Weapon Speeds For d20 Fantasy Gaming

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

I disagree on that, but we'll come back to it.

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.

You misunderstood the question, and I guarantee you that the rules designers did run the numbers for the official rules.

My question was not "Is everyone affected?" My question was more along the lines of, "Have you considered the implications of your rules?" As in, does implementing these rules cause an effect wherein the single best weapon to bring to a fight, for everyone, is suddenly a dagger or a scimitar? And that Greatsword-wielders are, suddenly, sidelined?

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.

Ah - I thought the list was your own devising. And, "You don't have to use it!" is not a particularly useful comment in a rules discussion.

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.

Ah - so you cannot, then, easily calculate your iterative attacks beforehand, because your iterative attacks' bonuses will change depending not only on the weapons you choose to use, but the order in which you choose to use them.

That is a mark against your claim that these are necessarily easy in play.

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).

If he decided to go axe / dagger / dagger, or dagger / axe / dagger, his ABs would change, though, to +10 / +5 / +1.

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).

The problem, though, is that this is not simple at all, in run-time, as opposed to design-time - which is not what you claimed.

 

[nonsi256]

I guarantee you that the rules designers did run the numbers for the official rules.

By what means? How will you prove it and what will you stake for failing to prove it?
What I'm trying to say is that 3.5 (not to mention 3.0) is filled with enough internal problems to support the assumption that the designers didn't really take everything into account.

does implementing these rules cause an effect wherein the single best weapon to bring to a fight, for everyone, is suddenly a dagger or a scimitar? And that Greatsword-wielders are, suddenly, sidelined?

Did you run the numbers, assessing the huge attack bonuses melees can quickly amount, PA, Cleave) ?
Will it make rogues deadlier with smaller weapons? Sure - as should be.
Btw, the scimitar is not a light weapon, so it's not even affected by the suggested changes (I'd also dictate that the Rapier is also considered 1-handed for calculations of weapon speed).

If he decided to go axe / dagger / dagger, or dagger / axe / dagger, his ABs would change, though, to +10 / +5 / +1.

To fix this problem, I'd just rule that only small blade weapons and weapons specifically designed to be thrown (daggers, darts , shurikens, stones etc) are viable for use during multiple throws.
What I mean is, given an axe (or club) are not small blade weapons, each requires a swift action to draw - and when such constraints are applied to a weapon, it can only be used in the beginning of a thrown attack sequence without breaking the rhythm of the attack and foiling it.
Using this rule, this will always produce the same attack rate for a given choice and not allow such inconsistencies.
This also makes perfect sense. Think of what you need to do to pull a dagger compared to what you need to do to pull an axe and have it prepared to be thrown (check with both weapons wedged in your belt).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

By what means? How will you prove it and what will you stake for failing to prove it?

Seriously?

How about, "I was involved in a long, fruitful discussion on the probabalistic lethality of the Star Wars d20 Revised ruleset with the editor during the run-up to and after the launch of Saga Edition," "I playtested the 3rd Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardcover, and personally provided such analysis to the designers," and "Sean Reynolds, one of the 3E designers, has a long discussion right here detailing why one of the rules changes in 3.5 wasn't correctly mathed out, unlike it was for the 3.0 release."

Is that good enough for you?

Did you run the numbers, assessing the huge attack bonuses melees can quickly amount, PA, Cleave) ?

Not yet - but I'm not the house rule proposer, so I was asking if the guy making up the rules (or, at least, advocating them) had done his homework.

Btw, the scimitar is not a light weapon

It is, however, a fast weapon, which is what we are discussing. Recheck the OP.

To fix this problem, I'd just rule that only small blade weapons and weapons specifically designed to be thrown (daggers, darts , shurikens, stones etc) are viable for use during multiple throws.

Yet more houserules, to "fix" (as in, "further nerf") an historically suboptimal method of combat?

Think of what you need to do to pull a dagger compared to what you need to do to pull an axe and have it prepared to be thrown (check with both weapons wedged in your belt).

I don't know about you, but I generally hang my throwing axes (I own two) in a ring, not tucked into a belt. Accordingly, it's not much different in draw length from a long knife / short sword.

 

[Dandu]

I playtested the 3rd Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardcover, and personally provided such analysis to the designers.

Tangent: who do I blame for the Incantatrix?

 

[Water Bob]

Now, I haven't run the numbers but I'd be willing if I knew how.

Running the numbers on this really isn't that hard--just long and tedious. It depend on what you're are trying to examine.

For example, take a dagger, figure the BAB for a fighter with a dagger for all 20 levels, then compare to the norm.

But, I can almost do that in my head. Most of the time, the dagger will have a 5% better chance of hitting. What's a little tougher to figure, but not impossible, is when extra attacks are allowed. But, also, in my head, I know that this will start one level earlier than normal.

The reverse is true for the Slow weapons. The chance of hitting for those weapons is 5% less than normal, most of the time, and additional attacks come one level later than normal.

Just that, right there, is a pretty good spot-check that shows that there's no real problems with the system.

But, hey, if someone wants to check every Slow and Fast weapons (Standard weapons don't need to be checked) for all 20 levels, then have at it.

I'm comfortable that the math on this rule is solid and fits the game well.

You misunderstood the question, and I guarantee you that the rules designers did run the numbers for the official rules.

You're delusional. Ever found a Feat that you've had to outlaw in your game for whatever reason? I know I have.

Maybe the designers of 3.0/3.5 d20 did test more than most game designers do (I don't know, but maybe), but I do know that there's no way that they tested everything in the game. And, I know that I've found tons of stuff in RPGs over the years that doesn't make statistical sense. I've got a pretty good handle on stats, and I know when something doesn't look right mathematically. I've done some designing, myself.

Ah - I thought the list was your own devising. And, "You don't have to use it!" is not a particularly useful comment in a rules discussion.

I didn't mean that as a snark, if you took it that way. I meant it at face value. I posted here for those interested in the rule. I saw it and was excited about it, so I thought I'd share.

Those who agree with me and think it's good stuff can use the rule. Those who are skeptical can pass it on by.

Ah - so you cannot, then, easily calculate your iterative attacks beforehand, because your iterative attacks' bonuses will change depending not only on the weapons you choose to use, but the order in which you choose to use them.

That is a mark against your claim that these are necessarily easy in play.

What are you talking about? It's simple subtraction. You take your first BAB, then subtract Speed Factor. That's it.

If I'm a 9th level Fighter, then I'm +9 BAB on the first swing. Every weapon I use after that is subtracted. Thus, if I'm using a dagger, my BAB is +9/+5/+1.

If I'm using a longsword, then my BAB is +9/+5.

If I'm using a two-handed sword, then my BAB is +9/+3.


Why do you think that is hard and not easy to play?

If he decided to go axe / dagger / dagger, or dagger / axe / dagger, his ABs would change, though, to +10 / +5 / +1.



The problem, though, is that this is not simple at all, in run-time, as opposed to design-time - which is not what you claimed.

I still claim it.

You don't have to pre-think anything. You're a 10th level fighter? OK, your first BAB is +10. Throw your axe.

After you swing, what are you going to do next? Quick draw and use yoru dagger? OK, your BAB is now +6.

Now what do you want t do? Take another swing with your dagger? OK, your BAB is +2.

That's pretty damn simple. In run-time, it flows like oil down a baby's bottom.

You just need to know your first BAB and the SF of the weapon (which will be -6, -5, or -4).

Simple.

By what means? How will you prove it and what will you stake for failing to prove it?
What I'm trying to say is that 3.5 (not to mention 3.0) is filled with enough internal problems to support the assumption that the designers didn't really take everything into account.

Wot he said. Absolutely.

Did you run the numbers, assessing the huge attack bonuses melees can quickly amount, PA, Cleave) ?
Will it make rogues deadlier with smaller weapons? Sure - as should be.
Btw, the scimitar is not a light weapon, so it's not even affected by the suggested changes (I'd also dictate that the Rapier is also considered 1-handed for calculations of weapon speed).

Exactly. (But, Scimitar is a Quick weapon, according to the rule. A GM could change it.)

 

[Water Bob]

About "running the numbers"....

It's crazy to assume that this is a mandatory requirement to use any game material. I seriously doubt that any gamer, ever, has tested every aspect of the rpg he plays.

If this were a requirement, think of the work that would be required before you could use any mechanical features that you find in that bright, new, shiny game supplement you just bought.

What is much more common and realistic (and what I'm sure most gamers do) is use their nose when it comes to game rules. That's why so many games are House Ruled. Gamers see things that they don't buy--stuff that doesn't make sense to them, and the gamers tweak it until the mechanics fit their sense of what's correct.

My sense (and more than that, my actual mechancial spot checks) tell me that this rule is a good one that doesn't unbalance the game.

I don't need to run numbers for every weapon in the game in order to have confidence in my assumption.

And, I maintain this assumption in the same way I do that a 2nd level Fighter BAB +2), with STR 16, has a 50% chance of using his longsword to hit and damage a 1st level Fighter opponent with DEX 17 wearing leather armor (+5 to hit vs AC 15).

I didn't run any math on that, beside what I just did here. I just accept it.

As most gamers accept most rules that don't smell "fishy" to them.





EDIT: I will say that I usually do run a lot of mathematical tests on a mechanic of my own design before I implement it in my game.

 

[Dandu]

It's crazy to assume that this is a mandatory requirement to use any game material. I seriously doubt that any gamer, ever, has tested every aspect of the rpg he plays.

The word "Legend" does come to mind.

 

[kitcik]

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".

a nerf is a change to a game that reduces the desirability or effectiveness of a particular game element

...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But, I can almost do that in my head. Most of the time, the dagger will have a 5% better chance of hitting. What's a little tougher to figure, but not impossible, is when extra attacks are allowed. But, also, in my head, I know that this will start one level earlier than normal.

... and that there'll be more attacks, total, for the dagger / fast guy. A level 20 longsword gets 4 - +20/+15/+10/+5. A level 20 Dagger gets 5 - +20/+16/+12/+8/+4. A level 20 greatsword gets 4 - +20/+14/+8/+2.

Then, you'll want to examine the effect of Power Attacking on each person's attacks, or Improved Critical, etc. - you know, the things fighting types generally do.

You'll want to make absolutely sure that your rules change didn't just make scimitar-and-shield the absolute best offensive combination in addition to being the best defensive combination, unless that was actually your goal.

Just that, right there, is a pretty good spot-check that shows that there's no real problems with the system.

Yeah - it's actually really, really shallow "first blush" check, which probably skips a lot of what actually happens in play.

I'm comfortable that the math on this rule is solid and fits the game well.

You're comfortable with the math you haven't actually examined? Okay.

You're delusional.

Yeah, I'm done here.

Also:

About "running the numbers"....

[...]

I don't need to run numbers for every weapon in the game in order to have confidence in my assumption.

And, I maintain this assumption in the same way I do that a 2nd level Fighter BAB +2), with STR 16, has a 50% chance of using his longsword to hit and damage a 1st level Fighter opponent with DEX 17 wearing leather armor (+5 to hit vs AC 15).

I didn't run any math on that, beside what I just did here. I just accept it.

55% chance to-hit, Oh Statistical Genius.

I think that tells us all we really need to know.

 

[Dandu]

For most fighters, they will probably still be better served with a 2 handed weapon for power attack related reasons. Weapon speeds would benefit people who use predominately light weapons such as rogues, monks, etc.