# 2nd Edition Weapon Speeds - Anyone Else Miss Them?



## Whodat (Sep 16, 2002)

I'm kind of new to the boards here, so I'm not sure if this topic has already been beaten to death - but here we go.

In 2nd Edition there was an optional rule concerning "Speed Factors" for various weapons. The weapon’s speed factor was a relative measure of the clumsiness of the weapon. The lower the number, the easier the weapon was to use. The speed factor was then added to the character’s initiative roll in order to factor the weapon’s weight during the attack.

In this way a character using a light weapon (such as a rapier) would be able to attack before a character with a heavier weapon (such as a two-handed sword), even if they had otherwise identical initiatives.

Am I the only one who misses this rule?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 16, 2002)

Whodat said:
			
		

> *Am I the only one who misses this rule?
> *




Brother!  I thought I was the only one!  *Breaks down in sobs of joy and relief*

Seriously yes, I do miss them.  I've given serious thought to adopting the following house rule:

You determine the speed factor of any weapon--which you apply as a negative modifier to your initiative when using that weapon--as follows:

Take the max damage the weapon can deal, not counting modifiers (like, say, strength).  So for a dagger it's 4, a longsword 8, a greatsword 12.

For every size category below medium, subtract 1.  For every size category above medium, add 1.  So for a dagger, you now have 2, for a longsword 8, for a greatsword 13.

Dive the result in half, round down.  For a dagger you have 1, a longsword 4, a greatsword 6.

Subtract the "plus" if the weapon is magic, to a minimum of 0.  Natural weapons have a delay of 0.

Congrats.  There's your speed factor.

And I realize that this maybe belongs in house rules, but it's a response to a comment here, darn it!!


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2002)

No, I don't miss them.  Sean K Reynolds has put the reasons why speed facotrs are silly for 3E rather well:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html


----------



## Zenon (Sep 16, 2002)

No, I really don't.

I never liked that a dagger wielder could perforate a polearm wielder due to weapon speed. They never took reach into account.

I guess we kind of did at the beginning of 3E, but along with THAC0, it's another thing I no longer even realize is gone.

[edit - Wow, just checked out the SKR link, looks like he's nailing it for the same reasons!]


----------



## Psion (Sep 16, 2002)

I did at first. Now, not so much.

At any rate, I do think weapon speed are okay IF you also take into account reach (there are some ignoramusses on RGFD that violently and irrationally oppose them regardless of how rationally they are approached.) Problem is that once you do that, weapon speed doesn't count for a whole lot and you are adding a whole bunch of detail to keep track of it.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 16, 2002)

Speed factors were in 1e too. Even Gygax didn't use speed factors; he said so on these boards. Go ask him about it on the thread at the top of the page.

I never used them either. Well, we tried 'em once, but nobody thought they added anything to the game.


----------



## Emiricol (Sep 16, 2002)

no


----------



## EricNoah (Sep 16, 2002)

If I were going to do it I would keep it really simple:  

Go by size of weapon (T, S, M, L, H, etc.) -- assign it an initiative bonus or penalty.  Probably put M at 0, each other category at 2 above or below that.  Make special rules for special weapons (maybe nunchuku is a little faster than other weapons its size).

But really, with the way initiative works in 3E, it only helps you in the first round.  To me it's not worth the effort.


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 16, 2002)

I certainly don't. Turn order is hard enough to keep track of as it is, even with static initiatives. -TG


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 16, 2002)

No, I don't.

What I do miss is first edition style weapon vs. armor bonus factors (and they'd be easier to calculate than even in third edition).  

I've put some rules together but never had a chance to use them to see if they were worth the trouble, but in 1st edition they were (IMO) essential if you wanted 1) anything like realism, and 2) people using anything but swords (especially two-handed ones).

I also think pole arms got shafted in third.


----------



## Maerdwyn (Sep 16, 2002)

Even in these days of the 6 second round, I still assumes that charcters make many attacks in one round, and that the ones you make a hit roll for are simply the best aimed of those attacks.  With that abstraction, speed factor isn't really necessary - multiple attacks by everyone  throughout the entire are happening; so while a dagger may get them more quickly, only the skill of the combatants affects how quickly and how often the well-placed attacks occur.


----------



## Vicegrip (Sep 16, 2002)

--Yeah, it's funny, I used to really worry about initiative when I thought about designing/evaluating games, but the fact is, in some cases it doesn't matter.
--In a gritty and realistic game, where every attack could be your last, then yeah, it matters.  However, in a game like DnD where fight will last many rounds, many blows will be struck, and there's no real deterioration due to wounds, initiative is pretty insignificant.  The only time it really used to matter is in spellcasting and interruption, and the AOO rules in DnD really kick the crap out of that problem IMO.


----------



## psionotic (Sep 16, 2002)

The death of weapon speeds and spellcasting segments is one of the many beautiful things about 3E, says I.


----------



## reiella (Sep 16, 2002)

SKR's rants the same, I actually like how the EQRPG handles weapon delay.  It determines rate of iterative attacks.  Prolly the most reasonable approach I've seen yet.  Standard delay is 5 (ie, the standard attack progression), delay four giving this +5/+1 progression type, etc.

Kind of neat.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 16, 2002)

No.  Weapon speeds always struck me as time-consuming and unrealistic.

Sean Reynolds' arguments against it, if anything, are too kind.


----------



## Dremen (Sep 16, 2002)

*NO!*

By just taking into account a weapons size is not a way to determine the speed factor.

example #1 : Most everybody here should be familliar with the William Walace Sword from the Braveheart movie. This great sword type was used more like a eastern martial artists Bo staff than a golf club. It was a very close range weapon where the guard, pomel, and blade were used for striking, blocks, parries etc. This was blindingly fast. The history channel even did a special where this was demonstrated.

example #2: A Bo Staff or Kwan Dao (Basically a big Chinese Glaive they use them in Big Trouble in Little China) These are both Large weapons than are moved VERY fast. Almost too fast to see.

Since WotC could not even get the weights of weapons right or even CLOSE to real useable weapons, where the information is readily available, heck Museum Replicas Catalog Lists the weights and their stuff tends to be on the heavy side. I would not trust Wizards to do the research on the way a weapon was used if they can't even get the weight of the weapon to be even somewhat close to reality. Rant mode off.

-D


----------



## Thanee (Sep 16, 2002)

The EverQuest d20 game has an interesting take on weapon speeds. Weapon delay is used to determine the iterative attacks from BAB there.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 16, 2002)

They made little sense originally (see SKR's comments) and even less sense in 3rd Edition. Glad to see the back of them.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2002)

*A thousand times...*

No.

I just played in an old ongoing 2nd Ed. game this weekend where we use individual initiative and weapon speed factors {in a nine player group}.

In my opinion, the DM provoked an attack of oppournity from all nine of us...


----------



## Nyarlathotep (Sep 16, 2002)

I'm one of the few strange ones I guess .
I really liked weapon speeds in 2nd Edition. My group and I felt that they were one of the few things that provided a difference between the various weapons (swords in particular). We also tried it with the Player's Options speed factors rules (or whatever it was called), but I was so disgusted with TSR by that point that we quit playing before I really got a chance to use them lots.

That said, I sure wouldn't want to use them in Third Edition. I've got enough to keep track of already without having to worry about speeds.


----------



## BluWolf (Sep 16, 2002)

I miss it about as much as I miss first edition is psionics.

Neither mechanic was EVER used in one of my games in over 20 years of gaming.

So, not really.


----------



## Vhane (Sep 16, 2002)

*Hold's side's from laughing*

I can die a happy man now. I've heard everything. The 1e weapon speed rules were quite good and useful, but 2e was a pale, difficult to use reflection. 

I'm kinda shocked anyone misses Weapon Speed. Why do you miss em?


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 16, 2002)

only for natural weapons. they need neither balanced, readied or grasped, and are completely instinctual.


----------



## Leopold (Sep 16, 2002)

*Re: A thousand times...*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *No.
> 
> I just played in an old ongoing 2nd Ed. game this weekend where we use individual initiative and weapon speed factors {in a nine player group}.
> 
> In my opinion, the DM provoked an attack of oppournity from all nine of us... *




and a thousand times over i agree with you...they sucked..


----------



## Whodat (Sep 17, 2002)

This weekend I was flipping through the new EQ RPG, and I ran across a similar (although not exact) system.

It gave me flashbacks to my old 2nd Edition campaign. I guess I must be waxing nostalgic. 

*sigh*


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 17, 2002)

Consigned to the ash-bin of history.

Thank the gods.


----------



## The Traveler (Sep 17, 2002)

The Everquest method bears promise, and is distributed in enough variety across their weapons that it'd be easy to swipe.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 17, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *I also think pole arms got shafted in third. *



Of course pole arms got shafted. That's the whole point of the pole arm - a long shaft with a bit of sharp metal on one end.

But seriously, 3e has made a pretty strong effort to keep weapons balanced. Let's compare the large martial melee weapons (which includes polearms). For starters, let's say that the "basic" large martial weapon does 1d10 damage, and either threatens a crit on 19-20 or does triple damage, and has these additional bonuses.
Falchion: 2d4 instead of 1d10, Crits on 18-20.
Heavy Flail: Bonus to disarms and trips.
Glaive: Reach.
Greataxe: 1d12 instead of 1d10.
Greatclub: Bad crits (20/x2). Officially sucky. Should be simple.
Greatsword: 2d6 instead of 1d10.
Guisarme: 2d4 instead of 1d10, reach, can be used to trip.
Halberd: Can be set versus charge.
Longspear: 1d8 instead of 1d10, reach, can be set versus charge.
Ranseur: 2d4 instead of 1d10, reach, can be used to disarm.
Scythe: 2d4 instead of 1d10, crit multiplier x4.

Looks pretty balanced to me.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Sep 17, 2002)

Nope. I much prefer reach as a mechanic. . . .


----------



## ForceUser (Sep 17, 2002)

I don't miss them because they added an unneccesary level of complexity to initiative rolls. A guy wielding a dagger should be wary of a guy with a poleaxe, no matter what. Chances are the PCs will be faster than many of their opponents, anyway, probably because several people I play with take the Improved Initiative feat with most of their characters.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Sep 17, 2002)

I really enjoy the third edition combat system "as is". I used to miss the weapon speed factors, but now I like it better without them. The game runs alot more fluidly without those annoying initiative counts that drag on into infinity. 3e tends to shave a good amount of latency off of the initiative count, which is fine by me!


----------



## JeffB (Sep 17, 2002)

I'm with the general concensus...don't miss em cos I never used em...needless extra complication that added little (IMO) to the game...But I won't begrudge anyone who does...whatever floats your boat, yaknow?


----------



## DarkCrisis (Sep 17, 2002)

I miss being able to play a knife fighter... in 3rd ed its pointless... I tried it once and the other players thought I was out of my mind and useless.


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 17, 2002)

I don't miss them. While they made sense from a "realism" stand point, I don't miss them BECAUSE they dragged out combat more than necessary. Right now, if you want a weapon speed thing, best chance would probably be with EQ. Myself, I prefer to keep things simple and save the complexities for my campaigns and other small tidbits.


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Sep 17, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *What I do miss is first edition style weapon vs. armor bonus factors (and they'd be easier to calculate than even in third edition). *




I was bored one day and converted a lot of the 1e tables into a more simple form that would probably work well in 3e--or any other version for that matter.

Instead of keeping the modifiers for each armour type from 2-10, I consolidated them into 4 categories--None, Light, Medium, and Heavy--and averaged the modifiers.

This eventually morphed into the current system I'm using in my Basic D&D campaign, where the damage die for a weapon is dependant upon the armour it is facing--sort of a compromise between the traditional D&D view of armour, and a bit of DR.

Example:

Weapon / None / Lt / Med / Hvy

Sword / d8 / d8 / d6 / d4 (fast)

Axe / d8 / d8 / d8 / d4 (average)

Mace / d6 / d6 / d6 / d6 (slow)

For _individual_ initiative, I've moved away from modifiers, and instead roll a different die depending upon the action or weapon used--high roll acts first.

Example:

Sword: d10

Axe: d8

Mace: d6

Spell: d6

Charge: d4 to d10, depending upon base move

Longbow: d6

Shortbow: d8

Crossbow: d10

Oh, I suppose I should mention that Daggers use the same initiative die as Swords, with the relative advantages of reach and speed cancelling each other out--though the sword-wielder will always strike first when closing.


----------



## Ace (Sep 17, 2002)

Whodat said:
			
		

> *
> In 2nd Edition there was an optional rule concerning "Speed Factors" for various weapons.
> 
> Am I the only one who misses this rule?
> *





*YES YOU ARE*   

**


----------



## Corinth (Sep 17, 2002)

Not only do I not miss them, I find EQ's revival of them offensive.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Sep 17, 2002)

I saw a rule in the House Rules forum months and months ago that seemed to work.

For every 5 lbs, impose a -1 penalty on initiative (while using that weapon).  This penalty can be offset (but not go into bonus) by the STR bonus.

Thus, someone wielding a 15lb weapon would have to have a STR of 16+ to not be slowed down by the weight.

It probably needs work, but that's a simple, already existing mechanic (I think it's used in armor check penalties, or something...  I don't own a PHB any more).


----------



## The Traveler (Sep 17, 2002)

Corinth said:
			
		

> *Not only do I not miss them, I find EQ's revival of them offensive. *



How messed up is it that you can find a game mechanic offensive?


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 17, 2002)

*nope*

dont miss them.  i like what they were attempting to do.. show how different weapons have different capabilities but i think it wasn't implimented well.

honestly, i'd be a lot happier if they just made weapon's damage based on class.

ie. simple do 1d6, martial do 1d8, exotic do 1-10 and two handed do 1-12.

why?

im just sick of the repetiviness that weapon damages do to fighters. no one uses polearms.  and they were damn good weapons.


joe b.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 17, 2002)

*What Makes A Two-Handed Sword Slow?*

If I point my five-foot-long greatsword right at you, and you've got a dagger, I'm so going to hit you first. You walk towards me, I've got five feet of sharp blade for you to get past before you get to swing your "speedy" dagger.

How is that slow? I don't have to wind the thing up behind my head for a minute and a half in order to threaten you with it. Just pointing it at you will do the trick.

Weapon speed is nonsense.


----------



## Humanophile (Sep 17, 2002)

They were all right in 2e, but in 3e, they're kind of pointless.

One of the nice things about 3e is the initiative rounds, which patch up some problems round-by-round based games get into while at the same time keeping things mostly simple.  Now if you were stuck using the same weapon each round, it might work, but there's too much room both for abuse and confusion in letting people change their initiative each pass.  If you want to use the optional "roll initiative each round" rules, be my guest to add weapon speeds, but I'd like them kept well out of the main book.

And while the EQ rules sound good in theory, in practice they miss the mark for several reasons.  First, as any 2e veteran knows, more attacks are almost always better.  (Leaving aside the two weapon fighting issue, the drawbacks of which wouldn't apply here.)  Be prepared for a great many knife fighters.  Second, watch as fighters swap weapons as their levels grow (fifth level fighters fight with daggers, sixth level with swords, and seventh with greataxes, f'rex).  While that's more variety than your average fighter has, it's still too metagamey for my tastes.  And finally, how would other speed-based influences apply?  I'd hate to see different rules say different things about dexterity, weapon speeds, and spells.  I'm a fan of keeping similar effects focused on one mechanic, as opposed to a 2e hodgepodge.


----------



## Pbartender (Sep 17, 2002)

The trouble with weapon speeds as modifiers to initiative, is what happens to your initiative when you swap weapons...

The kobold has an initiative of 15.
I have an inititive of 16.
However, I haven't yet drawn my longsword that provides a -2 encumbrance penalty to initiative.

I want to draw my longsword and attack the kobold, but who goes first?  When do I draw the sword?  When do I attack?

It's just more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 17, 2002)

*Re*

I don't miss weapon speeds, but I do wish they would have given weapons initiative modifiers. Made smaller or lighter weapons slightly faster than larger weapon and heavier weapons slightly slower weapons. this would have been reasonable in my opinion.

For example, use the longsword as a base initiative modifier of 0. Then give the shortsword an initiative modifier of +2 and the Greatsword a -2. Then everything else somewhere inbetween.

I didn't like the old weapon speed rules because it made no one want to use 2 handed weapons. A minor bonus for using smaller, quicker weapons I can understand, but a large discrepancy between weapon speeds like in second edition I cannot.


----------



## trickey (Sep 17, 2002)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *No, I don't miss them.  Sean K Reynolds has put the reasons why speed facotrs are silly for 3E rather well:
> 
> http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html *




Sean's two main points are as follows:

_Weapon Speed factor vs. Reach_: Sean says that weapon speeds are negated by reach, in essence the fact that the dagger is 'quicker' than a longsword is cancelled out by the added reach of the longword. I have two problems with this theory. First and foremost, there is already a mechanic in place to handle reach (the 'reach' designator on some weapons) that grants a specific advantage (the ability to hit opponents 10 feet away without entering the 5 foot area they threaten). Second, if you try and get detailed enough about the reach of weapons to say that it negates the weight or awkwardness of some weapons, you must consider that some weapons, especially lances and long spears, become *useless* if your opponent is right 'in your face'.

_Realism_ Sean goes into a lengthy set of examples trying to prove that the speed factors are unrealistic. IMO, he missed the point completely. Weapon speeds were, as far as I'm concerned, never intended to make combat more realistic. They are a game balance issue. Light, quick weapons usually have low damage potential, so to prevent everybody and their brother from walking around with greatswords, you give the lighter weapons a small advantage. This also makes things more fair for classes that can't use the 'big gun' weapons (though 3e makes this point almost moot with the exotic weapon feats) and the small sized races that can't weild the big, heavy weapons.  Sean's argument is well thought out and documented, but IMO it's trivial, since I don't feel that it addresses the proper points.

Sean also completely neglects to mention the issue of Weapon Speeds vs. Casting Times. IMO, this amount of balance is critical, and is a key reason I've put weapon speeds back in 3e. Why is it that the more potent spells take longer to cast (essentially a game balance issue, since although it makes sense that the big spells require more arcane energy to be channeled, which of course would take a bit longer, there is no serious way to say anything about 'realistic' spell casting) but the big weapons strike just as quickly as the small ones. 

I simply use the weapon speeds that 2e gave the various weapons, and subtract them from the character's (or monster's) initiative roll. This may not be the most realistic way to do things, but it achieves the game balance I'm looking for.

It is worth noting that I don't use 3e's cyclic initiative system either, simply because my group unanimously decided we prefer the old 'roll every round' method. Sure, it makes combat chaotic, but have you ever seen a fight that wasn't?


----------



## hong (Sep 17, 2002)

trickey said:
			
		

> *
> Second, if you try and get detailed enough about the reach of weapons to say that it negates the weight or awkwardness of some weapons, you must consider that some weapons, especially lances and long spears, become useless if your opponent is right 'in your face'.*




... Well, yes. Note what the threatened area of these weapons are in 3E.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 17, 2002)

*Re: nope*



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *im just sick of the repetiviness that weapon damages do to fighters. no one uses polearms.  and they were damn good weapons.*




Your experience seems atypical. I've seen many polearms used, both by PCs and NPCs. The advantages of reach are quite significant, and useful enough to make polearms very attractive as weapons, especially for individuals who gear their characters towards taking advantage of those benefits.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 17, 2002)

trickey said:
			
		

> *Light, quick weapons usually have low damage potential, so to prevent everybody and their brother from walking around with greatswords, you give the lighter weapons a small advantage.*





There are plenty of other reasons to use smaller, lighter weapons in 3e. You don't really need to add weapon speed for them to be attractive. Light weapons can be finessed. Light weapons weigh less (a consideration for individuals with abilities like Evasion that require light encumbrance). Light weapons are superior for two weapon fighting. Lighter weapons can be used with a shield (while greatswords and greataxes usually cannot). Many light weapons can be concealed if necessary. There is no need to add an artificial speed characteristic to encourage the use of light weapons.



> *This also makes things more fair for classes that can't use the 'big gun' weapons (though 3e makes this point almost moot with the exotic weapon feats)*




But this dilutes the power grnated _by_ the ability to use the big gun weapons. Classes that can use martial weapons are _supposed_ to be better off in physcal combat than classes that cannot. Giving an advantage to the simple weapons to 'offset' the benefits of the heavier martial weapons throws this off.



> *and the small sized races that can't weild the big, heavy weapons.*





Small races have other advantages that already make up for the fact that they cannot use the larger weapons: higher AC, better attack bonuses and so on. It is part of being Small sized that you cannot use heavy weapons as well, this is a trade-off of choices. Adding weapon speeds to make lighter weapons "better" throws off this balance and eliminates the trade-off aspects, essentially a Small character can have his cake and eat it too.



> *Sean's argument is well thought out and documented, but IMO it's trivial, since I don't feel that it addresses the proper points.*





Since your arguments in favor of weapons speeds generally seem to result in _throwing off_ game balance, I don't think your "weapon speeds are for game balance" argument holds water. If anything, weapon speeds are an anathema to game balance at worst, and game balance neutral at best.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 17, 2002)

trickey said:
			
		

> *Weapon Speed factor vs. Reach[/iFirst and foremost, there is already a mechanic in place to handle reach (the 'reach' designator on some weapons) that grants a specific advantage (the ability to hit opponents 10 feet away without entering the 5 foot area they threaten).  *



_

The game's current reach mechanic is for really, really long reach. Sean's point is that you'd have to deal with "reach" on a smaller scale - under 5 feet.  Do you want to start to have to start dealing with 1 foot increments of who can hit who?_


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 17, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> essentially a Small character can have his cake and eat it too.[/B]




I am in complete agreement with Storm Raven.  I think his argument is well-reasoned and agree with it.  But a minor pet peeve of mine: the phrase is 'eat your cake and have it, too'.  Makes more sense, that way. 


As to the issue of weapon speeds, this is already modeled in more esoteric fashions, with factors like damage, critical range, weight restrictions, and so forth.  Combat is a fairly complex applecart to upset for one aspect of verisimilitude.  Speed and reach are only two of the many things that *COULD* be modeled in 3E combat.  However, the designers opted for a streamlined system that works well in a timely fashion, rather than a highly convulted exercise in mathematical combat simulation.  For those who like that aspect, they're fine, I'm sure.  However, to me it seems too much work for too little benefit.  Combats can take quite a bit of time already...adding lots of extra calculations and new mechanics for a minor change doesn't enhance the fun, IMHO.


----------



## dead_radish (Sep 17, 2002)

DarkCrisis said:
			
		

> *I miss being able to play a knife fighter... in 3rd ed its pointless... I tried it once and the other players thought I was out of my mind and useless. *




Well, that really makes sense - have you ever seen someone with a knife go up against someone with a medium sized weapon?  All things being equal, the medium weapon is gonna win out.  Even if the sword fighter is slighly less agile, and a bit slower, they tend to win out.

I'd also argue you could still easily play a knife fighter - ftr 4/rog X.  Weapon focus/Spec. Dagger.  Weapon Finesse dagger.  Flanking, bluffing, tumbling, feinting.  Sneak attacks.

Just not as a pure fighter.


----------



## Corinth (Sep 17, 2002)

The Traveler said:
			
		

> *How messed up is it that you can find a game mechanic offensive? *



Weapon speeds rarely take into account how a weapon is actually used, thus providing a false result that adversely impacts the way that the game plays.  This makes the game suck, which means that it isn't fun, and I find that to be offensive.  Games shouldn't suck.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: nope*



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Your experience seems atypical. I've seen many polearms used, both by PCs and NPCs. The advantages of reach are quite significant, and useful enough to make polearms very attractive as weapons, especially for individuals who gear their characters towards taking advantage of those benefits. *




i've always seen polearms used as a first attack then drop and pull out a real weapon just because they cant be used at 5' and there's no way to prevent an opponant from closing to 5' with a polearm as there are in RL.

my experiences are always atypical  

joe b.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: nope*



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *i've always seen polearms used as a first attack then drop and pull out a real weapon just because they cant be used at 5' and there's no way to prevent an opponant from closing to 5' with a polearm as there are in RL.*




So, you can't take a 5' step to put yourself in position to use your polearm again? You can dictate the flow of the battle by positioning yourself in such a way as to not only be able to deal with your current opponent, but control the movement of other potential opponents.

Besides, among the most interesting uses I've seen for polearms are to trip (with a guisarme) or disarm (with a ranseur) your opponent or sunder his weapon (with a glaive usually) with your AoO when he closes. Kind of makes the fact that they have closed on you not that useful when they don't have their weapon. Those seem like good ways to stop your opponent from effectively closing to within 5'.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: nope*



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *i've always seen polearms used as a first attack then drop and pull out a real weapon just because they cant be used at 5' and there's no way to prevent an opponant from closing to 5' with a polearm as there are in RL.*



Yeah, I think there should be a feat to allow you to use a 10' reach weapon at 5' as well -- maybe a move-equivalent action to switch ranges. The idea that you can't, for example, use a naginata against someone right next to you is a little silly.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Sep 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: nope*



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> Yeah, I think there should be a feat to allow you to use a 10' reach weapon at 5' as well -- maybe a move-equivalent action to switch ranges. The idea that you can't, for example, use a naginata against someone right next to you is a little silly. *




Quintessential Monk has one, specifically to address the fact that most "eastern" style polearm forms (fe; Kwan-dao, Monk's Spade) are designed to teach the wielder to fight at both short and long range. 

I've also seen a few PrCs floating around that also give reach and close in fighting ability with polearm weapons. 

As to the original question: I'm SO glad that speed factors are gone. They were cludgy and just plain nonsensical. 

Making a dagger unilaterally "faster" than a longsword is silly, as it emphasizes only one factor of what makes a weapon speedy, the weight, while disregarding all the other factors; meaning length of blade, technique, etc.

A dagger fighter is still perfectly viable as a concept without the benefit of artificial speed increases. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## John Douglas (Feb 12, 2017)

I still play 3.5 (kind of 3.6 with all the adjustments I've made) and I use weapon, armour and size mods to an initiative. it's quite easy once you figure it out. It makes the game so much more interesting. The combat gains depth and it's not just the guy with highest dex who goes first every round although he still tends to have the lowest mod. d20 initiative die is way better than d10 was as well.


----------



## Blue (Feb 12, 2017)

I enjoyed those rules and if I was doing a crunchy combat-minigame RPG I'd have weapon recovery time as well as minimum reach be really important.

But for 5e I like how fast it runs, and I'm willing to sacrifice to keep it that way.


----------



## Salamandyr (Feb 14, 2017)

Umbran said:


> No, I don't miss them.  Sean K Reynolds has put the reasons why speed facotrs are silly for 3E rather well:
> 
> http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/weaponspeeds.html




blocked at work, so I can't verify, but if I recall this correctly, Sean K Reynolds buried speed factors first by misrepresenting how initiative worked in 2nd edition.  

Up until 3rd edition, intentions for a round were called _before_ initiative was rolled each round.  In that context, speed factors, reach, and other factors that you declare in your intentions, _completely_ make sense in affecting priority of action.

3rd Edition turns that on its head--not necessarily in a bad way; plenty of tables already let people declare their action at their turn in the initiative order.  But that was never RAW, and that house rule made a lot of things other than just speed factors not work correctly.

Myself, I like speed factors, though the more I learn about fighting with weapons, the more I learn that a lot of them weren't sensible.


----------



## Warmaster Horus (Feb 15, 2017)

Don't miss them in the slightest.  D&D is already an abstraction so why add something as arbitrary as perceived 'speed'?  This is fantasy combat, not EMMA.


----------



## TBeholder (Feb 15, 2017)

ColonelHardisson said:


> Speed factors were in 1e too. Even Gygax didn't use speed factors; he said so on these boards. Go ask him about it on the thread at the top of the page.



 Not "too", that's the only time Speed Factor could make sense.

The problem with Speed Factor is that usually it makes shorter weapons go before longer ones. Derp. Right?
It's not inherently nonsensical, however - it's _out of context_.
Common sense tells me Speed Factor _would_ be useful:
1) For determining surprise. E.g. if you drop out of invisibility and start swinging a poleaxe, the other guy is not very likely to be _still_ too flatfooted to dodge it by the time you'll go through with this - but shanking someone with a dagger is another matter entirely. Or
2) If it actually meant attacking more or less often (perhaps with caveats).
Indeed, it came from AD&D*1* - which had time quantization with "segments" smaller than "rounds" (which were retained, _along with turns_, despite being less than meaningful), allowing to have indeed different frequencies. But this approach _as implemented in AD&D1_ turned out to be an unholy mess and was ditched in AD&D2, while Speed Factor remained as an atavism.
Now, e.g. Hackmaster has continuous time too, and it uses weapon speed - but then, it doesn't have 3 arbitrary time units in the way, just seconds.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Feb 15, 2017)

TBeholder said:


> Not "too", that's the only time Speed Factor could make sense.




First, quoting someone 15 years later seems bizarre, but it happens.

Second, yes, "too," as the original poster cited them - speed factors - as being in 2e.  I was simply stating that speed factors were in 1e, also, regardless of which came first, because the poster was talking about 2e as his initial subject. I can't even recall if they were carried into 2e, as 2e was never my favorite edition.

The rest I can't speak to. It's been something like 35 years since I last bothered with speed factors.


----------



## TBeholder (Feb 15, 2017)

Arghdammit. Accidentally necromanced again. 

Next question: which games use weapon speed other than AD&D1, AD&D2 (in an atavistic way), EQ and Hackmaster?


----------



## happyhermit (Feb 15, 2017)

TBeholder said:


> Arghdammit. Accidentally necromanced again.
> 
> Next question: which games use weapon speed other than AD&D1, AD&D2 (in an atavistic way), EQ and Hackmaster?




5e provides the option in the DMG.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 16, 2017)

TBeholder said:


> Next question: which games use weapon speed other than AD&D1, AD&D2 (in an atavistic way), EQ and Hackmaster?



Well, in "Das Schwarze Auge" (The Dark Eye) weapons have an initivative modifier. The modifiers are meant to represent the combined effect of weapon speed and weapon length, though.

Apropos weapon length: This also seems to be an important factor in some RPG systems, probably more important than weapon speed (which is arguably harder to determine exactly).


----------



## Derren (Feb 16, 2017)

Weapon length should actually the deciding factor for an initative modifier instead of speed, with longer weapons going first. Simply to balance out the fact than in RPGs you usually can't kill anything in a single hit, yet the ability to get this killing it in before the enemy attacks was the entire point of longer weapons.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 17, 2017)

TBeholder said:


> Arghdammit. Accidentally necromanced again.
> 
> Next question: which games use weapon speed other than AD&D1, AD&D2 (in an atavistic way), EQ and Hackmaster?




Several other BRP derivatives use the same strike rank mechanic as ElfQuest, which includes a weapon speed factor.

ISTR that it was an option in a supplement for rolemaster.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 18, 2017)

Yes, I miss them.  But there is only so much complexity a system can absorb, and later editions of D&D have replaced that particular complexity with other forms of complexity.  I might put them into a cRPG engine in some form (along with weapon length, and weapon vs. AC or type of armor modifiers), but I can't justify putting them back in without taking something else more important out.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 18, 2017)

Derren said:


> Weapon length should actually the deciding factor for an initative modifier instead of speed, with longer weapons going first. Simply to balance out the fact than in RPGs you usually can't kill anything in a single hit, yet the ability to get this killing it in before the enemy attacks was the entire point of longer weapons.




On the first round of combat, weapon length did determine initiative (ok, I know, it's more complicated than that...).  Wieldiness only came up on later rounds.  

If I was going for maximum granularity, weapon length would determine initiative in the first round, and grant a bonus to active defense in later rounds - that bonus being negatable with a successful 'clinch' maneuver to close the distance.


----------

