Weapon/Implement Speeds

Markn

First Post
I was perusing the Paizo boards, blasphemy I know, and came across a thread that I found to be pretty interesting and made me have nostalgic feelings. The thread was about introducing weapons speeds into Pathfinder. After reading it, I was thinking how it could apply to 4e.

For those who aren't familiar with 2nd edition, weapons (and spells) had a speed factor that applied to your inititative roll. The idea was that if you were using a small, light weapon you generally were quicker and if you were using a bigger bulkier weapon (that generally did more damage) you often were slower. 2e also was the last edition to have players roll initiative round after round and thus weapons speeds played a big factor in when you went.

4e seems to encourage build types, particularly with regards to fighters, your choice of weapons is very important. If you have a high con, str or dex you are more apt to choose certain types of weapons. I like this idea. They even took it a step further by encouraging choices in powers. For example, certian powers give you bonuses if you are using a certain type of weapon such as extra damage or extra effects.

While I am not proposing rolling initative every round like 2e, I do think that weapons/implement speeds could be applied in 4e or perhaps in future editions.

Keep in mind, this proposal hasn't had any concrete rules thoughts behind it, just perliminary thinking, but using weapons speeds would give designers or players another element in character design or creation and can be used as a blancing factor to some of the builds out there.

Basically, at its simplest, all weapons/implements (maybe even holy symbols) have an init mod from +0 to +5. Quick weapons give +5, slow weapons give +0. Players using 2 weapons take the average weapons speed of the weapons. Players changing weapons in mid-fight have their init adjusted on the following turn to the new weapon speed modified by a penatly, say a -2, for the time it took to swap weapons.

This idea opens up some new dynamics in play, want to hit harder? On average you will go later. Want to hit sooner? Use a less damaging weapon. Want to move you init around without delaying or readying or possibly go before the bad guy who is just before you to hopefully kill him before he attacks you? Change weapons. It will also give more flavor to DM monsters as those that hurt more (brutes) will be slower and those that deal less may get an extra turn out of this system because they will more often go sooner in the round. I understand that the W die is pretty small in 4e compared to the static damage bonus you can get from ability mod, enhancement, feats, etc but this is really about differentiating weapons/implements a bit more than they are now.

The biggest issue I can see is power durations that trigger at the end of your next turn (or things of that nature) but I am sure they can be worked around.

I think this could be pretty cool in play, though not sure the added complexity is worth it.

So how about it, is this something that you think could fit into 4e? Would you want to see this in future editions? Do you have any other thoughts or comments? Let's hear them!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hmmmm. Mostly what I recall from the days of running 2e is that weapon speed factors were universally and utterly ignored, lol. Even spell casting times were pretty much ignored unless you were talking about a multi-round casting time.

Mechanically it probably could be made to work in 4e and it would probably be less of a pain to deal with than it was in 2e where it had to interact with multi-attacks, dual-wielding, etc. Still, the initiative shifting aspect is a bit troublesome, though probably not more so than delay and ready are now. Switching weapons is pretty unusual in 4e anyway, so it would probably come up only when characters switch to auxiliary ranged weapons or a few odd situations.

I guess the main reason it doesn't necessarily seem all THAT exciting just that mostly I don't see a big need to differentiate weapons more than they are now. Most players I've played with would actually probably be happier with LESS mechanical distinction between weapons. Weapon choice is largely driven by character concept for a pretty high proportion of players and further narrowing the best choices for specific builds probably won't excite them. As for the min/maxers they don't really care that much what its called as long as its the best thing and if all weapons were pretty much identical it would just be one less thing for them to optimize, which is fine with me.

I was actually QUITE happy with original D&D's weapons where basically you had one-handed and two-handed weapons and there were no other differences.

Of course the final question would be how would you rebalance all the weapons if you did this in 4e? They are reasonably well balanced now and for example making all maces really slow or all larger weapons slower is going to necessitate some other change to get them back into par with the smaller and faster weapons. Seems like a lot of tinkering for what looks like a small gain at best.
 

2e speed factors were kinda ridiculous. Believe it or not, I'll take 1e here, any day.

By the 2e rules, a guy with a dagger gets to attack before a guy with a greatsword nine times out of ten. In real life, the guy with the dagger gets cut in half before he can close with the guy with the greatsword. :)

On the other hand, 1e has a much more "simulationist" approach. In any charge, the one with the longer weapon goes first. After you close the distance, speed factor rarely matters - but in some cases, it can matter quite a lot; then your dagger guy might get a few choice stabs on the greatsword guy before the greatsword guy gets to react. (In many games, this was houseruled so speed factor is really just a tiebreaker.)

So yeah. IMO, it's backwards. A small weapon is generally disadvantaged in all but the closest combat, and while I'm dandy with ignoring disadvantages for flavor reasons, I'm sketchy on giving advantages to them instead. :)

-O
 

Hmmmm. Mostly what I recall from the days of running 2e is that weapon speed factors were universally and utterly ignored, lol. Even spell casting times were pretty much ignored unless you were talking about a multi-round casting time.

Interesting, in my area, they were used and well liked. I guess the idea wasn't for everyone and it WAS only an optional rule.

Mechanically it probably could be made to work in 4e and it would probably be less of a pain to deal with than it was in 2e where it had to interact with multi-attacks, dual-wielding, etc. Still, the initiative shifting aspect is a bit troublesome, though probably not more so than delay and ready are now. Switching weapons is pretty unusual in 4e anyway, so it would probably come up only when characters switch to auxiliary ranged weapons or a few odd situations.

You are right in that switching weapons in 4e is rare. I was thinking ahead, though, in that once a rule exists for weapon speed, it can be abused. A person normally wielding a bastard sword might min/max their approach by carrying a dagger around to use until the fight starts. Essentially, the idea was to prevent metagaming to some degree.


Of course the final question would be how would you rebalance all the weapons if you did this in 4e? They are reasonably well balanced now and for example making all maces really slow or all larger weapons slower is going to necessitate some other change to get them back into par with the smaller and faster weapons. Seems like a lot of tinkering for what looks like a small gain at best.


Beats me. Haven't thought about it THAT much yet. Just throwing the idea out to gauge interest.
 

2e speed factors were kinda ridiculous. Believe it or not, I'll take 1e here, any day.

By the 2e rules, a guy with a dagger gets to attack before a guy with a greatsword nine times out of ten. In real life, the guy with the dagger gets cut in half before he can close with the guy with the greatsword. :)

On the other hand, 1e has a much more "simulationist" approach. In any charge, the one with the longer weapon goes first. After you close the distance, speed factor rarely matters - but in some cases, it can matter quite a lot; then your dagger guy might get a few choice stabs on the greatsword guy before the greatsword guy gets to react. (In many games, this was houseruled so speed factor is really just a tiebreaker.)

So yeah. IMO, it's backwards. A small weapon is generally disadvantaged in all but the closest combat, and while I'm dandy with ignoring disadvantages for flavor reasons, I'm sketchy on giving advantages to them instead. :)

-O

Is it the term "weapon speed" that is the issue? What if it was called Fighting Style or some such name. Basically, a guy with a dagger is likely to get more jabs/strikes in before a guy with a big axe would. Simulating it by allowing the dagger attacker to be "on average" faster is one way to display this. Just curious if reskinning it gives a different taste or if its the mechanic you are not fond of.
 

Is it the term "weapon speed" that is the issue? What if it was called Fighting Style or some such name. Basically, a guy with a dagger is likely to get more jabs/strikes in before a guy with a big axe would. Simulating it by allowing the dagger attacker to be "on average" faster is one way to display this. Just curious if reskinning it gives a different taste or if its the mechanic you are not fond of.
IMO, that's best handled by assuming that the guy with the dagger is making more jabs and the guy with the big sword is making fewer, but that the mechanics already reflect both of these.

Also, and more fundamentally, Initiative is all about the first strike. If you give the guy with the dagger an initiative bonus, he'll get the first strike over the longer weapon. I have a big problem with that. Getting in more jabs is different from swinging first, and I don't know that I need a dagger-wielding rogue to get extra attacks in combat, either. :)

-O
 

I think I'd be iffy on using them to alter generic initiative, but could see using them in some fashion for settling tie breakers or contesting timing on immediates or readied actions...

Also, you'll have to put some hard thought to people who can casually switch weapons or wield multiple weapons. For example, my artificer actually swaps between four different weapons with the aid of his familiar. If one of my weapons gave me an initiative bonus I'd cheerfully start every combat wielding that one before switching to the one I actually wanted to use.
 

By the 2e rules, a guy with a dagger gets to attack before a guy with a greatsword nine times out of ten. In real life, the guy with the dagger gets cut in half before he can close with the guy with the greatsword. :)

Maybe in your world, but in my world the guy with the greatsword gets one swing that is easy to predict and therefore easy to dodge before the guy with the dagger is slitting his throat.

I think my world is closer to reality than yours.
 

Reach is a very big consideration on any melee combat. Whether that's boxing or greatswords.

Also, optimal greatsword use is not necessarily in dramatic huge swings that are easy to predict, mm?
 

Most people seem to make nieve assumptions about how two handed weapons are used and games present them heavier than they ever really are or were ...(ok I will admit the latest D&D books are closer than they ever have been a 6 or 7 pound two handed sword is huge in a historical context..)

Two handed weapons do not normally even weight twice what a singlehanded one did... surprise, they are normally "faster", and used in short strokes that keep the weapon between its user and the enemy making them awesome as a threatening defense (particularly later designs with pointed ends). In other words say hello dagger wielder to a fast and deadly opportunity attack when you try to close.

What Did Historical Swords Weigh?
However, there are a few respected sources that do give some valuable statistics. For example, the lengthy catalog of swords from the famed Wallace Collection Museum in London readily lists dozens of fine specimens among which it is difficult to find any weighing in excess of 4 pounds. Indeed, the majority of specimens, from arming swords to two-handers to rapiers, weigh much less than three pounds.


Note the article describes the myth of the lumbering cumbersome over large sword quite a bit, its not just about innacuracy in weight portrayal.....
 
Last edited:

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top