Remember Weapon Speeds?

[Azlan]

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.

 

[The Furious Puffin]

Now that seems a pretty good idea.

Noe: It does seems to, at first glance, increase the weaker melee fighters combat prowess. Rogues especially rely on multiple attacks with sneak attack for damage. With no penatly, you are effectively giving them a bonus to hit on subsequent stikes.

However it's so small I don't really see it as a problem.

The house rule seems to result in a one of increase in book work (changing you attack scores) and doesn't slow down combat much.

If you feel weapons speeds are a valuble addition to your game, that seems to be good rules

 

[Azlan]

Rogues especially rely on multiple attacks with sneak attack for damage. With no penatly, you are effectively giving them a bonus to hit on subsequent stikes.

I have an exception for rogues using sneak attacks: A weapon's speed factor is worsened by 2 while used in a sneak attack. This is due to the additional time and effort it takes to strike a vital spot for extra damage.

Thus, a rogue using a shortsword (speed -3, normally) for his sneak attacks would suffer a cumulative -5 penalty on the attack(s) after his first. If that rogue was, say, 8th level, with a total attack bonus of +10, his bonuses for his two sneak attacks would be +10/+5.

This exception discourages a fighter-rogue from attempting multiple sneak attacks with massive weapons such as a great axe or a heavy flail. It encourages sneak attacks to be delivered with weapons of finesse and subtlety, such as daggers, stilettos, and rapiers.

 

[Gldm]

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.

Also, I would rule that you cannot gain an extra attack from a reduced penalty, however you can LOSE an extra attack for an increased penalty.

EX. An 11th lvl fighter with a base attack of 11/6/1 tries to wield a greataxe, and gets a -6 penalty on each successive attack. His attacks become 11/5/-1 and he can't manage a third attack with this weapon. Maybe he should train a little more, or go back to using a longsword.

This should also apply to heavy weapons (as in magic of faerun) and weapons used with monkey grip (which is often used in combination to make munchkin damaged charachters). Huge Platinum Mercurial Greatsword with 4d6 base damage gets annoying after the second or third time it appears.

This also makes bastard sword very useful again as it's a medium (-5) weapon that can use two hands (1.5x strength). Kitanas based on the basdard sword stats would also be similar.

As for the sneak attack rule, I do think discouraging the use of large weapons for sneak attacks is a good idea. I'm not 100% sure on how to do this. Perhaps applying penalties based on this system. Maybe something else, I'm not sure. How about "For every point of base damage your weapon rolls above 4 (a dagger's maximum) you lose 1 die of sneak attack damage on the hit, because it wasn't precise enough and just smashed up their entire side instead of going between the ribs and cutting the aorta."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, without knowing the details of Weapon Speed, I think it is not a good "mechanic" if you make weapon speed affect initiative.

The idea with the change of the extra attacks depending on attack bonus seems to be better suited to reflect this, but it has greater weaknesses at lower levels. (Where you only have 1 attack)

An altnerative would be having a more differentiated "action counting" method. Perhaps 10 "Action Points".
Swinging a Sword would cost 5, a dagger 3 points. But this does not work well together with the current attack bonus system.

So, personally I think let the things as they are.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I've used weapon speeds for the longest time in both Basic D&D and 1e, but I never really came up with a mechanic that didn't seem to grant an undue significance to them--until recently...

Rather than assign a modifier to initiative for weapon speed, I roll a different type of die for each weapon; for example:

• Sword: d10
• Axe: d8
• Maul: d6

These values are used when foes are already engaged in melee, or to determine who strikes first when closing with equal length weapons.

Movement initiative is determined by the base movement allowance, and is broken down as follows:

• Full Move: d10
• 3/4 Move: d8
• 1/2 Move: d6
• 1/4 Move: d4

The movement initiative die roll also determines when in the round a charging attack occurs.

Note: When closing or charging, the longer weapon always strikes first (ties are resolved by the weapon initiative die).

Spell-Casting uses a d6 for initiative (in general, there are no casting times in Basic D&D).

For melee, missile, and spell-casting, I allow a PC (or important NPC) to increase their initiative by 1 for each additional -1 To Hit or +5% chance of spell-failure.

When facing long or very long weapons with a shorter weapon, a combatant must successfully close--either by charging or careful maneuver--before being able to strike.

A long or very long weapon wielder who finds himself in close combat against a shorter weapon is at a severe disadvantage--unless he can once again open the range.

Anywho, just a few ideas from my Basic D&D campaign that you might be able to mine for something useful in 3e.

If you'd like to see the above in more detail, stop on by my website (link in sig)

 

[Azlan]

If you used a GURPS-like game system, where each combat round is only a second in length, and where every single swing or thrust is accounted for, then weapon speed (as well as Dexterity, encumbrance, combat experience, and weapon reach) should play a role in determining number of attacks per round. (As far as for it determining initiative, I think that weapon length has a much great affect on this; at least, while the combatants are at normal combat distances from each other.)

However, a combat round in 3E D&D lasts six seconds. (Combat rounds in earlier editions of D&D used to last a whole minute!) During this time, combatants are considered to be making numerous swings and thrusts, feints and lunges, parries and blocks, attacks and counterattacks. It is a combatant's experience (i.e. his BAB, which is determined by his class/level) that determines how many actual attacks (i.e. the number of attacks that have the potential to inflict damage) he gets per round.

I think using weapon speed to affect attack bonuses for subsequent attacks after the first is a good idea. It's quick and easy to implement, and it does not unbalance the game. Furthermore, it encourages players to take more things into consideration when chosing a weapon for his character. (Otherwise, choosing between a bastardsword and a greatsword, 2-handed, is a no-brainer: you go with the one that inflicts more damage, since everything else about these two weapons is equal when playing 3E D&D by-the-book.)

If, on the other hand, you also use weapon speed to affect whether, say, a 12th level fighter gets two or three or four attacks per round, when he normally (according to his class/level) gets three attacks per round, then you make things a lot more complicated. You may also make the game system unbalanced or otherwise out-of-whack.

Incidentally, while I'm discussing caveats: I think it's probably not a good idea to allow a character's Strength to affect his weapon speed. After all, a weapon's weight is only one of several characteristics used in determining its speed factor. (Perhaps a term other than "speed" should be used, given how I think it should work in 3E D&D?) Not only that, but a character is already given an attack bonus for his Strength -- why compound that by reducing the speed of his weapon?

It is probably a good idea for size difference between a wielder and his weapon to affect the weapon's speed. If the speed of a dagger and a shortsword wielded by a human is -2 and -3, respectively, then those same weapons wielded by a halfling should be -3 and -4. This makes a human-sized dagger and shortsword have the equivalent speeds of a shortsword and longsword, respectively, when wielded by a halfling.

 

[Azlan]

The idea with the change of the extra attacks depending on attack bonus seems to be better suited to reflect this, but it has greater weaknesses at lower levels. (Where you only have 1 attack)

That's because weapon speed really shouldn't be that big of a factor in combat. (At least, not in D&D.) But that's not to say weapon speed is totally unimportant and that it should not be taken into consideration at all. Instead, let's think of weapon speed as a subtle yet significant factor, one that comes into play only as combatants become more competent in combat (i.e. gain higher BABs) and get multiple attacks per round.

Consider this: At 1st level, the damage die of your weapon is very important. But at higher character levels, your weapon's damage die becomes less and less important as you gain greater and greater damage bonuses. Same with weapon speed, only in reverse: At low levels, it's irrelevant, since it's all you can do just to get in one good attack -- one with the potential for damage -- per combat round. But as you gain higher levels and start getting multiple attacks, weapon speed becomes more and more significant.

 

[Gldm]

More on this.

Yes there's other things to consider like dex and relative str and encumbrance but it makes the system too complicated. Just doing a modifier of 1 per size category difference is quick and easy.

As for early level/late level balance, this doesn't affect the attack bonus of your first attack at all, only your additional attacks. Thus until you have characters at 6th level and higher, there's no need for this rule to exist.

As you get up into higher levels, it's just like people are saying, attack bonus becomes more important than the die damage of the weapon, especially with power attack and magic weapons and other modifiers around. Thus speed factor becomes more important as characters advance.

As for how much bonus it should be, I don't think dagger should start at -2 and then have longsword at -3. This is because monks flurry at -3 off each attack. This means someone armed with a dagger woulld have a higher speed than an unarmed monk, which is pretty ridiculous. I could see equal, since a dagger is light enough to be considered insignificant to your speed.

Also, the fact that you can't gain extra attacks from having high bonus but can lose them makes it fairly balanced. A 20th level fighter wielding a dagger would get 20/17/14/11 instead of 20/15/10/5, a significant improvement in chance to hit. They definately wouldn't get 20/17/14/11/8/5/2 as this is pretty broken.

People who just gained an extra attack at BA +6, +11, and +16 would find it hard to use their gained attack with a big weapon such as a greataxe or a giant sword of some kind, unless their strength was able to compensate. Ex 16th level fighter using a heavy metal greataxe. (Like gold or platinum, which makes its damage and for our purposes its speed 1 size category larger than normal, or huge). Normally it's 16/11/6/1 but the new modifier (-7 for two categories larger) make it 16/9/2/-5. Unless he had a strength of at least 22 (+6) he would be unable to get a 4th attack with this weapon. At next level, he's more experienced so he could manage a 4th attack with a strenght of only 20 (+5). So strong characters can use heavy weapons more effectively than weaker characters, which seems pretty appropriate to me.

Small characters like halflings and gnomes would have problems using big weapons, but then they do already because the DMG already has size category rules.

 

[Fenris]

Heretic Apostate,
It was my post regarding the weight and weapons speed. My much imput from others and I believe it was Jack Daniel who found the solution for me. Here was his last post regarding this.

Weapon Speeds

Why not use a mechanic similar to the "Swimming" penalty... -1 to initiative for every 5 (or 10) lbs of weapon. This can be counteracted by the character's Str bonus (Str bonus * 1.5 for two-handed). The str modifier can only negate the weight penalty, though, not give a bonus.

So, a 12 Str character wielding a 10 lb. bastard sword single handed, would have a -1 penalty (-2+1)to initiative.

A 14 Str character with a 20 lb. greatsword would also have a -1 penalty to initiative (-4+3)... The Str 12 char with the greatsword would have -3 (-4+1, since you round fractions down)... A Str 16 char with a greatsword would have +0 (-4+4)... A Str 18 char would also have +0 (-4+6, but you should not get a bonus). Anyone with Str 11 or less would have the full -4 penalty.

And remember, initiative would still be modified by Dex. So a Strong, clumsy character with a heavy weapon could still have a penalty, and a weak, dextrous character with a heavy wepon could still have a bonus