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

[Darklone]

Oh my....

Just wanted to point out, once again:
This system is not more realistic than the existing one. Instead it's even worse.

This discussion is pretty similar to the good old "Dex should be used to hit" debate. People try to houserule the working and balanced system to something they think would be more realistic. Don't get me wrong, I was in that "Dex to hit" camp till 15 years ago I started with real swords. Greatswords aren't slow. Daggers aren't fast. Polearms aren't loserweapons.

Giving light weapons more attacks will only be balanced if you give them less strength bonus to damage. So if you want such an unrealistic houserule system, I'd do something like this to keep game balance:
- Light weapons (and rapiers) get a BAB iteration of -4 and half strength bonus to weapon damage.
- One handed weapons BAB iteration -5 and strength bonus to damage.
- Twohanded weapons BAB iteration -6 and double or 1.5 times strength bonus.

Still, crunching the numbers like Khaalis did will show that it doesn't really help.

 

[Grayhawk]

First, let me say that different weapon itterations only make any sense if they actually affect your number of attacks, and that to me this is the best way of mechanically addressing the idea that some weapons can be swung quicker than others. Still, I feel that the implementation we currently are discussing is flawed, as it lets smaller weapons out damage the bigger ones (IMO the biggets weapons should have the highest damage potential).

Core Weapon Damage w/ 18 Strength
Dagger (1d4) @ Weapon Speed Iteration -4
* 5 Hits @ Ave.Dam. (2+4)*5 = 30 OR @ Max.Dam. (4+4)*5 = 40

Greatsword (2d6) @ Weapon Speed Iteration -5
* 4 Hits @ Ave.Dam. (6+4)*4 = 40 OR @ Max.Dam. (12+4)*4 = 64

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)*7 = 14 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+4)*7 = 42 OR @ Max.Dam. (4+4)*7 = 56

Khaalis, your calculations are a bit off. The average on a d4 is 2.5, not 2, etc.

Your example of comparing the 7 attacks from a dagger with the 4 attacks from a greatsword for someone with a Str of 18, is exactly the same I used in post #22 on the first page of this thread (except I used Greater Weapon Specialization):

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.

IMO, the benefit of dealing out 4.5 more points of damage on average per swing - the difference between a dagger's 2.5 and a greatsword's 7 - is outweighed by the greater flexibility of more attacks. Granted, higher damage per swing lets you bypass DR easier, but with higher damage comes the risk of greater 'damage overflow' (wasted damage).

Greatsword still has the edge and strength damage is not doubled on crits so no real increase there either.

Why isn't Str damage multiplied on crits? Is that a special rule for this system?

Giving light weapons more attacks will only be balanced if you give them less strength bonus to damage. .

I agree. Currently I have a houserule in effect where a weapon can't get a higher Str bonus to damage than it's max base damage (and I'm not using the 'different BAB itteration' rule we're discussing). This way, a dagger has a max Str bonus of +4, a greatsword has a max of +12. I'm aware that this variant won't work for most games out there, but in my game a Str over 18 is very rare, and I like the idea of having to pick up a big weapon to properly benefit from exceptional strength.

 

[Darklone]

I'm still wincing at the idea of a different number of attacks for different weapons given the D&D interpretation of weapon damage/round... (Officially the weapon damage already includes the reach and number of attacks of each weapon, iterative BAB attacks stand for swordsmanship and the ability to hit more opponents within shorter time)

But that limit on extra bonus for weapons depending on their weight sounds similar to the Max Dex bonus of armours... not too nice, but works. Still, magical enhancement bonuses will screw the system. As will sneak attack.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I favor the rapid iteration of smaller and/or finessed weapons, personally. I never played the editions with weapons speed, so I have neither holdover longings nor residual disgust for the idea, I just like it in terms of general feel. Personally I would make the improved iteration a sub function of the finesse feat, making that feat more useful and placing the idea of being faster with smaller weapons squarly in the context of focusing your fighting style on speed rather than power already. Considering that finesse fighters generally don't have big str bonuses to begin with, I wouldn't have any particular objection to capping the str damage on finessed weapons either if there was a compensating advantage.

Now that I meantion STR, though, one thing I've noticed about this thread - the calaculatons for damage output didn't include the fact that the greatsword is a two handed weapon and automaticly gets 1.5 str bonus, not the same as a daggar. Add in power attack, which many big weapon affectionatoes do, and the new "crush your enemies" 3.5 rules also add to the damage output. So the big weapon does more damage, AND a strong person with the big weapon adds more to the damge than with a small one, AND a 'wild swing' with the big weapon gains more than it gives up compared to a smaller weapon. I think the advantages are stacked up sufficinetly that I don't mind giving something to the finesse fighters. Because after all, this is a game to be enjoyed, and I want my players to enjoy an effective character while pursuing their archetype of choice.

Leaving aside the pseudo realist part of this debate, would requiring the finesse feat (maybe brought back to it's 'one feat per weapon' form) make the inclusion of improved iteration for light and teensy* weapons more rules palatable?

(*teensy in this case beinga new comparative weapon size of those two steps smaller than the weilder. )

Kahuna burger

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Kahuna, you have a point with the 1.5x str (and we'd need to count the 2x power attack in there). But then we might need to cout that the finesse fighter can get a shield, or a second weapon. And besides, being a finesse fighter should be harder because they're so much cooler. Now, the only reason I'm harping on the whole 'speed is less important than range and control' arguement is simply because someone is trying to tell me that it's more realistic that faster weapons attack more. As soon as it becomes about trying to make the other weapons a little more fun becuase that'd be cool, well I'm all ears. That's why, if you were to require a feat to get the bonus iterative attacks, I'd be perfectly happy. After all, feats are what allows a character to do something better. Just be aware that some crazy things could happen. And actually weapon speeds were pretty cool, as were bonuses vs. armor types. I could have gladly dealt with more factors along those lines (though IMO such things fit more in a grittier system, where we no longer have the abstraction of 'hit points'). But, yeah, the point. For a feat or two, I'd let someone use Texas as a weapon.

Khallis, thanks for the math. Would you be willing to do one with a +5 flaming dagger vs a +5 flaming greatsword (one of the better arguements for the dagger, I believe, though I suspect that it doesn't bring the damage up to par).

edit: Greyhawk, I'm assuming that this means that any flat damage bonuses are in favor of more rapid attacks?

Also, what would be the interaction when you're wielding a dagger in the off hand? Would it still be a single extra attack for each level of TWF?

'Cause, you know, that dual dagger wielding fighter/rogue is seeming like a mighty good idea right now.

 

[SSquirrel]

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.

As has been stated by someone else in the thread after this post, reach is already considered. Is weapon speed (perceived weapon speed as it has existed in D&D previously NOT as in RL)less important than reach? I don't think so. But that's just my opinion.

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.


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.

What else needs 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.

Ok ya know what, I HAVE been reading the whole thread. Throught this thread as well as about another 10 threads on ENWorld and also over on MOnte's boards over the last week, I keep seeing this one thought popping up over and over from various people. The statement is roughly "Why would I ever choose a weapon that isn't a greatsword? It does way more damage, is better in every way and it makes me uber. My group almost never picks anything else." I've seen this basic statement made way too many times in the last few days. Do i think that everyone blindly picking a greatsword is bad? Obviously yes. Does this make me a jackass? Nope. I didn't point any fingers at specific individuals, but I did say that it seems many of you have groups like this. This doesn't even mean that you yourselves are the ones doing this? Read for content.

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!

As was shown previously by Khalis, the guy with the big weapon easily outdamages. Once Sneak Attack comes into play, everything goes to hell regardless of what the level of play is it seems like *grin* Also Khalis missed the part about a max of 5 attacks in a round with the iterative attack system.

Why isn't Str damage multiplied on crits? Is that a special rule for this system?

Brainfart. haven't actually played 3E in about 5 months as my group switched back to Rolemaster and then we've been on a sort of hiatus for about 2 months.

Now, the only reason I'm harping on the whole 'speed is less important than range and control' arguement is simply because someone is trying to tell me that it's more realistic that faster weapons attack more. As soon as it becomes about trying to make the other weapons a little more fun becuase that'd be cool, well I'm all ears.

So who exactly is saying this? I went back and double checked my old posts. I never said this was for a more realistic point of view. I said that this would seem like a decent way to make other weapons a bit more attractive and not just an automatic "Give me my greatsword". I mean, if I wanted realism I would be playing GURPS or Rolemaster. D&D is (in general) much more my cup of tea, but I thought that the old SF method was dull and borrowing a bit from the EQ RPG could be a pretty simple answer.

Also, what would be the interaction when you're wielding a dagger in the off hand? Would it still be a single extra attack for each level of TWF?

Is this some addition in 3.5 (which I don't own yet)? In 3E the Two Weapon Fighting feat just reduced your penalties on the attack while dual wielding and anytime you picked up a second weapon you got one extra attack. Never more.

Also someone said that the plusses from magic weapons messed with the system in a major way. Why? A few points of extra damage (when done in an even comparison ie. +5 greatsword and +5 dagger) won't make up a huge bit of ground, especially when you're only talking a max of 5 attacks.

New math:Basic combat(BAB+20 18 Strength no criticals)
Dagger+5:20/16/12/8/4
(7.5*5)<avg dmg+magic bonus>+(4*5)<str bonus>=57.5
Greatsword+5:20/14/8/2
(12*4)<avg dmg+magic bonus>+(4*5*1.5)<str bonus>=78

57.5 Dagger vs 78 Greatsword. Still easily greatsword advantage.

New math:Sneak Attack Dagger (Rogue 20)vs Regular Greatsword(Fighter 20)(18 Strength no criticals)
Dagger+5:15/11/7/3
(7.5*4)<avg dmg+magic bonus>+(4*4)<str bonus>+(35*4)<Sneak Attack avg dmg>=186
Dagger+5:15/10/5(Standard 3E)
(7.5*3)<avg dmg+magic bonus>+(4*3)<str bonus>+(35*3)<Sneak Attack avg dmg>=139.5
Greatsword+5:20/14/8/2
(12*4)<avg dmg+magic bonus>+(4*5*1.5)<str bonus>=78
Greatsword+5:20/15/10/5(Standard 3E)
(12*4)<avg dmg+magic bonus>+(4*5*1.5)<str bonus>=78

This doesn't prove the brokenness of this system, it proves the brokenness of Sneak Attack *grin* 139.5 or 186 in a turn full of Sneak Attacks. Either way it's going to kill or seriously wound something.

This still doesn't include Power Attack or going backwards thru the levels and finding what level Sneak Attack Dagger becomes better than Greatsword. I would guess somewhere around level 10. Actually, Average of 3.5 extra points for each 1d6 of Sneak Attack, it wouldn't surpass the Greatsword until 14th level. Considering that many (if not most) D&D games never even continue to this level....

Hagen

 

[Grayhawk]

In 3E the Two Weapon Fighting feat just reduced your penalties on the attack while dual wielding and anytime you picked up a second weapon you got one extra attack. Never more.

In 3e the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat (with a prereq of BAB +9) gave you an additional off-hand attack (for a total of two off-hand attacks).

In 3.5 that prereq was lessened to BAB +6 and a Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat was introduced, so you can get 3 off-hand attacks at BAB +11.

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

Just to be sure, are the above 'Weapon Delays' and weapon groups what we're comparing? If so, it seems unfair that we're using the highest damage dealer from the slow group, but the lowest damage dealer from the quick group. Also, if those are the actual groups we'll have a whole other problem on our hands: Why use a slower weapon if a faster one does equal or more damage?

Does the maximum of 5 attacks per round remain, regardless of Weapon Delay? Do the Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat prereqs remain, or are they tied to Weapon Delays?

Fighter w/ 18 Str (+4) + Greatsword (2d6):
Ave.Dam. (6+6)*4 = 48 OR @ Max.Dam. (12+6)*4 = 72

Khaalis, average damage on 2d6 is 7

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Just to be sure, are the above 'Weapon Delays' and weapon groups what we're comparing? If so, it seems unfair that we're using the highest damage dealer from the slow group, but the lowest damage dealer from the quick group. Also, if those are the actual groups we'll have a whole other problem on our hands: Why use a slower weapon if a faster one does equal or more damage?

it does apear in this example of iteration improvements that everything less than longsword is the same speed. Personally I would do two handed, one handed (two handable), light and teensy (being at least two steps smaller than your size). Another option would be to only allow it with teensy. I wouldn't import that table with the current weapon groups, but its a place to start the conversation.

Does the maximum of 5 attacks per round remain, regardless of Weapon Delay? Do the Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat prereqs remain, or are they tied to Weapon Delays?

hey, its house rules, you can answer that question as you see fit. I would cap the base attacks at 5, but allow two weapon fighting to be taken normally (though obviously your off hand weapon would have to be the same size or smaller as your main weapon - no getting the teensy iteration then adding in off hand attacks with a short sword. ) I think you could give them at the same bab requirement as normal, but I'm not sure about the offset on the second or third off hand attack... Its easier for them to match in attack bonus for math's sake, but if you felt in improved iteration was overpowered, you could do it at the normal -5 -10...

But these are all details at this point, not a reason to reject or accept the concept. The reason to accept or reject the concept (from my point of view) is to allow character options without sacrificing mechanical viability.

kahuna Burger

 

[SSquirrel]

In 3e the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat (with a prereq of BAB +9) gave you an additional off-hand attack (for a total of two off-hand attacks).

In 3.5 that prereq was lessened to BAB +6 and a Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat was introduced, so you can get 3 off-hand attacks at BAB +11.

OK I was forgetting exactly what Imp did as I really didn't use it much. Everquest has both Dual Wield and Improved 2WF so I would assume that both are still working as normal.

Just to be sure, are the above 'Weapon Delays' and weapon groups what we're comparing? If so, it seems unfair that we're using the highest damage dealer from the slow group, but the lowest damage dealer from the quick group. Also, if those are the actual groups we'll have a whole other problem on our hands: Why use a slower weapon if a faster one does equal or more damage?

Here is the complete list of weapons in the EQ RPG by speed category:

Quick-Delay 4:
Gauntlet
Unarmed Strike (My bad it's apparently Delay 4, the Monk is that much cooler than everyone else, yet again)
Brass Knuckles
Dagger
Punching Dagger
Spiked Gauntlet
Dart
Clawed Handwrap
Kama
Nunchaku
Sap
Siangham
Rapier
Scimitar(Which I'm sure will cause a stir)
Shuriken
Whip

Standard-Delay 5:
Light Mace
Club
Heavy Mace
Shortspear
Quarterstaff
Spear
Javelin
Kukri
Throwing Axe
Light Hammer
Handaxe
Light Pick
Short Sword
Battleaxe
Light Flail
Longsword
Warhammer
Spiked Chain
Falchion
Heavy Flail
Guisarme
Longspear
Bastard Sword
Shortbow
Composite SHortbow
Longbow
Composite Longbow

Slow-Delay 6:
Morningstar
Sling
Broad Sword
Heavy Pick
Trident
Greataxe
Greatclub
Greatsword
Halberd
Ranseur
Scythe
Two Handed Hammer
Net

Damage/crit winners in each category:
Quick:Scimitar by about a mile 1d6 18-20/x2

Standard:Bastard Sword and Heavy Flair are both 1d10 19-20/x2, but Falchion is 2d4 18-20/x2. Tossup. Plus a billion 1d8 x2 weapons with the x3 Battleaxe or the 2d4 x3 Guisarme slightly ahead of them as well.

Slow:Greatsword with 2d6 19-20/x2 followed closely by Greataxe 2d6 x3 and Heavy Pick 1d8 x4.

The reason why testing the dagger was important when it was a lesser damage dealer was for puposes of investigating Sneak Attack. Plus you always hear of skulking thieves brandishing their daggers drawn from their boot, not the scimitar they pulled out of their hip pocket.

Does the maximum of 5 attacks per round remain, regardless of Weapon Delay? Do the Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat prereqs remain, or are they tied to Weapon Delays?

The feats remain and allow you to extend beyond the Iterative attack chart. Your BAB is what will not extend beyond 5 attacks. So BAB to possibly 5 attacks any additional attacks garnered from wielding a second weapon with or without improving feats.

Hagen

 

[Darklone]

Ehem.... for the average damage calculations between dagger +5 and greatsword +5... you didn't take into account that vs a set AC the iterative dagger attacks will hit much more often than the iterative greatsword attacks, even if you consider a maximum of 5 (why 5? Usual is 4) attacks per round.

Have a look at

Also someone said that the plusses from magic weapons messed with the system in a major way. Why? A few points of extra damage (when done in an even comparison ie. +5 greatsword and +5 dagger) won't make up a huge bit of ground, especially when you're only talking a max of 5 attacks.

New math:Basic combat(BAB+20 18 Strength no criticals)
Dagger+5:20/16/12/8/4
(7.5*5)<avg dmg+magic bonus>+(4*5)<str bonus>=57.5
Greatsword+5:20/14/8/2
(12*4)<avg dmg+magic bonus>+(4*5*1.5)<str bonus>=78

57.5 Dagger vs 78 Greatsword. Still easily greatsword advantage.

... the part in bold. The dagger attacks hit much better (and you still have one hand free).