PDA

View Full Version : Weapon Delays



Kenneth
2011-10-23, 09:52 PM
If anybody played 1st or 2nd edition they remember the good old weapon speed rules, Now i did not exactly agree with them as I felt the number was often too high. But when 3rd edition came out and I saw that having a full base attack bonus really didn't matter in the long run I put that (weapon speed) back into my games, though at a different form that what it used to be. considering I think somebody should be able to stab you multiple times in teh same amount of time that it takes one to swing a great axe. and I thought the number of times you could pissibly get a successful atatck in a round comes just as much form what particualr weapon you use as to yoru skill with using a weapon- as is representd by a characters base attack bonus

The listed number is what is subtracted from you base attack bonus to get more iterative attacks. the standard delay is what everybody gets in regular 3rd ed. to put an example

a 20th fighter with a short sword attacks like so
{table=head]regular D&D
+20/+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+20/+16/+12/+8/+4
[/table]

a 20th rogue with a short sword attacks like so
{table=head]regular D&D
+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+15/+11/+7/+3
[/table]


{table=head] Very Quick

-3
None, except for Quick weapons being used by a Rogue with the Kinesthetics Abilty or Quick Weapons with the Quickness Enchantment
[/table]

{table=head] Quick

-4
unarmed, sling, dagger, knife, dart, whip, spiked gauntlet, sap, short sword, blowgun
[/table]

{table=head] Standard

-5
light mace, heavy mace, club, morning star, javelin, short spear, spear, quarter staff, light hammer, hand axe, battle axe, long sword, scimitar, light pick, short bow, long bow, composite bow, hand crossbow, light crossbow, heavy crossbow, warhammer, sickle, military fork, Bill
[/table]


{table=head] Slow

-6
light flail, Heavy flail, heavy pick, net, great club, trident, glaive, ranseur, spetum, great axe, broad sword, falchion, great sword, maul, halberd, bastard sword, Bardiche, fauchard, lucern hammer, bec-de-corbin, voulge, partisan, [/table]

{table=head] Cumbersome

-7
lance, scythe, orcish double axe, dire flail, two-bladed sword, dwarven urgosh, gnomish hooked hammer, pike
[/table]

Noctis Vigil
2011-10-23, 10:11 PM
For those of us who never played until 3.5, please explain this in a little more depth. Is that number being subtracted from your BAB? This is a flat penalty for wielding bigger weapons? I agree that some weapons would realistically be faster than others, but a BAB penalty on every weapon in the game is a bit crazy (although it does make the Paladin and Fighter slightly more viable options for melee combat).

Kenneth
2011-10-23, 10:21 PM
yes the listed number is what is being subtracted from your Base Attack Bonus.

deuxhero
2011-10-23, 10:25 PM
So everyone takes a penalty?

Not liking this.

SamBurke
2011-10-23, 10:30 PM
So everyone takes a penalty?

Not liking this.

Agreed. This only hurts the fighter, as that archetype is the Only user of heavy arms. You aren't penalizing sorcs for casting more spells than a wizard, so don't tak a fighter's BAB.

Also, his would work clunky with rapid reload, etc.

Edit- thanks for the example, it helps. This is ok, then.

Noctis Vigil
2011-10-23, 10:31 PM
With all due respect, that's terrible. The speed system should be reworked so it starts at -0 for very quick and goes up from there. This literally penalizes you for every single weapon, even for Rogues and unarmed Monks; if you go that route, you need to make the weapons worth the cost by ramping the damage accordingly, because right now there are absolutely no weapons worth a flat -7BAB to use. Campaigns with this would rapidly devolve into "oh crap, we're fighting again" in the circles I play in, whereas it should devolve into "OK I can attack fast with this or do MEGA FREAKIN HUGE DAMAGE with this".

EDIT: just saw the expanded description in the first post, and I retract my judgement. This is a very interesting idea, linking iterative attacks dependent on the specific weapon. I do think you need a feat to make clunky weapons faster, though.

Seerow
2011-10-23, 10:44 PM
It seems like he meant that the penalty listed is the penalty for iteratives?


So a rogue with a dagger gets +15/+12/+9/+6/+3 while the Fighter with a Long Sword has the standard +20/+15/+10/+5, and the Fighter with a Great Sword has +20/+14/+8/+2, while the Fighter with the Lance has +20/+13/+6


Meaning for most weapons, there is no change. A few weapons are faster, a few weapons are slower, there's a property to make the weapon a category faster (so you could have a Long Sword acting as +20/+16/+12/+8/+4 with the Quick property)



The big problem I have is that the weapons seem to have been placed where they are due to some idea he has of realism, rather than balance. A Lance is never good enough to be worth getting a lower attack bonus and fewer itteratives compared to a great sword. So using this system would require rebalancing weapons to accommodate for this system, which would be pretty hard because you're balancing later game progression against bonuses that can be used at any time, unless you have other weapon properties also scale with level, which can get finicky pretty quickly.

Without rebalancing, there is basically no reason to not use the fastest weapon possible at all times, because no other weapon property remotely compares to the ability to get extra attacks.

Ultimately this really isn't something that I can see being implemented in a way that works.

Zagaroth
2011-10-23, 10:46 PM
Oh thank god, I thought this was going to be another affects initiative idea. Thank you for avoiding that insanity.

SO, the weapons instead affect iterative attack progression. hrrm. Ok, so if using multiple weapons (say, throwing a weapon with you first attack, then punching some one nearby for your second etc) The speed of the first weapon used is what determines the penalty for the second attack?

Kenneth
2011-10-23, 10:47 PM
I fail to see how it penalizes you for every single weapon?

you do realize that what you get in 3rd edition is the (standard) -5 delay right?

so I am going to now pose this example and you tell me how is penalizes characters more for using every single weapon


a 20th fighter with a short sword attacks like so
{table=head]regular D&D
+20/+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+20/+16/+12/+8/+4
[/table]


a 20th fighter with a short sword and the quickness enchanmnet attacks like so
{table=head]regular D&D
+20/+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+20/+17/+13/+10/+7/+4
[/table]


a 20th fighter with a Great Sword attacks like this
{table=head]regular D&D
+20/+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+20/+14/+8/+2
[/table]

a 20th fighter with a Great Sword with the quickness enchantment attacks like this
{table=head]regular D&D
+20/+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+20/+15/+10/+5
[/table]


a 20th rouge with a short sword attacks like this
{table=head]regular D&D
+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+15/+11/+7/+3
[/table]

a 20th rouge with a short sword that has the quickness enchantment attacks like this
{table=head]regular D&D
+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+15/+12/+9/+6/+3
[/table]

a 20th fighter with a Lance attacks like this
{table=head]regular D&D
+20/+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+20/+13/+6
[/table]

a 20th fighter with a Lance with the quickness enchantment attacks like this
{table=head]regular D&D
+20/+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+20/+14/+8+2
[/table]

a 20th rouge with a short sword that has the quickness enchantment attacks like this
{table=head]regular D&D
+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+15/+12/+9/+6/+3
[/table]

a 20th monk using unarmed attacks like this
{table=head]regular D&D
+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+15/+11/+7/+3
[/table]

a 20th Monk using flurry fo blows and has the quickness enchantment attacks like this
{table=head]regular D&D
+15/+15/+15/+10/+5
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+15/+15/+15/+12/+9/+6/+3
[/table]


in regards to seerow.

i have never seen or read anywhere in the world where a lance was used in hand to hand fighting. exvcept in very deseroate measure and then the cumbersome use fo the weapon was documented in regards to the warriors main weapon. A lance s hould be used in a destating charge not running around attemtpint to poke at people when your oppoent is 2 ro 3 feet away. its the reaosn why the 15'+ long pike is listed as cumbersome, try to stab somebody with a pike when they are whacking you with a mace.

Seerow
2011-10-23, 10:49 PM
I fail to see how it penalizes you for every single weapon?


He posted before you edited your OP. Your original post sounded a lot like you were saying that every weapon takes the penalty listed straight off the top.

So a dagger would be 17/12/7/2, while a Lance would be 13/8/3. I kind of got what you were saying before your edit, but it was very unclear. I think your edit cleared it up, Noctis even posted indicating that was the case.

Kenneth
2011-10-23, 10:53 PM
actually my reply was not for Noctis Vigil

as he stated in his post he was confused about it but for deuxhero and SamBurke

Kenneth
2011-10-23, 11:09 PM
also this works wonders with dual wielding now making it a bit more useful and not requiring one to have a form of precision damage to compete with a 2 hander

at least i think so..

a 20th Fighter with 2 a short swords attacks like this
{table=head]regular D&D
+18/+13/+8/+3
+18+13+8
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay
+18/+14/+10/+6/+2
+18/+14/+10
[/table]

{table=head]with Weapon Delay+quickness
+18/+15/+12/+9/+6/+3
+18/+15/+12
[/table]

Seerow
2011-10-23, 11:30 PM
So explain this to me: Why do I ever want to use a weapon that is slower?


I could see having two different sets, one for using a weapon two handed, and one for using a weapon one handed, with feats/abilities/properties that can reduce that an extra category.


The way you have it now though: Why would I ever use any of the -7 weapons over a greatsword? Hell why would I use a greatsword over a longsword?

I can have a Greatsword at +20/+15/+10/+5 or a Longsword at +20/+16/+12/+8/+4. (assuming quickness on both) That's a rather significant increase in average damage per round for the longsword, given the only difference between the two is an extra 2.5 damage per hit for the Greatsword.

Also worth noting, Quickness is now 100% required as an enchantment, because not having it is just gimping yourself.




Basically, if you want to make this work, instead of going weapon by weapon determining how they work, make the speed based on how the weapon is wielded. If your intent is to buff Two Weapon Fighting, single weapon fighting, and/or nerfing two handed fighting, then do that directly. Something like:

Any weapon being wielded in a single hand gains itteratives at a -4 per extra attack, and any weapon being wielded two handed gains itteratives at a -6 (maybe even as bad as -7 to cause the loss of that 4th attack) per extra attack. The old standard -5 just vanishes, having been the average value. The stuff that improves weapon speed explicitly does not stack with each other, and reduces the penalty by 1 (so you can have a one handed with -3 per, or a two handed with a -5 per)




Interesting side effect you can take with this: Change up two weapon fighting so instead of a flat -2 to hit, it becomes a +1 to the penalty between itteratives. So at level 1 you can attack at +1/+1, rather than -1/-1, at level 9 however, instead of +9/+5/+1, you have +9/+9/+4/+4. Which leaves wielding a single one handed weapon as an interesting niche in that you can get more attacks with a single weapon there, with a lesser investment, while two weapon fighting gets you more attacks when combining the weapons, for a higher investment.

Kenneth
2011-10-23, 11:41 PM
I use Damage reduction as an additional attribute of armor. so those slower weapons while swinging slower in a round that the faster ones have more of their damage go through

here is the listing for damage reduction armor gives you

I admit that the short sword might be the most powerful weapon here.. but I tried to make the actual weapons such as longsword and heavy pick etc be the most useful weapons

as I am sure you can guess some weapons were just better in (ancient and mideval) warfare than others.

Armor | Damage Reduction
Padded | 0
Leather | 1/-
Studded | 1/-
Ring mail | 1/-
Chain Shirt | 1/-
Scale Mail | 1/-
Hide | 1/-
Brigadine | 2/-
Chain Mail | 2/-
Breast Plate | 2/-
Banded Mail | 3/-
Splint Mail | 3/-
Plate Mail | 3/-
Full Plate | 4/-

Noctis Vigil
2011-10-23, 11:51 PM
I do think weapon damage should be reworked if this system is implemented. I still believe that as it stands, no weapon is worth the -7 iterative attack penalty, or even -6, really, even with DR on armor.

Also, how does this effect other feats and the like? Quickdraw? Rapid Reload? Multishot?

And for the love of God, move Crossbows to at least slow if you want realistic accuracy.

Seerow
2011-10-23, 11:58 PM
Your response actually addresses absolutely nothing.


Answer me why I would EVER use a weapon slower than -5, when the Longsword exists. The ONLY reason would be to use a reach weapon. The Greatsword, Bastard Sword, etc? All now obsolete.

Answer me why I would ever use a weapon in one hand with a speed slower than -4. Why would I use a Longsword and Shield, when I can use a Shortsword and Shield?


It used to be: You use the stronger weapon, now it is you use the faster weapon. Because the damage benefits are pretty much nothing when set next to the average damage increase from being able to attack more often. Those other weapons get relegated to "Only before level 4-5". Once you get to the first level where you can possibly get an itterative, you're switching to the fastest weapon that works with your weapon style.

So you either need to make all weapons being used in the same style work the same (ie a weapon being wielded one handed goes one speed, wielding the same weapon two handed goes slower), or accept that you are obsoleting huge swaths of weapons for the sake of some faux realism.


I say faux realism, because extra itterative attacks don't even come into play until you reach a point beyond normal human limits. You get the second attack at level 6 at the earliest, level 11 for an average person. The highest level equivalent people that are actually bound by reality? Somewhere between level 5 and level 8.

People who are getting extra itteratives are the people who are pretty much ignoring the laws of physics anyway. So by the time people are getting significant benefit/penalty from your changes, realism is a thing of memory. That our Fighter can swing his lance as fast as he can swing a sword isn't something we even blink at, because in the same time he takes to swing it once, the wizard can cast a 9th level spell or two.





tl;dr: I can get behind different iterative progressions for the sake of balance. Wanting to slow down two handed weapon progression, and buff other fighting styles at the same time. What I can't get behind is the current method which is basically just assigning values at random to weapons regardless of how they're being used, so serves no game balance function, and instead adds a new area of imbalance.

Kenneth
2011-10-24, 12:09 AM
I understand that this rule requires one to be slightly made to think when it comes to certainf eats. many shot has no difference what so ever. ( ihope that is what you meant by multi-shot) as weapon delay doe snot affect ones BAse attack at all.


Manyshot [General]

Prerequisites
Dex 17, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6
Benefit
As a standard action, you may fire two arrows at a single opponent within 30 feet. Both arrows use the same attack roll (with a -4 penalty) to determine success and deal damage normally (but see Special).
For every five points of base attack bonus you have above +6, you may add one additional arrow to this attack, to a maximum of four arrows at a base attack bonus of +16. However, each arrow after the second adds a cumulative -2 penalty on the attack roll (for a total penalty of -6 for three arrows and -8 for four).
Damage reduction and other resistances apply separately against each arrow fired


as for quick draw. is has absolutly nothing to do with a weapon ability to attack in a round so again is rendered nullified.

and for your thouhts on crossbows and that they should be in teh 'slow' category. heres the skinny on that. WOtC was half moronic when they made the weapon rules for 3rd ed. a heavy crossbow IN REAL LIFE took a 2 man party to operate, one carried the the actual X-bow and the other carried the wrench that was required to pull teh draw string back. when the weapon was fire the wrench was hooked up and BOTH people turns the wrench to pull teh drawstring back
SO here is how X-bows and rapid reload works in my games

Light cross bow- takes a full round to reload, down to a standard action is you use rapid reload, for a heavy crossbow it takes 2 full round to reload down to 1 full round with rapid reload. Yeah it seems like its a big nerf to crossbow but seriously. X bows were made atricy for war. while bows originally started out as hunting implements so they could shoot teh running antelope. X bows are supieror to bows when you are fighting froma defensives advanatge, while for small skirmishes Bows win out handily, which is what D&D is all about skirmishe between you and some ugly monsters who have kidnapped teh princess!

Seerow
2011-10-24, 12:12 AM
Wow man. I think you just hate weapons in general. Seriously those crossbow rules are terrible. Crossbows are already terrible for requiring a feat to use past level 5, and you made them even worse.


I don't think any discussion here is going to be constructive given your attitude on this. Have fun making the majority of weapons suck.

Kenneth
2011-10-24, 12:24 AM
considering the greatsword deals 2d6 dmg and you get 1.5 your str lets go with this example

a 20th fighter with a Long sword and a Str of 22 attacks like so
{table=head]Longsword |damage
+26/+21/+16/+11 |1d8+6 (avg 10.5)
[/table]

a 20th fighter with a Great sword and a str of 22 attacks like so
{table=head]Great Sword | damage
+26/+20/+14/+8 | 2d6+9 (avg 16 dmg)
[/table]

now he is fighitng something wearing plate mail
{table=head]Longsowrd average damage minus DR 6.5
Greatsowrd average damage minus DR 12[/table]

now lets say that the fighters hit with all of their attacks

{table=head]Longsword 6.5X4=26 dmg
Greatsword 12X4=48 dmg[/table]

but lets say that becuase of the new weapon delays the Greatsword fighter missed with his final attack
{table=head]Longsword 4,5X4=26dmg
Greatsword 12X3=36 dmg[/table]

Seerow
2011-10-24, 12:28 AM
Problem with your math is you assume the long sword is being one-handed.


Long sword, and all other one handed weapons, can be used with two hands. So the ONLY difference between a longsword and a greatsword is 2.5 damage.


Now add on all your other damage modifiers, power attack, etc, and compare 2.5 damage per hit vs an extra attack per round.

Noctis Vigil
2011-10-24, 12:33 AM
So how does that calculate out with the shortsword?

And who in heaven's name is going to do combat with this system? Everyone will be fighting for the casters in any game you play, since casters are already broken beyond belief and infinitely better than combat classes and this just makes it worse. Seriously, give me one good reason to not forget martial combat at all with this system.

Kenneth
2011-10-24, 12:41 AM
Hmm. ive never had anybody in my campaigns ever use a 1 handed weapon 2 handed before.


I guess I can just re fandabgle to rules form monkey grip ( alwasy hated the name for that by the way.. should be something like giant grip or titan grip.. but that could be my consuming hatred for all primates

so now I have to actually make a rule that wielding a 1 handed weapon 2 handed suffers a -2 pentalty to attacks

and Ive alreayd said that the short swordis probly teh broken weapon.. 2 handers aren't about dealing several attacks in a round, for me they are about chargning in a laying foes low with one hugely overpowering attack, i.e you shock tooper leap attacking sorts. that deal like 80 dmg an attack

a 20th fighter with a Long sword and a Str of 22 and a quickness enchantment attacks like so
{table=head]Longsword |damage
+26/+22/+18/+14/+10/ |1d8+6 (avg 10.5) per attack [ 52.5 for all atacks]
[/table]
a 20th fighter with a Long sword and a Str of 22 in standard D&D attacks like so
{table=head]Longsword |damage
+26/+21+16+11 |1d8+6 (avg 10.5)per attack [42 for all attacks]
[/table]

Seerow
2011-10-24, 12:49 AM
Seriously, let's revise your math to make it actually right:



Attack bonus: +38 total. Not gonna bother statting it all out, this is pretty standard give or take an extra 3 points in either direction for a full BAB character.

Damage Bonus: +18 (str*1.5) + 5 (greater magic weapon) + 5 (collision) + 4d6 (various +xd6 enhancements) + 10 (Power Attacking for 5, going really low op here and no extra multipliers)

Extra: Wounding, 1 point of constitution damage per hit.


Total damage:
Longsword: 1d8+38+4d6 (average: 56.5)
Greatsword: 2d6+38+4d6 (average: 59)


Target AC: 35 (standard CR20 target)

Longsword Attack Sequence:
+33-95%
+29-75%
+25-55%
+21-35%
+17-15%


This adds up to an average of 2.75 attacks per turn landing. For an average damage per round of 155.375. Taking away your damage reduction on armor (DR 4/- per attack) gives us an average of 144.375 damage per round. Assuming a 20 HD creature, wounding adds on an extra 27.5 damage per round on average, for a total of 171.875.


Greatsword Attack Sequence:
+33-95%
+28-70%
+23-45%
+18-20%

This adds up to an average of 2.3 attacks per turn landing. For an average damage per round of 135.7. Taking away the damage reduction from armor gives 126.5 damage per round. Assuming a 20 HD creature, wounding adds on an extra 23 damage per round on average, for a total of 149.5.


Do note I didn't account for crits in either case because they have the same crit range/multiplier, so it wouldn't skew results at all.

So the Long Sword manages on average 15% extra damage per round than a great sword thanks to its faster speed. Now if the Long Sword were restricted from being wielded two handed, those numbers may have been closer as you indicated, but this is not how the weapons actually work, and is why I argue in favor of making the penalty based on the fighting style used, rather than the weapon itself.

Kenneth
2011-10-24, 01:20 AM
so if the longsword was just being used 1 handed the number would be more looking like this...??

Greatsword Attack Sequence:
+33-95%
+28-70%
+23-45%
+18-20%

This adds up to an average of 2.3 attacks per turn landing. For an average damage per round of 135.7. Taking away the damage reduction from armor gives 126.5 damage per round. Assuming a 20 HD creature, wounding adds on an extra 23 damage per round on average, for a total of 149.7.

Longsword Attack Sequence:
+33-95%
+29-75%
+25-55%
+21-35%
+17-15%


This adds up to an average of 2.75 attacks per turn landing. For an average damage per round of 111.375. Taking away the damage reduction on armor (DR 4/- per attack) gives us an average of 100.375 damage per round. Assuming a 20 HD creature, wounding adds on an extra 27.5 damage per round on average, for a total of 127.375.


now here is teh longsword used 2 handed with my -2 penalty added in
Longsword Attack Sequence:
+31-85%
+27-65%
+23-45%
+19-25%
+15-5%

This adds up to an average of 2.25 attacks per turn landing. For an average damage per round of 127.125. Taking away the damage reduction on armor (DR 4/- per attack) gives us an average of 118.125 damage per round. Assuming a 20 HD creature, wounding adds on an extra 22.5 damage per round on average, for a total of 140.625.

Now this is a lot closer, i will not claim my math to be perfect on the outcome here.


i think this has proven to me that I need to bump the short sword back to teh standard delay, as only rogues really used it before.

Kenneth
2011-10-24, 01:38 AM
also.. on a side note.. why take a bastard sword when you can wield a longsword two handed? (since technically .. well never mind)

saves you a feat and you only get a mere 1 extra point of dmg? less than half the 2.5 more avg dmg a great sword has over a longsword

jsut going off of seerow's points on his above statements. this is a question i pose to anybody.

NeoSeraphi
2011-10-24, 01:40 AM
also.. on a side note.. why take a bastard sword when you can wield a longsword two handed? (since technically .. well never mind)

saves you a feat and you only get a mere 1 extra point of dmg? less than half the 2.5 more avg dmg a great sword has over a longsword

jsut going off of seerow's points on his above statements. this is a question i pose to anybody.

People generally don't take bastard swords. Your typical sword-and-board build uses a longsword and a heavy shield, while your one-handed builds are almost non-existent.

The only reason to use a bastard sword is for flavor, wielding a powerful katana. Spending a feat on that fluff is important to some people.

Kenneth
2011-10-24, 01:51 AM
i would 100% agree with you here on fluff and such, but all the arguments agianst me here has been rules, which is why i psoted nobody has ever played 2 handed wielding a longsword in all my 24 years of playing D&D, and i am being serious here.

the option to go 1 or 2 handed was something the bastard sword alone posses in the older eidition, but then you had to have 2 sets of damage down for the item.


I built this weapon delay fromt eh point of view than 2 handed weapon guys charge kills his oppoent in that attck cleaves and kills that one too, and if great cleaves basically kills everything he can touch. if not then he has only a couple more ttacks he can make.

the 1 handed and sheild guy on the other hand gets off more attacks but take 3 or more attacks to kill something.

I gues that I shoudl have grown up with 3rd ed and been more focused on rules and the formula behind those rules isnetad of growing up on telling a sotry and being the cool hero guy saving the little boy who got kidnapped by goblins ( why did they not just kill/eat him BECAUSE fluff is important to some people)!)

NeoSeraphi
2011-10-24, 01:59 AM
i would 100% agree with you here on fluff and such, but all the arguments agianst me here has been rules, which is why i psoted nobody has ever played 2 handed wielding a longsword in all my 24 years of playing D&D, and i am being serious here.

the option to go 1 or 2 handed was something the bastard sword alone posses in the older eidition, but then you had to have 2 sets of damage down for the item.


Yeah, and that's why they changed it in 3.5. There was no real reason that a bastard sword could be held two-handed and nothing else could. They were giving the players more options.



I built this weapon delay fromt eh point of view than 2 handed weapon guys charge kills his oppoent in that attck cleaves and kills that one too, and if great cleaves basically kills everything he can touch. if not then he has only a couple more ttacks he can make.

the 1 handed and sheild guy on the other hand gets off more attacks but take 3 or more attacks to kill something.

I gues that I shoudl have grown up with 3rd ed and been more focused on rules and the formula behind those rules isnetad of growing up on telling a sotry and being the cool hero guy saving the little boy who got kidnapped by goblins ( why did they not just kill/eat him BECAUSE fluff is important to some people)!)

If you're referring to what Seerow said, don't let it get to you. AD&D was less of a game and more about roleplaying, while 3.5 is more of a "Level up, get sweet powers, customize your character and rock" type of game.

The thing is, if you want that kind of thing in 3.5, you should really just either play 3.5 or stick to playing AD&D. I'm not trying to kick you out here, I'm just saying that the two systems are vastly different. Worlds apart. You can't try and mesh them together, it just doesn't work well.

Knaight
2011-10-24, 02:54 AM
If you're referring to what Seerow said, don't let it get to you. AD&D was less of a game and more about roleplaying, while 3.5 is more of a "Level up, get sweet powers, customize your character and rock" type of game.

AD&D recommended that you don't even bother naming your character until the game is well underway. Role playing has nothing to do with its design. 3.x on the other hand did recommend filling in character details, though the specifics picked are questionable, and the background chapter and D&D advice on role playing really rather embarrassing by the standards of the hobby as a whole. Still, its a step towards role playing, not away from it.

To the direct topic: This is a bad idea as implemented, for the reasons Seerow indicated. Its the mechanics that are being tweaked, and its the mechanics that are relevant while tweaking is going on. If you don't really grok the mechanics, I'd recommend studying them before home brewing. Alternately, find a system that is closer to what you want to begin with. Burning Wheel should fit, as it handles weapon differences very well, provides a bunch of valid options, and is focused highly on character driven storytelling.

Spiryt
2011-10-24, 03:28 AM
This doesn't really have that much to do with "realism" either....

Small and whatever, dagger would not make one able to attack "faster" than longsword - because fighting isn't in any way related to swinging stuff as fast as you can.

Longsword wielder could be also in fact able to connect at something more times due to greater range, angles of attack and whatever provided by actually long blade that can be moved by graceful hand movements.

Compared to dagger that basically has to get very close and then get ugly.

Knaight
2011-10-24, 04:26 AM
Small and whatever, dagger would not make one able to attack "faster" than longsword - because fighting isn't in any way related to swinging stuff as fast as you can.

Of course, its not like it really affects realism either. A guy with a dagger and a guy with a spear are not going to just trade blows, one of them is going to be at the range they need, and that one is going to be busy making all the attacks, and quickly at that. Then there are the classifications that are just odd, such as having partisan and broadsword in slow.

lightningcat
2011-10-24, 09:56 PM
I use a similar system in my game.
{table=head]Weapon|Delay
light weapons|
-4

one-handed weapons|
-5

two-handed weapons|
-6

short bows|
-4

long bows|
-5

[/table]

Hand-and-a-half weapons (such as bastard swords) have the delay reduced by 1 when being used 2-handed, as long as you have the EWP.
There is a feat that reduces the delay of a chosen weapon by 1.
The haste spell reduces the delay of all attacks by 1, which not stack with the quickness enhancement.
Specific special materials reduce the delay.

The minimum delay is -2.
I took the basic idea from a copy of the d20 Everquest tabletop game I found.

jiriku
2011-10-25, 12:49 AM
....But when 3rd edition came out and I saw that having a full base attack bonus really didn't matter in the long run I put that (weapon speed) back into my games....

I don't think your change will achieve your intent. Having different iterative progressions based on your weapon type doesn't make a full base attack bonus more significant. Instead, you need to make iterative attacks more relevant in combat. A +1 to hit here or there isn't going to do that.

As an alternative, you might consider setting the the good attack progression to +20/+15/+15/+15 and the medium progression to +15/+10/+10. This mirrors the penalties creatures take with their secondary natural weapons, and I think everyone can agree that secondary natural weapons definitely matter in combat.