We need tie breakers because each creature takes their turn in turn. If their initiative is tied they don't both declare and roll for their turn at the same exact time.
We never once had an issue. The DM doesn't announce what his creatures are going to do prior. Only the player needs to announce. So ties were irrelevent.
We need tie breakers because each creature takes their turn in turn. If their initiative is tied they don't both declare and roll for their turn at the same exact time.
We never once had an issue. The DM doesn't announce what his creatures are going to do prior. Only the player needs to announce. So ties were irrelevent.
I don't think you're understanding me. I'm not talking about announcing before the turn. If your character has an initiative of 10 and the DM's monsters have an initiative of 10 how does your group decide whose turn it is?
We need tie breakers because each creature takes their turn in turn. If their initiative is tied they don't both declare and roll for their turn at the same exact time.
We never once had an issue. The DM doesn't announce what his creatures are going to do prior. Only the player needs to announce. So ties were irrelevent.
I don't think you're understanding me. I'm not talking about announcing before the turn. If your character has an initiative of 10 and the DM's monsters have an initiative of 10 how does your group decide whose turn it is?
It doesn't matter. For instance, let's say the DM has an orc next to the fighter and the fighter wants to swing at it with his sword. Each get a 10 and the DM goes first. The DM moves the orc away from the fighter and to the wizard to attack the wizard. Whether the DM moves the orc first or last, the fighter will still get his swing. If the fighter hits and doesn't kill it, the orc ends up next to the wizard and attacks him. If the fighter misses, the orc ends up next to the wizard and attacks him. If the fighter hits and kills the orc, the orcs looks down on his body and never actually gets anywhere near the wizard because he's dead. It's really easy.
I think the big deal with weapons is the how they cause damage. All weapons rely on precise movements of the wielder to be really effective, but the final result of the hit is a characteristic of the weapon, only. A greatsword can kill an orc by cutting it in half, while a dagger can kill the same orc with a thrust in the throat. A trained warrior could be deadly with both, but he would certainly use different methods and techniques to be so. Obviously, the methods and techniques differ because the weapons are different. One relies in less movement, what implies in more precision, the other in more movement, meaning a more dramatic effect (thanks to the weapon's increased weight, density, etc).
That said, I think that weapon speed could be expressed as a matter of precision and power. Some weapons like daggers, rapiers and short swords enable a capable user to deal smaller, but precise hits. Others, like the falchion, greataxe and warhammer can make a real mess for devastating effect, but aren't as balanced as the lighter weapons. So, mechanicaly speaking, a 'precision: 1' weapon grants a +1 to hit, while a 'power: 1' weapon deals an additional +1 damage; a 'precision: 2' weapon grants a +2 to hit, while a 'power: 2' weapon deals an additional +2 damage, and so on.
Well, its just an idea. It's different than the concepts presented so far (modify initiative, add attacks, etc). Anyway I think weapon speed is more niche than core. It's for those of us who enjoy some simulation spice in the game, so it's better if it stays in a module, I believe.
It doesn't matter. For instance, let's say the DM has an orc next to the fighter and the fighter wants to swing at it with his sword. Each get a 10 and the DM goes first. The DM moves the orc away from the fighter and to the wizard to attack the wizard. Whether the DM moves the orc first or last, the fighter will still get his swing. If the fighter hits and doesn't kill it, the orc ends up next to the wizard and attacks him. If the fighter misses, the orc ends up next to the wizard and attacks him. If the fighter hits and kills the orc, the orcs looks down on his body and never actually gets anywhere near the wizard because he's dead. It's really easy.
What game are you playing? Turns go one at a time, not all at once.
If the orc goes first and moves away, you get an attack of opportunity. That attack is resolved before the move actually happens. If the orc survives it carries out the rest of it's turn. Then you will still have your full turn next.
If you take your turn before the orc a totally different set of actions happens.
Orc potentialities that are both alive and dead are a little more complex than the game I play.
I think the big deal with weapons is the how they cause damage. All weapons rely on precise movements of the wielder to be really effective, but the final result of the hit is a characteristic of the weapon, only. A greatsword can kill an orc by cutting it in half, while a dagger can kill the same orc with a thrust in the throat. A trained warrior could be deadly with both, but he would certainly use different methods and techniques to be so. Obviously, the methods and techniques differ because the weapons are different. One relies in less movement, what implies in more precision, the other in more movement, meaning a more dramatic effect (thanks to the weapon's increased weight, density, etc).
That said, I think that weapon speed could be expressed as a matter of precision and power. Some weapons like daggers, rapiers and short swords enable a capable user to deal smaller, but precise hits. Others, like the falchion, greataxe and warhammer can make a real mess for devastating effect, but aren't as balanced as the lighter weapons. So, mechanicaly speaking, a 'precision: 1' weapon grants a +1 to hit, while a 'power: 1' weapon deals an additional +1 damage; a 'precision: 2' weapon grants a +2 to hit, while a 'power: 2' weapon deals an additional +2 damage, and so on.
Well, its just an idea. It's different than the concepts presented so far (modify initiative, add attacks, etc). Anyway I think weapon speed is more niche than core. It's for those of us who enjoy some simulation spice in the game, so it's better if it stays in a module, I believe.
Yes, that is an idea that has been tossed into the ring before and I think it is potentially a good one to consider.
It doesn't matter. For instance, let's say the DM has an orc next to the fighter and the fighter wants to swing at it with his sword. Each get a 10 and the DM goes first. The DM moves the orc away from the fighter and to the wizard to attack the wizard. Whether the DM moves the orc first or last, the fighter will still get his swing. If the fighter hits and doesn't kill it, the orc ends up next to the wizard and attacks him. If the fighter misses, the orc ends up next to the wizard and attacks him. If the fighter hits and kills the orc, the orcs looks down on his body and never actually gets anywhere near the wizard because he's dead. It's really easy.
What game are you playing? Turns go one at a time, not all at once.
I play D&D. What game are you playing? More importantly, are you really unable to comprehend that the ONLY reason that turns go one at a time is so that combat is actually playable and not because everyone else just sits around watching as people run all over for their turn? Are you unable to comprehend that if a tie happens, it's extraordinarily simple to run it like I just laid out?
If initiative is a tie, run it simultaneously. There's no reason why you have to have someone "go first."
If the orc goes first and moves away, you get an attack of opportunity.
No. If the orc survives the simultaneous swing and moves away you get an attack of opportunity.
If the orc survives it carries out the rest of it's turn. Then you will still have your full turn next.
Not if you.............stay with me here................not if you...................TIE!!!!!
Orc potentialities that are both alive and dead are a little more complex than the game I play.
Never mind. I forgot who I was talking with for a second. What's next?
If you don't like the tone, don't start it. You know darn well that we're talking about D&D. Asking me what game I play is asking for things to go down hill. I will happily respond in kind. You talk to me reasonably, and I will talk you reasonably. You put attitude in your posts, and I will put it in mine.
I think the big deal with weapons is the how they cause damage. All weapons rely on precise movements of the wielder to be really effective, but the final result of the hit is a characteristic of the weapon, only. A greatsword can kill an orc by cutting it in half, while a dagger can kill the same orc with a thrust in the throat. A trained warrior could be deadly with both, but he would certainly use different methods and techniques to be so. Obviously, the methods and techniques differ because the weapons are different. One relies in less movement, what implies in more precision, the other in more movement, meaning a more dramatic effect (thanks to the weapon's increased weight, density, etc).
That said, I think that weapon speed could be expressed as a matter of precision and power. Some weapons like daggers, rapiers and short swords enable a capable user to deal smaller, but precise hits. Others, like the falchion, greataxe and warhammer can make a real mess for devastating effect, but aren't as balanced as the lighter weapons. So, mechanicaly speaking, a 'precision: 1' weapon grants a +1 to hit, while a 'power: 1' weapon deals an additional +1 damage; a 'precision: 2' weapon grants a +2 to hit, while a 'power: 2' weapon deals an additional +2 damage, and so on.
Well, its just an idea. It's different than the concepts presented so far (modify initiative, add attacks, etc). Anyway I think weapon speed is more niche than core. It's for those of us who enjoy some simulation spice in the game, so it's better if it stays in a module, I believe.
Actually I'd say smaller weapons are harder to utilize because they need to target a more precise area; a gut wound by a dagger would not be as devastating as a gut wound by a zweihander, whereas a stab at the heart will kill anyone regardless of weapon. Directing such a small weapon to the right spot requires precision -- precision that less skilled warriors may have -- which is why arnis has trainees start off with swords before daggers before going unarmed, why the normal gear for militia and pikemen are simple elongated sticks, and the common portrayal for brutish barbarians are giant axe-wielders whereas skilled assassins are knives.
Speaking of that last one, the main advantage of knives comes in two forms: close quarter combat, and concealment. A katana wielder and a dagger wielder fighting in a barrel would upset the advantage of the katana wielder, for obvious reasons. And an assassin would prefer smaller weapons that can easily slip past guards. Meanwhile, bigger weapons are better for the same reason why guns and ranged attacks almost as a whole are generally considered better than melee weapons in real life combat: the sooner you can take out the threat before you're within his range, the better. One handed weapons allow greater flexibility and the use of a shield (which in itself can be a significant advantage when we're talking about Spartan shields in particular), while two handed weapons maximize range and devastation.
[ In arnis, again speed is maximized by utilizing two weapons, so that there is no pause between attacks, although reach is less of a priority as a result (bigger weapons sacrifice speed for reach). Thrusting motions, like in fencing, allow for greater speed and reach, but you'll probably find it awkward to thrust two weapons at the same enemy due to the need to shift your body mass forward constantly while keeping yourself as small a target as possible (you'll likely sacrifice attack effectiveness by employing two weapons). Axes were more accessible to the masses in medieval times, and due to the simplicity of a big weapon makes the greataxe iconic for barbarians... but a sword is the only medieval weapon that was designed for war (just about every other weapon is a farming/hunting implement modified for war), with greatswords being the best for balance, reach, and speed -- mostly reach -- making them iconic for knights (with the longsword besting it mainly due to its versatility, as it allows the use of a free hand or a shield, although realistically the only difference between the two is usually in blade length and the balancing weight in the hilt and pommel). ]
In this case, D&D does represent these differences better through differences in damage dice than with weapon speed, because weapon speed implies what is considered in the modern guns as firing rate/rounds per minute. But when you think about it, if a short sword was as light as a dagger, and you gave that short sword to someone who can hit really, really fast with a dagger, the only things that would slow him down would be wind resistance and attack style, and former is a speed reduction by fractions of a second, whereas the latter can slow you down by a more significant amount. And unless we are running a game where 1 round = 1 second, I cannot see how that small difference between each 6 seconds can really be effectively portrayed in-game.
If you really wanted simulationist + weapon speed, take into account weapon design, weapon weight, weapon material, fighting style, and fighting skill. The more streamlined the weapon, the more flexible and balanced the weapon, and lighter the material of the weapon, the easier it would be to deploy and re-deploy that weapon. If the fighting style allows for more speed, then that's a plus, but if you haven't mastered that fighting style, it might even be a minus due to awkwardness of wielding.
Frankly, if I wanted a more realistic game, using your own criteria I'd actually put a penalty for using small weapons and a bonus for using larger weapons, because it's easier to cut a person in half at a relatively safe distance with a bigger weapon, than to try and weave past his defenses and stick the smaller weapon into his eye, heart, gut or any other smaller target. Plus, big does not equal unbalanced. If HP will be used, I'd likely have it this way:
Small Weapons (1d2 ~ 1d4): disadvantage (unless both attacker and target are squeezing in the same 5' space or the target is grappled in one hand, in which case attacker has advantage), +1 attack per round every 4 levels Medium Weapons (1d6 ~ 2d4): disadvantage if attacker and target are squeezing in the same 5' space, +1 attack per round every 5 levels, +1[W] every 10 levels Large Weapons (1d10 ~ 2d8): advantage (unless both attacker and target are squeezing in the same 5' space, in which case attacker has disadvantage), +1[W] every 2 levels
It's a wild guess mostly, but essentially the large weapons are supposed to be more likely to kill per shot, while small weapons are more effective in enclosed spaces, and medium weapons are typically considered the best due to speed, flexibility and decent damage output.
Dual wielding would grant +1 attack per round, but automatically grant you a -5 to hit with all your attacks (unless you're trained, in which case -2 to hit would suffice), in addition to the normal penalties of using weapons [small weapons are lighter yes, but they have less reach and are less effective overall, except perhaps as a parrying weapon (counts as a buckler and a weapon)]. Attack speed while dual wielding would be determined by the larger weapon, unless you explicitly state that, for the duration of the round, the larger weapon is used for parrying only. Large weapons cannot be dual wielded (normally), although you can parry with your large weapon as if it were a buckler (although axe blades might count as a regular shield [it's mostly a matter of how much cover your large weapon provides]).
That's the best compromise I can think of with regards to weapon speed and "realism".
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
