Why doesn't 3.5 have something like "Weapon speed"?

[Wonton]

I got the idea for this post from one of the NPCs in an adventure path I'm running - a Fighter who uses Improved Unarmed Strike and her fists. 3.5 logic says "why not just use a greatsword" and it's true - she could have saved a feat and be doing more damage 100% of the time.

But real life logic says that although using a sword WOULD give you more "damage" and a longer reach, the person fighting with their fists would probably have an easier time making sudden moves (kinda like a "Weapon check penalty") and could probably punch more times in a 6-second period than the other person could swing their greatsword.

And although weapons like Daggers and Fists have TWF and Flurry of Blows available to them to let them attack faster than the Greatsword, it still seems to me that even Average Joseph could swing a single 8-inch dagger a lot faster than a 5-foot greatsword.

Does anyone know of any systems that solve this, or any fixes for this in 3.5?

[Flickerdart]

Sure, you can swing it faster, but it takes more time for a shorter blade to travel from you to squishy enemy flesh. Fighting with a greatsword is just as fast as fighting with a dagger for someone trained with both weapons.

[Edge of Dreams]

Runequest has heavier armor apply a penalty to your initiative roll. This is more important in RQ, though, because attacking foes and defending yourself both cost actions, thus turn order becomes much more important - you can potentially use all your actions parrying and dodging before you even get your turn if you are outnumbered and have really bad initiative score. I could imagine the possibility of applying a similar penalty to large weapons.

As for why 3.5 doesn't do it, IIRC 2e/AD&D did have optional weapon speed rules, but they got too complicated and added a lot of extra tracking to the combat order. Things would happen where characters would get 1-and-a-half attacks per turn, so you had to take one attack this turn, then two the next turn, then two, then one, etc. and track whether you were on an odd or even numbered turn. I guess they just stripped that out in the move to 3e to make the flow of combat simpler.

[haplessvictim]

Does anyone know of any systems that solve this, or any fixes for this in 3.5?

1st edition AD&D had weapon speeds and, having played a lot of it back in the day, it complicates combat significantly. Specifically, if you have a slow weapon (a halberd, for example) and are fighting someone with a fast weapon (a dagger), you might only get one attack for every 2 or 1.5 attacks that the fast guy gets (he could "lap" you in initiative after a few rounds). Keeping track of this with multiple combatants is painful.

However -- given this caveat -- if you want to use a system like this in 3.P, it could be houseruled pretty easily. For example, a weapon's speed rating is subtracted from your final initiative roll. If your initiative goes negative, you lose your turn that round but go to the top of the initiative next round, and so forth.

[Lapak]

I got the idea for this post from one of the NPCs in an adventure path I'm running - a Fighter who uses Improved Unarmed Strike and her fists. 3.5 logic says "why not just use a greatsword" and it's true - she could have saved a feat and be doing more damage 100% of the time.

But real life logic says that although using a sword WOULD give you more "damage" and a longer reach, the person fighting with their fists would probably have an easier time making sudden moves (kinda like a "Weapon check penalty") and could probably punch more times in a 6-second period than the other person could swing their greatsword.

And although weapons like Daggers and Fists have TWF and Flurry of Blows available to them to let them attack faster than the Greatsword, it still seems to me that even Average Joseph could swing a single 8-inch dagger a lot faster than a 5-foot greatsword.

Does anyone know of any systems that solve this, or any fixes for this in 3.5?AD&D weapon speed definitely isn't the model you want, as it rules not just how many strikes you get but who strikes first; if I have a greatsword and you attack me with a dagger, I'm going to get the first swing if I'm paying ANY attention at all.

As others have said, a fighter who knows how to use a greatsword properly is going to be very nearly as fast as the knife fighter. He's not going to do great big honking two-handed swings over and over. A dagger fighter might go stabstabstab; a greatsworder will go thrust / pommel strike / draw cut as he pulls the blade back for his next attack. No one wins a fight by being slow.

[ArcturusV]

Well that and the other rule in AD&D 2nd edition (Missed out on first), was that different weapons had different attack rates in the hands of a skilled Fighter.

This combined with the "Weapon Speed" rules, or hell, even the "Damage type vs Armor Type" rules made combat deeper, and a lot more painful to deal with.

Chances are, you shouldn't use the Variable Attack Rate rule, and stick with standard. Maybe you might want to give the Unarmed Fighters the Monk Attack option from Oriental Adventures, where you get an extra attack at every 3 BAB, but that's all I'd do for variable attack patterns.

Thus your Fighter with 10 BAB could have a +10/+5 pattern with the great sword. Or could have had a +10/+7/+4/+1 attack pattern.

Weapon Speed might not be painful if you lump weapons into simple categories. 2nd Edition had different weapon speeds for everything, and somewhat decently logical. Like a Mace is slower than a Short Sword even though both are one handed weapons. But it might have been easier for you if you just lump them into broad categories. So things like:

Unarmed: Speed -0
Light Weapon: Speed -1
One Handed Weapon: Speed -2
Ranged Weapon: Speed -3
Two Handed Weapon: Speed -5

And the vs Armor type was a pain in the ass. But might also be a reason to force weapon diversity or reward things other than just swinging great swords. It was a pain in the ass though to keep cross checking "Okay, I'm using a spear, that's piercing, the enemy in is scale mail, which means I do normal damage. If I used my Longsword though I'd have done 2 less damage and my Mace would have done 2 extra damage."

But it's something I missed, if only because it gave a reason for a fighter to pick something other than just whatever has the largest damage dice.

[Menzath]

The bonus for using your fists is you can still use a shield in the other hand, or ,make a second attack with your off hand. light weapon + two weapon fighting = more possible damage. oh and you can still power attack with "natural weapons" including fists. the pro's vs cons might not be even but for meele they end to be better.

[TuggyNE]

The bonus for using your fists is you can still use a shield in the other hand, or ,make a second attack with your off hand. light weapon + two weapon fighting = more possible damage. oh and you can still power attack with "natural weapons" including fists. the pro's vs cons might not be even but for meele they end to be better.

Given the improved gains of two-handed weapon power attack and the things that synergize well with it ... not necessarily.

[Gavinfoxx]

It sounds like you want a game which takes realism into account, but mostly uses the base 3.5e rules

Might I strongly, strongly suggest the Codex Martialis rules?

http://www.rpgnow.com/product/65250/Codex-Martialis-Set-%5BBUNDLE%5D

They add pretty much all the realism to weapons and armor and fighting and martial arts and such which you could ask for...

[ngilop]

Everquest D20 did something akin to weapon speed. only it affected itinerative attacks

'standard' speed item used the -5 additional attack that 3.5 uses( so you get attacks like this +20/+15/+10/+5) and encompases the longsword, morning star, and such.

Fast weapons used -4 additionla attacl ( so you get attacks like this +20/+16/+12/+8/+4) and ecompases daggers, unarmed, slings, darts and the like

slow weapons used -6 additional attack (so you get attacks like this +20/+14/+8/+2) and encompases greatsword, halberd, and mosrt other 2 handed weapons.

[Doorhandle]

I got the idea for this post from one of the NPCs in an adventure path I'm running - a Fighter who uses Improved Unarmed Strike and her fists. 3.5 logic says "why not just use a greatsword" and it's true - she could have saved a feat and be doing more damage 100% of the time.

But real life logic says that although using a sword WOULD give you more "damage" and a longer reach, the person fighting with their fists would probably have an easier time making sudden moves (kinda like a "Weapon check penalty") and could probably punch more times in a 6-second period than the other person could swing their greatsword.

And although weapons like Daggers and Fists have TWF and Flurry of Blows available to them to let them attack faster than the Greatsword, it still seems to me that even Average Joseph could swing a single 8-inch dagger a lot faster than a 5-foot greatsword.

Does anyone know of any systems that solve this, or any fixes for this in 3.5?

Hackmaster definitely has weapon speed: because it works second-by-second and not turn-by-turn, initiative is used to react when you can attack again rather than who goes first (although it also does that.) However, weapon attack-speed is modified by any feats/training you have, so slow weapon speeds can be overcome...

[Roog]

3.5 logic says "why not just use a greatsword".

Real life logic also says "why not use a greatsword?"

Take a look at what options were used in real life when people had the choice.

[Gavinfoxx]

Real life logic also says "why not use a greatsword?"

Take a look at what options were used in real life when people had the choice.

This, totally this! It sounds like the OP doesn't really have much of an idea about what fighting with varied melee weapons against varied melee weapons is like. Which is fine, that is a very rare skill to have in this day and age...

[Flickerdart]

Real life logic also says "why not use a greatsword?"

Take a look at what options were used in real life when people had the choice.
They don't call them greatswords because they were lousy, after all. :smallbiggrin:

[Phelix-Mu]

Real life logic also says "why not use a greatsword?"

Take a look at what options were used in real life when people had the choice.

Well, real-life logic also says "choose longbow," but the rules definitely don't reflect the superior tactical advantage of ranged combat.

You really shouldn't apply real-life logic in a game where hit points are significantly abstracted from any realistic improvement in a person's toughness because of their experience. The nature of hit points directly impacts tactics, meaning two-handing is optimal for single-attack damage, crit-fishing is good against most living targets, and things like arrows are not as cool as they were in real life.

Moreover, I would even dispute greatsword being the ideal irl weapon. In certain circumstances, perhaps, or if we just throw everyone in a gladiatorial arena. In real life, swinging radius can greatly impact combat, and winding up with a greatsword is hard to correct mid-swing, meaning that certain types of enemies could dodge, barring some gulf in ability between combatants. Generally, in big battles, though, you will do well to do as much damage to an enemy in a single hit, so greatsword is a good choice. But sword and board types were vastly more common throughout the medieval world, probably because an arrow in the chest pretty much counters the benefit of increased damage each swing.

We might debate how real-life availability of full plate may have made shields more important than they should be in D&D, where full plate is very available in any non-Dark Sun-ish world. In real life, to use a greatsword to defend against incoming attacks required significantly more training and conditioning than blocking with a one handed weapon, so foot soldiers usually stuck more to simple weapons, axes, longswords, and such. Thus they could still have a shield, a versatile tactical device in and of itself, and one that requires little money or training.

Anyway, that's my two-cents. Weapon speed in 2e ran counter to the WotC efforts to streamline and sensibly dumb-down the rules, so it went right out. Sadly, they totally got rid of any situational modifiers to damage, like called shots and weapon type v armour type. Realism v simplicity.

[Gavinfoxx]

Moreover, I would even dispute greatsword being the ideal irl weapon. In certain circumstances, perhaps, or if we just throw everyone in a gladiatorial arena. In real life, swinging radius can greatly impact combat, and winding up with a greatsword is hard to correct mid-swing, meaning that certain types of enemies could dodge, barring some gulf in ability between combatants.

It's called stabbing, and also half-swording (ie, you grab the blade for close in fighting or for armor piercing or whatever), and punching with the quillons, and bashing with the pommel... the two handed knightly sword is perhaps the single most versatile melee combat weapon in existence, capable of the most maneuvers... you can even hold it by the blade and use the pommel as a warhammer...

[jindra34]

Real life logic also says "why not use a greatsword?"

Take a look at what options were used in real life when people had the choice.

Because its a horrible weapon. At its length you can't actually do a full single point thrust (one or two handed) and for swinging you only get about 1/2 it length for actual reach, thus forcing ineffiecent slashes, and draw cuts. Its only nice in theory, the minute its starts to get on paper physics comes in and says this is a horrible weapon idea.

[TopCheese]

In 3.5 games I scrapped the d20 on initiative rolls and use a d8 or d10 depending on what the players like better.

I like the idea of weapon speeds and such but most of the guys I play with never have seen a second edition book much less thought about playing it. It is pretty funny to explain that there was D&D before 3.0 :P

[Gavinfoxx]

Because its a horrible weapon. At its length you can't actually do a full single point thrust (one or two handed) and for swinging you only get about 1/2 it length for actual reach, thus forcing ineffiecent slashes, and draw cuts. Its only nice in theory, the minute its starts to get on paper physics comes in and says this is a horrible weapon idea.

Uh. Hold on. Just to make sure I am understanding you... you are saying that the two-handed Renaissance weapon, the knightly Longsword, what D&D calls Greatsword, Bastard Sword, and Longsword... is a horrible weapon?

[TopCheese]

Uh. Hold on. Just to make sure I am understanding you... you are saying that the two-handed Renaissance weapon, the knightly Longsword, what D&D calls Greatsword, Bastard Sword, and Longsword... is a horrible weapon?

Well I have a gun on my gun rack (which is stereotypically enough a deer) sooo if jindra34 isn't, then I am :smallbiggrin:

[Wonton]

Re: Realism

I don't actually want to turn this into a "historically, the best weapon was..." debate since D&D is meant to be an abstraction or approximation at best and not a realistic depiction of combat. I don't care about realism personally, and if I did I would first tackle the hp and armor system (a fighter in full plate should be nearly immune to damage from punches, for example).

I was actually thinking more in parallel with video games - most RPGs have shorter attack delays and faster attack animations for things like daggers and short swords than greatswords. Also, I'm not actually looking at changing anything for my game, I'm just asking hypothetically and trying to generate some discussion.

--

The BAB fixes suggested are interesting but only affect higher levels.
I did play AD&D once a long time ago and I remember some sort of "weapon speed" stat, although I don't remember "looping" in initiative. Getting a flat bonus to initiative depending on how "light" your weapon is might be the best and simplest fix for this issue in 3.5, as it will at least allow the dagger guy to react and attack first, if not necessarily faster.
Hackmaster sounds like it solves this the most logical way, although that's obviously too much of a system switch for just this one issue I have.

[Gavinfoxx]

TopCheese & Jindra,

Okay... again, given the technology of the time -- where guns were short range, unreliable, single shot affairs -- you are saying that, in real life, compared to the other things possible with the technology at the time, the two handed cruciform knightly sword is a badly designed and not-useful weapon?

Can you specify why or how or in what context?

Wonton,

The thing is, D20, and a goodly chunk of the 3.5e system, can be a realistic combat game. You need to play an Expert/Rogue/Fighter/Warrior/Aristocrat -only, E6 & Codex Martialis game, but it can and does work! I strongly urge you to look at reviews -- and the previews at that webpage -- for that Codex Martialis system.

[zlefin]

i can't remember if someone said this: attacks aren't about physical attacks; but about effective attacks; and represent what happens over several individual maneuvers.

One thing I'd like to do to help with weapon diversity in 3.5 is to add an ATTACK and PARRY value for weapons; with attack being a bonus (or penalty) to the to-hit value; and parry being a bonus (or maybe penalty) to your ac based on how easy it is to parry with each weapon.
Since these numbers are fixed for each weapon; they can just be added on your sheet, so they shouldn't take any extra calculations in play, only when writing up your sheet.
I'd also consider using an armor-pierce value which subtracts from the defenders armor; but can't reduce it below their touch ac (to represent weapons that can be dodged reasonably, but are quite good at piercing armor).

The idea of changing the iteratives for different weapon speeds also sounds rather nice; as that also can just be done on the sheet; any other good ways to potentailly tweak things that can be done on the sheet without requiring bookkeeping during play?

[jindra34]

TopCheese & Jindra,

Okay... again, given the technology of the time -- where guns were short range, unreliable, single shot affairs -- you are saying that, in real life, compared to the other things possible with the technology at the time, the two handed cruciform knightly sword is a badly designed and not-useful weapon?

Can you specify why or how or in what context?


1. The cruciform form of the straight sword was developed for the Crusades and more for religous reasons than for practical ones. At which point you get a standing symbol.
2. Renaissance era plate was advanced enough that a sword simply was not getting the job done, thus the development of more focused weapons like the battle axes and war hammers. The sword's time was roughly the middle dark ages when every one was in simple chain mail.
3. The halberd, the simple common infantry weapon, yeah that took less time to forge, less time to train, had longer effective reach, same utility (poke, chop, hook, etc.) and was more useful one defense and in formation.

So yes, I am saying that a weapon that was mostly a legacy of older times and a symbol of status is a bad weapon.

[toapat]

Can you specify why or how or in what context?

Basically, take all of the advantages of wielding a Glaive (not a Glaive-Guisarme, which is better because of the design to rip people off mounts).

And extend the blade to below where your main hand should be.

Now you have a Greatsword.

Longswords/Bastardswords, the 1.5 handed weapons were useful. the full fledged 2hr Greatsword was not, as it sacrificed the strength of being a Greataxe, Glaive, Spear, halberd, or Pike for being a bigass sword. Swords may be cool, but they are not a practical twohander design.

[Phelix-Mu]

Longswords/Bastardswords, the 1.5 handed weapons were useful. the full fledged 2hr Greatsword was not, as it sacrificed the strength of being a Greataxe, Glaive, Spear, halberd, or Pike for being a bigass sword. Swords may be cool, but they are not a practical twohander design.

I'll second this interpretation, but counter my own argument and say that, in-game, someone that wields a greatsword to astounding affect is simply a reflection of superior training with an inferior weapon. Now, why equal optimization with what should, realistically, be unequal weapons, still has greatsword being perhaps a little too cool, go fig. They attempted to balance crit ranges and damage output, but it's all a little half-cocked, especially when we add in exotic weapons and polearms and stuff.

Not to mention the archery thing, which does confound me at times.

With appropriate design and feats, most weapons can be made very effective. Out of the box greatsword is, at least in my estimation, cooler than it should be, mainly because of the impact that swinging two-handed has on strength-related damage, while having no impact on difficulty of use. Not to mention the nerfing of light weapons. Post full-plate, rigid rapiers actually became more popular, since the point was narrow enough to penetrate plate and chain, allowing one to deliver a killing blow to a downed knight in full plate. Sadly, in game, being prone in full plate isn't any worse than just being prone, so there goes that real-life tidbit.

But such is high fantasy. I personally would favor the BAB fix for a solution to emulating weapon speed with mechanics, but I like monks a lot, and this favors them rather a lot.

[toapat]

Anyway: Here is a quick way to emulate weapon speed in 3.5:

Itterative Tiers.

Basically, each weapon requires a different BAB to Attack number ratio, For say a dagger, this could be 4 BAB/1 Attack, while a Long/Armingsword could be 5/1, Typical two-handers would be 6/1, and Greatswords, spiked chains, and other strange, complex, and difficult weapons would be 7/1

This gets you the higher attack speeds for lighter weapons, and more powerful/unrealistic ones attack slower.

[navar100]

If you're going to bring back weapon speed then you better also bring back spellcasting times.

[Spuddles]

It sounds like you want a game which takes realism into account, but mostly uses the base 3.5e rules

Might I strongly, strongly suggest the Codex Martialis rules?

http://www.rpgnow.com/product/65250/Codex-Martialis-Set-%5BBUNDLE%5D

They add pretty much all the realism to weapons and armor and fighting and martial arts and such which you could ask for...

How does it play? I have some interest in it, seeing as you bring it up every other week.

[ngilop]

Anyway: Here is a quick way to emulate weapon speed in 3.5:

Itterative Tiers.

Basically, each weapon requires a different BAB to Attack number ratio, For say a dagger, this could be 4 BAB/1 Attack, while a Long/Armingsword could be 5/1, Typical two-handers would be 6/1, and Greatswords, spiked chains, and other strange, complex, and difficult weapons would be 7/1

This gets you the higher attack speeds for lighter weapons, and more powerful/unrealistic ones attack slower.

Also, one could look at my earlier posst that sayeth the same thing


Everquest D20 did something akin to weapon speed. only it affected itinerative attacks

'standard' speed item used the -5 additional attack that 3.5 uses( so you get attacks like this +20/+15/+10/+5) and encompases the longsword, morning star, and such.

Fast weapons used -4 additionla attacl ( so you get attacks like this +20/+16/+12/+8/+4) and ecompases daggers, unarmed, slings, darts and the like

slow weapons used -6 additional attack (so you get attacks like this +20/+14/+8/+2) and encompases greatsword, halberd, and mosrt other 2 handed weapons.

Like i said. EQ d20 did that already, bascially light 1 handers got -4, two handers got -6 everything else got -5 as normal D&D.

[Wonton]

Anyway: Here is a quick way to emulate weapon speed in 3.5:

Itterative Tiers.

Basically, each weapon requires a different BAB to Attack number ratio, For say a dagger, this could be 4 BAB/1 Attack, while a Long/Armingsword could be 5/1, Typical two-handers would be 6/1, and Greatswords, spiked chains, and other strange, complex, and difficult weapons would be 7/1

This gets you the higher attack speeds for lighter weapons, and more powerful/unrealistic ones attack slower.

It's a nice idea at higher levels. Until level 4 or so you still have that problem.

[toapat]

barring the fact that i havent played WoW in a year, im pretty sure until level 10ish that it doesnt matter if you are wielding a 2hander, dualwielding, or SnBing because everything is basically flat for the time.

[maysarahs]

I had wanted to suggest the lower BAB:attack ratio for smaller weapons idea, but since several people have beaten me to it, I'll address your point that it only kicks in past level 4.

Firstly you could bring it down a notch, (so that simple weapons get iteratives every 2 levels for example (give melee something nice?))

OR (and this is the more sensible point)

you could consider that from levels 1-4 the game doesn't deem characters to have the martial expertise to bring the difference between a sword and a dagger to bear?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

If you want to model combat after real life you could give a speed advantage to smaller weapons, but you would need to compensate for things like the extra reach on large weapons. A reach advantage of a foot could lead to you making far more attacks.

In MMA, I'd guesstimate a 10% handicap (all other things being equal) to a fighter with just a 2 inch longer reach. Real combat is full of counter intuitive things like this. In my experience, sword and board fighters are usually on the offensive for most of the fighter against a einhander, doppelhander of sword and dagger.

In short it's probably best not to make combat more complicated and let weapons be better, leave unarmed and the like to niche builds.

[GilesTheCleric]

A speed system that I found pretty simple and that could fairly easily be subbed into D&D is White Wolf's system from Exalted (the only WW system I've played).

It's easy: take a piece of paper and draw a circle on it. Draw some lines through it so it looks like a pizza with 6, 7, 14, 74, however many slices you like. Start combat with tokens for all combatants in the same slice. Then, as each takes an action, move their piece a couple slices around the circle. Long actions make them move more slices, and combat proceeds as the DM sees who is in the first slice, then the second, then the third, etc. If you're in the slice that's up, you act again, and then move your token again.

If you want to keep the surprise round, just put all the surprised combatants a few slices further in. It was really simple, and kept things moving pretty well. Plus, if you have a bunch of miniatures you don't know what to do with, they make good counters over glass beads.

[TuggyNE]

A speed system that I found pretty simple and that could fairly easily be subbed into D&D is White Wolf's system from Exalted (the only WW system I've played).

It's easy: take a piece of paper and draw a circle on it. Draw some lines through it so it looks like a pizza with 6, 7, 14, 74, however many slices you like. Start combat with tokens for all combatants in the same slice. Then, as each takes an action, move their piece a couple slices around the circle. Long actions make them move more slices, and combat proceeds as the DM sees who is in the first slice, then the second, then the third, etc. If you're in the slice that's up, you act again, and then move your token again.

If you want to keep the surprise round, just put all the surprised combatants a few slices further in. It was really simple, and kept things moving pretty well. Plus, if you have a bunch of miniatures you don't know what to do with, they make good counters over glass beads.

The tricky part, of course, is the bits you didn't mention: converting standard actions/full-round actions/swift actions/free actions/move actions/immediate actions into times, figuring out how much a given weapon delays things (hint: it probably will be counter-intuitive for a lot of people), and merging initiative rolls in so you know who goes first.

Once you've done all that, the rest is easy!™

[JaronK]

Honestly, I find speed systems a bit bizarre, because reach is so much more important than lightness when it comes to actually hitting your opponent more (obviously, both together is nice). You just get more openings with bigger weapons.

JaronK

[White_Drake]

I think that stuff like this comes up mostly because it's boring (and difficult to balance) a single weapon being clearly superior to all others. In a game it's important for every supported option to be viable. Speed is an obvious good thing for smaller, lighter weapons, even if that's innaccurate. Many people that play D&D don't know enough about real world combat to identify that.

[Jane_Smith]

This has been done fairly well in, of all places, the EverQuest Roleplaying Game players handbook. It details all the core 3.0 weapons basically, changed there damage dice a bit, and made weapon speed values of.. IF I remember correctly, 3 to 7. You took your base attack bonus, and your iterative attacks would be based on that weapon value, up to a maximum of 6 attacks no matter what. (Keeping mind, the base attack value in EQRPG was +30, as all base classes went to 30 before they reached epic levels, not 20, and there was even 15th teir spell levels, etc.) You could actually lower the speed value to 1 via magical means, such as stacking haste + speed enchantment, or slow it by magical means to 8 and 9 from slow and the like.

So the idea was like, a dagger would have a 3 value and do 1d4. a shortsword would have a 4 value and do 1d6, a longsword a 5 value and do 1d8, a falchon would have a 6 value and do 2d4, and greatswords would be at 7 at 2d6. If you had a base attack bonus of +7, then they would look like this if you wielded them;

Dagger: +7/+4/+1
Shortsword: +7/+3
Longsword: +7/+2
Falchon: +7/+1
Greatsword: +7

They also made the weapon focus tree give +1 to attack and -1 speed value, to a minimum of 2 with non-magical effects I believe, 1 was ESPECIALLY reserved for the speed enchantment on things like daggers I remember, and they made its enchantment value +4 I think.

Two-Weapon Fighting, instead of giving -8/-4/-2 to attacks based on the feat/one-handed/light weapons you carry instead gave +3, +2, +1 speed values for non-twf feat twf fighting, one handed weapons while twf, or light weapons while twf, but to a maximum of 8 by non-magical means.


I have always loved how they did it, and tried in the past to make a pdf or the like that added all the speed values to all the supplement weapons, etc, dnd has added over the years, ontop of a few ideas I had for non-magical armor/weapon/shield enhancements like serration, curved, armor-piercing, perfectly fitted, fluted ribs, reinforced, compact, etc, though its a bit daunting.

My 2 cents & suggestion, happy flurry of blade times for all. If you actually end up borrowing this idea or incorporating it, i would love to see the results in an actual game or written in pdf format/etc. I would even be willing to help.

[Wonton]

I think that stuff like this comes up mostly because it's boring (and difficult to balance) a single weapon being clearly superior to all others. In a game it's important for every supported option to be viable. Speed is an obvious good thing for smaller, lighter weapons, even if that's innaccurate. Many people that play D&D don't know enough about real world combat to identify that.

Correct, this is actually why I brought it up. Like I said, I don't care about realism but I do care about the fact that if you build a Fighter for damage, there's really only 1 or 2 viable weapons to choose from.

From a "D&D is supposed to model real combat" perspective, giving smaller weapons speed might not be the best. From a "D&D is a game and is meant to be fun to play" perspective, it's definitely a good solution to the problem. Although since you clearly understand my point about game design, do you have any other suggestions that would balance the weapons while being more realistic than "daggers hit faster"?

[SiuiS]

I got the idea for this post from one of the NPCs in an adventure path I'm running - a Fighter who uses Improved Unarmed Strike and her fists. 3.5 logic says "why not just use a greatsword" and it's true - she could have saved a feat and be doing more damage 100% of the time.

But real life logic says that although using a sword WOULD give you more "damage" and a longer reach, the person fighting with their fists would probably have an easier time making sudden moves (kinda like a "Weapon check penalty") and could probably punch more times in a 6-second period than the other person could swing their greatsword.

And although weapons like Daggers and Fists have TWF and Flurry of Blows available to them to let them attack faster than the Greatsword, it still seems to me that even Average Joseph could swing a single 8-inch dagger a lot faster than a 5-foot greatsword.

Does anyone know of any systems that solve this, or any fixes for this in 3.5?

D&D abstracts real life logic. The greatsword has reach and is used from both ends. It's not swung like a baseball bat or an axe, and someone with a decent BaB is making use of rotational inertia, controlling their immediate killzone and moving around a 25 square foot area fluidly. Weapon damage is a matter of both here kinetic force and also precision, that is, putting the blade into the correct part of the target (as opposed to accuracy which is putting the blade into the target). A rapier and shortsword do the same damage, but the rapier makes thinner, deeper and aupposedly more precise wounds where the shorts word puts a hole in the general direction of the vitals, for example.

The same also works for unarmed striking. Speed is important but so is impact and delivery. A monk with unarmed stile could make a dozen attacks at speed and lad them all, at 1d3 nonlethal. The whole 2d10 thing is a measured, precise launch of a natural weapon at a spot where it will do the most good. Your character using improved unarmed strike doesn't just hit harder, they hit smarter; controlling distance and timing, no haymakers, better feints to provide openings. Instead f punching an armored target in the face (and breaking a hand on the nose bridge) they are angling up and slamming the enemy's jaw shut, cracking teeth, or maybe they step back and when the target repositions they launch a kick at the (now temporarily exposed) unarmed inner thigh, or even puts hand on one side of the helmet and elbow the other, ringing their head like a bell.

Real world logic is that the guy who swings his great sword in huge trailing dramatic arcs, is also the guy who thinks twirling his sword means he has skill, and is likely to spin all the way around during his awesome sword swing. That guy is going to make it to second level, third tops. The guy with a BaB of +5 or more, proficient with a great sword, will move from a guard to a position for optimal hitting to attack and then into a defensive posture, rather than swig ice in a huge arc. This means that their actual "attack" time I minimized to only the two seconds to accelerate, stop and return, with minimum windup. Weapon seeped is accounted for in BaB, because reach, contact area, set up and control are all factors of how fast you go from trying to hit into having actually hit them.

[Wonton]

D&D abstracts real life logic.

Read the post above yours.

[White_Drake]

Correct, this is actually why I brought it up. Like I said, I don't care about realism but I do care about the fact that if you build a Fighter for damage, there's really only 1 or 2 viable weapons to choose from.

From a "D&D is supposed to model real combat" perspective, giving smaller weapons speed might not be the best. From a "D&D is a game and is meant to be fun to play" perspective, it's definitely a good solution to the problem. Although since you clearly understand my point about game design, do you have any other suggestions that would balance the weapons while being more realistic than "daggers hit faster"?

Making broad statements in an attempt to sound knowledgeable/intelligent is really my only valuable skill. So far as more realistic alternatives go, I haven't a clue. Perhaps a question for the real world weapons thread? Of course, why not use speed? It's got support, and an entrenchment in the public conscious. If you're not trying to model combat simulation anyway, so long as you maintain balance and verisimilitude, realism doesn't really matter.

[Telonius]

I suppose you could use critical threat range as a way to simulate "weapon speed." The larger, clunkier weapons already tend to have a small threat range, while things like a dagger or a rapier have a larger one. If you wanted to expand the list (or the range) that could give you what you're looking for.

[Spiryt]

But real life logic says that although using a sword WOULD give you more "damage" and a longer reach, the person fighting with their fists would probably have an easier time making sudden moves (kinda like a "Weapon check penalty") and could probably punch more times in a 6-second period than the other person could swing their greatsword.

And although weapons like Daggers and Fists have TWF and Flurry of Blows available to them to let them attack faster than the Greatsword, it still seems to me that even Average Joseph could swing a single 8-inch dagger a lot faster than a 5-foot greatsword.


You generally can swing smaller stuff around way faster than bigger stuff - but swinging around is not actually fighting.

One actually has to really swing a lot of his body when he punches, if (s)he wants to do much at all, for example.

Swords actually have an 'option' of mutilating with a flick of a wrist, if enemy has just no/little clothing, for example.

Then, as mentioned comes the geometry, when something like dagger with small blade can be waved around effortlessly - but it has to cover way distance to connect, or require footwork, and so on...

So, since 3.5 is very simple, they fortunately made no attempts to introduce something as complicated as weapon 'speed'.


The larger, clunkier weapons already tend to have a small threat range,

Well, save for Heavy Flail, I guess. :smallwink:

[Artillery]

If we want to base stuff off reality. Anything based off the Spear is basically the best weapon. Pikes, Great Spears, and Long Spears were the most effective weapons on the battlefield. They prevented enemies from coming close, stopped cavalry charges, basically created close range walls of death covered in spikes. A Guisarme is just a spear with an additional sideways facing spike.

Crossbows allowed the untrained to be a use in combat; even if they couldn't aim they could reload for another.

Weapon speed based on category doesn't make sense to me. Doing it based on weight could work. A Spear isn't a slow weapon even if its used in two-hands.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

If your commited to the idea despite real world whatsits, I'd recommend not making fist/unarmed faster than dagger to avoid making unarmed sneak attack (or anyother +per hit damage source) better than using a small weapon.

[ArcturusV]

That is part of the problem with those saying that Greatsword should be the best option and point to realism/history. If we look realistically there were a variety of weapons fielded in any given battle. Some of this gets played off as Cultural (The curved swords of the Saracens vs the ruler straight blades of Crusaders). But that's not always the case when you see other battles, against similar cultures, who have an obvious divide in what they field. And thus you see armies like those of the Greek City-States who are simultaneously fielding bows, javelins, spears, short swords, unarmed combatants, etc. Normally there is that arms race between weapons and armor, and a need for a variety of weapons at any given time. Shouldn't be just one "correct" option. But that is what tends to happen in DnD. There IS one correct option. For a variety of reasons such as AC being AC, and not having effects like Falchions doing extra damage to Chainmail, etc, or a flanged mace doing extra to plate armor.

Correcting that however would be a major overhaul.

Far as weapon speed it generally isn't "bigger weapons are slower" but should be "certain weapons are harder to get back into a guard position". This is the advantage a rapier has, for example. It's not that the rapier is faster and lighter. It's that Rapiers use a mode of combat based on minor movements that allow you to maintain a balanced stance even in the middle of an attack, with recovery times happening very quickly between attacks. Then compare a two handed axe. The time between Swing and Recovery is much slower, even if you are trained in its use. You just aren't going to recover from an attack as fast as the guy with the rapier is going to.

Thus a better option for weapon speed would probably be "You take a penalty to your next initiative equal to your weapon's speed when you attack with it". But that is an annoying bookkeeping nightmare.

[Jane_Smith]

I think people are just over thinking this, vastly, or are to bias of the "Way it should be" in there eyes. Remember folks, this is a game of make believe, we don't need perfect realism, an average DND player shouldn't have to write an essay or go threw a course on medieval weapons and there use to properly play a fighter, and the rules shouldn't care about specific fighting styles unless your using tome of battle. So keep it simple and based purely on game mechanics/balance, keep this talk of time to guard, real life fighting stances, daggers needing time to "reach" the enemy, etc to a minimum. It doesn't MATTER that the dagger has a shorter reach, its a bloody 1d4 weapon thats outclassed by any one hander and in some cases, many light weapons. We don't care that in real life its harder to use a dagger and you should be penalized for using it, we want our epic bad ass heroes and villains to be able to be said bad ass with a dagger without feeling like a retarded for picking a "less superior weapon". I want to see more dual dagger combat fighters/etc that can actually keep up with one with a great sword in terms of damage without having to multiclass, mega-optimize with feats and maneuvers from 45 different supplements, etc, and a would bet my character sheets others feel the same.



Hm, heavier weapons obviously would have a slower speed stat, not necessarily its size. So a two hander spear I can being used rapidly, but a lance would be heavier then hell and you get one thrust and that's about it in a 6 second time frame.

However, THE REAL problem with "Faster then average" weapons is sneak attack as mentioned above. Perhaps make sneak attack a flat value of like, 7 per hit. But you subtract your weapons speed value from this number. So a 3 speed dagger would do +4 sneak attack damage a hit, a longsword of 5 would only do +2 damage a hit, and a greatsword nothing, as your lucky to just hit the enemy at all. Lighter, smaller weapons can be used to shank someones eye socket a lot easier then a maul, after all even in real life.

Or you could always make a house rule that each sneak attack during a full attack after the first successful hit deals -1d6 damage if the enemy is not immobilized or unconscious, cause a flat footed enemy is not likely going to sit there and let you stab them in the spine/kidney/heart 6-8 times over 6 seconds without "trying" to turn around to slap you upside the head. This would somewhat negate the possible flurry of attacks a dual knife wielder or unarmed fighter would get.

[Pickford]

Well, real-life logic also says "choose longbow," but the rules definitely don't reflect the superior tactical advantage of ranged combat.

Well...the range increment on a longbow is 100feet...so you could fire up to 1000 feet at a -20 of course....but still. Say you were someone who could cast true strike? Blam, possible ...better though is Guided Shot (Spell Compendium) which completely eliminates range penalty...i.e. +20 as a swift spell. Not bad for hitting someone 1000' away.

(1,100 feet for a composite longbow...that's well beyond the range of practically all spells)

[Roog]

We don't care that in real life its harder to use a dagger and you should be penalized for using it, we want our epic bad ass heroes and villains to be able to be said bad ass with a dagger without feeling like a retarded for picking a "less superior weapon".

A simple way to do that would be to do away with individual weapon stats. Go back to something like early D&D with all weapons doing 1d6 damage.

[Vaz]

Eh, it's fine for how it works.

Someone trained and proficient in a weapon has no penalty to hit with it. This training means that they can hit adequately, and with enough practise (Levels) they can get follow up hits.

The itinerate attacks occur when someone is able to make those follow up hits through practise; either with a dagger knowing when to exploit a better opening, or through a Greataxe just straight powering through an enemy's defence.

There are tons of other manners in which light weapons represent faster usage - Weapon Finesseable, Two Weapon Fighting, reduced weight, higher critical. Yet another variable is simply just slowing things down even more.

Between Proficiency, and all the other variables, I'm happy with how it works and so far anything else is needless minutiae for the sake of needless minutiae.

It's like playing Arma 2; it's more realistic than Call of Duty, but if I'm making a OP, I don't want to have to actually move the mouse to make the prerequisite actions to dig, I'd much rather just "click and go", like it currently is.

[Krazzman]

The rule with daggers being a speed 1 weapon is totally bonkers.

A swashbuckler(CompWar, Class) would have 1d4+1 +strmod+intmod as damage for every frigging strike. And that would be 20 strikes, with just one-handing a dagger.

And assuming sneak attacks. If you ambush someone to repeatedly hit him with something 6 attacks aren't that rare. Reaction is the keyword here. Someone pulling a knife and going flurry of ice-pick on your back actually could bring in 6 attacks before you can react to it except for immediate muscle-pain-cramps.

I for my part think stuff like weaponspeed and parry rules are too hard to really refine for dnd. In a System with constitution based combat where swinging a two-hander needs more stamina than swinging a dagger you can fit it in more nicely than in DnD 3.5 as it is at the moment.
Something like giving weapons parry-ratings (flat AC bonus) would be a good idea in my opinion, with values between 0 and 3 and ramping shields a bit more up. If we go to competing rolls for everything then we would have a Parryvalue describing how often in a given round a PC can parry, Block-chance and Blockvalues, dodgechance and dodge values and and and which would make the combat even longer.
A DnD "simple" duel between two unoptimized fighters goes on for maybe 3 rounds which are resolved in about 5 minutes + descriptive stuff.
In a system with chances and different values those 5 minutes would be taken up for one round of the fight on both sides and would drag itself into about 20 rounds depending on lucky dice. If I would like to have battles like that I would play DSA and not DnD. In DSA I had it happen to have a Combat (3 PC's) against 3 Enemies taking up nearly 1.5 hours. In DnD this could take maybe 30 minutes if you have to check for rules for "extra" stuff.

In my experience a 4-man group of level 5 against 10 rather weak enemies took about 10 minutes. And this group focuses on a non rapid/manyshot archer type of char, a barbarian with a second attack rage only, a blasting witch, and a newbie druid in stoneplate either attacking for 1d8+2 or using call lightning. Against 10 Monk/sorcerer with flurry of blows. And those 10 minutes are with descriptive happenings. If I had to roll dodge, parry and block for every attack there... I think I would go bonkers... Combat in a RPG should be fun, rather quick and "fair" so that you can actually have more roleplay encounters even in a dungeoncrawl. But again this is my opinion. If someone wants "semi-fantasy-realism" I advice them to learn german and order a copy of DSA anytime.

[Galloglaich]

Hi guys! I have a few comments on the thread.

On historical stuff

A few points which were raised in the threa were pretty far off the mark.

1) Plate armor was never used in the original (first 3) Crusades - those took place in the 11th-12th Centuries. Plate armor came after that.

2) The arming sword (called a longsword in most rpg's) was not designed for the Crusades or as a representation of Christianity - the cross is there to protect your hand. Fencing systems from that time period emphasize the hand protection a great deal.

3) Rapiers could not pierce plate or mail armor and were never designed to do so. Rapiers were used for civilian combat for the most part, illegal dueling. There were some battlefield versions but they were definitely not intended to cope with armored opponents.

4) Swords vs. other weapons... Almost all swords were sidearms historically. The exceptions are the really big two handed greatsword or zweihander; and sabers used by some cavalry in the 18th and 19th Century. In the Renaissance, Medieval period, Dark Ages, Classical era, swords were sidearms. Very important sidearms, but some other weapon the pilum (javelin) of the Roman Legionaire, the Yumi bow of the Samurai, the lance of the Medieval Knight, the halberd of the Landsknecht or Swiss Reislauffer, the crossbow, longbow, recurve or arquebus of marksmen and gunners. But most elite and / or professional troops did carry the sword as a principle sidearm, and it was the most prestigious weapon in nearly every metal using culture.

Now the emphasis on the greatsword may actually be unrelated to reality, and more due to their looking cool in certain movies or (these days) video games. The term is vague in DnD as it relates to real life. The most common two handed weapon in the Medieval world was what they called the longsword, a slim, fast, very lethal two handed weapon. Like the one you see these two guys using

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc

...all parts of the sword were used, including the pommel , as you can see in this tournament footage from last year when this fencer (in black) is hit in the head with a pommel and knocked down at 0:18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NVSEuvZlfI&feature=plcp

They do not require a great deal of force to cause horrific injuries, as you can see in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4ucqArlmpk

Now there are also larger weapons which may or may not be included in the DnD definition of a 'greatsword', some of which are much larger (up to 6 feet) and do take more room to use, but they were all used quite effectively on the battlefield. The longsword was the principle sidearm in the 'plate armor' part of the Middle Ages (1300 - 1500) both by knights and by elite footsoldiers such as the Swiss Reislauffer (mercenaries) and remained popular well into the 1600's. The bigger zweihander was used as a stand alone weapon by the latter, as well as in Scotland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Poland, Bohemia and Germany, mostly in the period 1520-1650

Game rules stuff

Of course as has been pointed out, reality and game rules do not necessarily have any relationship and depending on the game, really may not need to. For me in RPG's I was always bothered by a couple of things: why is a dagger a 'nuisance weapon' which can barely do any damage? When I look at my antique bowie knife I think it's a pretty lethal thing - in fact I know it is. Getting stabbed by a 12" blade is about as lethal as being stabbed by a 24".

Why don't weapons count for defense? Some are very useful for defense. A quarterstaff is very effective for defense for example, so are many swords, especially those with some kind of hand protection like a backsword or a cutlass.

Why don't shields help more for defense? Shields really help a lot in my opinion, more than you usually see in RPGs, though this is balanced in real life by the fact that most types of shields (esp. pre 1300 AD) are not that hard to cut to pieces.

Why doesn't reach matter more in RPG's? Reach is hugely important, that is why so many weapons were so long! There is a reason the spear in one form or another was the most ubiquitous weapon in the pre-industrial world, and yet it's almost never used in RPG's. Spears are terrific weapons and do figure prominently in a lot of mythology, like the famous spear of Cu Culhain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A1e_Bulg)(maybe it's unfortunate name is the problem!).

And per the OP, why aren't some weapons faster than others?

This tends to be exaggerated in the minds of fantasy genre afficionadoes, since big sledge hammers and 10 lbs swords didn't actually exist, most weapons of a given size tended to be in the same (fairly low) weight range, but a dagger IS a faster weapon than a sword at short range. The tricky bit is that initially the reach is a much bigger advantage. At ten feet distance, the spear is king. Once you get past the point, the sword ... once you are in a grapple, the dagger is king. A scary, scary weapon. Finished a lot of fights.

Not every single knight had a sword or a lance, every one had a dagger or some kind of big knife.

In practice these things can be dealt with but it's tricky. I used a 'roll many / keep one' dice system which gave me a bit more flexibility. But it's hard in strait as-is DnD because you really only have one way to measure a given weapon.

G

[Flickerdart]

Why don't weapons count for defense? Some are very useful for defense. A quarterstaff is very effective for defense for example, so are many swords, especially those with some kind of hand protection like a backsword or a cutlass.
There are a couple of weapons that do in some capacity or another, but they're all Exotic.

[Pickford]

There are a couple of weapons that do in some capacity or another, but they're all Exotic.

Or you could use the weapons properly.

Ex: from the Complete Warrior, pg. 114
Quick Staff [STYLE]
You have mastered the style of fighting with a quarterstaff, and have learned special manuevers that complement this unique weapon.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Dodge, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (quarterstaff).
Benefit: When you use Combat Expertise to gain a dodge bonus while wielding a quarterstaff, you gain a dodge bonus 2 points higher than the penalty you take on your attack rolls. For example, if you take a -1 penalty on your attack rolls, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to your AC."

Also,
Spinning Halberd [STYLE]
You have mastered the style of fighting with a halberd, and can use all parts of the weapon-blade, spike, hook, or butt-to strike devastating blows.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (halberd).
Benefit: When you make a full attack with your halberd, you gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class as well as an additional attack with the weapon at a -5 penalty. This attack deals points of bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + 1/2 your Strength modifier.

Not bad really. Combine with CE and you can get a +7 AC for using a staff. With Two-Weapon Defense and greater it goes even higher.

[Augmental]

I like Dungeon Crawl's (http://crawl.chaosforge.org/Weapon_Speed) Weapon Speed system.

[Flickerdart]

Or you could use the weapons properly.
Having to drop 4-5 feats is not "using the weapon properly".

[Galloglaich]

Even in regular 3.X DnD there really isn't any reason I can think of why weapons shouldn't get a defensive bonus against other melee weapons- say between +1 to +3, the basic rule of thumb being size. To defend against missile weapons you would probably need a special feat.

Another thing you can do for speed, is in grapple allow weapons below a certain size get a +2 to hit.

Or alternately you can do like I do in the Codex and allow a 'free dice', meaning you roll two dice and take the higher one.

In a one on one fight, you could also use this to allow the longer weapon an initial advantage, say for the first attack. Makes things a bit more deadly (raises the chance of a crit among other things) but it gives a more realistic feel ... and a reason to use longer weapons like spears or polearms.

G

[Pickford]

Having to drop 4-5 feats is not "using the weapon properly".

If you want to use weapons to upgrade your defense you have to drop feats, not everybody is trained in it. Otherwise use a shield.

[Galloglaich]

Well, true but isn't "Martial weapon proficiency" / "Simple weapon proficiency" etc. a feat?

I guess there is a conceptual gap in here about what constitutes a trained fencer / fighter. Does a 2nd level fighter represent someone who barely knows one end of the sword from the other? In a 'melee' fight, a shield isn't necessarily any more automatic protection than a weapon is, unless you are using special rules like in the SCA where you can't aim at peoples lower legs and so on. Both weapons and shields require training to be of much use.

By the time you get to 10th or 11th level in DnD you probably have so many magic items that things like defending yourself with an ordinary weapon probably don't matter that much.

G

[Pickford]

Sure, but if you consider that, it provides an effective +4 bonus to hit someone as compared to joe peasant.

To your point though, PCs are not your average person. What we're actually comparing is: Highly trained person X vs Highly trained person Y. So if you fought someone who wasn't trained, you get a fairly substantial buff to your AC (from their inexperience).

But if you want to use weapons defensively you have to use the fight defensively options or pick up the feats...

[Galloglaich]

I think maybe you are missing my point though. Maybe try it in the back yard some time?

If person x has a 4 foot staff and person y has nothing, it's much easier for person x to hit person y than if person y has a four foot stick. Or a shield. At almost any level of training, even among larpers for example this is pretty obvious. If you are talking about someone who knows which end of the sword is the pointy one, then it's to me a no-brainer. I realize that most RPG's run in a pretty surreal / "cinematic" context with little bearing on reality, but even in genre movies and tv shows, if anything more than in real life, people do parry with their swords.

This isn't something which only comes out after years of training and adventures, (equivalent to 4 or 5 Feats) or to only fighting defensively, it's just the nature of having a weapon in your hand vs. not having one. The weapon makes it much easier to defend yourself, both because you can parry and because of the threat of counter-attack.

It's also true that if person x has a 4 foot staff and person y has a 2 foot stick, person x has a big advantage both in hitting first and defending.

G

[ericgrau]

It boils down to:

It's overcomplicated in a system which is already complicated enough
To get weapons to be balanced with eachother would be a sheer miracle of luck
Whether or not it's even more realistic is highly questionable too.

[ArcturusV]

More or less. Though if the goal is to promote weapon variation other than just seeing every melee character with great swords, etc, then the easier way to go at it would probably be to come up with a much simpler Weapon Type vs Armor Type modifier.

[Flickerdart]

If you want to use weapons to upgrade your defense you have to drop feats, not everybody is trained in it. Otherwise use a shield.
Four feats is over half of all the feats a character will ever learn. Do you seriously believe that it should take half of a level 20 character's feat capacity to learn how to interpose a stick between themselves and the enemy?

[Galloglaich]

It boils down to:

It's overcomplicated in a system which is already complicated enough
To get weapons to be balanced with eachother would be a sheer miracle of luck
Whether or not it's even more realistic is highly questionable too.


For sake of argument, I'll grant you the first one. 3.X DnD is pretty (pointlessly) complicated. I think it can be both simplified and made more fun AND realistic. But that is another debate.

The second one, the guideline is pretty easy. It's in the historical record for one thing (maces, axes, swords, spears, actually existed in relation to each other), for the other as I already pointed out ... it's basically a function of length + any special defensive features (like complex hilts).

For the last, no it's not questionable. Sorry.

G

[Amechra]

I remember seeing a post somewhere where someone suggested that spellcasting higher than 4th level that normally use a Standard action to cast should instead use a full-round action.

This brings back, in a "simple" way, the spellcasting times from older editions (not really, but close enough, right?)

I've always thought, on the subject of "weapon speeds" that if you wanted to do it, you could do this:

Fast: You can make an attack with a Fast weapon as a Swift action.
Normal: Standard action or Full Attack, bub.
Slow: Regardless of whether or not you're getting in a full-attack or not, you lose your Swift action for the round.

[Flickerdart]

Somehow, I'm not sure that making melee's signature weapons worse is going to be helpful for anything.

[Razgriez]

For sake of argument, I'll grant you the first one. 3.X DnD is pretty (pointlessly) complicated. I think it can be both simplified and made more fun AND realistic. But that is another debate.

The second one, the guideline is pretty easy. It's in the historical record for one thing (maces, axes, swords, spears, actually existed in relation to each other), for the other as I already pointed out ... it's basically a function of length + any special defensive features (like complex hilts).

For the last, no it's not questionable. Sorry.

G

The problem is: it was made abstract to try and keep it simple as according to the systems rules. Basically, to improve 3.X's System, you'd have to scrap just about everything and make a new system.

As for whether it's more realistic, it depends on how it affects the overall system, not just the specific changes you're making.


*Snip*
I've always thought, on the subject of "weapon speeds" that if you wanted to do it, you could do this:

Fast: You can make an attack with a Fast weapon as a Swift action.
Normal: Standard action or Full Attack, bub.
Slow: Regardless of whether or not you're getting in a full-attack or not, you lose your Swift action for the round.

At which point then, you severely hurt the Action Economy of Any "Slow" weapon user. Which means they can't use a variety of feats and ACFs designed for their builds, that require careful management of the Action economy, and destroy half the users of Tome of Battle Maneuvers. (Now they can't attack on any turn they use a Boost Maneuver, a Counter, or activate a Stance). That's not a good solution, that's an additional problem on Melee combat, one that Melee combatants don't need to deal with. End Result, a lot of unhappy players, for minimal beneficial return

An alternative, I recall, from the 2005 edition rules for Warhammer Fantasy RP, that when it came to Weapons, Fast and Slow weapons didn't affect action economy, but rather, the difficulty of making defensive rolls to avoid those kinds of strikes. Defensive actions in that system, is what eats into your Action economy (and something you take extreme care of to manage, since a Parry or Dodge test is what often keeps you from burning a precious fate point/Death)

[ericgrau]

For sake of argument, I'll grant you the first one. 3.X DnD is pretty (pointlessly) complicated. I think it can be both simplified and made more fun AND realistic. But that is another debate.

The second one, the guideline is pretty easy. It's in the historical record for one thing (maces, axes, swords, spears, actually existed in relation to each other), for the other as I already pointed out ... it's basically a function of length + any special defensive features (like complex hilts).

For the last, no it's not questionable. Sorry.

G

For the 2nd and 3rd it is likely that what you will really create is a total mess. You may be considering how fast a weapon is. By some miracle of super genius you may even do it accurately, but you'll be ignoring so many other factors that it will completely imbalance the entire fighting system. One weapon will likely come out on top by a good margin so that no one wants to use any others. Most likely either the dagger or the greatsword depending on how you bias the system. In theory it may be possible to perfectly model the weapons but in practice no gaming system that has ever tried this ever gets it right. And if you only consider weapon speed and nothing else, chances are pretty close to 100% that you'll do a far worse job. The other aspects of the system that weren't made together with weapon speed will be thrown off by a mile.

Typically overzealous attempts towards "realism" to the exclusion of all else ignore balance entirely and ruin the system to such a degree that it isn't even plausible anymore, and so it becomes much less realistic.

IIRC the best attack in the most lauded combat system for its "realism", regardless of what your foe is wielding or other circumstances, is still knee to the groin.

So maybe I should clarify "questionable" as "never been done before in any computer-free game so I have my strong doubts" lest anyone think that being theoretically possible is somehow enough to mean something. Almost everything is theoretically possible, but far less will actually succeed.

[Galloglaich]

I don't think it's about making melee's signature weapon worse, it's about making the weapons different.

Due to the odd way DnD evolved (from a miniatures wargame) and the unfortunate manner that it was copied but rarely improved upon by other games, few RPG's model many of the actual features of weapons, but you can think about them constructively as having the following important features:

Size (thus suitability for different types of fighting, as in indoors / outdoors, in a grapple or not)
Reach (largely a function of size) as in, a 'To hit' bonus.
Ways to hurt people (piercing, cutting, smashing... and how good they are at each). In DnD terms this is three things, attack type, basic damage, and critical hit threat range.
Defensive value (as in, an 'Armor Class' bonus like a shield gets) as I said before, there is really no reason not to model this.
Speed (trickier to handle - see below)
Armor - Piercing ability (some weapons were made specifically for piercing armor) usually fairly simple though standard DnD rules combine evasion with armor so that makes it harder.
Grappling ability (many weapons had hooks or spikes designed to help with grappling from a distance, the classic examples being the halberd or the bill)

You can start with the actual features of the weapons, and then try to see what you could fit into a game.

The European longsword 1300 - 1600
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/The_Brescia_Spadona_06.jpg/640px-The_Brescia_Spadona_06.jpg
In real life a longsword is made to cut and stab with equal efficiency, as well as fend off enemy attacks. If you know what you are doing (i.e. a Feat) you can bash with the hilt and choke up (half-sword) to make it better for armor-piercing (stabs only). It's long and has pretty good hand protection making it good for defense, it has pretty good reach, and it's pretty fast partly due to being light (most real ones are about 3 lbs) and partly due to having an iron pommel, which helps a lot with balance. Hard to break.

The late Medieval dagger 1200-1500
http://historische-waffen-fricker.de/assets/images/db_images/db_IMG_20164.jpg
In real life, a dagger is very fast weapon. Most types (like the roundel depicted here) are made to stab primarily, though some others are for cutting too. It's got limited defensive ability, just a little reach (better than nothing though, since Medieval daggers were often a foot or more long). Unlike in almost all Role Playing Games, Daggers are extremely lethal! US Army stats on bayonett wounds and the FBI statistics on injuries from violent crimes show a knife with blade more than 8" long is one of the most lethal things you can get attacked with, statistically, and most Medieval Daggers were a lot longer than that (and more strongly made, less likely to snap). Daggers, unlike swords, tend to be good at armor-piercing (and / or getting around armor by finding gaps). Very hard to break.

The Medieval Battle Axe
http://www.medieval-weaponry.co.uk/acatalog/viking-axe-antiqued-710.jpg
In real life, an axe is good at cutting, mainly. Almost opposite to the cliche, battle axes tend to be made lighter (with thinner blades) and better balanced than axes made for cutting wood, but they are not as balanced as a sword. For a big (I'm thinking Danish / Viking style) axe, medium reach, fairly low speed (smaller axes would be much faster), some value for defense but limited hand protection makes that a little dicey. Due to their shape axes are also good for hooking shield rims and arms and so on, i.e. grappling from a distance. Some axes are made with special armor-piercing features (a back spike) but these are rare on older ones. The haft can be broken.

Medieval Spear
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_14.25.321.jpg
Very good reach, not as good speed, very good at thrusting, but the ones with larger blades can cut well too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juIw20z5p0c), pretty good for defense if used two-handed. Pretty good at armor-piercing. Not good at close range.

Staff
http://www.swords24.eu/images/products/en/Bo_Karate_Staff-White_Oak_72-Japan_Quality_GTTC661-JAP.jpg
Blunt damage only, very good reach, very good defense, not as good at very close range.

Mace
Heavier (but not as much as you might think) than a sword or an axe, medium reach, medium defensive value (enhanced somewhat by the inertia of the thing) bludgeon damage only, good at destroying armor. Indestructible.

So converting these into generic stats:
Longsword
Reach 4, Defense 3, Speed 3, cut / thrust, damage 1-10, crit threat 19-20, armor piercing and bludgeon damage ability by Feat. Normally too long to use at close (grapple) range except with special Feat. Hardness 6

Dagger
Reach 1, Defense 1, Speed 5, thrust, damage 1-8, crit threat 18-20, armor-piercing. Hardness 8

Battle Axe
Reach 3, Defense 2, Speed 2, cut, damage 1-12, crit threat 18-20, grapple +1 (from melee distance). Hardness 4.

Flanged Mace
Reach 2, Defense 3, Speed 1, bludgeon, damage 1-10, crit threat 18-20, armor-piercing +2. Hardness 12.

Spear
Reach 5, Defense 3, Speed 2, thrust, damage 1-8, crit threat 18-20, armor-piercing. Too long to use at close (grapple) range. Hardness 4

Staff
Reach 5, Defense 4, Speed 3, bludgeon, damage 1-6, crit threat 20. Too long to use at close (grapple) range. Hardness 4.

Now in DnD you might only be able to model a couple of these features, but it wouldn't necessarily add a lot more complexity to say, most weapons can be used for defense as well as offense, swords can stab as well as cut, short weapons can be used in grapple, and so on.

Differentiating the weapons a little bit (in ways other than just damage) makes them a bit more interesting and more useful to flesh out the personality of different characters, monsters and NPC's, IMO.

G

[Spiryt]

Heavier (but not as much as you might think) than a sword or an axe, medium reach, medium defensive value (enhanced somewhat by the inertia of the thing) bludgeon damage only, good at destroying armor. Indestructible.

Well, mace head may be "indestructible" by pretty much anything that can happen in combat, but the haft is most certainly not... Especially if it's wooden/else and not metal.

And quite a lot of maceheads, especially before 15th century, was actually very, very light.

http://otlichnik.tripod.com/medmace3.html

[Galloglaich]

For the 2nd and 3rd it is likely that what you will really create is a total mess. You may be considering how fast a weapon is. By some miracle of super genius you may even do it accurately, but you'll be ignoring so many other factors that it will completely imbalance the entire fighting system. One weapon will likely come out on top by a good margin so that no one wants to use any others. Most likely either the dagger or the greatsword depending on how you bias the system. In theory it may be possible to perfectly model the weapons but in practice no gaming system that has ever tried this ever gets it right. And if you only consider weapon speed and nothing else, chances are pretty close to 100% that you'll do a far worse job. The other aspects of the system that weren't made together with weapon speed will be thrown off by a mile.

Typically overzealous attempts towards "realism" to the exclusion of all else ignore balance entirely and ruin the system to such a degree that it isn't even plausible anymore, and so it becomes much less realistic.

IIRC the best attack in the most lauded combat system for its "realism", regardless of what your foe is wielding or other circumstances, is still knee to the groin.

So maybe I should clarify "questionable" as "never been done before in any computer-free game so I have my strong doubts" lest anyone think that being theoretically possible is somehow enough to mean something. Almost everything is theoretically possible, but far less will actually succeed.

Well I beg to differ with your premise here. A lot of early efforts at 'realism' were done by people who had little actual experience with fighting (other than some very heavily rules based games like LARP or fighting in the SCA) and we didn't used to know most of the actual properties of historical arms and armor, or how people actually used to fight back then. These days with the benefit of the internet, and the discovery of historical fighting manuals leading to the establishment of the HEMA community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_European_martial_arts#Late_Middle_Ages_ .281350_to_1500.29), we really have a lot more to base a model of what real fighting was actually like.

As I mentioned before, real fighting in the real world was balanced - if there was an uber weapon everyone would use it (eventually the rifle and the machine gun in various forms became just this uber weapon which is why swords and spears are no longer used in armies)

As a result while I admit it is still hard, I don't think anywhere near impossible any more, much easier anyway than it was in the 70's or 80's. I set out to prove that it was possible about 6 years ago, and made a game system to be tacked on to 3.X which has, I think, proven itself to be quite functional, balanced, fun, and fast - paced. I have about 20 good reviews of the system in 11 different languages and really no bad ones. My system though is definitely a little different and is not DnD per se, there is only so much you can do with the RAW.

And it's not perfect, nothing is. But it does show one way this problem can actually be solved. Mine leans more toward low magic / low fantasy or historical gaming (someone mentioned E6). But I published it basically just to prove that it could be done, and tailored it to the type of games I like to play. Other games like Riddle of Steel, GURPS Low-Tech, Burning Wheel, and more recently blade of the iron throne (www.bladeoftheironthrone.com) and song of steel (http://www.songofsteel.net/) have also entered this niche, at various levels of abstraction (TROS being pretty complex, Burning Wheel being pretty simple) and designed for different kinds of settings (I gather Blade of the Iron Throne is fantasy oriented, while Song of Steel is more for historical games.

G

[Galloglaich]

Well, mace head may be "indestructible" by pretty much anything that can happen in combat, but the haft is most certainly not... Especially if it's wooden/else and not metal.

And quite a lot of maceheads, especially before 15th century, was actually very, very light.

http://otlichnik.tripod.com/medmace3.html

Agreed 100%, I was referring to the late medieval flanged mace, but in my haste I forgot to post a picture. Here is what I was thinking of:

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs30/f/2008/153/f/1/Flanged_mace_by_Astalo.jpg

In DnD I believe you have a light mace and a heavy mace, or anyway you used to... the former would be more like the one you are talking about though I agree (and I think I stipulated) that most medieval weapons of all types were roughly in the same weight range for a given size - a mace like that would typically be 3 or 4 lbs I think. None of them would be the kind of 20 lb behemoths typically portrayed in genre literature. The main difference from a sword would be balance.

G

[Jack_Simth]

But real life logic says that although using a sword WOULD give you more "damage" and a longer reach, the person fighting with their fists would probably have an easier time making sudden moves (kinda like a "Weapon check penalty") and could probably punch more times in a 6-second period than the other person could swing their greatsword.

Regardless of whether or not it's truly realistic, it's still more complicated and bogs down gameplay.

Does anyone know of any systems that solve this, or any fixes for this in 3.5?If you wanted a simple house-rule, how does this strike you:
Current iteratives are based on 5's (A Fighter-13 attacks at +13/+8/+3, before non-BAB bonuses or penalties).
With light weapons, it's based on 4's (so that same Fighter-13 would attack at +13/+9/+5/+1, before non-BAB bonuses or penalties). For a two-handed weapon, it's based on 6's (so that same Fighter-13 would attack at +13/+7/+1 before non-BAB bonuses and penalties); medium weapons stay where they are.

Note that this is breakable - a rogue with two shortswords is now considerably worse in melee if you let him get a full attack in, as he's got more attacks to apply all that sneak attack damage to. Meanwhile, it makes the standard fighter weaker (and the Rogue is already a tier above the Fighter).

[Spiryt]

Flanged maces hafts were often wooden as well, though.

I believe that all metal ones are more Renaissance thing, though I don't have any data about proportions of them to the other.

Wooden, but heavily covered by iron hafts were pretty common too.

[Galloglaich]

Flanged maces hafts were often wooden as well, though.

I believe that all metal ones are more Renaissance thing, though I don't have any data about proportions of them to the other.

Wooden, but heavily covered by iron hafts were pretty common too.

There are quite a few of these all-metal maces (and hammers, axes and picks) from the 14th Century onward, all over the place (you see them on auction house sites like Hermann Historica for example routinely) Not just in Europe but also in Central Asia. The Turks of course were still using them all the way into the 18th Century.

The ones with the iron langets are also pretty much indestructable I think, at least compared to a regular all-wood hafted weapon.

G

[Razgriez]

Before I continue, allow to clarify something, I like that people want to improve non-THF. Shields and One handers really do need some love in my view in 3.X systems. I don't like that at the end of the day, most weapons boil down into the same generic categories, and that armor is so abstract, that it boils down to what enchantments you can attach to your armor, and shield, and then the Armor and Shield spikes, how many +X you can buy, and still not be enough to block the majority of the most deadly attacks. I'm not a big fan of seeing the Spiked Chain as being the ultimate weapon in 3.5. And I'm also not a particular big fan, of having an abstract system, that turns right around, and tell me I need to jump through hoops to learn some of the most "complex" tasks in combat, such as moving your hands up closer towards the head of a polearm to handle closer foes, or that learning to swing a sword with one hand instead of two is less beneficial, when for less feats, the mage is learning to tell physics to "Shut up, go sit in the corner and cry".

But of course that's the problem. This is a game designed for a Fantasy Setting, it's designed to aim towards a broad audience. There is a point where realism needs to take a back seat for the sake of simplicity and fun of the majority. You need to draw the line somewhere on the Realism, so that the player doesn't get bored learning hundreds of little special rules for every little thing.

You can get away with more realism, in a low magic setting. But in a normal or high? Forget about it, you'll be so busy tracking magic effects, that you won't have time or attention span to worry whether it's better to parry with a cross guarded sword, or a Basket hilt sword, or whether to use a half sword thrust or whatever.

As for the imbalance between One handers/Shields vs Two Handed fighting: Don't punish the Two Hander user, improve the One Hander(s) user. Look at how Tome of Battle improved it. It made TWF and using One handers in general more interesting, by fixing the key weaknesses:I.E. Improving Damage Output per hit, Improving Mobility, and Maximizing Number of attacks.

[Pickford]

I think maybe you are missing my point though. Maybe try it in the back yard some time?

If person x has a 4 foot staff and person y has nothing, it's much easier for person x to hit person y than if person y has a four foot stick. Or a shield. At almost any level of training, even among larpers for example this is pretty obvious. If you are talking about someone who knows which end of the sword is the pointy one, then it's to me a no-brainer. I realize that most RPG's run in a pretty surreal / "cinematic" context with little bearing on reality, but even in genre movies and tv shows, if anything more than in real life, people do parry with their swords.

This may be true if neither of these people is trained. If one of them is trained in jiu jitsu, for example, they have learned to attack and disarm people holding or attacking with weapons.

The whole point of the training is to equalize it...yeah the system assumes that each player is capable of defending equally well against completely different types of weapons.


This isn't something which only comes out after years of training and adventures, (equivalent to 4 or 5 Feats) or to only fighting defensively, it's just the nature of having a weapon in your hand vs. not having one. The weapon makes it much easier to defend yourself, both because you can parry and because of the threat of counter-attack.

Having a weapon in hand doesn't actually mean anything in terms of understanding how to defend ones self with it.

Being able to attack, parry, and counter-attack well requires actual training. Give someone a rapier and they can probably figure out how to get the pointy end into someone. But can they consistently land a strike on someone wearing plate that actual harms that person? No. Nor would they be able to adequately defend themselves against someone who 'is' trained.

Focusing on defense is mimicked by the defensive fighting or full defense actions (which are free!), really knowing how to use a weapon to defend ones self is mimicked by combat expertise. It's 1 feat and practically anyone can qualify and it doesn't actually require you to be trained in the use of the weapon. So with it you could take your full BAB negative, the -4 from being untrained, and a -4 from fighting defensively (so at least -9 total) and get +3 AC.


It's also true that if person x has a 4 foot staff and person y has a 2 foot stick, person x has a big advantage both in hitting first and defending.

G

I grant you they have reach (which is mimicked for some weapons), but there's no inherent advantage defensively to that when both are trained.


Four feats is over half of all the feats a character will ever learn. Do you seriously believe that it should take half of a level 20 character's feat capacity to learn how to interpose a stick between themselves and the enemy?

They could drop 1 and do it "eh", 1 and potentially do it well, or 4 and do it as well as anyone.

And to be the best possible at defending ones self? Yes this is a big investment, but it's what differentiates a Fighter and anyone else.

Make it too cheap and you cheapen the value of a Fighter's bonus feats.

[Gavinfoxx]

The thing is, no one with a rapier would be able to consistently harm someone weilding full plate. It's a non-armor-piercing, civilian self defense weapon specifically not meant for going up against plate; it's meant for self defense against unarmored foes...

[Spiryt]

This may be true if neither of these people is trained. If one of them is trained in jiu jitsu, for example, they have learned to attack and disarm people holding or attacking with weapons.




Having jiu-jitsu or any other serious grappling on higher level than opponent gives some, still bad, chance if said opponent has actual weapon.

But unarmed person is always very screwed against armed one. Pretty much no level of skill shall turn it into fair fight.

Assuming no fantasy stuff, obviously.

[Galloglaich]

This may be true if neither of these people is trained. If one of them is trained in jiu jitsu, for example, they have learned to attack and disarm people holding or attacking with weapons.

Ju jitsu or not the weapon still confers an advantage.



The whole point of the training is to equalize it...yeah the system assumes that each player is capable of defending equally well against completely different types of weapons.

You are missing the point. What if one fighter has no weapon or each fighter has different kinds of weapons?



Having a weapon in hand doesn't actually mean anything in terms of understanding how to defend ones self with it.

Being able to attack, parry, and counter-attack well requires actual training. Give someone a rapier and they can probably figure out how to get the pointy end into someone. But can they consistently land a strike on someone wearing plate that actual harms that person? No. Nor would they be able to adequately defend themselves against someone who 'is' trained.

I though the training part was covered by weapon proficiency and so on. As I asked upthread, is the assumption that a 2nd level fighter is trained or not?



I grant you they have reach (which is mimicked for some weapons), but there's no inherent advantage defensively to that when both are trained.

There is when one guy has a dagger an the other has a staff, for example. Just as when one guy has a shield and the other guy doesn't.

G

[Pickford]

If we're letting reality intrude, someone who is very very good could make a hit through to the face, but yes they'd be much better off fighting them in mud, tiring the plate wearer out and then, when the plate wearer inevitably slips, stabbing them through the helm's eye-slits. (assuming this person is even wearing a helm.) And if they are their field of view would be severely restricted, allowing a faster unarmored person to circle them and attack from behind more easily. Hell, if they are fast enough they could just shove the person in plate to the ground where they may die from suffocation (mud through the helm, water, etc..)

But the thing is, none of this is modeled by D&D combat. (Nor, according to the rules) are attacks to be considered just one swing or stab, but rather all the actions taken 'in' an attack together. (paraphrased).

[Galloglaich]

But of course that's the problem. This is a game designed for a Fantasy Setting, it's designed to aim towards a broad audience. There is a point where realism needs to take a back seat for the sake of simplicity and fun of the majority. You need to draw the line somewhere on the Realism, so that the player doesn't get bored learning hundreds of little special rules for every little thing.


I can definitely agree with that, but consider this oblique angle to the usual argument. I don't necessarily think realism is only a matter of greater or lesser complexity, or even that it's about that at all.

For sake of arguments, lets say you can model a reality with say 100 relevant elements, and you can then in turn strip down those elements to either 50, 20, or 5 elements depending on what kind of game you want (detailed, simple, or very simple).

The problem I would suggest that you see in many Role Playing Games, especially DnD, is that they are modeling the wrong elements and modeling elements inaccurately. Then they try to balance everything based on these false assumptions and make more problems.. in the end you have a system which is trying to be simple, but is in fact complex, and has fairly boring combat until you start to introduce the element of magic. Weapons are all basically the same, only damage really differentiates them, and people fighting have relatively few options. Certain very unrealistic fighting options (dual wield = more attacks, spiked chain is uber weapon) become dominant in the system.

Conversely, imagine you model the correct actual historical / physics friendly elements of combat, then you can still pair down to 20 or 5 elements (because I agree the more magic you have the less detail you want in your fighting) but you can still have more options for the players, a more interesting interplay between fighting choices and weapons and so forth, and a system which is intuitively recognizable for the players, rather than something only 'neckbeards' can understand.

My example would be in the war-game world, Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader. Squad Leader was simple, modeling few elements, (I think 3 or 4 for a squad, something like that) but still realistic. It modeled the real elements of combat, just simplified. Advanced Squad Leader was a much more detailed version of basically the same thing (probably 10 elements for a squad), still fun, but it took a lot longer to play. Both were realistic games, but the original simpler game was arguably closer to the sweet spot (and it was a lot more popular). The latter went on to become the underlying engine for a lot of successful computer games...

But in both cases the fact that the fundamental system did correlate with reality pretty well in it's 'shape' if you will, meant that regardless of the level of detail, the game made sense and the various elements fit together pretty easily. I think you can do the same in RPG combat systems.

G

[Galloglaich]

If we're letting reality intrude, someone who is very very good could make a hit through to the face, but yes they'd be much better off fighting them in mud, tiring the plate wearer out and then, when the plate wearer inevitably slips, stabbing them through the helm's eye-slits. (assuming this person is even wearing a helm.) And if they are their field of view would be severely restricted, allowing a faster unarmored person to circle them and attack from behind more easily. Hell, if they are fast enough they could just shove the person in plate to the ground where they may die from suffocation (mud through the helm, water, etc..)

But the thing is, none of this is modeled by D&D combat. (Nor, according to the rules) are attacks to be considered just one swing or stab, but rather all the actions taken 'in' an attack together. (paraphrased).

The vulnerability and clumsiness of people in plate armor tends to get badly exaggerated. Probably not the best thing to swim in or fight in deep mud, but if it was that bad nobody would have worn it. Most armor historically weighed considerably less than the kit a modern soldier wears (about 80 lbs).


Regarding the OP, you could make a simple rule within existing 3.5 rules, since they (incorrectly IMO) make daggers and most short weapons cause less damage, wherein weapons size L on up tend to cause more, you could just allow an extra attack for short weapons (or unarmed).

That way you can have a tradeoff between a single hit with more (1-10, 2-12) damage or more hits with lower damage (1-4). That might make a dagger a worthwhile weapon again without necessarily dethroning the larger weapons. Though it might be an issue for touch-based magic attacks.

G