Simple weapon speed idea

[Sutek]

I've always been bothered by the fact that weapon speed was dropped from the D&D game after second edition (Player's Option) and it hasn't resurfaced in any other 3.5 off-shoot. The concept was simply that weapons are heavy adn swinging them can be akward for all but the best warriors. However, even the old POD&D didn't account for character strength in opposition to weapon speed. Although speed had little to do with actual weight, it was more a question of a character's over-all body strength being capable of hefting the bulk of a weapon to attack appropriately each round. I think I've found a quick answer for doing it in Conan.

Weapon speed = STR mod - (Weapon AP value)

Initiative - Weapon Speed = Effective Inititive bonus

AP isn't necessarily the edge of a weapon slicing through layers of plate and mail, instead it is a representation of the weapon's ability to penetrate armor. This seems obvious, but most edged weapons have a lower AP than the Warhammer, so weapon edge has little to do with AP. Then what does AP derive from?

My guess is "physics".

Hafted weapons have higher AP than most because of the fulcrum action with which they are used to strike. A warrior heaves thier "action end" at the foe on the "load end" of what is essentially a long lever, accentuating the potential impact and being capable of chopping through things much more easily than a lighter weapon like a sword. A sword is a lever too, but it's length is shorter, achieving less momentum, but with the trade-off being that the are lighter (easier to carry and easier to wield more at once as a result).

What does all this yammering have to do with my Weapon Speed idea? Well, assuming that AP goes hand-in-hand with the whole weapon physics hypothesis (and I think I've shown it does) then this value can also relate to the bulk and mass of the weapon rather than a keen edge.

The upshot is this:

• Light weapons remain very easiliy wielded by weaker individuals, but can still slow very week people down. Chalk this up as a representation of complete combat ineffectiveness, because a mere +1 STR bonus will zero-out the Weapon Speed.
• Stronger individuals can freely wield any weapon without interfering with thier Initiative, but weaker individuals will have to rely on stealth or pre-planned Finesse attacks (ambushes?) to off-set Initiative penalties. This slightly hampers the brutal damage potential that Sneak Attacking can accomplish, but such characters also typically have a really high DEX and Initiative anyway.
• The simplicity of using AP doesn't slow down the game with a round-by-round calculation of Weapon Speed, nor does it invent a new value out of the blue. I trust that the designers had some aspect of physics in mind when arriving at weapon AP, so it seem a logical secondary function to have it equate to speed as well
• With a bit of extra explanation, it lends to a round-byround combat fatigue system where very strong fighters will suffer little and be able to fight for long periods of time, and weak fighters with feel drained after sustained rounds of combat

 

[Sutek]

The combat fatigue system is really just an extension of the load rules.

By looking at the Carrying Loads table on page 11AE, we can see that one of two penalties can be incurred: -3 for a medium load and -6 for a heavy load. This is based on the total weight carries and applies normally as a check penalty for skills, replacing the Armor Check penalty if it is higher.

So, checks can be affected by either load or armor.

Fatigue would be a factor of these versus Strength, and a simple derivition would be as follows:

Fatigue = Check penalty* + Weapon Speed + damage taken**

* from armor or load. If the character is strong, load will be less of an issue and weapon speed may be entirely negated.
** from either lethal or non-lethal sources

The value is tracked every round and is cumulative as Subdual Damage. Obviously, if the total is kept low (by wearing little armor or using lighter or faster weapons) then fatigue won't set in nearly as quickly. Since it counts as Subdual Damage, it can lend to characters becoming Staggered or Unconcious. Before either of those states occurs, Fatigue may set in (normally a -2 to STR and DEX and cannot chargte or run). If fatigue is positive, the character is fatigued. A simple FORT save as a free action with a DC = Fatigue will negate the effects, but if this save is ever failed, it cannot be reattempted. This means that and unarmored warrior using weapons that his Strength enables him to wield with no adverse Speed effects can fight indefinitely barring his taking damage.

Non-lethal damage collected through Fatigue is accrued and recovered normally.

 

[SableWyvern]

The biggest problem I have with most weapon speed systems is that they compeletely ignore, or fail to accurately implement, the more important factor, which is weapon length.

Being lightning quick with your dagger is next to useless if you are stuck outside the arc of your opponent's two-hander. Conversely, that two hander is next to useless while a dagger wielder is 6" from your face jabbing his sticker into your ribs. Initiative mods by weight/fulcrum/strength completely ignore these factors.

I have come across initiative systems that deal with this quite elegantly, but D&D has never been one of them. The combat system would need to be rebuilt almost from scratch to incorporate that.

So, in short, I'm no fan of adding weapon speed into Conan.

 

[Sutek]

Weapon length is handled under optional rules for parrying on page 150, and all it need is another simple tweak. Same bonus/penalty they apply for length to Parry, do the opposite with Dodge.

In other words a dagger (light) has a -2 penalty to a Parry attempt versus a greatsword (two size categories larger weapon), but the greatsword wielder would have a -2 Dodge defence versus the Dagger wielder, not to mention, with my Speed system, probably be attacking more slowly allowing the dagger-weilder to get a shot in first.

The rules for reach weapons don't really cover getting in close with a dagger anyway as they allow reach weapon weilders to parry attacks from adjacent squares. There should be a penalty, IMNSHO, but there isn't. Also, it doesn't address the greatsword/dagger disparity technique-wise anyway. One get's in very close and jabs, the other take wide swings at arm's length. It's the failing of the D20 grid system that combatants can't be closer than 5' to each other while in combat unless they are grappling. Pretty unrealistic.

 

[SableWyvern]

If the system you are proposing helps creates an enhanced feeling of realism, then obviously it is doing it's job (I get the impression that that is what you are after -- noting that "feeling of realism" is far more useful than "actual realism").

For the same reasons I express above, I don't like the listed parry mods for size though -- it fails to take into acount the advantage of short weapons at close range.

While applying inverse mods to Dodge helps prevent inequity, it still doesn't promote a better system, IMO. The problem here is the inference that dodge classes are better with shorter weapons, while parry classes are at a disadvantage. A trained soldier should be better than a thief with either (ignoring adantages from sneak attack, of course). It also leaves the Barbarian being much better able to defend himself with a dagger than a poleaxe.

Additionally, IMO, the greatsword wielder should pretty much always be getting the first swing -- the dagger wielder has no attack options until he has closed under the greatsword's effective arc. Allowing the dagger wielder an initial initiative adantage grates on my sense of versimilitude.

As such, I prefer to ignore such questions altogether (basically, taking your "Pretty unrealistic" comment, and embracing it as the true way of things within this game).

I'll leave my thoughts on the specifics of this matter at that -- obviously, your design goal here is simply one which doesn't suit my own tastes, so neither of us has much to gain by arguing the point. Good luck with this in any case, and I hope you get some more feedback from people on a similar wavelength. 8)

 

[Trodax]

Personally, I'm not a fan of having the weapon you wield influence initiative at all. It might be realistic, but it messes things up gamewise (IMHO, of course).
You get situations where you roll for initiative with one weapon, but then, when your turn comes up, decide to do to something entirely else than attack with that weapon. So what happens then, do you alter your initiative accordingly or what?
In another of my favorite games, Exalted, weapon speed/length is a huge factor in determining initative, and weird things often happens because of it. For example, the guy with the spear will always win initiative, and will therefore be able to move before anyone else. (Thankfully, a second edition of Exalted is soon coming out where they will ditch initiative entirely. )

Especially in d20, where initiative is cyclical (rolled once, and the same acting-order is then kept the entire combat), I don't really see a reason for adding weapon speed as a factor. Thing is, initiative isn't very important in d20, except to determine who acts first in the first round (when people are flat-footed). After that, you just keep taking turns acting, and there really isn't any advantage of going "first". So the only effect you'd get from adding weapon speed is to alter who gets to take advantage of the opponents flat-footedness in the first round. I can see sneak attackers (with light and fast weapons) becoming more powerful with this system...

I personally think how initiative is handled in d20 is one of the best things with the entire system (roll only once per combat - I love it! ), and wouldn't really want to change it at all. Of course, its your game and you can run it as you like (needless comment!). I guess it pretty much boils down to what you value most; that the rules be realistic, or that they function smoothly as a game.

Weapon speed = STR mod - (Weapon AP value)

Initiative - Weapon Speed = Effective Inititive bonus

Nitpick: something has to be changed here, or you'd get heavy weapons acting before light ones...
So, either;
Speed = AP - Str
or
Initiative + Speed = Effective Initiative Bonus

Also, would you only apply speed if it becomes a negative factor (AP higher than Str), or would you allow a high Strength character with a dagger to get a bonus to initiative?

 

[argo]

Weapon Speed in d20 is a bad, bad idea. It may work in other systems, but in d20 it crosses a line where "realism" just makes for more headaches than game benefits.

Besides which, it isn't logical within the framework of the d20 rules. A single attack may or may not represent a single swing of a weapon. There is already no reason why a successfull attack with a dagger can't be described as multiple quick stabs and cuts. That level of detail is abstracted out.

And there are already plenty of mechanical advantages to attract people to lighter weapons over heavier weapons. Light weapons can be finessed, are smaller and therefore more easily concealed and many of them can be thrown.

Plus it doesn't take weapon reach into account. (I agree with Sable Wyvern, defense modifiers for weapon reach are not the way to go. Both reach and weapon speed ought to be left as abstract).

So much for weapon speed. Now, concerning your fatigue rule. You do realize that a character becomes unconscious when his subdual damage exceeds his current hit points, right? But you claculate fatigue as = check penalty + weapon speed + damage taken That means that under your proposed system, a person with 19 HP who takes 10 points of regular damage (and is unarmored and not carrying a weapon) immediately falls unconscious (current subdual damage = 10 and current HP = 9). :shock:

I think that some system which incorporates fatigue for wearing armor is worth investigating, but not one that deals subdual damage. Armor is supposed to extend your combat endurance (ie. your HP) not reduce it. I'll admit I've toyed with this idea some but so far have not come up with any satisfactory results.

Hope that helps.

 

[geordiekimbo]

I've been having a think, and I can appreciate that some posters are concerned that some weapons gain an advantage over others.

I've just thought of this one, maybe you could try this:

Once all attacks are sucessful the character/NPC who scored highest over his opponent is deemed to have the higher ground in the fight (he's moved to an area where his weapon is most effective-near in close for a dagger, a few feet away for a spearman etc). That combatant immediately gets an attack of opportunity to reflect that advantage.

 

[Bregales]

I've been having a think, and I can appreciate that some posters are concerned that some weapons gain an advantage over others.

I've just thought of this one, maybe you could try this:

Once all attacks are sucessful the character/NPC who scored highest over his opponent is deemed to have the higher ground in the fight (he's moved to an area where his weapon is most effective-near in close for a dagger, a few feet away for a spearman etc). That combatant immediately gets an attack of opportunity to reflect that advantage.

This idea poses several problems. For one thing, one attack can always debilitate/kill an opponent (i.e. massive damage), so that the opponent gets no reaction attack if he had lower Initiative. Also, what if the guy just killed had the highest score? Would you rate Attack roll or Damage dealt?

Anyway, the King Arthur Pendragon game (formerly Green Knight Publishing) had a simplified combat system where each opponent involved against each other in a battle rolls their opposed d20 combat rolls at the same time, and the roll which is closest to or equals a critical (higher total always wins) is the ONLY one who scores a hit in that round of combat, and rolls his damage against whatever he swung at. This sounds like what you're proposing. I enjoy many aspects of Pendragon, but don't think that methodology of combat necessarily works in this game basis.

Respectfully yours - Bregales

 

[Bregales]

I've always been bothered by the fact that weapon speed was dropped from the D&D game after second edition (Player's Option) and it hasn't resurfaced in any other 3.5 off-shoot. The concept was simply that weapons are heavy adn swinging them can be akward for all but the best warriors. However, even the old POD&D didn't account for character strength in opposition to weapon speed. Although speed had little to do with actual weight, it was more a question of a character's over-all body strength being capable of hefting the bulk of a weapon to attack appropriately each round. I think I've found a quick answer for doing it in Conan.

I must admit I've wondered about weapon speeds myself for this game, although I decided not to implement anything for simplicity's sake. The AD&D 1st edition had a speed value of 1-10, with a daggar for example having a 1 and I think a pike or halbard had a 10 (I made a maul in honor of the Thorgrim character in the first Conan movie that weighed like a ton and had a speed of 10).

Weapon speed = STR mod - (Weapon AP value)

Initiative - Weapon Speed = Effective Inititive bonus

AP isn't necessarily the edge of a weapon slicing through layers of plate and mail, instead it is a representation of the weapon's ability to penetrate armor. This seems obvious, but most edged weapons have a lower AP than the Warhammer, so weapon edge has little to do with AP. Then what does AP derive from?

My guess is "physics".

Hafted weapons have higher AP than most because of the fulcrum action with which they are used to strike. A warrior heaves thier "action end" at the foe on the "load end" of what is essentially a long lever, accentuating the potential impact and being capable of chopping through things much more easily than a lighter weapon like a sword. A sword is a lever too, but it's length is shorter, achieving less momentum, but with the trade-off being that the are lighter (easier to carry and easier to wield more at once as a result).

What does all this yammering have to do with my Weapon Speed idea? Well, assuming that AP goes hand-in-hand with the whole weapon physics hypothesis (and I think I've shown it does) then this value can also relate to the bulk and mass of the weapon rather than a keen edge.

The upshot is this:

• Light weapons remain very easiliy wielded by weaker individuals, but can still slow very week people down. Chalk this up as a representation of complete combat ineffectiveness, because a mere +1 STR bonus will zero-out the Weapon Speed.
• Stronger individuals can freely wield any weapon without interfering with thier Initiative, but weaker individuals will have to rely on stealth or pre-planned Finesse attacks (ambushes?) to off-set Initiative penalties. This slightly hampers the brutal damage potential that Sneak Attacking can accomplish, but such characters also typically have a really high DEX and Initiative anyway.
• The simplicity of using AP doesn't slow down the game with a round-by-round calculation of Weapon Speed, nor does it invent a new value out of the blue. I trust that the designers had some aspect of physics in mind when arriving at weapon AP, so it seem a logical secondary function to have it equate to speed as well
• With a bit of extra explanation, it lends to a round-byround combat fatigue system where very strong fighters will suffer little and be able to fight for long periods of time, and weak fighters with feel drained after sustained rounds of combat

These points are well thought out, but in pure game terms they can actually slow the combat system down, which may be why I didn't implement such a system myself :?: For fatigue, again referring to the Pendragon rpg: they have a whole set of rules for fatigue based on the Arthurian stories, but they're based not only on combat rounds and damage taken (real and subdual) but are influenced by character Size, Strength, and Constitution, to which lengths you're not going here, and I think it can complicate things. Simply put, hit points represent character will to succeed, experience in the world and actual stamina, and variable combat rules using fatigue can potential debilitate the guy w/ more hit points in a variety of ways, as has been responded to already.

Now the best evidence supporting your desire for weapon speed could be drawn from one of my favorite stories, "The God in the Bowl" but note the speed Conan moves compared to-yes, bills, but also against the crossbow and short sword, as sell as against the god thing anyways! While Howard references infers that bills are slower weapons to move, he also notes how Conan moves w/ supernatural speed against even unarmed (dis-armed :twisted: ) foes. In general, the Initiative modifiers and feats affecting initiative and encumberance affecting movement have already been created for version 3.x to account in (simplified terms) for when things happen and how much movement can be taken.

I remember in 1st ed and I think 2nd ed AD&D rolling very high initiatives and not going until like a 30 due to my bastard sword, and mumbling "I go sometime next year." You and the players WILL have to keep track of whenever a weapon is dropped, since the INITIATIVE DIE ROLL stays the same throughout combat, but you'll have to re-factor every time a weapon is swapped/dropped/SUNDERED? Consider situational rules for a sundered sword: is it now 2 size categories difference, does it move more quickly as a dagger length blade or short sword length? Do you use OGL 3.0 weapon sizes to re-calculate damage vs. size of creatures?

Trust me, I loved the idea you presented, but the rules taken from 3.x game system were made to simplify what was a kinda messy process in earlier AD&D systems, and while the system is riddled with rules anyways, the compromise the game uses works fairly well enough. What I do is just go with the initiatives that everyone rolls, and as GM give narrative description "with a tigerish burst of speed Tiberius lashed out, and only as the guard choked and blood spurted from his neck do you realize how quickly the Aquilonian thief drew daggar and made a cut at his foe" - using standard rules' initiative and adding my own storytelling-or encouraging the players-to describe the scene.

Hope this helps.

 

[Sutek]

The truly simplest thing to do, now that I think about it more, would be to have all two-handed weapons have some bearing on Initiative count.

• Two-handed simple weapons will strike last in a given initiative count if there is a tie.
• Two-handed martial weapons are at -2 Initiative.
• Two-handed exotic weapons are at -4 Initiative.
• Two-handed Akbitanan weapons only suffer a -2 penalty for two-handed exotic weapons.
• Since bows require two hands to use, they also suffer the Initiatve penalties above, but this can be mitigated if the archer is able to ambush or otherwise have his bow ready for firing prior to the start of combat.

This way, Improved Initiative negates the exotic penalty, netting zero. That's also a typical bonus/penalty progression.

I'd also advocate the following co-opted from the Stargate SG-1 rules:

Aiming:
For each round spent aiming a projectile weapon, the weilder gains a +2 Initiative count modifier the round he does so. This bonus can be regained in subsequent rounds and requires a Move Action or equivalent (due to a feat allowing a move action as a free action, for example).

 

[Bregales]

The truly simplest thing to do, now that I think about it more, would be to have all two-handed weapons have some bearing on Initiative count.

• Two-handed simple weapons will strike last in a given initiative count if there is a tie.
• Two-handed martial weapons are at -2 Initiative.
• Two-handed exotic weapons are at -4 Initiative.
• Two-handed Akbitanan weapons only suffer a -2 penalty for two-handed exotic weapons.
• Since bows require two hands to use, they also suffer the Initiatve penalties above, but this can be mitigated if the archer is able to ambush or otherwise have his bow ready for firing prior to the start of combat.

This way, Improved Initiative negates the exotic penalty, netting zero. That's also a typical bonus/penalty progression.

This sounds feasible. I'm working on a report at work, so haven't studied this ( :lol: ), but it looks much better.

I'd also advocate the following co-opted from the Stargate SG-1 rules:

Aiming:
For each round spent aiming a projectile weapon, the weilder gains a +2 Initiative count modifier the round he does so. This bonus can be regained in subsequent rounds and requires a Move Action or equivalent (due to a feat allowing a move action as a free action, for example).

I don't think the way we do this is a house rules, but I'm sure there are bonuses (w/ limit) to aiming for a round or more. As for initiative, your initiative becomes fractionally higher than your target, as per HOLDING YOUR ACTION (e.g., "I'm holding until someone barges through the door." If the first person/monster/thing barges through a door on initiative 14 and the shooter was waiting through the rest of the round in which he stated his round [if he went lower than 14] or if he went higher than 14, his initiative was now dropped to 14+ (or 15 for simplicity's sake). That's how we do it. I think it's valid by SRD.

 

[Sutek]

In the scenario you describe, the "hold action" develops into a surprise round. You say to hold unti lsomeone barges through the door and then when they do you get a free attack round, then initiative order starts.

What happens in the Stargate RPG is what they refer to as Fluid Initiative and every round the count changes depending on what's going on. You elect to stay put and aim, that adds +2 to your INIT in the subsequent round. But, you're commited to a target, so that's the drawback. You also lose INIT for passing a save versus blast damage (-2) or if one's speed is reduced due to terrain (-1). One round you could be aiming, the next, avoiding a blast. You INIT count could go from a 17 on the roll, 19 because of the aim, then 18 after the passed save. It's cool.

What I'd allow was for someone to hold a knocked arrow up to a number of rounds determined by his STR. If target's come through the door, that's the "activator" and he must fire, because that's what he said he was doing: wait to fire unti lsomeone barges through that door. He then gets he shot in a surprise round, out of INIT sequence, so that emulates that he was set and ready.

 

[geordiekimbo]

I quite the idea of an initiative penalty for large and/or two handed weapons.

0 modifier for weapons smaller size than the user
-1 for weapons of equal size to the user
-2 for weapons of one size greater than the user
-3 for those two sizes greater etc
with the additional modifier:
-1 additional for one handed weapons that are wielded two handed

weapons that have reach (spears, pikes etc.) have no penalty to initiative in the first round of a combat, and those that are set to receive a charge also have no penalty to initiative when the charge is met, and then switch to the new initiative in subsequent rounds.

I think this is reasonably easy to remember and allows the possibility of a feat to be created that allows a user to strike without an initiative penalty, or perhaps allow feats or racial bonuses that grant a bonus to hit also add the same bonus to initiative.

Maybe?

 

[Sutek]

The problem is that "equal size to the user" doesn't mean much in Conan because everyone is going to be of average human size. Even a two-handed greatsword is going to be smaller than the person weilding it.

You also can't take into account stuff like "held action" or "set spear for charge" because, by the way the initiative mechanic already works, those activities result in a surprise round that occurs before the initiative count gets under way. Reach is a minor way of pre-empting initiative already because it allows AoOs at the effective reach of the weapon, sort of sticking an out of turn attack in b y virtue of it's length.

What I'm trying to create is a mechanic based on the mass/bulk of the weapons in question. If it's meant to be two-handed, therefore, I am reasoning that it would also be somewhat more cumbersome. Reaction time with such a weapon slows the weilder down slightly as the combat ensues, not because of surprise. Even someone with a two-handed greatsword that pulls off a good ambush will get to attack first in a surprise round, then act in initiative order in subsequent rounds.

The -1 INIT for one handed weapons weilded two-handed just doesn't make sense to me at all. Not sure where you're going with that. :?

You have to think of INIT as being an abstract arrangement of who has the drop on whom and not "everyone is going this fast". It has nothing to do with speed. It has to do with nibleness: Dexterity. Further, because it has to do with DEX, Strength doesn't enter into it, so bulky, massive weapons should impede INIT counts. I started off thinking actual mass (weight) was the way to tackle the problem, but that invoved STR in the mechanic. That got too complicated.

With this last iteration, I was worried about the lumbering nasty with the two-handed maul being felled early in combat, but every movie or book that I've read where that scene takes place has him enter the combat after a buch of other shmucks have already dropped, meaning later in INIT order behind a sceen of chumps.

I'd also add that this latest version bumps the emphasis of preemptive archery up a notch or two. If you can set up a good spot to shoot from, get the surprise round and aiming every other round thereafter, couple that with Ranged Finesse makes the one or two shots you get each round really much more potent.

 

[Feuerbart]

I have always disliked weapon speed beeing removed from the game since 3rd E, but as stated above I think its causing much calculating within the initiative order if you change your weapons etc.

After a discussion of this topic with some friends I had an idea (but so far I didn't have the opportunity to test it):

Instead of changing the initative for heavier oder lighter weapons, change a character's ability to attack more often.


(a) If you wield a light weapon (in relation to your size, of course) you get an extra attack for every +5 BAB.

(b) If you wield a one-handed weapon you get an extra attack for every +6 BAB (just as the rules say).

(c) If you wield a two-handed weapon you get an extra attack for every +7 BAB.


For example:
A level 20 soldier is wielding a dagger (a), a broad sword (b) or a greatsword (c). His attacks would be as follows (not including STR or other mods):

(a) +20 / +16 / +12 / +8 / +4

(b) +20 / +15 / +10 / +5

(c) +20 / +14 / +8 / +2


As I said, I didn't have the opportunity to test it yet, but I would appreciate any comments on this idea.

 

[geordiekimbo]

The problem is that "equal size to the user" doesn't mean much in Conan because everyone is going to be of average human size. Even a two-handed greatsword is going to be smaller than the person weilding it.

A Dagger is Tiny, A Broadsword-medium, A Greatsword-large etc..is what I meant.

Forget about the rest it was just an idea I was bandying forth. The more ideas get put out the more people have to work with.

 

[Bregales]

In the scenario you describe, the "hold action" develops into a surprise round. You say to hold unti lsomeone barges through the door and then when they do you get a free attack round, then initiative order starts.

What happens in the Stargate RPG is what they refer to as Fluid Initiative and every round the count changes depending on what's going on. You elect to stay put and aim, that adds +2 to your INIT in the subsequent round. But, you're commited to a target, so that's the drawback. You also lose INIT for passing a save versus blast damage (-2) or if one's speed is reduced due to terrain (-1). One round you could be aiming, the next, avoiding a blast. You INIT count could go from a 17 on the roll, 19 because of the aim, then 18 after the passed save. It's cool.

Oh, sorry. I've had a bad cold & fever this week so 'thinking' is kinda hard. :lol: I suppose it was a bad example. You're right, that does sound like surprise, but there are instances when the door-busting goons know you're inside, so they're not caught unawares. My example is kinda messy 'cause GM decides whether door-busting goon is flat-footed when you shoot your arrow (surprised) or not surprised, in which case all participants use full-round actions instead of single move or std. action as per surprise. I was gonna go into another example, but better not since me head's all stuffed up. :? Then it becomes a question of initiative order, as you're flat-footed until your first go on the first round of combat.

What I'd allow was for someone to hold a knocked arrow up to a number of rounds determined by his STR. If target's come through the door, that's the "activator" and he must fire, because that's what he said he was doing: wait to fire unti lsomeone barges through that door. He then gets he shot in a surprise round, out of INIT sequence, so that emulates that he was set and ready.

You know, that sounds like how we would do things (I think). I believe in OGL terms there's a cap to how much of a bonus you can take, but my concentration's bad now so I'm not even bothering looking it up till I recover somewhat. But after so many rounds, you only get a certain plus to hit for aiming. Just can't recall it offhand.

 

[Sutek]

Strength Bows work totally differently in D&D3.5, as far as I remember, but I'll check. Using STR as a number of rounds that you can hold a shot is a long time, and STR bonus is probably better. I'll dig around later.

 

[Trodax]

Instead of changing the initative for heavier oder lighter weapons, change a character's ability to attack more often.

(a) If you wield a light weapon (in relation to your size, of course) you get an extra attack for every +5 BAB.

(b) If you wield a one-handed weapon you get an extra attack for every +6 BAB (just as the rules say).

(c) If you wield a two-handed weapon you get an extra attack for every +7 BAB.

Feuerbart, thats not a bad idea. By this method, light weapons are faster in the sense that they can attack more often, which they can't if they instead modify Initiative (the number of attacks over time will be exactly the same).
As I said on the first page of this thread, I think having weapon type modify Initiative is a really bad idea; it will overcomplicate things and not really achieve much. Feuerbarts idea might work more smoothly, though, although it does create the perhaps weird thing that weapon speed only becomes a factor for high level characters and also only when taking the full-attack action.

Of course, I wouldn't use it myself, since I think the rules are excellent as they are.