|
8 months ago ::
Sep 26, 2012 - 2:43PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
This was started in a thread about a different topic. For clarity it has been moved here.
This convo is already all over the place, so maybe I can suggest...
Would it be acceptable to balance weapons by bringing weapon speed back into account? Let's say that the weapon speed can effect the initiative order.
Barehanded
|
-2
|
Dagger
|
-1
|
Short Sword
|
0
|
Broad Sword
|
+1
|
Battle Axe, Bow
|
+2
|
Great Sword
|
+3
|
Halberd
|
+4
|
Maul, Heavy Crossbow
|
+5
|
I know! This means more work.
DM: "Don't I already have enough to do?"
But the positives:
- Gives people a viable choice about keeping the weapon they like best rather than the one that does the most damage.
- Gives dual wielding more of a purpose. With a short sword and a dagger in a fight you could try to act before your opponent with the weaker dagger or wait to do more damage after.
- Gives a reason to carry a variety of weapons other than, "It looks really cool."
Did I just snap the thread?
EDIT - I just realized it would screw up effect duration... DOH! How to solve?
I kinda miss speed factor. Not the system but what it represented and the concept of weapon speed is totally worth having.
Plus, modifying initiative isn't relaly that onerous.
That's great! I thought everyone would immediately shut me down.
Plus, modifying initiative isn't relaly that onerous.
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn. If I roll initiative based on my dagger, I cannot then drop the dagger and fire my heavy crossbow (that I was holding in the other hand) - even if my target went before me and moved out of dagger range.
Plus, modifying initiative isn't relaly that onerous.
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn. If I roll initiative based on my dagger, I cannot then drop the dagger and fire my heavy crossbow (that I was holding in the other hand) - even if my target went before me and moved out of dagger range.
I think at that point we need to suck it up and chuck realism out the window for playability, but we actually do this all ready. For example: if you determine initiative and then something happens to the player that has them lose dex, do you modify when they take their turn in the round or do you let it ride? I let it ride. I might adjust their initiative order the next round, but probably I won't unless I decide to reroll initiative.
If a player was specifically trying to game the system by, say, holding a dagger of warning that they then drop and quick draw their main weapon, I just game the system right back and have rabid badgers pull the player to the ground.
I also think that it's usually pretty obvious if someone's taking advantage (dual wielding a dagger and heavy crossbow so they can roll initiative with one and attack with the other) vs a legitimate change of plan (finding oneself without targets, so firing with the crossbow instead) and I'd be willing to bet there could easily be a proviso worked into the text about that.
Something akin to "if your declared action is no longer an option due to the flow of combat, you are free make a different action at no penalty. If you change your mind, the DM can impose -1 to -3 penalty to any associated rolls the new action might require, depending on how different the new action is from your declared one."
That quite neatly ties up any silliness.
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn.
A simple solution would be to add the "speed" to the next round. Go on 12, swing bigass sword, go on 15 next round.
Plus it opens the possibitity of "hold" or "do nothing" simply appying a -5 init (or something) to the next round.
It still leaves the problem of everyone's init values floating all over over the place, but some tables might not even consider that a "problem".
A simple solution would be to add the "speed" to the next round.
That actually makes a lot of sense. I could get behind it, if it was used in that way.
I just don't want to be penalized for not deciding whether to swing a sword or cast a spell until it's actually my turn. This is a turn-based game, after all.
Plus, modifying initiative isn't relaly that onerous.
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn. If I roll initiative based on my dagger, I cannot then drop the dagger and fire my heavy crossbow (that I was holding in the other hand) - even if my target went before me and moved out of dagger range.
When initiative is declared you get the modifier for the weapon drawn. With two weapons in hand you declare which you intend to use. If you don't have a weapon drawn there should be an initiative penalty to draw the one you want.
Actions that don't rely on weapons, like using a magic item, would count as Bare-handed if they are already in hand. If they are not in hand then there is a penalty for drawing them out, the same as drawing a weapon.
Draw weapon/item: +2 to turn order (If the new weapon is of a higher weight class add the difference between the previous and the current weapon.) So it's always at least +2 to draw out something new.
If they move to a slower weapon they can declare on their turn and then their action gets put on hold for the required number of turns to make up the difference.
Once you switch weapons your turn order changes so you can't go from bare hands to heavy crossbow to get an advantage. It's providing options with consequences that the player must weigh.
Man this is quickly becoming overly complicated. Is there a better way to do this? Maybe if there were fewer weight classes?
Man this is quickly becoming overly complicated.
That's why it was abandoned along with the weapon-vs-armor tables.
Just apply speed to the next round. There's a hell of a lot less "what-if" and system-gaming involved.
Man this is quickly becoming overly complicated.
That's why it was abandoned along with the weapon-vs-armor tables.
Just apply speed to the next round. There's a hell of a lot less "what-if" and system-gaming involved.
Good plan.
You can say that they have to recover from the momentum of the attack with a heavier weapon. So it counts towards the next round.
You can say that they have to recover from the momentum of the attack with a heavier weapon. So it counts towards the next round.
Or, just say it applies to the next round because it's a nightmare to deal with on the current one.
Except in that it requires you to declare your actions before your turn.
A simple solution would be to add the "speed" to the next round. Go on 12, swing bigass sword, go on 15 next round.
Plus it opens the possibitity of "hold" or "do nothing" simply appying a -5 init (or something) to the next round.
It still leaves the problem of everyone's init values floating all over over the place, but some tables might not even consider that a "problem".
That's a good solution, yeah. The initiative creep really depends on a long combat, but I personally reroll initiative periodically in a long combat anyway so that'd not be a big deal to me.
edit: actually, the more I think about this, the more I like it. I'm going to crank out some numbers and put 'em on the table this weekend and let you know how it goes 
The initiative creep really depends on a long combat
Initiative creep isn't really a big deal.
It's just a turn-order list, and a -23 init has no real meaning beyond acting before a 302 init.
The only issue is the added bookkeeping of floating init.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 26, 2012 - 2:51PM
#2
|
|
|
I've had similar ideas - my inspiration being the APB system in Heroes of Might and Magic V. (I know it's in other games, but HoMM made the best use of it in my opinion.) The Cliff's notes version of my rules is: - You earn a certain number of Initiative Points (IP) each round.
- Actions cost varying amounts of IP - 10 being a "normal" action. This can model not only weapon speeds but also cast speeds.
- IP left over carries over into the next round, so if you're quick you can do two actions per round every so often.
- Movement works in some way TBD.
The thing is, it really does mean more work, and that's not a trivial problem. My conclusion was that it's more suited for something like a tactical wargame than a game like D&D that strives to be faster-moving and rules-lighter.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 26, 2012 - 2:56PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
It's a new idea to help stir the pot. I would like to see if we could make a simplified but satisfying use of weapon speed and casting time. I would like to at least try it out to see if it can work, even if they never pick up the idea.
I think it could be useful for balancing weapon use and also those really powerful spells some people like to complain about.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 26, 2012 - 2:57PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
I don't think weapon speed is a very effective balancer. Or, it may be, by trending the heavy-hitters towards the end of the turn.
At best, all will really do is attempt to justify the rapier's bloated GP cost over a shortsword. At worst, it gives Team Monster a fairly consistent init nudge.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 26, 2012 - 3:06PM
#5
|
|
|
I've had similar ideas - my inspiration being the APB system in Heroes of Might and Magic V. (I know it's in other games, but HoMM made the best use of it in my opinion.) The Cliff's notes version of my rules is:
- You earn a certain number of Initiative Points (IP) each round.
- Actions cost varying amounts of IP - 10 being a "normal" action. This can model not only weapon speeds but also cast speeds.
- IP left over carries over into the next round, so if you're quick you can do two actions per round every so often.
- Movement works in some way TBD.
The thing is, it really does mean more work, and that's not a trivial problem. My conclusion was that it's more suited for something like a tactical wargame than a game like D&D that strives to be faster-moving and rules-lighter.
Another good thing about it is is that if you increase the number of IP with level, you can even modelize the multiple attacks of the pre 4th edition without screwing up the math too much.
Is is really that much work? It kind of feels like you're just spending a few more seconds calculating your IP total each round.
Anyways, it's way too much work for D&D.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 26, 2012 - 3:08PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Is is really that much work? It kind of feels like you're just spending a few more seconds calculating your IP total each round.
It's a great system when a microprocessor is handling the bookkeeping.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 26, 2012 - 3:14PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Is is really that much work? It kind of feels like you're just spending a few more seconds calculating your IP total each round.
It's a great system when a microprocessor is handling the bookkeeping.
Yeah. Too bad they abandoned the VT. :P
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 26, 2012 - 3:29PM
#8
|
|
|
It's a new idea to help stir the pot. I would like to see if we could make a simplified but satisfying use of weapon speed and casting time. I would like to at least try it out to see if it can work, even if they never pick up the idea.
Okay, long version:
- At the beginning of the first round of combat, you roll a d20 and add your initiative modifier to determine how many Initiative Points you start the fight with.
- At the beginning of each round after the first, you gain IP equal to 10 + your initiative modifier*, adding it to your current IP total.
- It is your turn if you have the highest IP total among all combatants. If there is a tie, the combatant with the highest initiative modifier goes first. If there's a tie in that, roll off.
- Taking a turn costs you IP. The cost is determined by the action you wish to take on the turn; if not otherwise specified, it is 10. No effect can reduce the cost to less than 4. Subtract the cost from your IP total, then take your turn.
- You move as part of your turn, as normal. If your action is a double move, the IP cost is 8.
- You cannot spend more IP than you have. If you cannot or do not wish to spend any more IP this round, you pass, and the turn goes to the combatant with the next-highest IP total.
- Once every combatant has passed, a new round begins.
*Adding the initiative modifier each round makes higher-Dex characters quicker than lower-Dex characters even when they're wielding the same weapon, which I think is cool. However, it may contribute to Dex as an uber-stat. It also requires that you be really careful handing out initiative bonuses: a +4 from the Improved Initiative feat means 40% more turns, and that's plainly absurd.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 26, 2012 - 3:32PM
#9
|
|
|
Is is really that much work? It kind of feels like you're just spending a few more seconds calculating your IP total each round.
The biggest time-sink is figuring out whose turn is next. Basically everybody has to state and compare their IP totals again every couple of turns.
It's not, like, prohibitive. But the time does add up. It's not for every table, and it's not the "quick and easy" direction that the DDN core rules are headed in.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 26, 2012 - 8:19PM
#10
|
|
|
I don't think weapon speed is a very effective balancer. Or, it may be, by trending the heavy-hitters towards the end of the turn.
At best, all will really do is attempt to justify the rapier's bloated GP cost over a shortsword. At worst, it gives Team Monster a fairly consistent init nudge.
The issue is, it would probably exaggerate speed differences, and get some of them wrong.
For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if the dagger ends up faster than the rapier, which is false, outside of an unarmed master compared to a rapier initiate. :P
And greatswords would end up being dramatically behind shortswords, which would be an exaggeration, as both weapons can be used with such speed that motion blur is created and it requires significant skill and training/practice to avoid attacks from the weapon.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
