| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I am planing on changing how many iterative attacks a character gets based on weapon speed.
Light weapons and unarmed attacks/gauntlets: additional attack every 3 points of bab. (e.g.: +3/+1)
One handed weapons: additional attack every 4 points of bab. (e.g.: +4/+1)
Two handed weapons and Ranged weapons: additional attack every 5 points of bab. (e.g.: +5/+1)
two handed weapons with reach, or other miscellaneous: additional attack every 6 points of bab. (e.g.: +6/+1)
So my questions are:
Does it look viable? what would you change? How do two weapons add to this? how about a shield (do shield sizes affect in different ways)? do I need to rework the two weapon fighting feats? How about haste and slow effects?
My intentions here are to make melee classes like the rogue beefier without really taking away from most other melees.
Opinions?
Gonna get complicated when you need to convert all of your monsters.
AD&D/2E let you do it Automatically if you had the DEX for it.
If we are bringing back weapon speed why not that as well?
Ogre darts!
|
The D20 Everquest RPG Players Handbook had a great mechanic for weapon speed. Lighter, quicker weapons gave you access to your iterative attacks earlier (+4/+1 for example), slower weapons would get iterative attacks later (+6/+1 for example). ...where under normal rules, you would get that second attack at +5 BAB. (+5/+1)
Trying to figure out how to talk my group into using this rule without making it sound like even more math to keep track of.
|
Motionmatrix,
Speed Factor
if you are serious about implementing this, i would cut it to three different speeds, remove the grid, and reinstate round-by-round pre-initiative declarations. this slows down combat but makes it more chaotic and unpredictable.
fast = 4
avg. = 5
slow = 6
this bonus adds to your Initiative (therefore larger weapons and reach weapons go first) and subtracts from your BAB.
fast = +20/+16/+12/+8/+4
avg. = +20/+15/+10/+5
slow = +20/+14/+8/+2
fast = light weapons, finesse weapons, natural attacks
avg. = one-handed, thrown
slow = projectile, two-handed
special abilities = relevant ability score modifier
hmm...
Why the slow speed for bows?
Any time you try to boost a rogue or a monk in this way you have to realize that you are in fact buffing your other melee classes more. A fighter or a paladin can make more use out of those extra attacks than a rogue would ever be able to.
Fighter would get the attacks and would still get weapon training and weapon specialization. Just off the top of my head consider the Dragoon archetype who gets weapon training in spears but instead of +1 damage per level he gets +2 damage per level. Hand him two short spears and the two weapon fighting feats and watch him destroy everything he can full attack. How would your local paladin like to know that he could use a kukri and a shield and know that he could out damage another paladin with a falchion and never allow him to catch up by the time he gets his third attack.
Okay, so a few points I have in mind that I did not mention and was brought up.
*for most classes, only the highest number of their bab actually maters now, since iterative attacks are based on the speed of the weapon.
*Not converting monsters. This only applies to actual weapon users (and unarmed attacks from humanoids, I suppose)
*there is a maximum of either 5 or 6 attacks because of bab + weapon speed.
*
AD&D/2E let you do it Automatically if you had the DEX for it.
If we are bringing back weapon speed why not that as well?
I am not sure what Dex allowed automatically (been so long since I played 2e) can you be more specific?
*I actually own the everquest books, and the speed factor in it is pretty nice, but I am not sure that I wish to use a direct port of it (although now that I think about it, I could port this and the tradeskills, which are sick, maybe also the Taunt skill?, I digress). My biggest worry about it is that I am not sure whether or not they truly work well without porting a bunch of the feats to back it up, not to mention slow/haste mechanics, etc.
* I love pre-initiative action declarations (or worst to best initiative action declarations. The problem is that my group does not get the concept enough to make it smooth. (my math was right, I used the wrong words >.< still not sure how to word it (without overdoing it) and without having to change the math like you did Rainzax.
*I did mean to make reach weapons a bit better as a payoff for slowing them down, to be fair. I actually think some weapons belong in the slow category, even if the are one handed, such as hammers and morningstars. I am not sure bows should be slower, I actually know quite a bit about bows IRL. You don't have to pull all the way back to get a shot, depends on distance and angle (which you compensate by changing where you aim). For that matter, smaller bows (which have a significant reduction in distance) are much faster to shoot in the hands of a learned archer. While pathfinder does not include compound bows, they do have composite bows (what makes them composite is what they are made of and the process of making them). They output more energy in each shot compared to a regular bow (most likely made of wood) of the same size. How do we take that into account?
*I can't picture a fighter taking a dagger over a greatsword because of the extra attacks (assuming you limit the number of attacks they receive, no more than a total of 5 or 6 attacks per turn based on weapon speed). Will he hit more often? yes. Can you make a build dependent on procs and abuse weapon speeds? sure. The greatsword should outdamage a dagger in the hands of a fighter. The rogue would want the daggers to get more sneak attacks off, and would see more benefit as a result. I am also considering slowing down the rate of attack based on what you have in your other hand. A buckler or light weapon may not affect your weapon speed, but anything bigger would. Maybe do the same with armor, with every armor category above light moving you along the track to the next slowest.
*I don't mind the other melee classes getting some benefit from this. I actually would mind if casters (especially full casters) could benefit from this. I subscribe to the belief that casters are significantly more powerful than melee, and each level makes that gap more obvious. I don't want all my melees just up and changing to the smallest weapons they can find either.
Sorry I meant on the TWF...
I would use the following:
Light: 5/1
One-Handed: 6/1
Two-Handed: 7/1
TWF you determine it based on the off-hand weapon. and collapse all the TWF feats into a single feat that requires a slightly higher DEX Score.
How would this work if you used a longsword in one hand and a dagger in your off hand? How would if work if you used a greatsword then switched to a dagger because your greatsword was disarmed or sundered in the middle of the combat (or you hit a rust monster or whatever)? How does this affect shield bashes? How does this affect natural attacks from the PCs (maybe the PC has a bite attack if he's a toothy half-orc) and he's also using other weapons like a longsword in one hand and a gauntlet in his offhand?
Mine you figure the weapons separately.
Natural Attacks already have rules limiting them.
Longsword uses the one-handed speed. Dagger/gauntlet uses the light speed.
|
|
i call it 'iterative reset'
standard is 5-base-1 yielding +6/+1 to +20/+15/+10/+5 by subtracting 5 so long as there would be a remainder of 1 or more
one could imagine 5-base-0 yielding +5/+0 to +20/+15/10/+5/+0 by subtracting 5 so long as there would be a remainder of 0 or more
4-base-1 would yield +5/+1 to +20/+16/+12/+8/+4
4-base-0 would yield +4/+0 to +20/+16/+12/+8/+4/+0
6-base-1 would yield +7/+1 to +20/+14/+8/+2
6-base-0 would yield +6/+0 to +20/+14/+8/+2
anyhow
i would recommend using a three-speed paradigm of 6/5/4 at base-1 for slow/avg./fast as it creates less disparity while still maintaining significant difference.
one of the artifacts from 2E is that as speed factor increased numerically, the speed became slower
if you wanted to modify initiative checks by speed, with-or-without pre-declaration, the trouble with porting it directly into pathfinder, under the BAB-iterative structure, is as the 'speed' increases, attack speed slows but initiative count hastens. this appears to be an inconsistency. one solution would be to subtract speed instead of add it, or to invert initiative checks.
and yet, what i think is interesting about this simulationist approach, is that although a greatsword is 'slower', and a dagger is 'faster', in a fight in which two combatants square off wielding these two weapons, i would argue that the greatsword-wielder gets to make the first attack (because his threat range or reach is longer), with the dagger making the second attack.
and so!,
the above inconsistency now appears less of one.
in 1E, arrows went first, the polearms second, then melee weapons last.
do you wish to implement this initiative ordering to make up for the fact that larger weapons are slower? (different weapon iterative resets are a significant alteration in damage output which grows with BAB)
Mine you figure the weapons separately.
Natural Attacks already have rules limiting them.
Longsword uses the one-handed speed. Dagger/gauntlet uses the light speed.
I'm still not really understanding how it would work. Maybe I'm over thinking it or it's more complicated than it needs to be. Can you explain with each of my examples how a 10th level fighter's, 10th level rogue's, and 10th level wizard's attack routines would work? It really does seem like it will get very confusing very fast.
Basically:
Light: Iteratives are -4.
1-Handed: Iteratives are -5.
2-Handed: Iteratives are -6.
Must have a +1 B.A.B. left to make attacks.
Level 20 B.A.B. (assuming proficiency):
Greatsword: +20/+14/+8/+2
Longsword: +20/+15/+10/+5
Shortsword: +20/16/+12/+8/+4
Greatsword: +14/+8/+2
Longsword: +15/+10/+5
Shortsword: 16/+12/+8/+4
Greatsword: +10/+4
Longsword: +10/+5
Shortsword: +10/+6/+2
So wielding Light Weapons are more valuable for Attacks. But I would probably make them deal 1/2 STR unless you had a Feat. It would be (for a Two-Weapon Fighter) TWF, Light Weapon full STR feat, & Double Slice.
(Please remember that I am trying to beef melees in general, but mostly rogues and monks in this particular case. When comparing power levels, I am most likely thinking Full caster vs. Others)
Well, I guess we could always add two (three, including the weapon speed) new traits to all weapons to increase the simulation and make weapon speed viable.
One is an initiative bonus (or penalty) and the second is a parry bonus.
The initiative bonus (but not the penalty?) from weapons would not stack. light weapons receiving a positive bonus, up to two handed weapons receiving a +0 or maybe even a penalty (at least for a large hammer weapon?).
The parry bonus is a shield bonus that does not stack with other shield or parry bonuses, only highest applies (it is long overdue for melees to also gain some defense from a weapon, most weapons are designed to do both). That covers TWF or a shield. I am thinking Two handed weapons get a +2 (maybe +3 for something like the greatsword, as it supposed to be wide), One handed weapons get a +1, and light weapons get +0.
I also think that would be an incentive for larger weapons, and a true increase to ac as a whole, which as most rpg mathphiles out there can attest, it is not as important a defense past early levels.
To get any of these bonuses or penalties, the weapon would have to be wielded (just carrying it does not grant you anything).
All of these are subject to change:
If wielding two weapons: the slowest weapon determines iterative attacks + one extra attack at the highest bab. Regular penalties apply (so you still want the feats).
If wielding a weapon and a shield:
(I will continue tomorrow, sleepy)
Actually how about this:
Iterative Attacks (Base +0):
Unarmed Strikes(with IUS): -3
Light(UAS w/out IUS): -4
1-Handed: -5
2-Handed: -6
With or Without the Light Weapon Restriction it would give monks the Most Attacks with the least investment.
Maybe allow IUS to allow one to get the full STR on damage for UAS for free.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is true if you're shooting targets and may be true if you're shooting dear. It is not true if you're shooting armored soldiers and presumably also not when you're shooting at monsters with natural armor comparable to a hauberk of mail. You need as much force as you can get to penetrate armor even at short range, and that means doing a full draw with the heaviest bow you can handle.
I am not sure bows should be slower, I actually know quite a bit about bows IRL. You don't have to pull all the way back to get a shot, depends on distance and angle (which you compensate by changing where you aim). For that matter, smaller bows (which have a significant reduction in distance) are much faster to shoot in the hands of a learned archer.
Honestly, the Arrows used historically were superior to the traditional Fantasy images now and modern arrows. They were able to pierce a target with a half-draw at 50 yards when fired by even a basically trained archer.
I understand how it works if you are using one weapon but what if you are using multiple weapons in the same round with different speeds? What if I throw a dagger, quick draw a battle axe to two-hand it then quick draw a bow for a final shot? Using one weapon makes sense but switching is what's confusing me.
If wielding a weapon and a shield: Based on weapon speed. However, Bucklers and light wooden shields now have a +0 speed, light steel and heavy shield now have a -1 speed, and tower shields have a -2 speed. (a feat to reduce these penalties by 1 does not seem out of place). This means if you have certain bigger or heavier shields, you swing a bit slower. Remember the feat, and may also say that any masterwork shield drops the penalty by 1. Or treat it as TWF if you use the shield offensively as well (shield bash, spikes, etc).
Double weapons: considered one handed regardless if used as a one handed weapon or as a double weapon (which would be the equivalent of a one-handed weapon + a light weapon; add an extra attack).
As to questions:
Fayth (may I call you Fayth? perhaps Aza or AF? I don't want to be rude) I like the idea of light weapons dealing 1/2 str bonus without feat. It makes sense, those weapons are very rarely about inflicting damage with raw strength.
I seen that video before, he is awesome. Thanks for the link, I wanted to show that around to a few friends =)
As to your statement Atarlost, you can also make the assumption that an archer, regardless of bow or arrow (which in these games, arrows are not taken into consideration as much as they should), would be aiming at weak spots unprotected by plate or thick skin, such as face/eyes, neck, lower abdomen, or a joint (back shoulder/interior elbow/back knee).
Certain bows can pierce plate (less than 1-1.5mm over quilt and/or chain) with heavy arrows, usually at close range.
As to your very valid point mr. Loblaw (love your law blog btw ^.~) I would either rule that you get an amount of iterative attacks equal to the slowest weapon used in the round. Or go with the best speed but lose one attack for each weapon past the first. Or you follow the rules for twf for the first 2 weapons. After that, you begin to lose attacks for each additional one you pull out, one for one.
|
I'm struggling to see the balance here:
Why would you ever use a Regular or two handed weapon? Your first 4 attacks are on average more likely to hit than the standard model, and on top of that you get an extra strike. The individual strikes would do an average of 1 less damage (not including critical strikes), but you'd be more accurate and get an additional strike.
20+16+12+8=56/4= +14 to hit average
20+15+10+5=50/4= +12.5 to hit average
I'd say that if you wanted to make this work, you'd need to tack on some kind of penalty to hit and/or damage, or reduction in str/dex bonus since you'd be hitting more often. Perhaps you could reduce the bonus from regular strikes to hit and/or dng from full str/dex to .5 (1/2), .66 (2/3) or .75 (3/4)
so
2h: 1.5x
1h: 1x
1hl: .5x, .66x or .75x
I'm not aware of the character level to the "to hit" correlation damage-wise so I can't give you exact numbers, but I'd say there needs to be a down side for downsizing your weapon.
|
|
If wielding a weapon and a shield: Based on weapon speed. However, Bucklers and light wooden shields now have a +0 speed, light steel and heavy shield now have a -1 speed, and tower shields have a -2 speed. (a feat to reduce these penalties by 1 does not seem out of place). This means if you have certain bigger or heavier shields, you swing a bit slower. Remember the feat, and may also say that any masterwork shield drops the penalty by 1. Or treat it as TWF if you use the shield offensively as well (shield bash, spikes, etc).
Mechanically, I think it would make sense to leave light shields and bucklers in one category, heavy in another, and tower in another.
Double weapons: considered one handed regardless if used as a one handed weapon or as a double weapon (which would be the equivalent of a one-handed weapon + a light weapon; add an extra attack).
Does this include two weapon fighting, essentially making the weapons slower since you're using two? I think that's a balancer.
PS I like the concept, and I think that it reaches more towards realism than the current system. The only issues we deal with are balance and more math to be done, more references to be made to the character sheet, which is what most Role-players try to get away from in the Pathfinder/3.5 system IMO.
Going over the thread, I think Rainzax's 4/5/6 bonus to initiative makes more sense than my initiative, so larger weapons would be faster, simulating their larger reach by getting there sooner. While weight is a factor, your average large weapon wielder has more than enough strength to compensate.
Abadar, you are assuming I don't want a power increase for weapon wielding characters. A penalty to accuracy simply because they are using a lighter, smaller weapon makes no sense.
I don't think your math makes sense. Your base attack bonus does not change, so your chances to hit would not change (other than a bump to initiative, which may grant you extra flat footed targets on round one, and the extra chance to attack). You can't just add up all the attacks you get at 20 bab and average it out for your average "to-hit".
There is a downsize already built in. A fighter who takes a dagger over a greatsword is reducing his damage per turn considerably, for a chance to hit one or two more times, at the very bottom of his bab, so statistically, the trade-off is not as great as you seem to think. A dagger averages 2.5 damage per attack (+ 1/2 str, under the current rules on this thread) while a greatsword averages 7 damage per attack (+1.5 str).
At bab 20 (endgame, where most of the game for most people never plays much) a dagger would be 20/16/12/8/4 (2.5 x 5 = 12.5 dpt) while a greatsword would be 20/14/8/2 (7 x 4 = 28 dpt).
I agree that mechanically it would just be easier to not split up the shields, and I argued with myself over it, I just wanted to give the option to other melees to not get terribly screwed.
As to the double weapons, it is pretty much just practically right out of the book. Look up either two weapon fighting or double weapons in the equipment chapter, under double weapons it explains how it is a one handed weapon or a one handed weapons + a light weapon, just depends on how it is wielded (use one end of the weapon in the turn, or use both, essentially).
A bit more paperwork, but I think it will do wonders for the poor rogue that gets royally screwed regularly. 3.5/pathfinder is not where simplifiers go, they have 4e (or bare bones multiverse, if they are lucky enough to hear about it, awesome indy game).
The way it works is it limits you to one type of weapon for the Full-Attack.
Meaning Light/1Hand/2Hand for the FA. Which from my understanding that is pretty much how Pathfinder already is.
& just call me whatever you want.
Plate armour was rare NOT common.
Chainmail was the most common. Easily penetrated by a sharp point.
Archery was used mainly to lay down suppressing fire NOT lethal attacks.
Any +5 weapon bypasses every DR except DR Epic.
BTW: The feats increase the threat range to 15 feet. Imp. Snap Shot states you threaten an ADDITIONAL 10 feet with Snap Shot.
It fits as Melee can still get more attacks easier than Archery. But Archery is one of the most effective ways of taking down soft targets.
okie, regardless of archery, how does it look now?
It's looking quite plausible to me. My question still revolves around the bow. Yes it's technically a two handed weapon, but only one hand is really doing the work, kinda like a sword and board fighter. In 2E the bow had more attacks then they get now. Why? They say game balance. But seriously, give 'em some love. So what would the attack progression be?
In mine I would probably do this:
Iterative Attacks (Base +0):
Melee/Thrown:
Unarmed Strikes(with IUS): -3
Light(UAS w/out IUS): -4
1-Handed: -5
2-Handed: -6
Projectile:
Heavy Crossbows/2H Firearms: -6
Light Crossbows/1H Firearms/Longbows: -5
Hand Crossbows/Shortbows: -4
Weapons have three categories. Unfortunately, Pathfinder removes one for ranged weapons.
Fayth gave ranged weapons the category that was never given to them. And it looks downright perfect to me. (Awesome job Fayth)
I am going to summarize the rules in the next reply unless anyone else brings up anything, so please criticize. =)
Weapon Speed: based on the weight category of the weapon, you gain a bonus to initiative and a shield bonus. You also determine how many attacks you have each turn.
Weapon Category/Iterative Attack Rate/Initiative Bonus/Shield Bonus
Unarmed Strike(with Imp Unarmed Strike)/+3/+3/+0
Unarmed Strike (w/out Imp Unarmed Strike)/+4/+3/+0
Gauntlets/+4/+3/+1
Light Weapons/+4/+4/+1
One Handed Weapons/+5/+5/+2
Two handed Weapons/+6/+6/+3
Thrown (Dart, Shuriken)/+3/+3/+0
Ranged (Hand Crossbow, Shortbow)/+4/+2/+1
Thrown (Bolas, Net, Javelin)/+5/+3/+1
Ranged (Blowgun, Halfling Sling Staff, Light Crossbow, One handed Firearms, Longbows, Sling)/+5/+3/+1
Ranged (Heavy Crossbows, Two handed Firearms)/+6/+3/+2
Weapon Category: The type of weapon.
Iterative Attack Rate: You receive an extra attack for every X points of base attack bonus you have, where X is the weapon's Iterative attack rate. Each attack after the first drops its attack bonus by the Iterative attack rate (stacking). The slowest weapon you wield determines your Iterative attacks for the round.
Initiative Bonus: a weapon bonus to your initiative score, mostly based on size.
Shield Bonus: a shield bonus to your armor class, based on parry capability.
I am considering adopting a rule like this, but am curious as to how you will deal the following situation...
I am a fighter. I specialize in the longbow. At level 6 I will get an iterative attack. I am currently at level 5... why don't I just use a short bow for this one level?
Does one just suck up this somewhat absurd game artifact of the game mechanics... or is there some elegant way of circumventing this situation?
I supposed most will have a nice magical longbow by that point they don't want to trade out for a short bow...
I am lost on the 3 separate values...
@Atarlost:
English Longbow: Basic Longbow. Designed for Mass Production, low cost, & for the average person to be able to use.
Mongolian Bow: Composite Shortbow. Made specifically for the user.
Gaulic Warbow: Composite Longbow; Made for the user and could only be used with specially made arrows.
3 bows that actually have different makes and served different roles.
|
|
this looks a little complicated. almost like an attack matrix. which to you may be worth it to capture the simulation. (given your name and all!)
me, i like to craft easy to remember rules with 3 moving parts or less.
i would just have weapons be speed 6/5/4 with iterative reset = initiative mod.
6 = fighting with two hands
5 = fighting with one hand free
4 = fighting with only a light weapon
then, to give a little edge back to 'fighting with two hands' (which btw includes TWF and S&B and Polearms and Archery) you could talk about a bonus (or a penalty) based upon the difference.
this could then be granted to AC, CMB, CMD, even an attack roll. like if a greatsword fighter squares off against a rogue with a single dagger, the difference in weapon speed is 2 (6 - 4), so while the rogue gets better iterative attacks rates, the fighter gets a +2 to some roll.
to what rolls? this is where you could get creative! it could be a blanket bonus, or different for each weapon, etc...
Gaulic Warbows were used by Germanic/Gothic Tribes. They were mostly a Bone Ceramic/Wood/Resin Composite that were potent at short Range.
Mongolian Bows would be more of Comp. Shortbows with Flight Arrows. (The arrow is where the enhanced Flight comes from)
I missed something. Why does using a heavier weapon give you a bonus to initiative? You believe that hefting a massive weapon will increase your response time to a threat? And, while I agree that a heavier weapon would more effectively knock an incoming attack aside (parry), you'd never get a greatsword up fast enough to parry a short sword.
Anyway, I like the concept of weapon speeds a lot, but I feel like I missed something...
Why not have weapon speed modify initiative? Apply a penalty on the initiatve roll based upon the weapon used. Natual weapons and unarmed strikes are 0. Light weapon are -1. One-handed weapons are -3. Two-handed weapons are -5. Double weapons are -3.
Casting a spell results in an initiative penalty equal to the spell being cast (0=0, 1st=-1, 2nd=-2, etc., etc.).
Have to go back to declaring actions before initiative, but I kind of miss that anyway.
MA
I think the whole "declaring actions before initiative" thing might be where I'm lost. Is that an old rule, or a variant? How does it work?
I think the whole "declaring actions before initiative" thing might be where I'm lost. Is that an old rule, or a variant? How does it work?
Old rule.
Everyone declares actions.
Actions have initiative modifiers.
Determine order of initiative.
Resolve actions in initiative order.
|
|
I missed something. Why does using a heavier weapon give you a bonus to initiative? You believe that hefting a massive weapon will increase your response time to a threat? And, while I agree that a heavier weapon would more effectively knock an incoming attack aside (parry), you'd never get a greatsword up fast enough to parry a short sword.
Anyway, I like the concept of weapon speeds a lot, but I feel like I missed something...
like boxing and reach.
if i charge you with a dagger and you have a greatsword, who likely gets first strike?
anyway, the old rule is slower, even clumsier, but simulates the unexpected. basically, every round everyone declares Ready Actions, then initiative is rolled afterwards. for example, you might declare "i want to attack the guy in the robes with the pointy hat" and if you then beat him in initiative, you interrupt his spell if he was casting one.
and yes, this thread's ideas are right-leaning within the simplicity/simulation dichotomy.
Thanks for all the comments =)
If I don't make a comment on your particular post(s) it is because someone else answered it already.
I am considering adopting a rule like this, but am curious as to how you will deal the following situation...
I am a fighter. I specialize in the longbow. At level 6 I will get an iterative attack. I am currently at level 5... why don't I just use a short bow for this one level?
Does one just suck up this somewhat absurd game artifact of the game mechanics... or is there some elegant way of circumventing this situation?
I supposed most will have a nice magical longbow by that point they don't want to trade out for a short bow...
You get your first iterative attack at +5 with a longbow, not +6.
While it is somewhat silly, it makes sense that you are faster with a smaller weapon and takes you a bit of time (one level) to adjust your speed for a bigger weapon. For just one level, chances are that it would be of little difference once you account for the fact that the longbow the fighter has is most likely a +1 or better by level 5 (assuming the main weapon is the longbow).
I am lost on the 3 separate values...
I am not sure what you mean. I explain each value right below the table. What part in particular did you not understand? I will attempt to answer as best I can, just point out what is fuzzy.
I would merge the bows...
Individual bows behave differently so all you can really talk about is the potential. A longbow can potentially store more energy than a shortbow therefore have the ability to shoot a heavier arrow faster than a shortbow. A shortbow tends to be more efficient than a longbow therefore it will have greater potential to shoot a very light arrow faster than a longbow even though it is storing less energy.
It is not a perfect simulation. Pathfinder was never meant to be. Since they eliminated the importance of arrows (no frogcrotch arrows, really?), it makes sense to have the two categories, which also helps with balance in a world with small and large creatures.
While it would be easier to merge them, I did nothing to them (Azaelas Fayth classified them) other than give them a classification that is technically already there, only applied to melee for some reason.
this looks a little complicated. almost like an attack matrix. which to you may be worth it to capture the simulation. (given your name and all!)
me, i like to craft easy to remember rules with 3 moving parts or less.
i would just have weapons be speed 6/5/4 with iterative reset = initiative mod.
6 = fighting with two hands
5 = fighting with one hand free
4 = fighting with only a light weaponthen, to give a little edge back to 'fighting with two hands' (which btw includes TWF and S&B and Polearms and Archery) you could talk about a bonus (or a penalty) based upon the difference.
this could then be granted to AC, CMB, CMD, even an attack roll. like if a greatsword fighter squares off against a rogue with a single dagger, the difference in weapon speed is 2 (6 - 4), so while the rogue gets better iterative attacks rates, the fighter gets a +2 to some roll.
to what rolls? this is where you could get creative! it could be a blanket bonus, or different for each weapon, etc...
This is the simplified 4/5/6 method. The corebook breaks down certain things (such as unarmed attacks and gauntlets) separate from the other weapons, and I kept it that way. I also included all the core ranged weapons for the same purpose.
TWF continues to work the same way, all the feats working as before. Again, this was for simplicity, which you will notice is a theme with this particular rules system, since it is tackling a complex subject and a change to the core system (how to determine extra attacks).
Initiative bonus for melee weapons are equal to the iterative attack rate (for the most part, see UA and gauntlets), while ranged weapons receive half (round down).
Weapons already include the particular bonuses you are referring to in their descriptions, so I don't want to touch those and complicate things further. I also stayed away from actually making extra math happen when actually rolling dice. That is why the greatsword vs dagger example you give would be a problem.
I like the concept of the extra bonuses, I just think it is a separate thread altogether.
@master Arminas: we are already giving them an initiative bonus, therefore modifying initiative. Ranged weapons get a bit less love, casters get practically none. The point of the thread is to enhance weapon users, particularly rogues and monks, not to penalize them. Anytime you can add a bonus to a character rather than a penalty and the result is the same, add the bonus. Players love bonuses, and hate penalties. If mathematically you are getting to the same place, there is no reason to upset your players.
@Wildbob: I am not using the "Declaration before initiative roll" rule. It is not going to be part of this particular set of rules for simplicity reasons. (Personally, I like the idea, although I prefer the way Gurps does it. You roll initiative, declare actions last to first, allowing faster characters to react to slower ones)