Speed Factor

[VoxRationis]

So I saw this (http://theangrygm.com/fine-i-wrote-about-speed-factor-initiative-in-dd-5e/) article and it made me wonder what other people thought about speed factors. I haven't heard a lot about them, so I'm kind of assuming they've been overlooked or actively discarded, but I haven't confirmed that. So what do you people think about them?

Myself, I'm fond of the idea of being able to nip in with a dagger more quickly than someone else can swing a greatsword, and I like the throwback to the AD&D initiative system (which I think was a good balance on spellcasters in a way which should have been brought back). But perhaps giving speed advantages to smaller weapons is no longer necessary when finesse weapons are a thing.

[Ralanr]

So basically someone using great weapon master or trying to go with that play style would get a -4 to initiative?

Where is the fun in that? Dex based characters already have a (supposed) bump over strength based characters, why give them more?

Edit: Skimmed, realized it was just one negative. My previous point still stands.

[pibby]

Speed factor is great if you like chaos. Personally I don't like Speed Factor rules. But if you go for it and want your game to feel more like 2e then all Extra Attacks should happen at the end of the round.

PCs at your table may not mind this alternate rule but your caster PCs will backlash at you if they know they're always likely to go last.

There are also several points that the AngryDM lists to make Speed Factor rules sound appealing when those same points can readdressed as things that are unappraling. But hey, different strokes for different folks.

[coredump]

So I saw this (http://theangrygm.com/fine-i-wrote-about-speed-factor-initiative-in-dd-5e/) article and it made me wonder what other people thought about speed factors. I haven't heard a lot about them, so I'm kind of assuming they've been overlooked or actively discarded, but I haven't confirmed that. So what do you people think about them?

Myself, I'm fond of the idea of being able to nip in with a dagger more quickly than someone else can swing a greatsword, and I like the throwback to the AD&D initiative system (which I think was a good balance on spellcasters in a way which should have been brought back). But perhaps giving speed advantages to smaller weapons is no longer necessary when finesse weapons are a thing.
Its okay...it just depends on your reasoning. If you want things more 'dynamic' then sure. If you want it more 'real', then no....
There is no way a halfling with a dagger is going to be able to hit a human with a greatsword first. Range and reach matter!

A long time ago, there was an article in a Dragon that dealt with both aspects, speed and range; it was kind of cool. When you started, the GS fighter had the advantage, but if the dagger fighter could 'get inside', he had the advantage. But that was a long time ago.... not even sure which edition. (pretty sure first though)

[FadeAssassin]

The main problem with Speed factor is the time it takes to get every round done. It's alright other then that, in my opinion, but it's pretty much impossible with large parties.

[VoxRationis]

A long time ago, there was an article in a Dragon that dealt with both aspects, speed and range; it was kind of cool. When you started, the GS fighter had the advantage, but if the dagger fighter could 'get inside', he had the advantage. But that was a long time ago.... not even sure which edition. (pretty sure first though)

Yeah, my father keeps referring to rules that included weapon-specific reach/required space, but the 2e rules I have don't make any such mention. But I totally understand what you mean about reach.

[calebrus]

Yeah, my father keeps referring to rules that included weapon-specific reach/required space, but the 2e rules I have don't make any such mention. But I totally understand what you mean about reach.

Finesse weapons now using Dex for attack and damage trumps the need (or even the desire) for speed factors a'la older editions. Using speed factors would make finesse weapons much, much better than great weapons.

However, if you want to factor size in, that's not unreasonable at all. In fact, a few sessions ago, we were fighting in a 5' wide hallway. I told the players that weapons with the Light property attacked normally, while any weapon without the Light property attacked at disadvantage. It actually worked out really well. The Pally and the Fighter both pulled out daggers to accommodate the scenario, and the Fighter even bought a scimitar as soon as they got back to civilization in case something like that happens again.

You could do something similar in a ton of different situations; climbing a rope, fighting in a hallway, fighting indoors in a regular sized room with regular height ceilings, etc etc etc.

[VoxRationis]

If you included both speed factor (incentivizing small, light weapons) and reach (incentivizing large weapons) in some way which allowed both simultaneously, do you think it would be balanced?

[calebrus]

If you included both speed factor (incentivizing small, light weapons) and reach (incentivizing large weapons) in some way which allowed both simultaneously, do you think it would be balanced?

But how to incentivize larger weapons without reach, like a greatsword?
Maybe.... spit balling here.... if an enemy (voluntarily) steps adjacent to you, the first attack made with any two-handed or heavy melee weapon that was in hand when the move occurred gets advantage. If you have disadvantage from any source, this effect does not apply and does not cancel it out.

[Easy_Lee]

I presume that speed factors were added to make combat "realistic." If that's the case, they have it backwards.

Who hits first in a real fight? The person with longer reach. Gun > Bow > Javelin > Pike > Spear > Two-handed Sword > Rapier > Longsword > Arming Sword > Dagger. In only one of those cases did the weapon's finesse make a difference, which was for rapiers vs. longswords, since both are close to the same length.

Oh, by the way, let's make combat even more realistic. Want to fight in a 5' wide hallway like Calebrus suggested? Sounds good, now the spears and partisans have a huge advantage because there's less room to dodge. Just point the spear your opponent's way and they can't hardly help but run right into it. Nice job, fighter. You're not fighting with brawn, you're fighting with brains. Hope the other guy is smart enough to run or use a ranged weapon.

And that light armor you like so well? Yeah, it's inferior to heavy armor in every way except comfort. But good luck wearing that plate armor all day during a trek through a swamp. I'm sure you won't die of exhaustion. Bet you wish you played a light-weight, dexterous caster with mage armor right about now.

If you want to talk realism, then in a world with magic, absolutely everyone would be playing a wizard or cleric. Wizards have the widest selection of magic, especially stuff you might want on an everyday basis like fabricate. And clerics have peoples' food and health taken care of; one cleric can care for dozens or more by himself. Even if not everyone has magic, all high elves do. The advantage that free prestidigitation would grant that race, in the real world, would make everyone else either obsolete or so jealous that they would genocide the high elves. After all, Tall Poppy Syndrome is a real thing.

And how can giants exist if they aren't magically fueled like dragons? The giant races must be the same size as us, and all of the goodly races of FE must be pint-sized people. That would answer a lot of questions actually, such as why falls don't do more damage.

Seriously, realism has no place in D&D. That world doesn't work when you try to apply realism to it.

[Giant2005]

I suspect that at one point in the game's design the speed factor rules were the default. That is how I choose to believe that the designers thought all of those capstones that add to class resources upon rolling initiative were balanced.
With that in mind, I really like the Speed Factor rules although that is solely for the reason for rolling initiative every round which I guess you could do just as easily without them.

[calebrus]

With that in mind, I really like the Speed Factor rules although that is solely for the reason for rolling initiative every round which I guess you could do just as easily without them.

It really does change the combat.
We used to use those rules for 2e. We'd have everyone announce what they were doing, then roll initiative, then count off until things happened. If anyone was casting a spell, they had to announce when they began (on their init count) and then announce that the spell was cast (when the adjusted init count came up). Anyone that went in between those two events always went straight for the caster, to try to disrupt the spell in progress.
There aren't any rules for that in 5e, but it wouldn't be difficult to make them.
If the caster gets attacked between the time he begins casting and the time the spell goes off, he has to make a Constitution save a'la taking damage. If he fails the roll then the spell gets disrupted. Simple.

[VoxRationis]

Yeah, I see those old initiative rules as one of the better checks on casters; it's easy for some schmoe with a handful of darts (in AD&D, they had a really low speed factor and a good ROF) to lock down the mage simply because they both start what they're doing at the same time and the dart-man finishes first.
As to Easy Lee:
Oh, we're making things fantastic, are we? Well, since realistic consequences aren't a thing, your sword doesn't cut anything; it just does 1d8 damage. You try to cast something? Well, today all objects just became sentient, and your components decided they don't like you. You take a step forward and move backwards. Unless we're playing Salvador Dali: The RPG, realism has to apply in some measure. I just think it's incredibly stupid that there's this invisible line people are drawing where this aspect of realism naturally should be applied but that aspect is pedantry which should be ignored, simply because there's magic elsewhere in the game. Well, unless the magic is happening then and there, things should behave normally. And seriously, no one is threatening your game—there's no need to get so huffy about it, just because I casually ask about a little-mentioned mechanic.

[Easy_Lee]

Yeah, I see those old initiative rules as one of the better checks on casters; it's easy for some schmoe with a handful of darts (in AD&D, they had a really low speed factor and a good ROF) to lock down the mage simply because they both start what they're doing at the same time and the dart-man finishes first.
As to Easy Lee:
Oh, we're making things fantastic, are we? Well, since realistic consequences aren't a thing, your sword doesn't cut anything; it just does 1d8 damage. You try to cast something? Well, today all objects just became sentient, and your components decided they don't like you. You take a step forward and move backwards. Unless we're playing Salvador Dali: The RPG, realism has to apply in some measure. I just think it's incredibly stupid that there's this invisible line people are drawing where this aspect of realism naturally should be applied but that aspect is pedantry which should be ignored, simply because there's magic elsewhere in the game. Well, unless the magic is happening then and there, things should behave normally. And seriously, no one is threatening your game—there's no need to get so huffy about it, just because I casually ask about a little-mentioned mechanic.

Wasn't being huffy, I was basically saying what you said. If we apply realism in one situation, such as lighter weapons being easier to draw and swing, but not another, such as long weapons having a huge advantage because they will reach the target first, then we aren't being consistent.

[Theodoxus]

Well, to be honest, unless we get the actual formula used for each weapon, rather than the final number generated, you won't know if the reach of the long sword vs the size of a dagger is taken into account or not.

Anyone who's seen Rob Roy remembers Great Sword vs Rapier and probably figures that's the way those two always match up - but then you're not taking the d20 into account (let alone Plot Armor and storytelling, yada yada).

I do like speed factors for spells far more than weapons anyway; but then, I also like using Wisdom either as a replacement or in conjunction with Dex (as an average of the two) - so I'm a bit more caster centric; though spell speed factor tends to favor the anti-caster crowd, as it allows readied actions to more easily interrupt the cast.
The quick and dirty rule I use is to simply add the level of the spell slot used to the casters initiative. They start casting on their turn, they complete the cast on their modified initiative and anyone between can try to interrupt, or ready their attack to use a reaction to interrupt.