Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Unwise" data-source="post: 6306649" data-attributes="member: 98008">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&nbsp; the fastest weapons as the slowest and the slowest as the fastest. If I am carrying a broadsword, I definetly do not think &quot;gee I am at the disadvantage in getting the first hit against that guy with the tiny dagger&quot;. If speed is hitting first, then reach is far more important than weapon weight. Not only that, but reach weapons are not just &quot;reachy&quot;, 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.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Unwise, post: 6306649, member: 98008"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification