While working on my house roules for my homebrew campaign, I had a nostalgia attack and remembered about weapon speed factor use in earlier edition. I liked the way that smaller or finess waepon would strike faster than bulkier one. I'm now considering to add speed factor to my game, but I don't know how to implement it and what could be the problems that might arise.
For discussion matters, let's say it will apply to a Core Pathfinder game from level 1 to 20.
So, how would you implement speed factor in your game?
Would it affect all kind of actions or only attack with a weapon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a time when I also thought that adding weapon speed factor to the game would increase realism without affecting the flow of the game.
Then I read this insightful article by Sean K Reynolds and gave up on the idea.
It is my opinion it adds an extra level of annoyance and doesn't really do anything.
Sean K. Reynolds actually wrote an article (rant) about it, as well, which you can read here.
He was pretty thorough, as well. Many of the options I had considered in the past and thrown out are discussed.
Edit: TwiceBorn beat me to it.=)
Weapons adjusting speeds make no sense since you're not forced to use them, anyhow. This is a point SKR missed in his article.
Why should the mage cast earlier just because it's holding a dagger instead of a club?
Well, the mage wouldn't cast earlier if he's holding a weapon. If he's using the weapon in melee/ranged he would go sooner or later, but spells just go off your base initiative +casting time of the spell.
At least, that's my thought process.
So you're aiming for everyone having double initiatives, one for stating intended actions and another for when those actions happen? Those systems tend to get very complex very soon, especially when considering what happens if an action is prevented somehow.
I should also point out (as Mr. Obvious) that Initiative is already modified by Armor Check penalties.
In essence, all you'd be doing is helping to insure a relatively static Initiative order where certain classes (monks, most arcane casters) would almost always be first, and others almost always be last (fighters, clerics).
When I merged Spellcraft into knowledge (religion) for Divine and knowledge (arcana) for Arcane casters, I added in an Initiative skill (adopted from SW:SE) to get a little more diverse initiative lineup.
I should also point out (as Mr. Obvious) that Initiative is already modified by Armor Check penalties.
This is not correct in the current rules (unsure if you mean them or some homebrew).
Armor check penalties do not apply to initiative checks if you have proficiency in the armor. It probably applies if you aren't proficient, but the rules are a little fuzzy on what constitutes an ability check.
Armor Check Penalty
Any armor heavier than leather, as well as any shield, hurts a character's ability to use Dex- and Str-based skills. An armor check penalty applies to all Dex- and Strength-based skill checks. A character's encumbrance may also incur an armor check penalty.
Shields: If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, both armor check penalties apply.
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dex- and Str-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for non-proficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.
Sleeping in Armor: A character who sleeps in medium or heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day. He takes a –2 penalty on Str and Dex and can't charge or run. Sleeping in light armor does not cause fatigue.
EDIT: And the only result of having an initiative skill is that all characters get -1 skill point per level and that monsters with higher/lower HD than them will act earlier/later compared to before (unless you left the monsters unmodified, in which case monsters will always act last after the first few levels).
Initiative is arguably the single most powerful stat in the game, making it a skill sounds like a really really bad idea. Kind of like making BAB a skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon speed seem pretty pointless to me. I just can't see what it adds. The realistic thing to do would be to introduce a ticks system in place of the entire action system. And that sounds damn scary to me.
This is not correct in the current rules (unsure if you mean them or some homebrew).
Armor check penalties do not apply to initiative checks if you have proficiency in the armor. It probably applies if you aren't proficient, but the rules are a little fuzzy on what constitutes an ability check.
You're correct (standard rules, not homebrew). After searching through my PF collection, I could find no more than little blurbs in reference to Ability Checks and nothing solid. Ability Checks are alot more fuzzy than I realized. In the 3.5 system, however, several books define an Ability Check as "an untrained skill check" or in the case of the vaguest example I found, "essentially an untrained skill check."
EDIT: And the only result of having an initiative skill is that all characters get -1 skill point per level and that monsters with higher/lower HD than them will act earlier/later compared to before (unless you left the monsters unmodified, in which case monsters will always act last after the first few levels).
The Initiative skill was introduced along with the other skills (as well as one or two other mergings of skills); there was no need to penalize the skill points per level.
and that monsters with higher/lower HD than them will act earlier/later compared to before (unless you left the monsters unmodified, in which case monsters will always act last after the first few levels).
This was precisely the goal. "Favorable" and "unfavorable circumstances" also apply as modifiers. Monsters were modified (be pointless not to).
Initiative is arguably the single most powerful stat in the game, making it a skill sounds like a really really bad idea. Kind of like making BAB a skill.
I agree that we can argue the value of initiative, as I feel you are severely exaggerating it. As far as "weapon skills" go, the use of skills for base attack bonus to be specific, there are several systems that use this method and it works just fine. I'm not saying I like the weapon skill system, but my dislike for something in no way makes it "bad".
Well, of course other house rules can compensate for the effects of one rule, but making initiative into a skill will make that skill about ten times as good as perception, which already has the issue of being a lot better than all other skills.
So instead of all decently optimized characters having 1/3/5/7+Int skills and maxed perception, they'd have 0/2/4/6+Int skills and maxed perception + maxed initiative. This means classes that get more skill points than they need (wizards) benefit while classes that have a hard time getting the skills they need (fighters, monks) will suffer.
Basically, Init goes from Dex+Feat+Misc to HD+Dex+Feat+Misc and you reduce the number of skill points per level by one. Instead it could've been easier to simply make it HD+Dex+Feat+Misc and be done with it, or to tye it to either BAB and/or base reflex save as to give martials and/or nimble characters an edge on acting quickly in combat. Either HD, BAB or Reflex would also lead to your intended goal of making enemy initiative differ based on HD; HD most directly, while the others would depend more on enemy type.
And initiative is the most important number in the game for the most powerful classes, especially at higher levels where the game tends toward rocket launcher tag. There's a reason most wizards take Imp Init at latest at 3rd level. Heck, we halved the bonus in our games and it's still the most common 1st level feat for wizards.
If it works in your game, great, but I would strongly discourage anyone from using such a house rule if they asked about it.
Well, of course other house rules can compensate for the effects of one rule, but making initiative into a skill will make that skill about ten times as good as perception, which already has the issue of being a lot better than all other skills.
Ten times? That's a gross exaggeration. I do, however, agree that both the Perception skill and Initiative stat are valued higher than other skills. I addressed that in my home setting with a series of checks and balances to insure diversity of skill choice, which I will explain very briefly (and minimal detail) below.
So instead of all decently optimized characters having 1/3/5/7+Int skills and maxed perception, they'd have 0/2/4/6+Int skills and maxed perception + maxed initiative. This means classes that get more skill points than they need (wizards) benefit while classes that have a hard time getting the skills they need (fighters, monks) will suffer.
Basically, Init goes from Dex+Feat+Misc to HD+Dex+Feat+Misc and you reduce the number of skill points per level by one. Instead it could've been easier to simply make it HD+Dex+Feat+Misc and be done with it, or to tye it to either BAB and/or base reflex save as to give martials and/or nimble characters an edge on acting quickly in combat. Either HD, BAB or Reflex would also lead to your intended goal of making enemy initiative differ based on HD; HD most directly, while the others would depend more on enemy type.
A lot of assumptions here (especially about a skill system with homebrew modifications I've never posted or shared with anyone outside of my group - most of it is not OGL and drawn from a lot of systems and forms of the d20 rules).
Since you seem very passionate on discouraging persuit of this avenue, I'll offer a brief explanation and move on from the topic (you may feel free to message me if you wish to continue discussing it, however), as it was not my intention to hijack the OPs thread - to whom I apologize.
I do not have the problem of specific skills being far superior to others in my setting for a few simple reasons. In fact, the skill selection of my players is quite diverse, as I increased the importance of the other skills. This is by no means complete, but should give one an idea of some basic structure:
1. Improved Initiative was altered to reflect other changes.
2. Fighters have 4 + Int for skills. They have endurance, heal, initiative, and perception as added class skills.
3. Magic Items that increase Intelligence do not grant skill points.
4. A minimum static number of skill ranks is tied to certain other mechanics, such as crafting (magic and mundane), certain combat maneuvers, and other "built-in" mechanics, as well as desirable custom mechanics.
5. All skills have a number of "special" abilities tied to a specific number of skill ranks. Think of them as skill tricks you can use only at a certain number of ranks in each skill. Some are better than others, but overall they appeal to a wide variety of characters and concepts.
And initiative is the most important number in the game[...]
Repeating your opinion (over and over) does not make it a fact. Additionally, it has changed from "arguably the single most powerful stat in the game" (which I do not agree with, not even a little) to "the most important number in the game" in a matter of two posts. In response to this, I would posit that Hit Points and the Primary Attributes are the most important numbers in the game (among others), as without them, you don't have a character (or a dead one, at most). Your inconsistency and exaggerations are actually reducing the value of your opinion - an opinion I normally respect from reading your posts over the years. I'm going to chalk this up to an assumed passion on the subject and the possibility that you're just having a bad day and forget about it.
I actually just worked out a system for weapon speed factors based on the chart in the 1st edition AD&D PHB. I just added a "-" in front of the speed factor number for most weapons, excepting new weapons, many of which were similar enough for me to guess at. Unfortunately, the two PCs in my current game both have really low numbers (one fights unarmed, one uses a pistol (revolver)), so they probably won't see as much effect as I'd hoped. Pretty neat system though, and since you've calculated all this beforehand for the weapons your characters will commonly use, it really adds NO time at all to a given combat.
... as it was not my intention to hijack the OPs thread - to whom I apologize...
No apologies required, this thread is a discussion about house rules for way to incorporate weapon speed or variants into the game, or why it shouldn't be. As long as we keep a civilized conversation any point of view are welcome even if they stray a bit from the subject :)
I feel that it isn't worth the trouble. Not for the same reasons as the esteemed Mr. Reynolds, but rather because more detailed weapon rules are something of a trap.
The game doesn't actually center on humanoids swinging weapons at each other. Monsters and Magic have equal screen time to (if not more screen time than) melee combat. Speed factor for spells? Natural weapons? Movement? Jumping and climbing? Picking a lock? What if you change your action between initiative and your turn, as is almost always the case?
Once you start considering those rules interactions, it quickly gets out of hand. Much easier to switch to a system that has realistic melee assumptions baked in. For most threads like this, I recommend Burning Wheel RPG. It has its own flaws, but it is a good example of what a very crunchy system that's faithful to weapon and armor properties looks like.
That said, if I were to take a whack at it, I'd probably make high-speed weapons take an extra attack on a full attack, at some respectful penalty. That places the emphasis on the weapon and attack rules, not the initiative rules. It's also sort of "realistic", a kind of rapid shot. Light weapons will allow for lots of attacks, but they will be easily mitigated by armor, which sounds about right. However, extra attacks are a very powerful thing to hand out, so consideration is due.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of giving the players an iterative attack every time theyre BAB reaches a multiple of five, give it to them whenever they reach their weapon's max damage.
Daggers (1d4)
+20/+16/+12/+8/+4
Sword, Short (1d6)
+20/+14/+8/+2
Hammer, Friggin Huge (1d12)
+20/+8
Etc.
Thats what Ive been doing and it works perfectly for my campaign. It even works for firearms, as a higher caliber gun would have more recoil.
|
... as it was not my intention to hijack the OPs thread - to whom I apologize...No apologies required, this thread is a discussion about house rules for way to incorporate weapon speed or variants into the game, or why it shouldn't be. As long as we keep a civilized conversation any point of view are welcome even if they stray a bit from the subject :)
I have a speed based initiative system that I can put up on google docs and PM to you Mordo - if you are interested. I read SKRs article on the matter and do not consider his judgement on this sound and see the article as providing cover for 3rd eds "living round/AoO system", which I think is terrible.
The big difference in my system is that it uses:
Declared actions at beginning of round (to determine which speed modifier to use)
No more Attacks of Opportunity (that system was created to cover the lack of a declared actions/speed system). In my system if you roll high enough on your movement you can run pass foes before they can strike if they are not readied for it. The extra AoO attack just seemed silly, as does the living round.
The system covers:
- Spell speeds based on spell level, if it has V,S,M or DF in the spell or casting from item (ring, wand, etc)
- Weapon Speed and iterative attacks or multiple attacks (dual wielding). All attacks revolved based on speed (so if two guys with iterative attacks are going at it, the guy with the faster weapon may get in two attacks before the guy with the slower one gets his second one in).
- Movement related initiative (you have two tracks: movement init and action init, movement determines where you are at on the map when the action goes off. So if you have a fast weapon init but slow movement you cannot hit your foe till you are in striking range (in effect, the action is held and triggers when you are in melee range).
- Rules for holding actions and changing actions (need to roll very high on initial roll).
- Covers speech in a round, free and immediate actions, etc
- Sized based initiative (The baseline is from a humanoid setting goes down as the size of the creature goes up and goes up as the creature gets smaller (both melee and move init).
It isn't an easy system and I was making a civilian/Paizo poster/simplified version that was more digestible but I stopped most of my work on PF.
The drawbacks of my system: requires some charts, slows things down
The perks: Everything is real-time (mostly), so if you move out of an area (as you declared) before a Fireball goes off you are not in the area of the Fireball. Also no more AoO (which I hate). No one feat to rule them all (Improve init has two versions - caster and combat, mobility adds to movement init).
My players come from a 1st ed/2nd ed heavy simulationist background and they like the system since it gives them some tactical choices.
By changing actions (rolling high and new init is high enough to go in round) the players can affect change vs. being locked in a terrible (imo) initiative system.
So a fighter can see the rogue across the room getting trounced while he can quick draw a dagger and possibly throw it before the rogue player gets hit again (and killed). The martials like the system since it gives them more choices and secondary (faster) weapons now have a use and the casters cast spells a little more carefully based on speed (as things get desperate).
Considering how hostile this thread is to speed factor systems I won't post it here, but I will send you the material if you like via PM.
Instead of giving the players an iterative attack every time theyre BAB reaches a multiple of five, give it to them whenever they reach their weapon's max damage.
Daggers (1d4)
+20/+16/+12/+8/+4Sword, Short (1d6)
+20/+14/+8/+2Hammer, Friggin Huge (1d12)
+20/+8Etc.
Thats what Ive been doing and it works perfectly for my campaign. It even works for firearms, as a higher caliber gun would have more recoil.
What happens if I have Quick Draw, and, say, swing a Friggin' Huge Hammer, drop it (free), QD a bow, fire it, then drop that and throw a dagger at someone?
What happens if I have Quick Draw, and, say, swing a Friggin' Huge Hammer, drop it (free), QD a bow, fire it, then drop that and throw a dagger at someone?
Youd need an attack bonus of at least 12 to swing the hammer and have an additional bow attack. Youd need an extra 8 to have an attack after that, meaning you wouldn't be able to throw the dagger unless you had a BAB of 21.
Instead of giving the players an iterative attack every time theyre BAB reaches a multiple of five, give it to them whenever they reach their weapon's max damage.
Very cool.
What about large weapons (from large creatures) and the like? Do 4d6ers only ever get one attack?
I could be convinced that's a feature, not a bug...
Instead of giving the players an iterative attack every time theyre BAB reaches a multiple of five, give it to them whenever they reach their weapon's max damage.Very cool.
What about large weapons (from large creatures) and the like? Do 4d6ers only ever get one attack?
I could be convinced that's a feature, not a bug...
It works if you like your large creatures slow and hulky, but if you want your boss to be an expert swordsman who happens to be a giant or just a little faster, I've got an idea for that.
Theres a table in the basic handbook (Im sure theres a more comprehensive one elsewhere...) that converts weapon damage according to size. If one were to convert the damage from large to medium, you'd see what the iterative attacks would cost. Ie; a large weapon that does 3d6 damage is equivalent to a 1d8 medium, so they'd gain an attack every 8th BAB point.
Hmm. That's an acceptable answer, but I wonder if the difference in sizes can be approximated to something that wouldn't require a table lookup. I hates me some table lookups.
Looks like it's something like 150% ish, but I am lazy and bad at math.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of giving the players an iterative attack every time theyre BAB reaches a multiple of five, give it to them whenever they reach their weapon's max damage.
It skews the importance and effectiveness of strength though.
A small sized unarmed fighter using just his fists would be brutal, and more effective at unarmed combat than a monk (as a monk at level 20 would only have 1 attack due to 2d10 damage).
A small sized unarmed (or gauntleted) attacker would have a progression of:
+20/+18/+16/+14/+12/+10/+8/+6/+4/+2 Roll all the dice!
The medium sized monk:
+20
And would be getting 100% of Strength as bonus damage on each and every attack.
Holy cow. Gnomes are extreme! Lol.
I think one of the benefits of a Monk's abilities as per this rule should be that their unarmed attacks count as 1d3's for the purpose of iterative attacks.
I'm a big fan of both weapon speed and casting times. I think the game went down a bad alley when those factors were removed and I think a lot of the complaints against them were greatly exaggerated corner cases. That said, I know the second ed speed systens were far, far from perfect. Ive put something similar in place in my homebrew that more rewards people who are interested in getting faster with specific weapons than punishes people who like heavy weapons. Needs some playtesting though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why people seem to have no issue with the idea of reach weapons, but continue to try to resurrect weapon speeds.
Weapon speeds (and casting times) were one of the elements of the game that helped balance the difference between casters and martials. Most high levels were fairly slow to cast (1 segment/spell level was pretty common). While many weapons were generally faster, particularly if they were magical (2e included an optional rule that the speed factor improved by 1 per + of the weapon). PCs had the additional strategic element of picking a fast but generally low-damage weapon that might help them interrupt a caster. That texture has been lost in 3e/4e's cyclical initiative system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, my response to this is the same:
Take two people of equal skill. Give one a dagger and the other a longsword. The guy with the longsword is going to win the vast majority of the time because he can strike the dagger wielder from much farther away than he can be struck in return. A huge amount of sword-fighting revolves around controlling distance.
I don't understand why people seem to have no issue with the idea of reach weapons, but continue to try to resurrect weapon speeds.
reach and speed are two different concepts that can exist side by side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, as for the additional attacks idea, I'm thinking one additional attack on a full attack for a light weapon, and one less for a weapon that requires two hands (minimum one attack). Melee only.
No tables, no abusing it to get a million attacks. Pretty simple.
Of course, I won't be actually using it. I have no room for more house rules in my game, and as I already mentioned, melee attack rules are really a very small part of the big equation. Not really worth making them more complicated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going down the reach road, you should also point out how badly someone with a reach weapon is hosed the instant someone gets inside their reach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, the guy with the light weapon might be able swing his weapon faster, but he's not going be threatening the guy with reach on him any more often.
This. This is why weapon speeds don't make sense. If I have a dagger, and you have a greatsword, yeah I can poke you faster than you can swing ... but I have to get inside your reach (not game term reach, real world reach - arm length plus weapon length). This essentially balances out the speed issue.
What you could do is institute a house rule regarding weapon size, more than speed. Create a system of weapon length (S-M-L). When you attack someone with a longer weapon, you take a -2 to hit for each length category shorter your weapon is (dagger vs. greatsword is -4), UNTIL you hit the other guy. Then, you're inside his range and the penalty is reversed; he has a harder time hitting you, based on weapon length (now the greatsword guy is at -4).
The penalty resets if the combatants ever become non-adjacent; Greatsword Guy can take a 5' step away, and Dagger Guy will have to close and re-take the penalty. If you can take a 5' step at the same time he can (readied action or I know some feat does it), you can stay on him and stay inside his reach.
What someone can do is allow the dagger to make one extra attack at the lowest base that provokes an attack of opportunity on a miss from weapons without the same weapon quality shared by a fast weapon (such as a great sword).
I guess my main point is adding weapon speeds to the abstract combat of D&D/Pathfinder achieves the opposite effect of what people feel they are adding (realism) while requiring a lot of work and opening up the potential for a host of other headaches.
I think this is true mainly because D&D pushed a lot farther into the tactical action game with 3e, in which one attack roll effectively meant one swing. And SKR's blog post reflects that game's shift.
But in 1e/2e, when characters were closing into combat on one round (unless they were charging in which the longer weapon did strike first) and then in melee on the subsequent rounds and the round times were about a minute of thrusts and parries that netted the PC one "effective" attack, the speed factors were more useful. When already in close combat, that faster weapon was more likely to get its telling blow in within the framework of AD&D's more abstract combat.
(...) the round times were about a minute of thrusts and parries that netted the PC one "effective" attack, the speed factors were more useful.
Not only that, but since there were no mechanics for spellcasters to retain their spells when distracted/wounded in melee, their initiative effectively determined whether they could cast a spell this round or not.
Initiative thus played a role in the interruption of spells and other non-melee tasks. Consequently, lower level spells kept their use at higher level since their lower casting time would increase your chance of casting the said spells, and powerful spells granting almost instantaneous casting (mainly Power Word spells) had a distinct advantage on other lower level save-or-die or save-or-suck spells with similar or even identical effects.
On the matter of weapon speed factor, most weapon can be used in myriad of ways - some being quicker and more effective, some being more effective but slower, easier to predict and deflect, or too situational to to be used with reliability.
The game already renders this with normal hits, power attacks and critical hits, but IMO, it mainly fails to represent the "very close reach" that would make daggers, short swords and the occasional punch or kick useful elements of combats in a more simulationist approach of the game. It also fails (by design) to give a dynamic cycling of turns in combat, rather favoring a static cycle for ease and speed of play, so weaker, faster blows aren't even that fast...
Perhaps a player rolling minimum damage could "go up" one place in the initiative order? This would statistically increase the initiative of low-damage-die-weapon wielders over a period of time. It could also serve as a consolation for rolling crappy...
Personally, I'm not sure if I'd be interested to up the complexity level yet by another notch, but I could see a good 3rd party add-on document to develop that (missing) aspect of the game.
'findel
I have a speed based initiative system that I can put up on google docs and PM to you Mordo - if you are interested. I read SKRs article on the matter and do not consider his judgement on this sound and see the article as providing cover for 3rd eds "living round/AoO system", which I think is terrible...
I'll gladly have a look at that document if you don't mind :)
Thanks
|
|
The Scarred Lands setting went with a very stripped down optional weapon speed system that divided all weapons into one of three categories, Slow, Medium and Fast. Slow weapons (crossbows, slings, two-handed weapons, etc.) only gained iterative attacks every 6 BAB. Fast weapons (light or finessable weapons, monk's fists, etc.) gained iterative attacks every 4 BAB.
So a 12th level fighter with a halberd would get two attacks at +12 BAB and +6 BAB, with a longsword would get two attacks at +12/+7 and with a rapier would get three attacks at +12/+8/+4.
It was a simplified mechanic, and one that, IMO, would add only a little verisimilitude (while, as mentioned upthread, ignore other verisimilitude that might swing benefits in the other direction, like weapon length).