I think that weapon speeds still could find a place in this game. It is one of the things I miss from AD&D. As it stands, there is no real reason to choose a rapier over a long sword( unless it is roll play related). If you used weapon speeds, then there might be a reason to choose a weapon that might boost your Inititive.
Also, the reverse could be true, welding a two handed sword that takes longer to swing makes real sense to me.
Heavens, no. Too much bookkeeping, for one thing. So you're told to roll initiative - what now? What speed will you use? You don't have a weapon drawn yet! And if I change weapons? Will my init change? The existing ways to change initiative order are enough, I prefer initiative to be static: Roll at the start of combat, and then just do actions in order.
Plus, it would so not be backwards compatible.
As it stands, there is no real reason to choose a rapier over a long sword( unless it is roll play related).
Do you mean roll play or role play? Because the reason of choosing a weapon becaus of its init boost would definetly be a roll play reason.
As for role play reasond: Those are great reasons. If you play a swashbuckler, you don't want to use an earth breaker.
And there are other roll play reasons to choose one weapon over the other: lack of proficiency, usability with weapon finesse, usability as an off-hand weapon, versatility (can't throw a greatsword in a pinch)...
If you used weapon speeds, then there might be a reason to choose a weapon that might boost your Inititive.Also, the reverse could be true, welding a two handed sword that takes longer to swing makes real sense to me.
If we get weapon speeds, I want detailed rules for weapon reach, including modifiers depending on distance to the enemy.
Sure the dagger is faster than the greatsword, but that won't help you because you have a hell of a time getting near enough to the guy who wields that huge chunk of metal and can hack you to pieces long before you get close enough to prick him with our bread knife.
I don't know, I've personally taken several people that were using greatswords with only a dagger or two (which I didn't throw) in practice (by which I mean they aren't dead and the weapons were wooden replicas, death was called by a third party judge).
I typically prefer 1 or 2 swords styles or spear and sword styles though.
Poor backwards compatibility, I thought you died when we left second edition!
|
Sean K. Reynolds on weapon speeds.
I can do nothing but agree with him. ;-)
Why do you all hate me so? :'(
Poor thing. It's just you tend to... Get in the way. No hard feelings?
Iwould be for this
Poor backwards compatibility, I thought you died when we left second edition!
Different editions do not really need to maintain backwards compatibility in their game mechanics. (Though it gets bad if the flavour isn't backwards compatible any more!).
But Pathfinder is no new edition, it's a revision, and they want BC on board.
I don't know, I've personally taken several people that were using greatswords with only a dagger or two (which I didn't throw) in practice (by which I mean they aren't dead and the weapons were wooden replicas, death was called by a third party judge).
Yeah, and Chuck Norris can beat up Death Stars three at a time without breaking a sweat :P
The question is: How experienced a fighter are you? How experienced were your opponents? Were you taking on newbloods? Equals? Went for champions?
I don't say that the greatsword will always win. I don't say that speed factor is irrelevant and reach alone will decide. I just say that if you have one, you need the other, or something's not right, and it's not really realistic. Which is fine by me, but if we don't really strife for realism, we might as well go for fun and simplicity. And I think that it's easier without init changing all the time.
Ultimately, the combat engine abstraction of any game system is a fairly linear progression from simple/freeform to complex/realistic. Weapon speeds are technically more realistic, although many of our assumptions as to which weapons are fast and which are slow are quite wrong. Such a system would also require modifiers for each weapon if said weapon is sheathed, as a sheathed longsword takes longer to bring to bear than a quarterstaff used as a walking stick.
Reach also becomes a factor. Ultimately, I beleive that 3.+ D&D takes the "reach" of the various weapons and the "speed" of the various weapons and assumes that the two factors even out 90% of the time. Examples can be cited up and down for the other 10%, but that doesn't change that a large, complicated, and time consuming aspect of combat is removed. 90% is an A-, which isn't a bad grade at all.
And there is plenty of reason to take a rapier over a longsword. Weapon finesse, oh, and for a purely roll-play reason, power attack. Wider crit range means more chances to double power attack bonus. Also extra mileage from keen or improved crit.
While I wouldn't be adverse to an article on weapons speeds, I wouldn't want it to be a part of the CORE pathfinder mechanics. Just like I wouldn't want 5 pages of work on how to run a farm. Great for an accessory, but not what I need in my main game rules.
Just my 2cp.
well weapon speeds add more uniqueness to each type of weapon. 3E mad many mistakes with weapons the two handed falcon still makes me shrudder
|
if initiative is something that is fairly static (only improves with dex bump or improved initiative) then you can add WHAT EVER you want to it and it is still backwards compatible (if every one gets the bonuses then it evens out) just makes weapon choices more interesting. (oh yeah, I brought it, you aint got no "J"!)
side note: my group has been playtesting a system inwhich you roll a d12 for static rolls (opposed stat checks and initiative rolls) so you dont have wizards out arm wrestling barbarians, a d20 is good for stat+"something else that grows" rolls, but is too big for single stat on stat rolling.
so far it really makes initiatives more stable, and we like that fast characters are going....fast.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
How would that even work with a single initiative roll system? If you start out attacking with a heavy crossbow in round 1, and switch to a dagger in round 2, are you stuck with a bad initiative roll the entire combat?
How does it work when your actions aren't declared until its your turn? Why should I take a penalty to initiative because I started the round with a heavy crossbow, but on my turn, I actually choose to cast a spell instead? That doesn't make any sense.
Weapon speeds make sense when you have a phase for declaration of actions separate from actually acting and when you roll initiative each turn. They don't make any sense in the framework of 3e combat.
All in all I'm with KaeYoss on this issue, yes I moved faster and was more accurate, but if the weaponry was reversed I probably would have still won.
Reach and speed tend to be on opposite ends of the scale and also tend to cancel each other out.
By the way when fencing (SCA Light Combat) being faster doesn't nessecarily mean as much as who has the greater reach, a few inches on sword length and/or a few inches on arm span can make a huge difference, even between two opponents of different calibers.
|
What if weapon speed modified the number of attacks you could make in a round? Heavier weapons might cost you one of your attacks per turn; oversized weapons might cost you one or even two. Certain exotic weapons used untrained might cost you one or more attacks, depending on how difficult they are to use properly.
Weapon speeds make sense when you have a phase for declaration of actions separate from actually acting and when you roll initiative each turn. They don't make any sense in the framework of 3e combat.
Well, you can perfectly roll initiative for each round, declaring actions, adding speed factors and even spells casting time.
That's what i am doing since the 1st edition and it works like a charm...
eh I dont think it would be that hard to alter then init. Just add or subtract the init speed.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Well, you can perfectly roll initiative for each round, declaring actions, adding speed factors and even spells casting time.
That's what i am doing since the 1st edition and it works like a charm...
You can, but that's not the way 3e works. The change to a single initiative roll was one of the most criticized changes from 2e to 3e, and, in my experience, one of the changes that most people came to love once they saw how much faster it is and how little is lost by its adoption. The per round initiative is very cumbersome and slow in comparison, in part because it adds yet another die roll, and in part because it requires breaking up the declaration of an action from the taking of an action. Once you've made that break, you also need to add in a mechanism for how to change your action. Otherwise the system is very easy to cheat (always declare that you will attack with a fast weapon, and then on your turn, change your action to whatever it is you really want to do).
I think that weapon speeds still could find a place in this game. It is one of the things I miss from AD&D. As it stands, there is no real reason to choose a rapier over a long sword( unless it is roll play related). If you used weapon speeds, then there might be a reason to choose a weapon that might boost your Inititive.
Also, the reverse could be true, welding a two handed sword that takes longer to swing makes real sense to me.
God no! It is too much added book keeping and would be just one more mechanic to slow down combat further. While there might be real world 'logic' to weapon speeds, game mechanic 'logic' must take precedent here.
And there are plenty of reasons to choose a rapier over longsword. Crit Range, use of weapon finesse, light weapon for 2 handed fighting, or character concept choice just to name a few.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
eh I dont think it would be that hard to alter then init. Just add or subtract the init speed.
Okay, but then you still need to have a declaration of actions at the beginning of each round to determine what number should be added or subtracted for that round and a mechanic to handle what happens when you change your mind and take an action that is different from the one that you declared.
I suppose the alternative would be to have some sort of fuzzy initiative, so, if a character has three attack options, Attack A with a +3 to init, Attack B with a +0, and Attack C with a -5 initiative modifier, and they rolled a 10, you could ask them if they want to act on 13 with Attack A, on 10 with Attack B, and 5 with Attack C. Again, that seems like a horrible and slow system, particularly if you did something simple with spells like give them a speed equal to their level. At high levels, casters would have a huge range in which they could take their actions.
Terrible idea. Does not play well with the core rules. House rules is where ideas like this belong.
The Fighters and Barbarian guide for the Scarred Lands actually had a optional rule covering this. All it did was change the BAB required for iteritive attacks. Thus something like a dagger would allow a level fighter to attack at +10/+6/+2, whereas a greataxe would be +10/+4. I think it worked ok in respect that the strong fighter with a huge axe (+10/+4) would be attacking at a similar rate as say the rogue with a stiletto (+7/+3).
You can, but that's not the way 3e works. The change to a single initiative roll was one of the most criticized changes from 2e to 3e, and, in my experience, one of the changes that most people came to love once they saw how much faster it is and how little is lost by its adoption. The per round initiative is very cumbersome and slow in comparison, in part because it adds yet another die roll, and in part because it requires breaking up the declaration of an action from the taking of an action. Once you've made that break, you also need to add in a mechanism for how to change your action. Otherwise the system is very easy to cheat (always declare that you will attack with a fast weapon, and then on your turn, change your action to whatever it is you really want to do).
I don't have any problem with it though.
And my players are so used to it that it doesn't slow the game flow a bit. On the contrary, they use that opportunity to organize themselves in choices of actions and strategy.I never experienced that "cheating" issue you are refering to.
Maybe that depends on the players. Or the game mastery...
And about your line about house rules : Of course this system is a houserule. Hey, in my experience, every DM is using his own houserule system.
seb is prob right on a house rule however I dont think it would be as clunky as you think. You pretty much declare actions now. When do players draw weapons? after they attack or b4, do they take actions b4 or after they draw weapons?
Pulling number at random here say crossbow had a init speed of -5 and a dagger of +5.
Bob the wizard has an init roll of 14, dex of +2 and n other mod. thats init 16
so rd1 he declares crossbow thats init of 11
after round one he declares dagger, drops bow draws dagger that makes it 21
spells could be a fixed number based on there casting time. I dont see it as being very hard or very time consuming to add
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
seb is prob right on a house rule however I dont think it would be as clunky as you think. You pretty much declare actions now. When do players draw weapons? after they attack or b4, do they take actions b4 or after they draw weapons?
Maybe we just play in very different ways. My players don't declare actions until it's their turn. If they need to draw a weapon, they either use a move action or do so as part of a move (if they have a +1 or better BAB). I find that the tactical positions change far too much over the course of a round to accurately declare what you will do at the beginning of that round. You may declare a melee attack only to have your opponent move too far away. You may declare a spell only to get hit by a silence effect. You may declare an attack in flanking position because you expect to get a sneak attack, only to have a different and better flanking option become available.
Pulling number at random here say crossbow had a init speed of -5 and a dagger of +5.
Bob the wizard has an init roll of 14, dex of +2 and n other mod. thats init 16
so rd1 he declares crossbow thats init of 11
after round one he declares dagger, drops bow draws dagger that makes it 21
If the player is smart, he'll always declare dagger, even if he wants to attack with the crossbow.
It's the amount of charts (Init mods for different weapons, used different ways (i.e. it's faster to stab than to slash with a rapier) different grapple Init mods, and Init Mods for all the spells) and pages that are added, and the needless extra complexity. Many people still don't read everything that's in the books aready adding more will only make the problem worse, and new people don't want yet another piece of mechanical drivel that doesn't add to the role playing.
If it was a free flowing combat system I would agree whole heartedly, however we are talking about an extrapolated combat system that uses a vague notion of Hit Points Armor Class, BAB, and turns to determine the outcome.
If the player is smart, he'll always declare dagger, even if he wants to attack with the crossbow.
Then he would use the dagger.
Yeah it may be up to styles but really it isn't that big a deal you know what your gonna use 9 times out 0f 10 anyhow
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If the player is smart, he'll always declare dagger, even if he wants to attack with the crossbow.Then he would use the dagger.
Yeah it may be up to styles but really it isn't that big a deal you know what your gonna use 9 times out 0f 10 anyhow
And what if there's no one in range of his dagger? Does he lose his turn? What if instead of trying to game the system, the situation actually changes, and now he really needs to pour a healing potion down someone's throat? Can he do that?
I can't even begin to imagine what a pain this would be as the DM. Having to declare the actions of 3-12 combatants, many of whom will have differing speeds, every round?
And, if it's not a big deal and you don't expect initiatives to change from round to round, why add the complexity and headaches of adopting such a system?
I agree with ya on it might be complex, as ya said it may be best to stay a house rule. Un less someone can come up with a simple way to make it uncompleted
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Despite my arguments against it, I did have a fondness for it in 2e and was one of the people that planned to house rule initiative back to the 2e way when I learned of the 3e rule. I decided to give the 3e rule a chance and loved it.
How did 2e handle things when you changed an action? Do you remember? I feel like we always flubbed it (which was typical for that edition, the rules weren't particularly tight).
no I dont recall off hand , heh but there was alot of make it up as ya go along in 2e. But 8 years is a long time so am fuzzy on it
If both or all sides roll the same number for initiative everything happens simultaneously -- all attack rolls, damage rolls, and spells are completed before any results are applied. So a wizard could be slain by goblins who collapse from his sleep sleep at the end of the round.
Player Determination: Players give a general indication of what their character is planning to do. This doesn't have to be preecise and can change somewhat with DM permission. Spells to be cast must also be announced at this time and cannont be changed once the initiative die is rolled.
Then you roll initiative.
(I just happened to have my 2nd ed PHB sitting by my computer...)
heh I had just got mine off the shelf. I had forgot multiple attacks were broke up.
Well irregardless of how Weapon Speed worked for weapons (and I agree switching weapons in-combat was a drag),
I think how 2nd Ed. handled Spell Casting and Interruption was much better.
Low Level Spell Casting Time = low # of rounds vulnerable to interrupt
High Level Spell Casting Time = high # of rounds vulnerable to interrupt
I don't really care about the Weapon Speeds themselves,
but I'd like to see some of how Spell Disruption worked brought back into Pathfinder.
Chapter 9 combat page 123 and 124 :D
I hated spell interuption! Hey look I touched you, your spell is ruined! HAHAHAHA I RUINED THE WIZARD'S ONE SPELL FOR TODAY!
ugh bad....
Chapter 9 combat page 123 and 124 :D
I hated spell interuption! Hey look I touched you, your spell is ruined! HAHAHAHA I RUINED THE WIZARD'S ONE SPELL FOR TODAY!
ugh bad....
ummm chapter 9 is page 89-106
also I do think the DC to keep a spell after being hurt needs to be a bit higher
no no no I meant the pages that we are discussing, initiative, and action order. I know chapter nine starts eariler than that.
If the DC's where higher for keep a spell going it wouldn't hurt my feelings too badly, I generally find the checks are fairly laughable at lower levels, and at higher levels... well I just cast defensively again pretty easy. however I do point out that currently even with 70 hp if my 12th level wizard gets hit more than once I'm probably looking at laying down on the ground a bleeding for a bit.
123 and 124 are movement and climbing in my book
|
I would like to see something like:
if you are using a weapon that is one size category smaller than you (light weapon) (human w/short sword), then you receive a +2 initiative bonus when using that weapon. Weapons of your same category (human longsword = 0) and Large would be a -2.
That simplifies things considerably.
I was also thinking you could just make it a property of a few weapons, like specifically daggers. Just say in the weapons description "This weapons grants a +2 bonus to initiative" or something, like the way some weapons do double damage when set to receive a charge.
Or - this is a little more radical - if you want to get away from messing with initiative, you could let folks squeeze out an extra attack each round if they are using certain weapons, either by category like Curt mentions above, or as a property of certain weapons like I said. Use a penalty like for two-weapon fighting except that they are both with the same hand so you can keep the other hand free. Or make it a feat, Second Strike - when using a light weapon you may make an extra attack at a -4 penalty. That's fairly similar to two-weapon fighting, isn't it?
Ultimately, I beleive that 3.+ D&D takes the "reach" of the various weapons and the "speed" of the various weapons and assumes that the two factors even out 90% of the time. Examples can be cited up and down for the other 10%, but that doesn't change that a large, complicated, and time consuming aspect of combat is removed. 90% is an A-, which isn't a bad grade at all.
That's what I think, too.
Chapter 9 combat page 123 and 124 :D
I hated spell interuption! Hey look I touched you, your spell is ruined! HAHAHAHA I RUINED THE WIZARD'S ONE SPELL FOR TODAY!
If you think things through a bit, 2e spellcasting was basically impossible: Casting that measly 1st-level magic missile took you a whole minute (even though it was so much faster than a 9th-level meteor swarm, which also took one minute to cast), which is a long time to stand there reciting stuff just to emulate a thrown dagger.
But, on the other hand, in 2e it made sense that wizards knew so few spells: you have to learn a whole poem and a fully choreographed shadow play for each spell, no wonder your head explodes after a couple of those :D
well weapon speeds add more uniqueness to each type of weapon. 3E mad many mistakes with weapons the two handed falcon still makes me shrudder
You knwo, i read "two-headed falcon" and for a moment, I wondered where that thing was in and what I was supposed to think about it. Double scimitar with weird blades?
I prefer no calling of actions beforehand. Roll for init, once, and just go in order for that battle (unless someone delays or prepares).
Another disadvantage for weapon speed: The way you guys describe it (every weapon gets a bonus or penalty) will make everything more difficult (since you can change weapons during the fight), but it's not terribly realistic:
That pansy with his pointy had is just able to swing his dagger around without letting you check his pulse doing so, but even a short sword will let his swordplay slow down to a crawl. I agree that he should get penalties with everything beyond dagger.
But what about a stronger guy? If you're strong enough, there's no big difference between a dagger and a short sword. Heck, if you're Heracles-like in your strength, I bet you can swing that greataxe like others could swing pointed finger nails.
But a flat bonus doesn't cover this at all.
Despite my arguments against it, I did have a fondness for it in 2e and was one of the people that planned to house rule initiative back to the 2e way when I learned of the 3e rule. I decided to give the 3e rule a chance and loved it.
How did 2e handle things when you changed an action? Do you remember? I feel like we always flubbed it (which was typical for that edition, the rules weren't particularly tight).
I believe the penalty was +5. Initiative was a d10 roll and a lower initiative roll was better than a higher roll. If you changed your action, you took a pretty big penalty, if I remember correctly. Of course, I may just be remembering a house rule of mine for something.
Another disadvantage for weapon speed: The way you guys describe it (every weapon gets a bonus or penalty) will make everything more difficult (since you can change weapons during the fight), but it's not terribly realistic:
That pansy with his pointy had is just able to swing his dagger around without letting you check his pulse doing so, but even a short sword will let his swordplay slow down to a crawl. I agree that he should get penalties with everything beyond dagger.
But what about a stronger guy? If you're strong enough, there's no big difference between a dagger and a short sword. Heck, if you're Heracles-like in your strength, I bet you can swing that greataxe like others could swing pointed finger nails.
Training also affects weapon speed. When I first started practicing with a boken, I was not that fast. I did a lot of arm exercises with it just to build up speed.
Daggers and light weapons are naturally fast, but have a limit to that speed. Heavy weapons are slow, but someone that trains regularly with a heavy weapon will swing it much faster than someone who does not. A skilled person may even reach the speeds of a light weapon.
I think that weapon speeds still could find a place in this game. It is one of the things I miss from AD&D. As it stands, there is no real reason to choose a rapier over a long sword( unless it is roll play related). If you used weapon speeds, then there might be a reason to choose a weapon that might boost your Inititive.
Also, the reverse could be true, welding a two handed sword that takes longer to swing makes real sense to me.
I've been playing since the old Basic/Expert boxed sets pre-1st edition, so I can say with some experience that weapon speeds are the devil.
I've only ever seen one such system actually work, a variant on cyclical initiative that used parts of 1st and 2nd edition's init system.
It could maybe be adapted to d20, but it would take work.... ugh.. and now that I've said that I'm going to have to try.
::sigh::
Be back in a few hours then...
I knew that the people here could help me look at it from all angles. I dont think it woulds be to hard to keep track of myself. I seem to remember that all range attacks went first in the round.
Then, if you wern't going to do a melee attack there was no adjustment to init.
The speed of the weapon only applied to init if your going to attack with it.
I guess it would need a init. roll every round or just be variable.
I realizee it is something that probably should be house ruled, and it has been years sense I played 2.0. but I did like it, as a rule.
I start looking at it from a DM point of view. It could get sticky.
I love the speed bonus rule. It makes the combat more realistic for those who like it, and it makes real sense for a guy with a dagger be faster to act than one with a greatsword and all.
However, this can't be part of the common rules! For god's sake, we suppose that novice players and DMs will want to play this sh@$ too! This rules takes too much time of an inexperienced DM.
As for myself, I use these rules, they are great for my gritty and experienced game. But for the novices, and the poorest being in thw world, the Novice DM? No hell.
I love the speed bonus rule. It makes the combat more realistic
Actually, I don't think it does, unless you do take into consideration that strength and training can affect weapon speed, and that weapon reach should play a role, too.
If you ignore the strength/training aspect, you create a noncredible scenario where everyone wields weapons equally fast.
If you ignore weapons reach (not as in "this weapon has reach; you can attack foes 10' away, but not adjacent ones"; I'm speaking of more detailed rules that makes a difference of the effective reaches of a dagger and a greatsword. And if you're at it, there's often a "minimum range, too", as it's harder to use a greatsword on a guy who's right in your face. To make things even more fun, we would need to take into consideration people's personal arm length, as personal nimbleness is incorporated into dexterity), you make some weapons more useful and powerful than they should be (everyone can use a dagger and retain a good deal of speed, but your reach sucks - it adds maybe 12 inches to your arm's reach, while a greatsword adds several feet worth of reach).
In the end, it doesn't really make things any more realistic, but it does add complexity. So I say keep it as realistic or unrealistic as it is now and don't add to complexity unless we really get something out of it.
And for the record: I don't care that most barbarians go for greatswords rather than daggers. The dagger doesn't need any extra love. It's weak. It's for the weak. Or maybe for times where you don't want to announce that you're armed - those claymores are notoriously hard to conceal on formal attire. But if you're buff and looking for something that will main a lot of people effectively, you go greatsword.