D&D 5E Weapon and Spell Speed Factor Module

[Mishihari Lord]

I wouldn't call a tweet that starts with "doubtful" hopeful. And that's too bad, I was hoping for a module that emulates 2E style initiative. D&D combat lost a lot of depth with 3E initiative.

 

[howandwhy99]

Openly supporting House Rules for any version of D&D is a good idea.

My own preference is Weapon Length / Reach matters more than Weapon Speed. But I don't have Dexterity modify Initiative rolls either because combat is done in 1 minute rounds. Disrupting casting is done another way, so it isn't dropped.

 

[dd.stevenson]

This should be pretty easy to house rule, I would think. A spitballed example:

Weapons that do d2-d6 damage have a weapon speed of 1.
Weapons that do d8-d10 damage have a weapon speed of 2.
Weapons that do d12 + damage have a weapon speed of 3.
Most non-attack actions have a speed of 2.
Single action spells have a speed of spell level.
Swift action spells have no effect on initiative count.

Declare actions; then roll a d6 (or whatever) for individual/group initiative, have everyone modify it, and then the DM starts counting down.

I don't think I've missed any curve balls here? I ran something similar to this awhile back and had no significant problems (other than the issues that normally accompany this pattern of combat.)

 

[gweinel]

Although I don't use any electronic aids during my sessions I could see an application where each round every player clicks his modified iniative roll and then the dm gets his iniative lists.

 

[Valetudo]

While I dont see myself going back to round by round iniative. I would think it would be a easy enough option to include in 5th edition. I think you would have too stick with casting times, bacause of instant spells like the power word spells.

 

[Lawngnome4hire]

Having spells use their level for speed doesn't really cut it, some spells by their nature should be faster or slower based on what they're trying to accomplish. For example summoning spells should be slow, even if it's only summon monster 1, but power words should be very fast, even though they were always higher level. A simple blanket rule just won't do the system justice, it needs more though and planning behind it.

While I doubt they'll ever add this in, and honestly I don't know for sure if I'd use it if they did even though I'm the one that asked about it. But having the option adds a whole new layer of tactics into the existing combat system that some people will enjoy. Once they took it out combat started to get pretty bland. Counter spells became a joke, and there is very little reason to take lower damage weapons that would normally be faster. Everyone just goes for the biggest stick, and the system offers very little encouragement to try something different.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Mike Mearls in a yesterday's tweet:



Weapon and Spell Speed Factor is one of my favorite features of the 2nd edition. The above tweet rekindled my hopes to see it again as a module in the 5th edition.

Here is an Ad hoc module imitating the 2nd edition weapon speed factor and spell speed factor rules.

Weapon and Spell Speed Factor Module

• Every weapon category gets a -3 to the iniative. So Light Weapons get a -3, Medium Weapons -6 and Heavy Weapons -9.
• Each spell get a minus for each spell level to the iniative. So, a 1st lvl spell gets a -1, a 2nd lvl spell gets a -2, ..... a 9th lvl spell gets a -9.
• If the weapon's wielder iniative is greater than the spell caster and the attack hits the caster then the spell is disrupted.

What to you think?

I think that this makes the same mistake weapon speed did in the original rules. That mistake is quite simply bigger (balanced) weapons are faster. If I want to hit you on the thigh then in the head with a dagger I need to move my entire arm about three feet. If I want to with a halberd, it's about six inches of moving my wrists. And If I have a dagger and you have a halberd, and I don't throw the dagger, the halberd attacks first. I need to get far enough beyond the point that I can reach out and stab - and to do that I need to first make it past the point then the edge. Halberd acts before dagger in just about every possible way. And certainly can reach out and touch a spellcaster from further away.

And that's before we get to the fiddliness that they add to the rules.

 

[gweinel]

I think that this makes the same mistake weapon speed did in the original rules. That mistake is quite simply bigger (balanced) weapons are faster. If I want to hit you on the thigh then in the head with a dagger I need to move my entire arm about three feet. If I want to with a halberd, it's about six inches of moving my wrists. And If I have a dagger and you have a halberd, and I don't throw the dagger, the halberd attacks first. I need to get far enough beyond the point that I can reach out and stab - and to do that I need to first make it past the point then the edge. Halberd acts before dagger in just about every possible way. And certainly can reach out and touch a spellcaster from further away.

And that's before we get to the fiddliness that they add to the rules.

Although i might i agree with the most of the things you say i think you miss the point here. The reintroduction of this rule has not much to do with the realism as much with the game style and the tactics that this rule made available and necessary during 2nde. It has to do with a nostalgia too.

Returning now to the content of your post have in mind that the 2nd edition round lasted 60 seconds, so the attack rolls does not represent a single attack but attempts and maneuvers and feints to harm an opponent. If you put two persons one vs one and have them fight for a few seconds then the thing you write might be true but in the context of a minute in a fluid battlefield i can see that someone with a dagger has better maneuvrability and possible to be able to hit first than one with a halbard. In any case this is secondary issue for me.

As for the rules I made, I know they are not perfect. As I said they were ad hoc thoughts and I wanted to ask the opinion of the community since i had not the chance play the last playtest packets. Many inputs like the [MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION] are actually better than mine although i would prefer it to be more streamlined.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

What to you think?

D&D 5E puts on water skis and goes flying over a watery enclosure containing a carnivorous fish.

There may be other weapon speed fans out there, but I suspect there aren't enough of them to justify putting thee back into the game even as optional rules. This is good house rule territory.

 

[Unwise]

I'm a bit disappointed to see the otherwise sensible Mike Mearls entertaining this idea. It won't matter to me personally, as long as they don't try and balance anything around it. I don't want them changing the base damage on weapons to make up for the fact that they are light or heavy.

Weapon speeds always seemed rather non-sensical to me. Not just for the effect they had on the game, but the fact that they (as [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] said more elequently) generally speaking get everything backwards. They often represent the fastest weapons as the slowest and the slowest as the fastest.

If I am carrying a broadsword, I definetly do not think "gee I am at the disadvantage in getting the first hit against that guy with the tiny dagger". If speed is hitting first, then reach is far more important than weapon weight. Not only that, but reach weapons are not just "reachy", they are often very fast. The simple leverage on a long weapon means that a small fast hand movement makes the end move at huge speeds. I am no Musashi, but in me experience, speed wise, I always feared the quarterstaff, spears and lighter two handers like the Katana. To me, a dagger does not even make sense as being faster at landing a strike than those.

The local SCA group here actually banned quarterstaves from tournys. They were too quick to compete with and without the the fact they were blunt rather than sharp really coming into it, swords could not compete. Quickness also meant that they were substantial lumps of wood travelling at very high speeds with little way to judge how hard you were hitting the other guy. They were not overly safe compared to a practice sword. Same with long-chained morning stars.