Weapon Speeds For d20 Fantasy Gaming

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And, you don't see a difference with the numbers I posted?

Of course I see it. The dagger will always be +1 AB better on its first iterative, +2 AB better on its second iterative, etc. This is not rocket science to see the pattern.

The next question, then, is do you think daggers are inherently more accurate than swords? Should daggers hit-and-damage more often than swords?

The article doesn't speak to that reality.

The article is primarily addressing the number of attacks you make, yes, because that is the legacy issue.

I don't huh. Well, when he said, "The work necessary to make these variant iterative progressions balanced isn't worth the small reward for doing so." I thought that was pretty clear as to his point.

Yes - in rules-design-time, not necessarily in run-time. In run time, it is usually no more complicated than the current rules. In design time, however, it is not.

The rule pretty much already did that work. It's in the OP. Unless the GM wants to change it, most weapons are already categoriezed.

Really? Why's a composite longbow slower than a normal longbow? You also left off nonrepeating crossbows.

Have you actually done any math on what happens when your warrior-types actually run into these rules, in terms of how their average expected damage per attack and per round changes?

Both the Longsword and the short sword are Standard weapons, under the rule, so there would be no change at all.

Then sword and dagger (or rapier and shortsword). And why aren't shortswords faster than longswords?

That's three attacks. Sounds like a minimum 11th level character. Both the club and longbow are Standard weapons, so there would be no change from from how you'd normaly handle this.

So firing a longbow is just as fast as swinging it? Throwing daggers are just as fast as swinging them? Throwing a longsword as an improvised throwing weapon is exactly the same as engaging in melee combat with it?

In short, when everything is the same, hand-waving away such questions is easy, because, for simplifying-the-game purposes, you've already made everything the same. Once you've got some variables in play, the question of why and how you're assigning those variables becomes important.

And you skipped this question:

* And, even then, the article admits, they can be. What happens when a character with a +9 BAB is holding a dagger (Fast), and throws it, then quick draws another dagger (Fast), and throws it, and then pulls a throwing axe (Normal) and wants to throw that? Can he? Or do you need to recalc some attack bonuses mid-round, which argues against your "It's totally easy!" point.

 

[Water Bob]

The next question, then, is do you think daggers are inherently more accurate than swords? Should daggers hit-and-damage more often than swords?

If they're quicker to strike, sure.

And, that's what the Speed Factor rule implements.

The article is primarily addressing the number of attacks you make, yes, because that is the legacy issue.

That's right. So, his conclusion that using speed factors aren't worth the effort is bogus since he's not considering the full picture.

Really? Why's a composite longbow slower than a normal longbow? You also left off nonrepeating crossbows.

I left off a lot of weapons. I presented those that were written in the rule.

A GM would have to place weapons that aren't on the list, of course, into one of the three categories. He can look at those weapons in the three categories and then place like weapons that aren't on the list. He can use his own judgement/method. And, he can even take hints from previous D&D games where SF was used (AD&D 1st and 2nd).

Have you actually done any math on what happens when your warrior-types actually run into these rules, in terms of how their average expected damage per attack and per round changes?

Nope. Since it applies to everyone equally, it will effect everyone equally.

I didn't run any numbers when I decided to use the Active Defense optional rule, either.

You know what? I didn't run any numbers for the offical rules, either.

Then sword and dagger (or rapier and shortsword). And why aren't shortswords faster than longswords?

I didn't create the list.

Any GM with a problem is free to either not use the system or change a weapon's category--or even add more categories...whatever.

And you skipped this question:

Simple. The first attack has no modifier. Each successive attack does have a modifier.

The dagger throw, dagger throw, axe throw is impossible with a +9 BAB character, just as it is for a 9th level Fighter.

This character would be BAB +9/+5

That's +9 for the first dagger throw and +5 for the second.



A 10th level character could do it....BAB +10/+6/+1.

Easy cheesy.

Just take your BAB and subtract the SF (which is easy because there's only three Speed Factors).

The system would be more complicated if each weapon had an individual SF. But, with three categories, it's a no brainer.





Let me mix it up for you. A 9th level fighter throws a dagger (Fast) then throws a throwing axe (Standard). That's BAB +9/+4.

Throw the throwing axe first, and it becomes BAB +9/+5.

I know you're going to ask "Why", and I'll answer, "I dunno. It's a simplification we accept when accepting the rule, not unlike accepting the fact that 10 hit points of damage can kill one person (a 1st level character) but barely scratching another (a 10th level character).

 

[Dandu]

Nope. Since it applies to everyone equally, it will effect everyone equally.

I didn't run any numbers when I decided to use the Active Defense optional rule, either.

You know what? I didn't run any numbers for the offical rules, either.

Perhaps you should.

 

[Water Bob]

Perhaps you should.

Have you run the numbers on, say, the differences in attacking and damaging a foe wearing leather armor vs. a foe wearing chainmail and using a shield?

Have you compared it to real life?

If so, how did you come up with the real life numbers?

Don't really want to, huh?

I understand.

 

[Dandu]

You misunderstand; the point of running numbers is not to compare things to what they would be in real life, but to understand the changes a new rule - in this case, weapon speed - would bring to a gaming system.

 

[kitcik]

Have you compared it to real life?

If so, how did you come up with the real life numbers?

To understand real life numbers, one need only read your posts.

To understand whether such numbers make sense in a fantasy game world where other dudes are altering reality with a wink and a nod is a tad more difficult.

The question of whether nerfing a greatsword is a good idea seems at best debatable in this context.

 

[Dandu]

The question of whether nerfing a greatsword is a good idea seems at best debatable in this context.

Again, if we buy into the idea that combat is an abstraction in D&D, and that the number of attacks made in a round is not directly correlated with the attack rolls made, one could say that, yes, you do get more attacks with a dagger than a greatsword, but a fighter with BAB +4 is only skilled enough to have one of them get through his enemy's defenses, and that at BAB +6, he is skilled enough for two of them to get through.

 

[Water Bob]

I wouldn't call what this system does to the game as "nerfing" great swords. Attacks after the first are only 1 point lower. Takeing a -1 modifer on second and third attacks is definitely not a "nerf".

As far as running numbers, it's not needed. Not in my opinion. Who runs numbers on how the optional rules in the DMG will affect the game?

Besides, common sense can be trusted on this one. It's not hard to look at BABs and see the effect of Speed Factors.

If someone did run the numbers, I'd be surprised if there is an unexpected changed to the game (though I am well are of the Rule of Unintended Consequenses).

And, running the numbers wouldn't be that hard, either. You'd need to test all 20 levels twice (once for Slow weapons and once for Quick weapons), then compare those BABs to the default rule.

Plus, the SF rule is "spot checked" every time an example is considered, as in my replies above. Those numbers do not turn out badly, and there's no reason not to project mentally and think that the entire system is sound.

In other words, I can look, say, a dagger and a longsword, and pretty much know that the system works as advertised. There is no need for a spreadsheet.

Still, it wouldn't be that hard to do if you want to give it a crack. Heck, post the data. I'll look at it.

 

[Herzog]

Without running the numbers, all you can say is that Quick weapons will have more attacks and hit more often and Slow weaons will have less attacks and hit less often. (at higher levels. since there is little or no change at lower levels, we won't focus on those).
This will result in a higher damage output for quick weapons and a lower damage output for slow weapons than in the standard system.

Running the numbers is needed to find out how much more/less damage it does.

If the average damage output for quick weapons becomes higher than the average damage output for slow weapons, something isn't right. (or, at the very least, is different enough to influence the consideration whether you'd want to include this rule)

Now, I haven't run the numbers but I'd be willing if I knew how.
Anyone have a link or something on HOW you should run average damage numbers? I haven't got a clue!

 

[Dandu]

One thing you could do is take a few classes (Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue) and create some basic builds. Then put them against a few common monsters (for example, a ) and see how much damage gets through normally. Next, you repeat with the weapon speed rule in place and see how much has changed.

For example, you could use Mook the Monk and Cohen the Barbarian vs a Barbed Devil, although someone should probably roll up a thief and see how that does since if daggers get bonuses on iteriative attacks, then a TWFing rogue will experience an increase in his kidney stabbing abilities.