Weapon delays in d20 EQ

[Vaxalon]

I'll say it, then I'll leave it. I'm not subscribing to the thread, and I won't respond to it.

Here's a summary of the rule: "fast" weapons get a smaller iterative attack modifier, "slow" weapons get a larger one. So a war maul might attack at +7/+1, whereas a dagger might attack at +7/+3. Some spells and magic can further affect this.

The EQ implementation of weapon delays sucks. Since Sean K. Reynolds has already done this whole argument, I'll summarize and apply it to the Weapon Delay mechanic:

1> It doesn't do what it wants to do.

It tries to make some weapons "faster" than others, but all it does is make some weapons more accurate than others, especially in situations like that listed above.

2> What it wants to do isn't realistic.

To go from "en garde" with a longsword to a strike takes a flick of the wrist, or at most shoulder, hips and elbow; to go from "en garde" with a dagger to a strike requires movement of practically the whole body. Fighting with a small, light weapon is actually MORE work than fighting with a long one! A longspear is actually one of the quickest weapons out there.

3> It doesn't do what it wants to do reasonably.

Strength should make heavy weapons faster, because you can haul them around better. Dexterity should make light weapons even faster than they already are. In the EQ system, they don't.

There. I'm done. It has all been said before, many times, but I just wanted to reiterate that the EQ folks made a big step backwards with this.

 

[drowdude]

There. I'm done. It has all been said before, many times, but I just wanted to reiterate that the EQ folks made a big step backwards with this.

I agree 100% with you on this point.

 

[Luddite]

Well, I have yet to see the EQ RPG, but I already had a very bad feeling about it with some of the press releases.

Could someone put the link in where Sean goes over in detail about EQ RPG?

-The Luddite

 

[hong]

Well, I have yet to see the EQ RPG, but I already had a very bad feeling about it with some of the press releases.

Could someone put the link in where Sean goes over in detail about EQ RPG?

Sean doesn't go into detail on the EQ RPG. He does go into detail on weapon speeds:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html

 

[Gallowglass]

I'll say it, then I'll leave it. I'm not subscribing to the thread, and I won't respond to it.

Here's a summary of the rule: "fast" weapons get a smaller iterative attack modifier, "slow" weapons get a larger one. So a war maul might attack at +7/+1, whereas a dagger might attack at +7/+3. Some spells and magic can further affect this.

The EQ implementation of weapon delays sucks. Since Sean K. Reynolds has already done this whole argument, I'll summarize and apply it to the Weapon Delay mechanic:

1> It doesn't do what it wants to do.

It tries to make some weapons "faster" than others, but all it does is make some weapons more accurate than others, especially in situations like that listed above.

2> What it wants to do isn't realistic.

To go from "en garde" with a longsword to a strike takes a flick of the wrist, or at most shoulder, hips and elbow; to go from "en garde" with a dagger to a strike requires movement of practically the whole body. Fighting with a small, light weapon is actually MORE work than fighting with a long one! A longspear is actually one of the quickest weapons out there.

3> It doesn't do what it wants to do reasonably.

Strength should make heavy weapons faster, because you can haul them around better. Dexterity should make light weapons even faster than they already are. In the EQ system, they don't.

There. I'm done. It has all been said before, many times, but I just wanted to reiterate that the EQ folks made a big step backwards with this.

One minor point: fifteen years steel wepon sword fighting and basic physics tells me that point to misses the essential point: A bigger weapon masses more, therefore requires more energy to move. A small weapon, like a dagger, is much easier to handle. Whole body movement is handled by a different aspect of the rules.

The problem is "fast" and "slow" are compound descriptions. If EQ, or d20 twenty in general, wants to address this aspect of melee combat then weapons need an encumerance rating (not automatically equal to their size): low encumberance weapons (daggers, shortswords, light spears) are faster (initiative modifer?) than medium encumberance weapons (most larger swords, axes, one handed hammers, Two handed Spears) which are faster than cumbersome weapons (Bill-hooks, Glaives, Halberds, Pikes). Yes, if one can stay at range with some of the latter pole weapons they are _very_ quick (let me and few Bill-Hook wielding mates pin a lone swords at range and we will kill him nine times out of ten), but get inside their reach and they are awkwad to readjust and maneuver, almost always handing the intiative to the combatant with the smaller, "handier" weapon. Classic Traveller actually had a nice mechanism of minimum STR and DEX scores for using weapons and scores for bonuses which worked quite well.

And the lunacy of rolling intiative ONCE, at the beginning of an encounetr and it NEVER changing needs dropping. Iniative in that sense is something that ebbs and flows in a combat (and god help the Spear Man who does let the dagger man inside his guard...)

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Weapon delays in d20 EQ

One minor point: fifteen years steel wepon sword fighting and basic physics

Oh dear.

And the lunacy of rolling intiative ONCE, at the beginning of an encounetr and it NEVER changing needs dropping. Iniative in that sense is something that ebbs and flows in a combat (and god help the Spear Man who does let the dagger man inside his guard...)

I fail to see anything "lunatic" about rolling initiative once.

 

[Vigilance]

Well, actually, I think the whole argument based on physics and "realism" misses the point.

A Dagger is faster than a longsword *in EQ*, and so the roleplaying game, which is trying to emulate the *EQ* experience is adding this facet of the game.

I dont play EQ myself (I got bored with it), but, I think its fine that SSS would try to emulate the game they're trying to emulate.

 

[Luddite]

The fact that EQ the Online game uses Weapon speed is fine. In the Computer environment, you can keep track of "sub-second" intervals alot easier then in the Table top.

But in the d20 "6 second" round, weapon speeds lose meaning. I would take the side that Weapon Speeds are not easily doable in the d20 system. In order to use them, you would have to re-write the whole combat mechanics.

-THe Luddite

 

[Vigilance]

The system as described by Steve W looked pretty doable to me luddite

They are making a "fast" weapon grant extra attacks every four BAB progressions instead of five, and "slow" weapons grants extra attacks every six BAB progressions.

I dont think they were worried about realism or the length of the round, I think they made some decisions to keep the feel of the game intact. When you're picking your weapon of choice in EQ, you take speed into account.

Clearly they thought this was an important element of EQ.

 

[Blacksad]

They are making a "fast" weapon grant extra attacks every four BAB progressions instead of five, and "slow" weapons grants extra attacks every six BAB progressions.

the problem with this is that for a fighter, from level 1 to 4 all weapon have the same speed, for a wizard it's from level 1 to 8.