Spell Casting times & Weapon Speeds addition to Initiatives

[xnosipjpqmhd]

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

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

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]

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]

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).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.).

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

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.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Greatsword stuff ...

They're also a lot harder to carry around secretly, and they weigh a lot, too.

 

[el-remmen]

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.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

??????????
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]

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.