log in or register to remove this ad

 

Spell Casting times & Weapon Speeds addition to Initiatives

Would you play with Casting Times/Weapon Speed? Or not at all?

  • Yes - Add them Both

    Votes: 27 16.7%
  • Yes/No - Add only Casting Time

    Votes: 6 3.7%
  • Yes/No - Add only Weapon Speeds

    Votes: 5 3.1%
  • No - Don't want them but would play with either

    Votes: 47 29.0%
  • NO - Will Not Play at all with them

    Votes: 83 51.2%

  • Total voters
    162

TheYeti1775

Adventurer
All the old pre v3.x players I'm sure remember how casting times effected your initiatives.
Mainly the question is would you all like to see the Casting Time come back to your spells.
This effected everything from Initiative to when you were committed to casting the spell.

As well as the old Weapon Speed factor.

Would any of you like to see the return of either of these?

Yeti
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zappo

Explorer
I'd play it, but only because I'm a gaming junkie and I'd play mostly anything.

Those rules force you to declare your action before the turn begins. This is a major break from 3E initiative, where you declare your action on your initiative count and immediately resolve.

As a result, they make the game clunkier; not only because knowing your initiative modifier becomes more complex, but most importantly because you have to keep track of declared actions.

Considering that I don't see any real benefits in terms of either realism or enjoyment of the game, I think it'd be a bad idea.
 

Psychic Warrior

First Post
I would certainly play a game with those rules but I don't feel any burning need to have them in the game nowadays. At least in the form you are talking about. I do use a form of weapon speed that alters your iterative attack (based on the weapon you choose your second attack comes at -4/-5/-6 of your base attack.)
 

sjmiller

First Post
Frankly I as an old-time gamer I feel that those elements of the game are best left in the past. I do not think they are necessary, and the just slow down a game which can already be pretty slow. Those options of a bygone day were put in place to give flavor and variety to a rather limited set of actions available during combat. These days, with all the feats, special abilities, and what have you, that flavor is no longer needed.

Plus there's my personal belief that the weapon speed rules were pretty flawed to begin with, but that's a whole different message thread.

I would not play in a game that used those house rules. It would make the game less fun, and these days, for me at least, it's all about the fun.
 

Thornir Alekeg

Albatross!
I miss the weapon speed simply because it created a tradeoff between the huge, slow, crushing blows of the large weapons and the quick, low-damage dealing smaller weapons. I would gladly add weapon speed back in.

Casting times become a problem in the era of AoO. If you begin casting and a person moves up so you are in their threatened area, does your continued casting create an AoO for them? Not that it matters since they can just hit you and potentially disrupt your spell. While that has some "realism" it has the potential to really screw the spellcasters. I prefer the readied action to disrupt spells, so I would keep casting time out of the mix.
 

Byrons_Ghost

First Post
I wouldn't refuse to play in a game which had them, but I wouldn't use them in a game I'm DMing (and I DM most of the time). We never used them in 2e and I felt that leaving them out of 3e was a pretty natural step to make, since as far as I could tell most people ignored them.
 

buzz

Adventurer
Neither option fits with the current initiative system. Spell casting times are accounted for already, and rounds are long enough that modifying a PC's initiative due to weapon choice doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are already advantages and disadvantages to using weapons of different sizes built into the system.

And, even though my beloved RuneQuest has a similar "weapon speed" mechanic in its initiative system, I've never liked the concept. If I'm not doing anything combat-related on my turn, why does the fact I'm carring a polearm affect when my action comes up in the round?
 

Psychic Warrior

First Post
Byrons_Ghost said:
I wouldn't refuse to play in a game which had them, but I wouldn't use them in a game I'm DMing (and I DM most of the time). We never used them in 2e and I felt that leaving them out of 3e was a pretty natural step to make, since as far as I could tell most people ignored them.

That was my experience as well. 1E & 2E games I played in rarely had them but most did use the casting time rules. I liked what i saw with the weapon speed rules from Everquest/Scarred Lands so i use them.
 

Thornir Alekeg

Albatross!
buzz said:
Neither option fits with the current initiative system. Spell casting times are accounted for already, and rounds are long enough that modifying a PC's initiative due to weapon choice doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are already advantages and disadvantages to using weapons of different sizes built into the system.

What do you see as the disadvantages to carrying a greatsword as opposed to a shortsword, other than the overall weight?
 


X

xnosipjpqmhd

Guest
I use weapon speed as an init bonus to counterbalance its use as a multiple attack penalty.

Long/heavy weapons tend to strike first but have a greater penalty on multiple attacks in the same round. Short/light weapons have a lower init bonus but have a lower penalty on multiple attacks. Unarmed attacks have no init bonus (thus armed opponents will most likely strike first) but have a small penalty to multiple attacks (since you can punch someone a couple times while they are attempting to swing their polearm or whatever).

It works well when you don't want to deal with grids, reach, AoO, minis...

ironregime
 
Last edited:

Adding in Variable Initiative modifiers is just asking for headaches.

If you put in Weapon Speed/Spellcasting Time & roll for Iniative just Once per combat (as per 3rd standard). I won't play. I see where this is heading.

What happens if you switch weapons in mid-comabat. Say your Greatsword is sundered & you have to go to your Dagger. Do you keep you initial Iniative for the entire combat (so 1st round dagger, Great axe after that)? Or are you (the DM) forced to keep track of everyone's (including all your monsters) Initiative Score & modify them at the start of every round based on what spell/weapon they are using that round. And what if that big-slow-master of destruction barbarian wants to change his mind by the time it gets to his 5 Iniative (1 with his greataxe). Can he, or is he stuck?

If you keep the 1/combat Initiative system of 3rd & try to combine it with a Round-by-Round Initiative variable, you are opening up a Decanter of Endless Worms.


The only way Weapon Speeds will work is if you go with the Optional Roll Initative Round-by-Round option (like is was in 2nd ed). The problem with Round-by-Round is the level of strategy goes up by a factor of 10. You roll poor on 1 round? Take a big AC/Attack penalty combat option & hope you roll decent next round, minimizing the penalty. IF you go round by round, players with a better grasp on the combat rules will become more effective as they maximize each round based on what they rolled for Initiative. Also, I wouldn't use thsi system with more than 4 players, tops. The game slows down to a crawl. As if by a nearly dead snail.

All in all, I don't miss Weapon Speed/Casting Time one bit. It jsut doesn't fit well with 3rd edition. I know, I've tried to use them (as both player and DM). Always just slowed down things way too much for what little bit of 'increased' realism that might have existed.
 

TheYeti1775

Adventurer
Vraille Darkfang said:
Adding in Variable Initiative modifiers is just asking for headaches.

If you put in Weapon Speed/Spellcasting Time & roll for Iniative just Once per combat (as per 3rd standard). I won't play. I see where this is heading.

What happens if you switch weapons in mid-comabat. Say your Greatsword is sundered & you have to go to your Dagger. Do you keep you initial Iniative for the entire combat (so 1st round dagger, Great axe after that)? Or are you (the DM) forced to keep track of everyone's (including all your monsters) Initiative Score & modify them at the start of every round based on what spell/weapon they are using that round. And what if that big-slow-master of destruction barbarian wants to change his mind by the time it gets to his 5 Iniative (1 with his greataxe). Can he, or is he stuck?

If you keep the 1/combat Initiative system of 3rd & try to combine it with a Round-by-Round Initiative variable, you are opening up a Decanter of Endless Worms.


The only way Weapon Speeds will work is if you go with the Optional Roll Initative Round-by-Round option (like is was in 2nd ed). The problem with Round-by-Round is the level of strategy goes up by a factor of 10. You roll poor on 1 round? Take a big AC/Attack penalty combat option & hope you roll decent next round, minimizing the penalty. IF you go round by round, players with a better grasp on the combat rules will become more effective as they maximize each round based on what they rolled for Initiative. Also, I wouldn't use thsi system with more than 4 players, tops. The game slows down to a crawl. As if by a nearly dead snail.

All in all, I don't miss Weapon Speed/Casting Time one bit. It jsut doesn't fit well with 3rd edition. I know, I've tried to use them (as both player and DM). Always just slowed down things way too much for what little bit of 'increased' realism that might have existed.
??????????
You keep your base initiative, your actions dictate when you act. In reality it you announce on your base, at that time the ready actions would take effect. This would also be when AoO's could be taken.

There's no need to roll each round, and that was an optional rule under 2e.
 

LostSoul

Adventurer
Thornir Alekeg said:
What do you see as the disadvantages to carrying a greatsword as opposed to a shortsword, other than the overall weight?

You need two hands to wield one, so you can't use a shield (you'd have to get one of those floaty shields, forget what the enchantment is called). If you had anything else in your hands (divine focus, bow, wand) you'll have to drop it.

You need to either take a feat or a level in a martial class to be able to use it (without the -4 penalty).
 

Vraille Darkfang said:
IF you go round by round, players with a better grasp on the combat rules will become more effective as they maximize each round based on what they rolled for Initiative.

It also completely borks things with durations of 1 round (stunning fist, etc.).
 

Thornir Alekeg said:
What do you see as the disadvantages to carrying a greatsword as opposed to a shortsword, other than the overall weight?

1. Off Hand. You have one with a Short Sword. A one-handed weapon as opposed to a Two-Handed is a trade off. (Differences in Damage, Shield possibilities, etc).

2. Weapon Finesse.

3. Ummm.......

Ok, maybe the Greatsword is a lot better weapon for many High Strength Melee Combat types.

So?

Some weapons are better than others. It's as simple as that. The Arms development race has been going on since one hominid found a bigger club. D&D tries to compress centuries of technilogical time periods into one, generic setting. I'm tired of trying to equalize stuff that isn't equal.

Some weapons are better than others. Some Armor is better than others (half-plate vs full plate for starters). I've excepted that some stuff is better than others. If a character takes a choice based off role-playing I'll reward him with bonus XP here/there, cool weapon/gear, etc.
 


el-remmen

Moderator Emeritus
Thornir Alekeg said:
What do you see as the disadvantages to carrying a greatsword as opposed to a shortsword, other than the overall weight?

Well, as someone who thinks the use of these things would be a step backward and would necessitate a whole new initiative system (or a return to a new one) - i don't think disadvantage matters as much as "flavor" - sometimes you don't imagine your PC using one kind of weapon over another and that is all that should matter - as I see it.

Then again, I used weapon type vs. armor rules (everyone has three ACs slashing, piercing and blunt) so different weapon types do matter to some extent.
 

TheYeti1775 said:
??????????
You keep your base initiative, your actions dictate when you act. In reality it you announce on your base, at that time the ready actions would take effect. This would also be when AoO's could be taken.

There's no need to roll each round, and that was an optional rule under 2e.


Better than what I suffered through.

But basically, you are on your 'rolled' iniative declaring a held action (minus the you now act at this number for the rest of the combat penalty), so that you actual action takes place at a point several steps down the Iniative chart. That could work, as long as the penalties get no worse than 3 or so (as things change so fast in 3rd, esp high levels, any more than a 3 penalty makes slow weapons/spells difficult to actively use).

I.e Hobgoblins with daggers. Big, mean Barbarian runs up, begins his swing. Hobgoblin sees swing coming, uses his action to retreat.

I play this game for fun. Not absolute accuracy. Weapon speed might bring some level back to the game. But I find the hassels too mcuh to mess with.

I'll leave weapon speed & casting times to moulder in their 2nd ed graves.
 

SWBaxter

First Post
I would (and in fact do, on occasion) play a game where things like weapon speed and casting time affect when you act. But I don't think D&D is a good choice for that game. It works better in a game that's focused more on one-on-one fights between basically human combatants, in D&D rules complexity is better devoted to other issues, IMHO.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top