Weapon Initiative Mod

[Sutek]

That Sean K Renyolds guy may have a "classic rant" to hang on his wall, but it is totally based on false assumptions. His arguments diverge from what Weapon SPeed tries to accomplish by developing a smoke screen of flawed logic that doesn't accurately even confront the issue. Instead he dodges the concept by making up factors that don't have anything to do with what Initiative actually is in D20.

Right off the bat, his premise is off target by suggesting that weapons speed is being suggested by people that think that characters armed with daggers "should be able to attack with it more quickly and more often than someone using a larger weapon." That's not true. At a better INIT count, yes. Faster and more opften? Not at all.

He goes on to his "Faster?" point, which he quickly pats himself on the back for, and never mentions INIT. Why? Because he isn't interested in discussin weapon speed and INIT, he just wants to go down in internet rant history. He continues with assuming arbitrary INIT bonuses in the "Flat Inititative Modifiers" and then claims that the make for an odd result when someone switches weapons later during that combat. No...really? If you just pull numbers out of your butt and try to apply them to the game mechanics, it doesn't work out very well? His final traipse into sliding INIT and modifying itterative attacks suddenly forgets that we're talking about INTI here, and not "rate of fire" or attack bonuses or something.

As the rules are written now, I can have an INIT=+6 and go from picking a lock to full on sword fighting with the same INIT count. How's that different to his problem with "start witha dagger, switch to an axe"? He makes a lot of assumptions about how Weapon Speed would be constructed as a set of rules and then tells us that it doesn't work based on those assumptions. Yabbering on about "draws a dagger, but then draws his axe" as somehow messing things up. In the RAW, changing actions doesn't alter INIT count and there's no mention of that. Why is a problem for him once someone says the words "weapon speed" adn where does he get his diabolical "+4 dagger speed" from, exactly?

INIT is a first round gimmick to determine combat order. If you're lucky, you get to go first. Your own INIT value can modify that luck to a degree, but it makes sense to have that luck modified by other things too.

However if you want to note a distinction in "speed" between dagger and greatsword then it is only fair (and logical) to note the equally obvious difference in reach. And in that case why not say "the speed advantage balances the reach advantage" and call it quits?

Either I just dont'get what point your trying to make or this has gone into "apples vs. oranges" again.

I'm talking rules. First off, a dagger has no Reach and neither does a Greatsword. In the game, they are both close-in melee weapons with a Reach of 5-Feet. That doesn't change the fact that a Greatswords is clearly bigger, even without reach, and bulkier, as indicated by it's greater weight than a dagger. This is where INIT adjustments, or the desire for them, springs from. Daggers are small and Greatswords are big, so people with Greatswords ought not be as quick off the mark with a Greatsword as with a dagger.

But my point was that weapon length isn't tied with weapon quickness or effectiveness, either in the game rules as is, in real life martial combat, or in any potential weapon speed rule that someone might come up with. As is, length equals Reach and that's all - either you've got Reach or you don't. In real world combat, weapons have different specific characteristics that would be fairly tedious to emulate in an RPG that make use of certain weapons unique. In these weapon speed rules we're discussing, all it's meant to do is alter INITIATIVE, which is purely a means of determining who can act in what order of a combat. Weapon Speed as envisioned by me, and I think the original poster of this thread, should only serve to affect combat order, which is a mechanic that doesn't exist in reality. It's nearly down to lucknow as it is, and tossing in a few adjustments that amplify or reduce that turn-order mechnic are actually fitted into the pre-existing D20 combat system very easily.

IMX just about anybody with any kind of martial experience at all thinks that reach is a huge deal. You can't deny that the ability to hit the other guy at a longer distance than he can hit you is a natural advantage, even if it is possible for a skilled fighter to negate that advantage or even turn it against his opponent.

I don't deny that, but we aren't talking about that either, and we definitely aren't talking about anybody's real martial fighting experience. We're talking about...let's stop calling it "Weapon Speed" and start calling it "Weapon Inititative Modifier". That's what I'm driving at, and I think "speed" is confusing the issue and forcing people to think in terms of multiple attacks and "daggers are faster then poleaxes" and all that. Every time rules discussion break down into what happens in real life it makes me crazy; it's the first sign that noone is paying attention to what's actually being said anymore.

But once again... this level of detail is a headache to design game mechanics around and pain in the ass to GM on game day. And d20, which was deliberately designed to handle abstract combat, does not do well in this area. If this kind of combat really is your zen (and for some folks it is) then by all means, I encourage you to find one of many systems better suited to handle this sort of thing.

How hard is it to handle a -2 or a -4 to your INIT because you have a certain type of weapon? Heck, I'd even advocate doing the same to armor - translate it from max DEX somehow. If you have on full plate, a shield and a huge axe, your INIT should be worse than an unencumbered Thief with a couple of daggers! Right?

Reach is the benefit to have an extended range at which you can make attacks of opportunity. There's already a rule that governs weapon length right there, and it's existance would off-set any negative weapon initiative modifier that Reach weapons might have assigned to them. In that case, weapon inititative mods would increase the viability of Reach somewhat.

Now, I would say that it might be a mistake (not to mention being overly complicated) to apply a "weapon speed factor" to every weapon listed. I still suggest the usual -2 or -4 penalty to INIT only be applied to 2-handers and 2-hand exotics, as I mentioned above.

Here my idea again, just to be clear:

• 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.
• Bows are Two-handed, and so suffer the penalties above. However, the weilder can gain a +2 INIT bonus for choosing to aim cumulatively, up to STR bonus number of rounds.

I'm not talking real life, and I'm not suggesting weapon length be factored in. Just a simple penalty depending on the weapon classes that tend to have larger, bulkier weapons in them.

I'll look into armor mods tomorrow.

 

[argo]

That Sean K Renyolds guy may have a "classic rant" to hang on his wall, but it is totally based on false assumptions.

Well, you do realize that that "guy" is one of the designers of the d20 system yes? And his rant isn't really "based on false assumptions" rather he poses several possible alternative systems for implementing "weapon speed" and then points out some of the problems with the concept.

Of course his rant isn't going to address your specific proposal, however it is still instructive because some of the basic concepts remain the same and they transfer to your propoal.

Right off the bat, his premise is off target by suggesting that weapons speed is being suggested by people that think that characters armed with daggers "should be able to attack with it more quickly and more often than someone using a larger weapon." That's not true. At a better INIT count, yes. Faster and more opften? Not at all.

Hold on just a second here. Yea, INIT is a game mechanic, and yea game mechanics do not translate directly to real life. But they dont exist in a vacume either. INIT is the game mechanic designed to represent "speed". Thats its job, thats what it does.

So if you are not arguing that smaller weapons let you attack more quickly/often.... then why are you arguing for a modifier to INIT :?

This doesn't make sense.

However if you want to note a distinction in "speed" between dagger and greatsword then it is only fair (and logical) to note the equally obvious difference in reach. And in that case why not say "the speed advantage balances the reach advantage" and call it quits?

Either I just dont'get what point your trying to make or this has gone into "apples vs. oranges" again.

I'm talking rules. First off, a dagger has no Reach and neither does a Greatsword. In the game, they are both close-in melee weapons with a Reach of 5-Feet. That doesn't change the fact that a Greatswords is clearly bigger, even without reach, and bulkier, as indicated by it's greater weight than a dagger.

Which is exactly the point. As it stands now the system ignores the size difference between a dagger and a greatsword - both for reach and for "speed". So if you want to give the greatsowrd a penalty to INIT then it is only logical (and fair) that he gets some sort of bonus to represent his reach advantage. So now you need to design another system.

And both issues are boring and don't add much fun to the game. So why not say they cancel each other out and call it a day?

But once again... this level of detail is a headache to design game mechanics around and pain in the ass to GM on game day. And d20, which was deliberately designed to handle abstract combat, does not do well in this area. If this kind of combat really is your zen (and for some folks it is) then by all means, I encourage you to find one of many systems better suited to handle this sort of thing.

How hard is it to handle a -2 or a -4 to your INIT because you have a certain type of weapon?

Perhaps you didn't read the first page of this thread (or SKR's rant) where all the problems inherent in this are brougth up.

Now, I would say that it might be a mistake (not to mention being overly complicated) to apply a "weapon speed factor" to every weapon listed. I still suggest the usual -2 or -4 penalty to INIT only be applied to 2-handers and 2-hand exotics, as I mentioned above.

Here my idea again, just to be clear:

• 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.
• Bows are Two-handed, and so suffer the penalties above. However, the weilder can gain a +2 INIT bonus for choosing to aim cumulatively, up to STR bonus number of rounds.

OK, once again. Since you say that you don't see why this sort of thing is "hard to handle" and we will use your system so we don't hear any complaints about daggers :wink:

Say that Bob and Steve are going to fight. Bob is holding a greatsword (two handed exotic, -4 INIT) and Steve has a greatsword sheathed on his back.

They both roll a 10 for INIT (imagine they have no other modifiers)
Bob has 10-4 = 6
Steve has 10, he goes first

Steve draws his greatsword from his back and attacks Bob.

WTF! :shock:

Why does Steve get to attack first? Bob had his sword out and in his hand and he is slower?!

Once again, read the first page and the SRK rant another time. Weapon speed in d20 is filled with these sort of WTF moments.

Later.

 

[Sutek]

Yea, INIT is a game mechanic, and yea game mechanics do not translate directly to real life. But they dont exist in a vacume either. INIT is the game mechanic designed to represent "speed". Thats its job, thats what it does.

So if you are not arguing that smaller weapons let you attack more quickly/often.... then why are you arguing for a modifier to INIT :?

This doesn't make sense.

That's because you're operating under the same false premise. INIT isn't Speed. It's combat reaction order. That's all. If it were Speed it would be based off Move rate. It isn't. It's based off of DEX and Class Reflex to make it a general representation of nibleness. It's there solely to provide an order to combats so that things don't get utterly confusing, not to suggest that Character A is "faster than" Character B. A could have a +8 INIT rolling a 3 on his D20 and B a +2 rolling a 20. If A were truly "faster" or have better speed, then he couldn't possibly ever go slower than B, but he just did. INIT isn't a measure of Speed; Movem rate handles that in combat and affords characters to reposition on the grid. Itterative attacks represent "more attacks", but really it's just a way of increasing attack effectiveness - it's not really 3 swings when you're +11/+6/+1; you're just more effective at successfully hitting in the limited 1-20 range, increased beyond that range by granting more rolls to hit. It's game mechanics theory in action.

How hard is it to handle a -2 or a -4 to your INIT because you have a certain type of weapon?

Perhaps you didn't read the first page of this thread (or SKR's rant) where all the problems inherent in this are brougth up.

No, I read it. I don't think it applies...or in other words, he's wrong. The "problems" are based on assumptions of daggers getting +4 and swords +0, pole arms -4....whatever. But I'll respond better below, because you go back to this same issue.

Say that Bob and Steve are going to fight. Bob is holding a greatsword (two handed exotic, -4 INIT) and Steve has a greatsword sheathed on his back.

They both roll a 10 for INIT (imagine they have no other modifiers)
Bob has 10-4 = 6
Steve has 10, he goes first

Steve draws his greatsword from his back and attacks Bob.

WTF! :shock:

Why does Steve get to attack first? Bob had his sword out and in his hand and he is slower?!

Because he is quicker to react while unarmed. Simple.

Also, drawing his sword counts as a Move action, unless he has Quick Draw feat, so he forfeits Speed/Movement on the combat grid to do it later in the combat rather than initially. Bob had his weapon drawn and so has a slightly reduced reaction time due to the bulk of the weapon, but at least he can close and swing, not having to forfiet his Speed/Movement.

This is D20.

Besides, what if the had no mods other than the -4 for the weapon and one or the other rolled higher? What if bob had taken the Quick Draw feat? There are many other ways to get around the penalties I suggest, and, no, there no need to recalculate if you start unarmed or with a "faster" dagger, and then draw that -4 Greatsword later.

Under the current system, if I start a combat by rolling INIT and choosing to, say, Light a torch with flint and tinder, a Full round action, I still have the same INIT count if I draw my Greatsword in a later round and join the fight. Right? There's no conceptual problem with this for the mere reason that weapons currently do not affect INIT, and neither do torches.

What I don't get is why it suddenly becomes an issue when the weapon applies a penalty to INIT. It means starting combat unarmed is more dangerous by virtue of having no weapon ready, but no action need be sacrificed in subsequent combat rounds to make up for it either, leaving actions, move and INIT where they belong.

As far as daggers being shorter than Greatswords and that fact needing to be factored into the weapon's INIT mod, I only disagree from the perspective that one can weild 2 daggers and 1 greatsword, greatswords weigh more, ther are feats to increase number of itterative attacks with light one-handed weapons, and Finesse attack rules represent precision viability of lighter weapons refelcting agility in a way that "speed" does not.

Bottom line from my POV: INIT is to determine combat order, period. Thinking of it as "my guy is faster than your guy" is missing the point...no pun intended.

 

[slaughterj]

Say that Bob and Steve are going to fight. Bob is holding a greatsword (two handed exotic, -4 INIT) and Steve has a greatsword sheathed on his back.

They both roll a 10 for INIT (imagine they have no other modifiers)
Bob has 10-4 = 6
Steve has 10, he goes first

Steve draws his greatsword from his back and attacks Bob.

WTF! :shock:

Why does Steve get to attack first? Bob had his sword out and in his hand and he is slower?!

Because he is quicker to react while unarmed. Simple.

Also, drawing his sword counts as a Move action, unless he has Quick Draw feat, so he forfeits Speed/Movement on the combat grid to do it later in the combat rather than initially. Bob had his weapon drawn and so has a slightly reduced reaction time due to the bulk of the weapon, but at least he can close and swing, not having to forfiet his Speed/Movement.

That makes no sense. Bob's reaction time is reduced due to the bulk of his weapon, but Steve will have the bulky weapon issue as well as soon as he draws it. Plus it makes no sense from a common sense perspective - two guys with equal reactions, but the guy who has to draw his weapon gets to attack first - think about it for a second!

 

[argo]

Yea, INIT is a game mechanic, and yea game mechanics do not translate directly to real life. But they dont exist in a vacume either. INIT is the game mechanic designed to represent "speed". Thats its job, thats what it does.

So if you are not arguing that smaller weapons let you attack more quickly/often.... then why are you arguing for a modifier to INIT :?

This doesn't make sense.

That's because you're operating under the same false premise. INIT isn't Speed. It's combat reaction order. That's all. If it were Speed it would be based off Move rate. It isn't. It's based off of DEX and Class Reflex to make it a general representation of nibleness. It's there solely to provide an order to combats so that things don't get utterly confusing, not to suggest that Character A is "faster than" Character B.

...

Bottom line from my POV: INIT is to determine combat order, period. Thinking of it as "my guy is faster than your guy" is missing the point...no pun intended.

I swear Sutek... it seems like every conversation with you winds up taking a left turn into the twilight zone at some point :?

Initiative doesn't represent being "faster"? This is crazy talk!

Yes, the cyclical combat round is an artifical construct...
Yes, Initiative is an abstract concept to give structure to that artifical construct....
Yes, both are game mechanics which do not directly translate to reality....

However, those game mechanics are by design intended to represent real world concepts, albeit in an abstract manner. And Initative is the mechanic which has been designated to represent "speed/quickness".

Maybe this will demonstrate the absurdity here. You claim that INIT does not represent "speed/quickness", however when trying to support your initative modifiers for weapons you have said

That doesn't change the fact that a Greatswords is clearly bigger, even without reach, and bulkier, as indicated by it's greater weight than a dagger. This is where INIT adjustments, or the desire for them, springs from. Daggers are small and Greatswords are big, so people with Greatswords ought not be as quick off the mark with a Greatsword as with a dagger.

and...

Say that Bob and Steve are going to fight. Bob is holding a greatsword (two handed exotic, -4 INIT) and Steve has a greatsword sheathed on his back.

They both roll a 10 for INIT (imagine they have no other modifiers)
Bob has 10-4 = 6
Steve has 10, he goes first

Steve draws his greatsword from his back and attacks Bob.

WTF! :shock:

Why does Steve get to attack first? Bob had his sword out and in his hand and he is slower?!

Because he is quicker to react while unarmed. Simple.

Ok, so if INIT does not represent speed.... but your desire is to represent that big weapons are slower than small weapons... THEN BY CROM, MITRA AND SET WHY ARE YOU GIVING A MODIFIER TO INIT FOR USING A BIG WEAPON!?!!? :evil:

What is the logic here? That modifier to INIT has to come from somewhere, what justification do you have that a greatsword gives a -4 to INIT if INIT doesn't represent speed?

Why? Why apply a modifier to a roll that.... doesn't represent what the modifier is supposed to adjust?

What is the connection between INIT and the size of the weapon you wield.... how are the two related if the answer isn't "speed"?

This is madness...

 

[Sutek]

However, those game mechanics are by design intended to represent real world concepts, albeit in an abstract manner. And Initative is the mechanic which has been designated to represent "speed/quickness".

So why is it variable then? Either I'm fast, or I'm slow. If I'm fast, I should always be fast. But that's not the case. Sometimes, you might be fast, mostly based on luck, unless you happen to be a Air Elemental at +22INIT.

It's not speed. It's reaction to combat. If it were Speed, then it would factor into Running or, indeed, basic Move Actions. But it doesn't, because it isn't.

Now, skipping all the lengthy quotes:

Ok, so if INIT does not represent speed.... but your desire is to represent that big weapons are slower than small weapons... THEN BY CROM, MITRA AND SET WHY ARE YOU GIVING A MODIFIER TO INIT FOR USING A BIG WEAPON!?!!? :evil:

What is the logic here? That modifier to INIT has to come from somewhere, what justification do you have that a greatsword gives a -4 to INIT if INIT doesn't represent speed?

INIT isnt' Speed. It's Quickness. It isn't the weapon that is slower or faster - they're inert. But, the weapon one is armed with might affect thier ability to react to danger, however, that reaction isn't Speed.

Speed is a rate. It is either distance travelled per unit time or a rate (usually rapid) at which something happens. Speed (symbol: v) is the rate of motion, or equivalently the rate of change of position, expressed as distance d moved per unit of time t. INIT isn't a determination of Speed. It simply is a determinant to mark in what order combatants act in a combat situation.

A rate of Speed can change but INIT is static once determined. That's why there's very specific rules on how to alter INIT count through Special Initiative Actions (pg178AE), and there are only either Ready or Delay.

Essentailly, the concept of INIT is only to determine order of action. That's it. It's not a representation of Speed because it isn't about distance over time. It's just about "Do I go before you get to go?" That's all.

What is the connection between INIT and the size of the weapon you wield.... how are the two related if the answer isn't "speed"?...

INIT and weapon size are only related in the system I came up with in the sense that larger weapons take more time to move around with. They're bulkier; heavier. In my INIT mod system, a War Spear, a Sling, a Bardiche or a Crossbow would all be at -2 INIT. Greatswords and Hyrkanian bows would be at -4 INIT because they are exotic. Akbitanan weapons are better made, so only Akbitanan exotic two-handed weapons cause a -2 penalty. All other weapons have no penalty to INIT, unless you try to use them two-handed when generating your INIT count. My concept of Weapon INIT is largely based on the idea of geometry making things more difficult to swing around.

I'm not talking about Speed, leaving that solely down to Move rate. That's Speed in the D20 system. INIT is only a way to figure what the combat order is. It's not speed or fast people would always be fast and have no chance of being slow.

As a matter of fact, the book itself explains higer INIT characters as being "quicker-witted" as they level up. That's mental reaction, and not Speed...

 

[argo]

However, those game mechanics are by design intended to represent real world concepts, albeit in an abstract manner. And Initative is the mechanic which has been designated to represent "speed/quickness".

Now, you see I deliberately wrote "speed-slash-quickness" in an effort to head off any potential argument over semantics

And yet ....

INIT isnt' Speed. It's Quickness.

Sigh, sometimes you are so predictable. And I really am sick of knocking down your straw man arguments.

Everybody understands we are talking about INIT here and how weapons ought to affect that. So please, feel free to cut-and-paste "quickness" in the place of "speed" in any of my above posts. Kinda the same way that we all have to change the example to people fighting with greatswords so that we don't have to listen to you whinning about how daggers don't get a INIT bonus in your system :roll:

Anything to keep you from side-tracking this debate.


Now lets get back to the point.

Say that Bob and Steve are going to fight. Bob is holding a greatsword (two handed exotic, -4 INIT) and Steve has a greatsword sheathed on his back.

They both roll a 10 for INIT (imagine they have no other modifiers)
Bob has 10-4 = 6
Steve has 10, he goes first

Steve draws his greatsword from his back and attacks Bob.

WTF!

Why does Steve get to attack first? Bob had his sword out and in his hand and he is slower?!

So please, call it "speed" call it "quickness" call it whatever you want.

Please, explain to me in real-world terms why, all other things being equal, Steve gets to pull a greatsowrd off his back and attack before Bob who is holding his greatsword.

Please, explain to me in terms of game mechanics and game balance why Steve's player is at an advantage for keeping his greatsword sheathed while Bob's player is at a disadvantage for having his weapon in his hands at the start of the fight.

Please, explain to me in any terms you like how this scenario makes any sense at all.

Because it doesn't. And "weapon speed" mods are a bad idea in d20.

Later.

 

[TheSlayer]

I found that giving each weapon a different attack progression scale based on size and weight and historical details of the weapons was the best and easiest way to show the difference in weapon speed.

I just added another column to the weapon lists with a progression number and my players found it easy to use and rarely did it make combat resolution
slower.

Also it stopped the players always reaching for the nearest greatsword,bardiche or flamberge and let them appreciate the other weapons in the game.

As for messing with initiative because of weapon speed ,that does not make sense as shown by the numerous points put forward by the mongoose's and greater mongoose's of the forum.

Also I would have to say that the best way to really know if weapons do slow you down due to length /weight and how much your initiative helps you out is indeed real life martial experience , which if you have had a little, will give great insight into this topic and that directly translates into making better game mechanics .

 

[Clovenhoof]

A different attack progression? How does that work?

Note aside: our group's Barb refuses to use a Bardiche (and they can't afford swords). It's really refreshing. ^^

 

[Sutek]

Now lets get back to the point.

Say that Bob and Steve are going to fight. Bob is holding a greatsword (two handed exotic, -4 INIT) and Steve has a greatsword sheathed on his back.

They both roll a 10 for INIT (imagine they have no other modifiers)
Bob has 10-4 = 6
Steve has 10, he goes first

Steve draws his greatsword from his back and attacks Bob.

WTF!

Why does Steve get to attack first? Bob had his sword out and in his hand and he is slower?!

So please, call it "speed" call it "quickness" call it whatever you want.

Please, explain to me in real-world terms why, all other things being equal, Steve gets to pull a greatsowrd off his back and attack before Bob who is holding his greatsword.

Please, explain to me in terms of game mechanics and game balance why Steve's player is at an advantage for keeping his greatsword sheathed while Bob's player is at a disadvantage for having his weapon in his hands at the start of the fight.

First off, just like in the all-holy "rant", you're making assumptions.

A) That they roll identically to begin with.
B) That they have no other difference in base INIT bonus
C) That they are of the same Class and have all the same feats.

But, as you say...all things being equal (which they rarely are) let's assume that all of those factors come down to identical INIT counts.

A) Neither is faster - they probably both still have base Speed 30'
B) Neither is Quicker - again assuming that thier respective INTI modifiers are identical too, which is the first "tie break" in the RAW
C) We want some other factor to "tie break" other than rolling again, which is the final "tie break". We want something that relates to thier weapons and armor shaving some reaction off of them - eg. a form of "Weapon Speed"

Interlude:
Now, old school weapon speed really was speed. It allowed a lower value weapon to divide into a large value weapon. It was like this: If a dagger has Speed 2 and a Long sword had speed 3, the Dagger could attack 3 times to the Longsword's 1 time. This always complicated things too much, so my group used it to enact what we called "Segments".

We looked at the weapon's Speed, rolled a D10, added your DEX bonus, subtracted Weapon Speed ((D10+DEX)-Speed=Segment) and got the Segment on which you reacted that combat. They didn't really have INIT back then, so we made it up. Now, we had people rolling every round, which was realistic in some ways, but tedious in others. I think we all agree, less rolling is better in RPGs.

I'm not suggesting that sort of model because it would require far too much effort to wedge in to D20 - that system won't work for me, and likely not for others.

Now, the only reason I interject that is to be perfectly clear that (A) I'm not really suggesting "Weapon SPeed Factor (WSF)" insomuch as I'm suggesting "Weapon/Equipment INIT modifiers (EIM)", and (B) as evidence that I have done this sort of thing before (inventing rules to go in a system that wasn't designed for them) and it worked like a charm.


Now back to your scenario:
I did state why Bob with sword out and Steve with sword on back differ, adn why it makes sense. Perhaps it was just missed - I didi write a lot.

If they are both absolutely equal, as you suggest, my concept of EIM would be factored into the overall INIT equation at the end. But I think you get that much.

It makes sense that Steve, without his sword drawn initially and with an identical INIT count before "tie breaks" are implememted, can act first because Bob is affected by his Greatsword's -4 EIM because it requires an action for Steve to draw that weapon, thus making his sacrifice there instead of upfront with the INIT count roll.

When you look at any rule, and we're looking at INIT right now, you have to look at it as part of the system. Part of the system of "Combat." Now, actions are also part of that system, and they affect character choices as well.

Bob, already having his sword drawn, can close and get to try to hit Steve. Steve can only draw his weapon and attack Bob if he and Bob are already starting adjacent. That's important. Without his Sword drawn, Steve can't Parry Bob, and he can't use any cool feats that he might have. On the other hand, he leaves his options open so that he can react as situations develop. With his options open he can choose to draw any weapon he feels is now most appropriate. He can flee. He can choose to draw his weapon, control his mount, or retrieve some Stygian Tomb Dust in his belt pouch and throw it at Bob, all at a better INIT count than Bob who has decided to commit to using his Greatsword right off the bat accepting the -4 INIT penalty.

As far as "real life experience" fighting with real weapons - no one has that. If anyone currently alive has ever been in an actual, real sword fight, where losing an limb or your life was at stake then I would be surprised, but I'd listen to thier advice. SCA play acting is close, but no cigar. You can get hurt, but they arent' real weapons except by a stretch of the imagination, and the combat is nowhere near as dangerous as th real thing.

Besides that, we're talking game mechanics in "fake life experience", so real world doesn't apply.

 

[Foxworthy]

Bob, already having his sword drawn, can close and get to try to hit Steve. Steve can only draw his weapon and attack Bob if he and Bob are already starting adjacent.

This is only true if Steve doesn't have a +1 BAB, if Steve has a +1 base attack bonus he can draw the weapon as part of a move action. Now you have the situation that the guy with out the weapon draw can move and stab the guy with the weapon drawn even if they were equal.

You shouldn't be able to react faster by pulling a weapon than holding a weapon in your hand. Just like you shouldn't be able to react faster by holding a weapon in your hand. compared to someone not holding a weapon.

The only way to really combat that would be have actions lower and raise your iniative as you take them. Which isn't a good solution at all, unless you declare your actions at the beginning of the round like AD&D did.

For example in the fight above you would roll init and then the players would delcare what they are going to do and then you use what they're going to do to modify thier init.

That's the only reason why wepaons speeds worked in AD&D but still leave wrinkles when you're unable to take the action you had planned because of outside factors.

 

[argo]

Now back to your scenario:
I did state why Bob with sword out and Steve with sword on back differ, adn why it makes sense. Perhaps it was just missed - I didi write a lot.

If they are both absolutely equal, as you suggest, my concept of EIM would be factored into the overall INIT equation at the end. But I think you get that much.

It makes sense that Steve, without his sword drawn initially and with an identical INIT count before "tie breaks" are implememted, can act first because Bob is affected by his Greatsword's -4 EIM because it requires an action for Steve to draw that weapon, thus making his sacrifice there instead of upfront with the INIT count roll.

Sacrifice a move action in order to go first and therefore make a two-handed power attack against Bob's flat-footed DV 10? Yes please! :lol:

That isn't balanced.

Foxworthy pointed out that that with a BAB +1 Steve isn't even giving up that much since he can move and draw at the same time.

That isn't balanced.

And what about the Quickdraw feat? Now I can already hear your argument "but Steve has to spend a feat on that so he is sacrificing something just like he "sacrifices" his move action". But think about it this way. The Improved Initative feat gives a +4 to INIT. Your system gives a greatsword wielder a -4 to INIT. So if Steve takes just the Qickdraw feat and keeps his Greatsword on his back then he effectively gains the benefit of Improved Initative in addition to the regular benefits of Quickdraw (which is already a good feat to begin with). Two feats for the price of one.

That isn't balanced. Matter of fact, that is a munchkin's wet dream.

So, balance-wise your "Weapon/Equipment INIT modifiers (EIM)" :roll: stinks.

And logically it is counter-intuitive that having your weapon ready is a disadvantage compared with having it sheathed. Just like it is counter-intuitive that Steve gets to whack Bob first.

That sort of WTF moment is the kind of thing that breaks suspension of disbelief at the game table. Which stinks.

So all-in-all, the idea of "Weapon/Equipment INIT modifiers (EIM)", remains a bad idea in d20.

 

[Sutek]

This is only true if Steve doesn't have a +1 BAB, if Steve has a +1 base attack bonus he can draw the weapon as part of a move action. Now you have the situation that the guy with out the weapon draw can move and stab the guy with the weapon drawn even if they were equal.

Well, I guess that's just where the difference in opinion lies. I dont' feel that it is weird that someone unarmed can react, draw a weapon and swing in a combat round prior to someone who already has their weapon drawn. Or, to put it under another template, where someone armed with a Bardiche (-2 under my scheme) could react ahead of a weilder of a Greatsword. It just doesn't bother me all that much because of a number of reasons.

On the one hand I see a handfull of threads bemoaning two-handed weapon damage, and dinging those weapons on INIT is one way to slow them up and give them a disadvantage to off-set the potential damage they deal. On the other hand I see my current method as a very simple way to implement INIT mods for weapons without too much effort. And, in a third respect, the system is built on people who with higher INIT bonuses being fully capable of getting INIT counts lower than people with lower INIT bonuses. Someone with a +22 INIT can roll a 2 and someone with a +8 INIT can roll a 17 and end up going first.

Now, I prefered (AP-STRmod=INITmod) because it simulates weapon mass, and it works really well in calculating both penalties as well as bonuses, but it doesn't work for Akbitanan weapons. (Wgt - STRmod = INITmod) works well, but it lends to too many INIT bonuses and not enough penalties given most weapons are only 1-4lbs.

However, I guess I can just leave it at: I just don't see the problem.

Take this example with no EIM or Weapon Speed involved:
Bob is walking down an alley having seen enemies down there, so he draws his weapon and prepares. Steve is his enemy, but Steve doesn't consider Bob an enemy so he is approaching to talk, not fight, and elects to try to diffuse a fight through Diplomacy (ususally takes 10 full round actions in a row). As they both get closer, the GM announces to roll initiative, and only now is Steve aware that Diplomacy isn't going to work here. They both roll and Steve rolls higher thatn Bob, closes the distance, drawing his weapon as part of his move, deals 28 points of damage causing a MD save which Bob fails, falling dead to the ground.

So there's a guy who started off with the intent of engaging in 10 consecutive rounds of Diplomacy winning INIT and clobbering a guy who was totally ready for it. This is the "problem" that is being suggested that exists in implementing Weapon Speed, but it can already happen - you can already change from a long, slow action to drawing and attacking, so I just can't for the life of me figure why the INIT 10 Greatsword duel where Steve draws and attacks before Bob does with his Greatsword out at -4INIT. Heck, Adjacent, Steve can move, draw and attack Bob at unmodified INIT using my system, but when he gets there, if he doesn't slay Bob, bob gets the opportunity to make a Full attack action.

I just don't get the argument being made against Weapon Speed other than following that rant to the letter.

 

[argo]

The "what if Bob rolls a 2 for INIT and Steve rolls a 18" argument is just another straw man. It is understood that "luck" is built into the system by the use of random numbers, even the ammount of damage done is random.

However, if Luck is taken out of the equation, that is if they both roll the same value, then logic ought to dictate what happens. That is good game design. So just because luck might mean that Bob and Steve don't roll the same number doesn't excuse you that your mechanics break down when the do roll the same.



Rewinding the argument for a moment, excuse me for backtracking, but I had an epiphany over lunch.

Now, the entire reason for having this discussion in the first place is you want a mechanical representation for the fact that a "big" weapon is "not as quick" as a smaller weapon (lets try not to get hung up on semtantics again)

So you give a penalty to the guy with a greatsword right?

So I asked "why does Bob suffer the penalty and Steve doesn't?".

And you said....

Now back to your scenario:
I did state why Bob with sword out and Steve with sword on back differ, adn why it makes sense. Perhaps it was just missed - I didi write a lot.

If they are both absolutely equal, as you suggest, my concept of EIM would be factored into the overall INIT equation at the end. But I think you get that much.

It makes sense that Steve, without his sword drawn initially and with an identical INIT count before "tie breaks" are implememted, can act first because Bob is affected by his Greatsword's -4 EIM because it requires an action for Steve to draw that weapon, thus making his sacrifice there instead of upfront with the INIT count roll.

So your theory is that Steve's penalty is giving up his move action. Correct?

Well, let me ask you this then. What if on his first round Steve decides to draw a single dagger instead?

Thats right... it costs him a single move action. So his "penalty" for using the small dagger is exactly the same as the "penalty" for using a big greatsword

IOW there is no mechanical difference between using a dagger and using a greatsword in Sutek's system :lol:

So your system has failed at what it set out to accomplish in the first place, assign a penalty to the guy with the greatsword. It lacks even basic internal consistency.

Thats bad game design.

 

[TheSlayer]

[ As far as "real life experience" fighting with real weapons - no one has that. If anyone currently alive has ever been in an actual, real sword fight, where losing an limb or your life was at stake then I would be surprised, but I'd listen to thier advice. SCA play acting is close, but no cigar. You can get hurt, but they arent' real weapons except by a stretch of the imagination, and the combat is nowhere near as dangerous as th real thing.

I would suggest a small dose of full contact escrima , and/or a dash of non SCA western martial arts. Life threatening only in a case of bad luck, real weapons yes, and very insightful into the world of weaponspeed.

 

[Krushnak]

why not just have a penalty to initiative based on how encumbered you are and/or how much armour check penalty you have. weapon speed doesnt really work well seeing as there are so many things to consider such as user skill, quality of weapon, strength of user and weapon length.