weapon speeds

[Hammerhead]

True enough...if you were going to use a rule like this, you would have to have a rule to bolster shields as well.

And that gimps the Two Weapon Fighter, or swashbuckler-type.

 

[Rhun]

And that gimps the Two Weapon Fighter, or swashbuckler-type.

Someone always gets gimped, unfortunately. Unarmored/lightly armored fighter types are already pretty gimped, though.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I'm surprised no one has pointed to this SKR Rant about weapon speeds yet. It pretty much says it all.

 

[Shadowdragon]

I'm getting the feeling that weapon speeds aren't a good idea. I do like SKR's rules for cumulative initiative penalties though. Not for weapon speeds, but for something more like combat fatigue where larger, heavier weapons wear down a character faster than smaller, lighter weapons. Anyone swinging a 6lb two-handed sword for 10 rounds (1 minute!) is probably going to be more tired than someone swinging a dagger for the same length of time.

 

[airwalkrr]

Like the OP, I am nostalgic for weapon speeds. However, in my revamped version of the game (I'm called it edition 1.5), I decided to cut weapon speeds for the same reason 3e designers did: the complication cost outweighed the benefit. If simplicity is your key, I recommend assuming the advantage of weight and size is canceled out by the reduced reach (and then you ignore mithral weapons, lol). If you like a more complicated game (and nothing is wrong with that), using 1e or 2e weapon speeds isn't impossible. My group did it for years.

 

[Nadaka]

well... you might be able to balance weapon speed with a change in reach.

XLong = reach++, time++
Long = reach+,time+
Med = no change
Short = reach-, time-
Xshort = reach--,time--

Time is the rate of iterative attacks with the formula BAB -TX > 1. The base for T is 5.

The advantage of a reach weapon is that smaller weapons provoke AoO when you attack someone wielding a larger weapon.

Balanced? probably not.
Complex? a bit.
Complete? nope, still needs work.

Note: I do not use these rules, they are just an option I thought up.

 

[Tinker]

Nice idea Nadaka.

Never one to settle for such elegant simplicity, I'd figured that if you're going to start factoring in weapon length and speed then you need a finer-scale combat grid. Like one square is a foot or two. Then you can see whether two people fighting each other are at the right range for a knee or elbow attack, a fist weapon or knife attack, a short sword or hand axe attack, a long sword or battleaxe attack, etc.

Smaller weapons are faster, but you have to get close to use them. And while you're getting close, if your enemy with the longer weapon is fast enough themselves, they get to whack you before you can close.

I never properly worked it up - I got scared off by the complexity. For instance, at this level of detail one of the important effects of a hit is that it knocks you backwards a little. Likewise, the easiest way to dodge a sword swing is to step back, but if you have a short weapon and you need to get close, that means you're still unable to attack. You're going to need to duck under a swing or sucker your opponent into a really wild miss so you can get in close, and that must be less likely to work.

If you have a sword or an axe and your enemy is right in your face, your best bet may be to hit them with the hilt. You won't do much damage but you may create a bit of space.

I love this kind of tactical nitty-gritty and I dream of figuring out playable rules for it. Anyone know any?

 

[Kalshane]

I'm getting the feeling that weapon speeds aren't a good idea. I do like SKR's rules for cumulative initiative penalties though. Not for weapon speeds, but for something more like combat fatigue where larger, heavier weapons wear down a character faster than smaller, lighter weapons. Anyone swinging a 6lb two-handed sword for 10 rounds (1 minute!) is probably going to be more tired than someone swinging a dagger for the same length of time.

Again, it's a matter of training and weapon balance. That greatsword may weigh 5 or 6 pounds, but it's balanced well enough that that doesn't matter as much as one would think. Plus, anyone skilled in using a greatsword isn't going to be fighting the inertia of his weapon, he's going to be capitalizing on it.

Also, keep in mind, while yes, the greatsworder is swinging around 6 pounds of steel, he's not dancing around the battlefield, trying to dash inside the range of someone like the dagger wielder is. Both are engaging in activities that are going to eventually cause fatigue.

 

[jeffh]

Regarding having a rule for length - it seems to me that the best way to accomodate this, both in terms of not adding new mechanics and in terms of reflecting what really happens, is with attacks of opportunity for (say) going at a greatsword wielder with a dagger. If your weapon is X amount smaller than that of the guy you're trying to attack, you suffer AoOs just as unarmed characters do. If you really want to model reality, add that if such an AoO hits, you can't attack that opponent that round, or suffer severe penalties to attempts to do so.

If, on the other hand, the AoO misses and your attack hits, you are assumed to have gotten inside the other guy's reach somehow (i.e. if you were any closer you'd be grappling), and the penalties are now reversed; the longer weapon now provokes AoOs and can be prevented from striking entirely. The character with the longer weapon may use the Withdraw action (without actually moving, if he doesn't want to) to return things to normal. (This is... not totally unrealistic, but I've definitely made getting inside the guy's reach a lot easier than it would be in real life. This is partly for smooth gameplay and partly for genre emulation. IRL, having a longer weapon is a big advantage, well before you get to the weapons that are actually given reach in D&D).

This is really little more than a logical extension of the existing reach rule, unless you add the rule I've tentatively suggested for holding people off. Other than that, it just makes greatsword vs dagger work the same way as longspear vs longsword or longsword vs bare hands.

 

[Thurbane]

However, I could definitely see a rule for weapon length. Something like a weapon with longer reach granting a +2 circumstance bonus to attacks and/or AC. Even a skilled opponent with a dagger would really think twice about going into a fight against a guy swinging a greatsword.

We ran a bit of a test on this once, back in the days of 1E. One of the gamers was a fitter and turner, and made us a length of stell that matched the length and weight for a 2 handed sword, as per the PHB stats. We too turns trying to "stab" him with a plastic knif, and I don't think one of did without getting clunked by the "sword" first.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the weapon speed rules from back in 1E or 2E. They would be unwieldy to integrate into 3E, but back then, they did make a difference in which weapons people chose and how combats played out. Many groups found them clunky, though, and didn't use them...