Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jimlock" data-source="post: 5570008" data-attributes="member: 6674931">ok.. i'll be answering to quite a few of your post since i've been away for a couple of days... so hold on<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Ok i thought that the speed weapon had a " speed range" of "critical range+1". I didn't realize it was a single # exactly one lower than the critical range. i misread it, sorry. So yes it is still a 5% chance no matter what. Still too complicated for no reason.. and with a major flaw that i will comment on later... (the same flaw as with your last version of the rule)... IMHO This is not true. While the enemy's weapon affects how one fights, it does not necessary affect one's "speed" with his weapon at hand.When two highly dexterous rogues fight with daggers, they are both gonna make/do/take/attempt  a certain number of swings/turns/thrusts/jabs etc. in a given time frame. The fact that one wields a dagger, is not going to reduce the other's speed or number of moves/swings with a dagger.One of these rogues, fighting with a warrior wielding a two handed sword, is not gonna gain any more "speed" or "number of moves" because of the other's weapon. He is still as fast and he can still perform the same amount of moves in the same given time frame. Moreover, he might even do less of what he is capable of, because he won't be able to come so close to the fighter due to the great sword's reach. The rogue knows that a single swing from the great sword is probably gonna cut him in half, so he'll probably stay in the back and wait for the opportune moment to strike. ...it's not as simple as it looks.IMO the number of moves one can make in a given time frame (round) depends both on the fightings styles and the weapons involved, but still, this does not affect one's actual speed with a given weapon, which is what we try to incorporate in the game's combat. And even though each attack roll is not deciphered as as single swing with a weapon. (Each attack roll actually represents "a number of attempts" to get past the opponents defenses), trying to figure out how many moves one is allowed because of fighting styles and weapons, would be too complicated to achieve, and would probable require a radical change in the combat system. My actual problem was not with the Ranger's 25%... but with the potential abuse that might follow, given the increase of percentages due to iterative attacks/feats and the possibility of gaining a number of speed attacks in a round that would consequently render non-speed weapons not appealing. This 5% IMO takes the rule to other end of the spectrum, meaning that it undermines weapon speed more than it should. Figuring the speed attack on the damage throw does not mean that you "connect" damage with the weapon's speed. You are simple using one of the two rolls made in a successful attack (attack roll + damage roll), so as to get what you want. What is great, is that the damage die, can actually connect to the weapon's speed. The smaller the die, the faster the weapon. Quick, simple, clear.The d20 is always the same die no matter what weapon you use.  Ok... you've obviously missed something here...do you now what the chances are for something like that to happen?for a dagger thats is : 5% X 25% = 1,25%!!! ...This means that one has 1,25% chances of getting a free speed weapon attack per attack...(and thats with a dagger... with a shortsword that goes down to 0,8%)  I will not debate on that... i'm fairly certain that you simply missed calculating the probability...As far as incorporating weapon weights, Str and Dex into the rule... i answer the following:3.x ... or d20 in general if you may, is a rules-heavy system as it is.Having started playing D&D with 2e... well this weights even more on me.I don't want to complicate the system any more than it already is.As much as i want to incorporate weapon speed in my game i would never do it on the expense of adding "resolution time" in combat.The first rule is very simple. Your roll 1 in damage? you get an extra attack...For the player that's super simple, because he knows beforehand whether his weapons are capable of this. The player has to only keep an eye out when a 1 comes up when he rolls the dice...The DM has the slight disadvantage of checking weapons for each NPC... If the list is pretty clear...he eventually gets used to it over time.Now....by having to compare weapon weights... taking into account Dex and Str ...and whatever might one figure out as more realistic (without necessarily BEiNG more realistic).. one loses A LOT of time... Moreover it begins to be so complicated that the DM will never really get used to it... It's highly likely that even after a year of playing this rule, he is still gonna be checking tables related to weight, Str, Dex...Even  the "simple" rule of having 3 categories of weapons so as to compare who fight with what in any give round is way too tiresome and lengthy... and not any more realistic if you ask me...The first rule has the following advantages (in general, or compared to other rules):1-You resolve weapon speed by dice ALREADY ROLLED. No more die rolling required...2-You pay attention to a 1 coming up on the damage die. Very simple and clear.3-You dot have to compare/calculate/think of anything else but that single 1 coming up.4-The die you choose to decide for the weapon's speed happens to be VERY relevant to the a weapon's speed.5-Even if you allow for 1 attack per hand/weapon, a characters stills imrpoves as the levels go by, because his chances of making those couple of speed weapon attacks improve accordingly.The rest of the rules cannot keep up with the above. While they also resolve weapon speed by dice already rolled, they start getting complicated beyond that. As far as the:So what? no big deal....Believe me the first rule is the best by far</blockquote>

Verification