Spell Casting times & Weapon Speeds addition to Initiatives

[buzz]

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

Well, none, in terms of affecting initiative. I was thinking more of weapons that one might obviously categorize as "slower", e.g., most reach weapons. The advantage (reach) is offset by a disadvantage (can't attack adjacent squares). That's good enough for me. Shoehorning weapon speed into 3.x just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Well, given that there is no good way to model weapon speed in the game. This is partially because many of the ideas people have about the "speed" of weapons is just wrong, many big weapons are much quicker to use than small weapons - it is easier to bring an effective strike against an opponent with the leverage of a longer and heavier weapon than with a smaller one.

This is also because cyclical initiative makes it almost impossible to make workable. Suppose I start combat with a "quick" weapon in hand, like a dagger, do I get an initiave bonus? Suppose, on my action, I drop the dagger and draw a greatsword - does my initiative now drop? If it does, how did I act to drop my dagger and draw my sword to begin with? If I am wielding a greatsword and drop it to draw a handaxe, does my initiative go up? How does one account for that?

 

[D'karr]

Too much trouble, no real advantage. Cyclical initiative does not play well with modifiers.

Even when playing 1st Edition we didn't use the weapon speed modifiers. Heck, even EGG didn't use weapon speed modifiers.

Also in previous editions of the game the combat round was much longer, by a factor of 10.

Both of these "modifiers" don't seem to fit well with the current combat model. Besides how many people actually used these rules in previous editions? You might be surprised that a great majority of people didn't. There is a good reason they were dropped from the current edition.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It would slow down game play.

Cyclical initiative means initiative doesn't change all that much. (Gee, I'm Mr. Obvious today.) So there's no need to change the init order at the beginning of every round.

Generally, players decide what they want to do as other players are taking their turns. However, if initiative changes every round, players have to make their decision at the start of every round without the ability to change their mind depending on what is happening to their friends. Even issues like "who gets to talk first" can complicate things.

I can picture a really bad scenario happening because of this:

Fighter: wielding greatsword, had a good init roll. "I'm slicing open the troll. Heh heh. I hit AC 28, dishing out 23 damage."

DM: "the troll rages, striking AC 30 and 34 - those both hit, right? That's 60 damage, and now for the rend ... that's another 41 damage."

Fighter: "Yikes! I'd like some healing here!"

Cleric: "Um... I already decided to cast searing light at that lich in the background. If I were to move up and cast heal, I'd have to move back three init spaces. Maybe I can ask the DM..."

DM: "No. The lich is only one init point behind you. I guess you do it, but that means you have to let the lich go before you."

Cleric: "Okay, sure."

DM: "The lich is casting horrid wilting. He had made the decision to do so at the beginning of the round - that's why he's so late. How many hp are you at again, fighter?"

 

[TheYeti1775]

It would slow down game play.

Cyclical initiative means initiative doesn't change all that much. (Gee, I'm Mr. Obvious today.) So there's no need to change the init order at the beginning of every round.

Generally, players decide what they want to do as other players are taking their turns. However, if initiative changes every round, players have to make their decision at the start of every round without the ability to change their mind depending on what is happening to their friends. Even issues like "who gets to talk first" can complicate things.

I can picture a really bad scenario happening because of this:

Fighter: wielding greatsword, had a good init roll. "I'm slicing open the troll. Heh heh. I hit AC 28, dishing out 23 damage."

DM: "the troll rages, striking AC 30 and 34 - those both hit, right? That's 60 damage, and now for the rend ... that's another 41 damage."

Fighter: "Yikes! I'd like some healing here!"

Cleric: "Um... I already decided to cast searing light at that lich in the background. If I were to move up and cast heal, I'd have to move back three init spaces. Maybe I can ask the DM..."

DM: "No. The lich is only one init point behind you. I guess you do it, but that means you have to let the lich go before you."

Cleric: "Okay, sure."

DM: "The lich is casting horrid wilting. He had made the decision to do so at the beginning of the round - that's why he's so late. How many hp are you at again, fighter?"

Think you missed the point of the timing of declaring on the spell, you don't declare till your Init rolls around not at the beginning of the round.

Using Cure Spells as an example.
Currently the only difference between a Heal and a Cure Light Wounds is the level of spell. They are both a Standard Action for their Casting Time.
Wouldn't it make sense takes longer to cast? (i.e. longer segement of a standard action)
So your first level spells would be quickly cast, but you would run your risk greater for a more powerful casting.

Really even the weapon speed doesn't add too much to the thought process, your average fighter is carrying sword, dagger, maybe a bow, and then unarmed.
Maybe I'm just weird but I liked having both factors in my games.

All they really do is show that you are committed to the action. This would be when things could change midstream.

Yeti

 

[Glyfair]

I'll vote with the majority and say that I wouldn't use them because they are too complex in practice.

However, I would recommend putting some variation in a computer program simulating D&D, at least for casting times. Weapon speed would have to be modeled more "realisticaly" than the old D&D system to make it worth my while. Long weapons would have the advantage until the opponent moved closer than the striking range of a weapon, then the smaller weapon would have the advantage.

 

[the Jester]

I'd play with them over not playing at all, but I agree with all the arguments against them- they aren't necessary and would slow down combat.

I do like the idea of casting time/weapon speed in certain contexts, but 3e dnd isn't one of them.

 

[Stalker0]

Currently the only difference between a Heal and a Cure Light Wounds is the level of spell. They are both a Standard Action for their Casting Time.

Yeti

Personally, that's enough for me. I can blow one of my higher level spells, or use a lesser one. Maybe its good to use that heal spell now. Maybe I'd rather save that for later.

As for weapon speeds, weapons are already different enough. Is it that a greatsword is better than a shortsword?

Well...it should be. But its heavier, more expensive, takes more training...and the big factor, its REALLY BIG!!! If you play a game that's all dungeon killing, then other than weapon finesse or something I would would a great or longsword over a shortsword any day of the week. However, if you ever go to town where weapons are prohibited, then all of a sudden that tiny easily concealed dagger is looking pretty good.

 

[buzz]

Wouldn't it make sense takes longer to cast? (i.e. longer segement of a standard action)
So your first level spells would be quickly cast, but you would run your risk greater for a more powerful casting.

So, the more powerful my spellcaster gets, the more effort he has to expend to cast his newly-acquired spells? Wimpy Wiz1 casts spells that take little time, but Mordenkainen's powerfull magic has to take forever?

I think "makes sense" becomes a slippery slope, because there is no "real" magic to serve as a model. D&D's magic works fine as-is within the combat round system. Imposing what "makes sense" will often simply lead to either screwing or coddling the PCs.

 

[D'karr]

These adjustments sound cool until you're the DM and have 9-12 different NPCs or creatures ,each with different weapons, fighting the PCs. What happens then?

Option 1: If you track them all with the same initiative (the preferred way), how do the disparate weapon speed modifiers affect the combined initiative?

Option 2: If you track them all with different initiatives you've just bought yourself a headache.

Option 3: Or you choose to have all creatures have the same weapon.

Option 1 becomes confusing, Option 2 becomes unworkable and Option 3 makes for boring opponents.

Like I said before, no real advantage for far too much trouble. I prefer combat to move along at a faster pace than this rule mechanic allows.