Weapon Speeds

[Ninjadeadbeard]

So, while reading up on the differences between older D&D and 3.0 editions, someone on these forums mentioned Weapon Speeds.

Now, that intrigued me, and so while I hunt down some 2E books to read up, can anyone explain to me how Weapon Speed worked? It sounds interesting, and I'd like to know.

[Lapak]

So, while reading up on the differences between older D&D and 3.0 editions, someone on these forums mentioned Weapon Speeds.

Now, that intrigued me, and so while I hunt down some 2E books to read up, can anyone explain to me how Weapon Speed worked? It sounds interesting, and I'd like to know.Every weapon had a speed rating. When you rolled initiative (and keep in mind that in 2e you rolled each round) you add the weapon's speed to your roll to determine when you actually go.

Putting two hands on a one-handed weapon reduced that weapon's speed by 1. Magical weapons reduced their Speed Factor by one for each + that the weapon had.

That's about it!

[Machpants]

And each spell had a speed, the higher level the spell the higher the casting time (normally) and if you were hit before your turn your spell is lost. I was very into weapon speed when I played 2e, but now it makes no sense to me in many ways. It does not take into account the length of a weapon so someone moving to attack a spearman with a dagger is likely to hit first. The other thing is a combat round is one minute long, so it doesn;t make much sense for quicker weps to get in first when there are lots of lunges blows feints etc that take place over a whole minute.

Hackmaster (the latest version) with it second counting system does this very well if you want that level of granuality, could be adapted to AD&D.


The other reason I dropped it was too much hassle!

[Jay R]

The usual way it worked was that the DM said we aren't using that rule.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Hm. Well thanks for the info anyway. I'm working on an RPG right now, and the concept (as I perceived them) of weapon speeds intrigued me. I might be able to mess with that sort of a thing, but for now Thanks.

[Khedrac]

Just for comparison look at RuneQuest weapon "speeds".
The round is divided into "strike ranks". A character has a Strike Rank Modifier (SRM) based on their size (usually 0 to 2), dexterity (usually 1 to 3) and their weapon's size (usually 1 to 3). Add the three together and that's the strike rank the character attacks on (low means you go first).
The weapons factor was purely based on length - longer weapons go first (spears and other polearms were 1, swords etc 2 and daggers 3).
There were also rules for "closing" - when the dagger wielder does get up to the spear wielder he is literally too close to attack with the spear - if the spear wielder cannot back up he is about to lose horribly.

[Rhynn]

The usual way it worked was that the DM said we aren't using that rule.

And how. AD&D (2E, anyway) initiative as written is horrible.

I just went with "Both sides roll 1d6, low number declares first, high number resolves first."


Also, "reach" mechanics are much better than "weapon speed" mechanics. Who cares if two-handed swords are "slow" ? Good luck getting in with your "fast" dagger when you're going to get cut or impaled before you can even reach the other guy's hand.

The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, Mongoose's RuneQuest (1 & 2), and RuneQuest 6 all have weapon length/reach mechanics. Usually how it works is, two fighters are at distance X, where X = the longer reach involved. The shorter reach cannot attack but can defend, or can attack with penalties. If the shorter reach "closes in" (a risky move), they can attack normally, and the longer reach either cannot attack or attacks with penalties, and may even have difficulties defending.

[Matthew]

In AD&D first edition weapon length determines first strike at the point of contact, and then 1d6 versus 1d6 determines who strikes first thereafter. However, if there is a draw (1-in-6 cases) then weapon speed determines who goes first, and if the difference is very great then it is possible to get bonus attacks in addition. The latter rule is a bit superfluous, but the former is an excellent reason to switch between spear and short sword during combat. Additionally, each weapon has a "space" value that indicates how much room is required to fight with it. This generally means that the more damage a weapon does the less combatants can fight side-by-side.

[evildmguy]

I played around a lot with this.

I think at the end of 2E, what I was doing was this.

Initiative was d10 + DEX mod? Wow. I can't remember for sure but I think that's what 2E did. Then, I counted down starting from about 20. You could move starting at twenty, which was usually jockeying for position and I usually simplified it when it came to lots of monsters. Then, at your number, you get one attack. If you don't have anymore, you are done. Casting a spell started at your initiative and finished at it's speed factor. If you were hit during casting, you lost it, but not before or after. (They could hold for that.) If you have a second attack, your next attack is at your initiative minus your speed factor, with a minimum of one for a second attack.

Holy carp. It has been a long time since I ran 2E and used those rules! I would probably have to ask my group if that's correct! The above was the basics but I think we had some other things. I think if an extra attack pushed below -3 or so, we said it was lost, the weapon was too slow. Things like that. We allowed movement up to half movement, which for 12" was 60'. I don't think anyone had less than 9" for 45' movement.

My problem is that I always had a rules lawyer in my group through 2E and starting 3E and so I always had lots of little house rules here and there for things to please them and me.

What we never used were the bonuses or penalties based on armor type!

edg

[LibraryOgre]

Putting two hands on a one-handed weapon reduced that weapon's speed by 1.

Where's this from? I remember getting two-handed style specialization to get the 3pt spd bonus, but not a straight bonus for two-handing a one-hander.

[TheOOB]

Didn't 2ed also have a much or complex initiative system than 3e as well?

[hamlet]

Didn't 2ed also have a much or complex initiative system than 3e as well?

No.

Despite claims to the contrary above, 2nd edition initiative was very simple. Roll D10, adjust for your DEX if applicable, adjust for weapon speed and any other modifiers that might be in play, and low numbers go first.

Done.

[Lapak]

Where's this from? I remember getting two-handed style specialization to get the 3pt spd bonus, but not a straight bonus for two-handing a one-hander.Hmm. I'm going to be awfully embarrassed if I've dredged that up from nowhere, but it rolled right off the tip of my brain with the rest of it. I'll have to check my books this evening.

EDIT: I'm specifically remembering a longsword being used as the example weapon, but that doesn't help much.

[Lord Torath]

I believe PO: Combat & Tactics had rules for wielding certain weapons two-handed (spear, battle axe, I think a few more), but it tended to slow them down, rather than speeding them up, as well as increasing damage slightly. The Bastard Sword in the PHB is slower when wielded in two hands...

[JadedDM]

No.

Despite claims to the contrary above, 2nd edition initiative was very simple. Roll D10, adjust for your DEX if applicable, adjust for weapon speed and any other modifiers that might be in play, and low numbers go first.

Done.

Huh? I'm not aware of any rule where initiative is modified by one's DEX score.

[Machpants]

I believe PO: Combat & Tactics had rules for wielding certain weapons two-handed (spear, battle axe, I think a few more), but it tended to slow them down, rather than speeding them up, as well as increasing damage slightly. The Bastard Sword in the PHB is slower when wielded in two hands...
It appears not to be do in my 2E PHB... well my teen self said WTF it is slower to use 2 hands, that makes no sense and changed them in pen! :smallcool:

[Lapak]

Where's this from? I remember getting two-handed style specialization to get the 3pt spd bonus, but not a straight bonus for two-handing a one-hander.


Hmm. I'm going to be awfully embarrassed if I've dredged that up from nowhere, but it rolled right off the tip of my brain with the rest of it. I'll have to check my books this evening.

EDIT: I'm specifically remembering a longsword being used as the example weapon, but that doesn't help much.Well, that answers that. I apparently mis-remembered the Two-Handed Specialization rules from The Complete Fighter's Handbook which Mark Hall is referring to. The style gives a +3 speed factor bonus for ANY two-handed weapon use and - this is what I was mixing up in my head - a +1 bonus to damage for using normally one-handed weapons with both hands. (With limitations on what kinds of weapons can be wielded this way, naturally.)

[hamlet]

Huh? I'm not aware of any rule where initiative is modified by one's DEX score.

Hmm?

Oh, sorry, that's a semi-house rule that we applied after looking at Hackmaster 4e. Essentially, add/subtract your reaction adjustment for DEX to your init. Works really well. Those who are very quick get very quick while those who are slow end up going last, though sometimes somebody who's quick can land a quick blow with a bastard or two-handed sword. Kind of mixes things up slightly.