Weapon/Implement Speeds

[aco175]

How much is weapon speed built in to the 4e system in the way of weapon prof. with each weapon having a base atk bonus, ie. longsword +3 to hit, great ax +2 to hit. Note: these may not be accurate, just to show example.

 

[Garthanos]

How much is weapon speed built in to the 4e system in the way of weapon prof. with each weapon having a base atk bonus, ie. longsword +3 to hit, great ax +2 to hit. Note: these may not be accurate, just to show example.

Weapon reach maybe reflected in the damage ratings... it is harder to avoid an attack which inflicts more hitpoints ie... forcing more energy to be expended to minimise it that kind of thing. The abstraction of hp means its not just one thing being emulated.

 

[Alex319]

Well, weapon *reach* is reflected in the reach weapon property.

And reach weapons tend to have lower damage values than similar non-reach weapons. (This makes sense because otherwise there would be no reason to ever choose a non-reach weapon.)

 

[Garthanos]

Well, weapon *reach* is reflected in the reach weapon property.

And reach weapons tend to have lower damage values than similar non-reach weapons. (This makes sense because otherwise there would be no reason to ever choose a non-reach weapon.)

A touche... but the difference between a 1' blade and a 5 foot one is not incorporated in that mechanic.

A single real world thing is sometimes governed by a couple different mechanics and vice versi ;-)

 

[Neuroglyph]

Kzach, you can poopoo SCA style rattan fighting techniques if you want, but observe. The weapons are historically accurate in weight, size, and balance. Experience with this style of fighting may not be exactly the same as the real thing, but consider that very similar training techniques were used historically to train warriors, so I have to question exactly how unrealistic they are. Boffers are a whole other story and have very little to do with any kind of realism, but then again nobody who's handled period weapons or fought with rattan ones would claim otherwise.

Agreed AA. SCA fighting may not be the same as fighting with live steel, but the weight and size of the weapons is consistent with wooden training weapons of medieval period and the human body still has to make the same moves similar to period fighting styles in order to win your bout.

And yea, back in the day as you state, Weapon Speed in 2e was a mess, and really wouldn't add much to the 4e combats - except perhaps confusion.

 

[Kishin]

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.

Except that really, the guy with the weapon whose reach is x3 that of the dagger is going to strike before the guy with the dagger.

IMO, Weapon speed was horrific then, and would be horrific now, even with reach to 'balance' things' out.

Reach is an over-estimated advantage

Almost every form of competitive combat highly disagrees with you, and provides evidence to the contrary.

 

[Obryn]

Almost every form of competitive combat highly disagrees with you, and provides evidence to the contrary.

Heck; use simple logic. If there is a point during a fight where you can hit them, but they can't hit you, you have the advantage.

In the end, like I said above, it's D&D. I consign all of this stuff about reach and weapon speed to the same magical place where a guy with a quarterstaff can do damage to a guy in full plate, and where a rogue with a dagger can effectively use it against a colossal dragon.

-O

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

If the dagger was always a better bet than a greatsword...then why did the greatsword get used at all? Everything existed for a reason. Giant weapons weren't used on the field of battle to compensate for personal shortcomings.

DS