5 = 12 OR @ Max.Dam. (4)*5 = 20
Greatsword (2d6) @ Weapon Speed Iteration -5
* 4 Attacks @ 20/15/10/5
* 4 Hits @ Ave.Dam. (6)*4 = 24 OR @ Max.Dam. (12)*4 = 48
Core Weapon Damage w/ 18 Strength
Dagger (1d4) @ Weapon Speed Iteration -4
* 5 Hits @ Ave.Dam. (2.5+4)*5 = 32 OR @ Max.Dam. (4+4)*5 = 40
Greatsword (2d6) @ Weapon Speed Iteration -5
* 4 Hits @ Ave.Dam. (6+6)*4 = 48 OR @ Max.Dam. (12+6)*4 = 72
Even if you hasted the Dagger to a -3 iteration it still could not match the base damage output of the great sword.
Dagger (1d4) @ Weapon Speed Iteration -3
* 7 Attacks @ 20/17/14/11/8/5/2
* 7 Hits @ Average (2.5)*7 = 17 OR @ Max.Dam. (4)*7 = 28
Add an 18 Strength you still aren’t coming out ahead of the great sword.
* 7 Hits @ Average (2.5+4)*7 = 45 OR @ Max.Dam. (4+4)*7 = 56
The rogue vs. fighter argument is mute. Even in the core rules the rogue out damages the fighter due to their sneak attack.
Rogue vs. Fighter: Core Rules (assume all iterations hit)
Fighter BAB = +20 (20/15/10/5); Rogue BAB = +15 (15/10/5)
Fighter w/ 18 Str (+4) + Greatsword (2d6):
Ave.Dam. (6+6)*4 = 48 OR @ Max.Dam. (12+6)*4 = 72
Rogue w/ 10 Str + Sneak (10d6) + Dagger
Ave.Dam. = (2.5+30)*3 = 97 OR @ Max.Dam. = (4+60)*3 = 192
Just some number crunching. Take it with a grain of salt.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
