Weapon Speeds / Casting Times

[DangerDwarf]

Considering adding weapons speeds and Casting Times for spells when I run my next C&C game.

Anyone done up a document of speeds? I know I can use my old edition books for them, but I'd rather not have a host of books for other games at the table when I'm running C&C.

Looking for something I can print up and put in my notebook. If nothing else I reckon I'll be doing it myself.

[Relaxo]

I'm a big fan of weapon speed b/c it gives characters a reason to choos short sword over 2 hand sword, for example.

What's probably easiest, IMO, is to subtract the C&C EV from 10 to get a "speed" and add that to the initiative roll. this need only be done once and can easily be jotted down or added to your book or Ck Screen or whatever.

This way, you're still rolling the C&C 1d10, highest is first for initiative.

For spells, i'd just use the spell level as a speed modifier, unless it specifies minutes or rounds or whatnot as a casting time. Consider adding the roll to the last round in which the casting is completed... but I probably wouldn't bother.

[Go0gleplex]

there were arguements both ways about this between 2e and 3e. Weapon speeds impair the fighter even more vs a mage. It's more realistic to have a thief hit three times with a dagger before the fighter can strike. casting times impair the mage too much. ad nauseum.

IMO, I do miss the weapon speed stuff. It does sort of force the player to think about speed vs max damage possible. However, if you utilize the half as slow rule that allows a second strike (by any character class) this sort of takes away from the multiple attack of the fighter class.

I think an easier way is to simply use an initiative mod of -1 per EV of the weapon. So a dagger EV 1 would only have a -1 initiative mod. A polearm EV 3 would have a -3. It also saves having to figure out all the other fun stuff....or do it by weight of the weapon...where it's -1 per 2 # or such thing. Personally, I like the EV myself.

Casting time I think has never really changed in concept, has it?
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[serleran]

For spells, I would do something simple, rather than go through every single spell (having done this recently I can say there are a bunch of them...), so something like:

Unless noted in the description as something else, a spell has a casting time equal to the spell level + 2; this can be reduced by the attribute modifier of the caster, but not below zero. For example, a level 2 spell cast by a wizard with a 15 Intelligence would have a casting time of 2 + 2 - 1 (attribute bonus) = 3. If the casting time is zero, the spell occurs directly on the initiative roll, without modifying when the action occurs in the combat round; if the casting time is 9 or greater, the spell releases at the beginning of the following round. Castle Keepers can modify the casting time based on other factors, such as need to retrieve spell components, distractions, and extenuating circumstances.

For weapons, I would also try something simple, as there are many weapons to deal with:

The speed factor of a weapon is determined by the weight and Encumbrance Value. If the EV is lower than the weight, divide the weight by the EV, and round up. If the EV is higher than the weight, use EV + 1. Weapons that are two-handed or polearms add +4. A few examples:

Axe, Bearded (two-handed) has Weight of 15 and an EV of 4. So, 15 / 4 = 4 (rounded up), but is two-handed, so adds 4 = 8.

Hook, Hafted has Weight of 3 and EV of 4, so its weapon speed would be 4 + 1 = 5.

It won't be precise, but should make it easy to calculate.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[moriarty777]

Though I wouldn't necessarily go with Relaxo's method (I really have to give it more thought), I heartily agree that the key for weapon speeds is the EV rating. I thought about implementing a system using EV as a base for weapon speeds but thus far I'm keeping it simple.

As for casting times, I think on of the best ideas would be to adapt a couple ideas from Jason Vey's "Spellcraft & Swordplay"

Spells in his system either go off in the same round, go off in the next round, or don't go off at all. This is done though a check which should be easy to adapt it to be 'Siege-like'.
Obviously it also requires some thought. I've only started skimming through the ruleset so I can't tell you much more about that right now but it seems pretty cool. I've never been a fan of casting times in general and they were largely ignored when I played AD&D but I could live with something as simple as this.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[concobar]

wpn speed as depicted in d&d is pretty stupid. a long sword or poleaxe would attack before a dagger just because they are longer. A dagger would attack more often though since it is lighter and easier to reset after a swing/stab. Add to this the fact that a D&D combat action represents many attacks over the span of 5 seconds and the whole concept of weapon speed falls apart.
_________________

[Go0gleplex]

[quote="concobar"]wpn speed as depicted in d&d is pretty stupid. a long sword or poleaxe would attack before a dagger just because they are longer. A dagger would attack more often though since it is lighter and easier to reset after a swing/stab. Add to this the fact that a D&D combat action represents many attacks over the span of 5 seconds and the whole concept of weapon speed falls apart.[/quote]

I'll disagree with part of this having actually used said weapons in combat. Reach doesn't equal speed, and at close quarters pole arms are nearly impossible to use. A two handed or bastard sword can attack almost as fast as a dagger properly used...you do a snapping pivot motion with the wrists, it's quick but not as powerful of a strike as a full swing. My personal sword has a 30 inch blade with a foot long hilt and does things in the hands of a master swordsman I didn't even think possible. Two handed inside strikes for instance.

The real problem is that as noted above, weapon speed is too abstract to specifically assign accurately due to the number of variables involving the weapon, weight, length, user skill, etc.. D&D could be said to a relative approximation of speed for an average user at best. But the concept of weapon speed is not an invalid one.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[serleran]

Quote:
A dagger would attack more often

In AD&D, it would. But, remember that in AD&D, weapon speed is only used for significant battles, like duels and so forth... not every melee. You would not use it in a fight of 3 PCs vs 14 kobolds, but, you would in the fight between the fighter and the kobold chieftain and his bodyguards.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Jynx]

I've heard so much avout this and have in fact been a proponent of using weapon speeds. We use it in my 2e game and personally, I love it. My rouge has the fastest weapons and with his dex modifier I go first nearly 75% of the time. This is great for one BIG reason... and I know cause I've been playing the character for years now. The reason is that the fighters and mages with powerful attacks can literally make my life as a rogue boring with nothing to do but pick locks and such, since they can usually start and finish the battle before I can get a chance. At least this way I get to have the first strike most of the time, and I've landed the killing blow numerous occasions because of my ability.

As for adopting it in my game C&C sessions, I've tried but never succeeded. I like the idea of using the EV value for weapons. For spells, in my 2e game it was a base of 3 added to initiative unless othewise stated in the house rules, which my DM bascially rewrote all the neceasry speeds in his thick home brew book.

And there lies my problem with actually implementing it... I don't want to go through the entire PHB and set a value for every spell and weapon so I just leave it be. I kinda wished it were a part of C&C by default. Also... it makes it more combuersome for a CK to have to take into account the weapon speeds for all his NPCs. Sure it would be easy to note down the init weapon speed adjustment one time on the character sheet, but when you are a CK and have to do that for every NPC in the adventure (and you have to to be fair to the player characters) it takes up more time than I'm willing to invest. I prefer to have the game run quicker.

So, I like it, but implementing it is always a pain.

[Jynx]

serleran wrote:
In AD&D, it would. But, remember that in AD&D, weapon speed is only used for significant battles, like duels and so forth... not every melee. You would not use it in a fight of 3 PCs vs 14 kobolds, but, you would in the fight between the fighter and the kobold chieftain and his bodyguards.

We've used it in EVERY battle imaginable, even in our recent battle with 30 oponents.

edit: In AD&D 2e

[moriarty777]

Well, I've given this a few more minutes of though and, why don't you just subtract the EV and factor in the dex modifier to your initiative roll?

Keep it simple and rule that '1' is the lowest you can go.

As for the creatures... use them unmodified. Even if they use weapons, they don't benefit from any additional modifiers for dex if you run them straight from the book anyway.

That way it sort of evens out but gives certain weapons advantages over others because of a lower EV (thus higher weapon speed).

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[serleran]

EV alone is not a good rule -- many of the heavier weapons (like two-handed swords) will be striking far quicker than much lighter weapons. Also, some EVs are just weird -- 4 or 5 for a cleaver? Is it really that slow compared to an axe when, effectively, they are the similar?
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[moriarty777]

serleran wrote:
EV alone is not a good rule -- many of the heavier weapons (like two-handed swords) will be striking far quicker than much lighter weapons. Also, some EVs are just weird -- 4 or 5 for a cleaver? Is it really that slow compared to an axe when, effectively, they are the similar?

Granted a couple of EV numbers are out of whack but it gives a good overall baseline. I don't have my book here with me at the moment but isn't the EV for a two-hander something like a 4 or 5? A shortsword is something like a 3 ... and longswords one more than that.

I'll have to take a closer look at the numbers when I get home.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[serleran]

EV does provide a baseline, but I don't think I would use it as the sole determinant. For example, a crossbow might not be unwieldy (due to low EV), but they are slow unless pre-loaded. But, there are rules for that already.

Quote:
We've used it in EVERY battle imaginable, even in our recent battle with 30 oponents.

Then you should have read the rules more closely, had it been AD&D 1st Edition -- I forget in 2e made it "mandatory" for every fight, and if so, I am glad I ignored it.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Jynx]

serleran wrote:
Then you should have read the rules more closely, had it been AD&D 1st Edition -- I forget in 2e made it "mandatory" for every fight, and if so, I am glad I ignored it.

Ummmm... I did read the rules, way back... so excuse me if I don't recall 100%. I was just providing comentary on this discussion, adding in the fact that it's not necesarily only for significant battles and that my DM in 2e uses it all the time.

I also don't know if it's mandatory, or that anything is mandatory in any edition. Again.., just stating my own personal experience / opinion.

sorry!

[Go0gleplex]

Serl is right Moriarty. Need to factor in weight...which if you want a stand alone, you're better off going with modify it by an average of strength and dex mod.

You can thrust pretty quickly with a pole arm but it takes some real effort to swing it, stop it, and reverse your stroke or what. Serl's formula is a bit more work and less intuitive, but it is also probably more accurate.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Relaxo]

moriarty777 wrote:
Well, I've given this a few more minutes of though and, why don't you just subtract the EV

M

This was actually my first idea, but then you ahve to chage initiative to roll low, and that's not in keeping w. the 3rd ed / C&C always roll high motif. so subtracing them all from 10 and adding the difference seemed an easy fix... if there are EV over 10, then subtract from 20, I dunno.

As always, YMMV.

[serleran]

Basically, it just boils down to whatever works best in your game, as always. There are many ways to quickly calculate -- use EV straight, modify by weight or even use weight in some other way, base it off the damage inflicted (for example, the higher the die of damage, the slower the weapon; multiple dice add to the speed factor), or even assign "classes" to the weapons like "slow, fast, etc" sort of like Combat and Tactics for late 2nd Edition. Fortunately, if one were inclined, the values from AD&D can be substituted into C&C, of desired, or new ones created... but, due to the volume of the work, I think it easier to just develop a quick and gritty way.

One important thing is keeping spells somewhat slower, so they can be interrupted, and not always just by the guy with the dagger or fist.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[DangerDwarf]

serleran wrote:
due to the volume of the work, I think it easier to just develop a quick and gritty way.

I'm thinking that might be the way to go as well. Mulling over some of the ideas presented here and see what sticks with me.

[concobar]

Go0gleplex wrote:
I'll disagree with part of this having actually used said weapons in combat. Reach doesn't equal speed, and at close quarters pole arms are nearly impossible to use.

I agree in part with this having only kinda used these weapons as a squire in the SCA. If two combatants start ten feet away the combatant with the pike is going to attack before the combatant with the long sword, short sword or dagger just because the combatant with the shorter reach has to pass through the kill zone of the combatant with the pike before any attack could be made against the pikeman.

If a person wanted to simulate the difference between a dagger or great weapon they would have to assign each weapon a recovery speed like dagger = recovery 2 and battle axe = recovery 6. Any weapon could attack at a speed of one step but would then have to miss a number of steps equal to the weapons recovery speed. each combat round would have to be divided into a number of steps, say ten. A dagger could attack at step 1,4,7,10 or 4 times in a ten step round while the battle axe could attack on step 1 and 8.

If you are stabbing or slashing with your sword could add to the weapons recover time and thus effect the weapons speed.

To further reflect the reality of medieval combat you would have to assign a armor penetration and damage type to each weapon. the dagger would be piercing and very weak verse pretty much any armor while the battle axe would be crushing and very deadly against all non-rigid armor. The longsword would be both slashing and piercing and deliver damage determined by how it is used and what armor the target is wearing.

Shields would not add to armor class they would negate attacks.

The point is, and I think we agree here is that the D&D/C&C combat system is far to abstract to properly model actual weapon characteristics and attempting to do so does not at all simulate the reality of the weapons.

Go0gleplex wrote:
The real problem is that as noted above, weapon speed is too abstract to specifically assign accurately due to the number of variables involving the weapon, weight, length, user skill, etc.. D&D could be said to a relative approximation of speed for an average user at best. But the concept of weapon speed is not an invalid one.

The concept of weapon speed as it has been implemented in the past is absolutely invalid. I agree with your other point..
_________________

[concobar]

serleran wrote:
In AD&D, it would. But, remember that in AD&D, weapon speed is only used for significant battles, like duels and so forth... not every melee. You would not use it in a fight of 3 PCs vs 14 kobolds, but, you would in the fight between the fighter and the kobold chieftain and his bodyguards.

Yes but lets think about this AD&D rule for a minute. the person with a dagger gets to attack twice in one combat round against the person with a pole arm.. fine

The dagger wielder gets to attack before the person with the pole arm even if the dagger wielder has to run 20 feet to engage the pole arm wielder. ridiculous!

This is why weapon speed was dropped from later editions. weapon speed can not be properly modeled in an abstract combat system like that used by D&D.
_________________

[Relaxo]

to me, reach would be a separate rule.

I think 3e may have done it well, where trying to slip past a reach weapon grants an attack of opportunity. this makes sense to me.

once inside the reach, and if still alive, fast guy would have teh advantage though, and arguable, the reach weapon would be ineffetive or penalized inside that reach...

but now it's getting complex again.

nothing's easy.

[moriarty777]

Jynx wrote:
Ummmm... I did read the rules, way back... so excuse me if I don't recall 100%. I was just providing comentary on this discussion, adding in the fact that it's not necesarily only for significant battles and that my DM in 2e uses it all the time.

I also don't know if it's mandatory, or that anything is mandatory in any edition. Again.., just stating my own personal experience / opinion.

sorry!

If *I* remember correctly, it was an option in 2nd Edition the same way that a bunch of other things were options. However if the option was implemented it was an 'all-the-time' thing. Since you are playing 2nd Ed, it just seems like your group is following the option which would apply to all situations.
Hehehe...

Back when I ran my 2nd edition campaign (like 20 years ago) ... I ignored weapon speeds... casting times... and a bunch of other 'optional modifiers'! Of course, we also used a d6 when I think 2nd ed called for a different dice for initiative but I think that's just the 1st edition pedigree showing there!

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Jynx]

Relaxo wrote:
nothing's easy.

Easy! Never!

In our 2e game we rarely get into situations where reach weapons are used, it's usually just close quater combat. Monsters get a speed adjustment according to size. According to my DM he uses this...
typically 3 for small and med, 6 for large, 9 for huge, and 12 for Gargantuan

And he adds weapons speeds to all NPCs as well.

As for reach weapons, if they are readied, they go first. For example, drawn and cocked bows and xbows can go first but not always.

Every situation is different, but the 2e system works great, you just need a DM capable of knowing how to use it and applying weapon speed and factoring in reach and all that.

The bottom line is that it can obviously become rather complex as concobar clearly demonstrates, but if you want to use weapon speeds, it can be done a-la-2e.

[moriarty777]

Relaxo wrote:
This was actually my first idea, but then you ahve to chage initiative to roll low, and that's not in keeping w. the 3rd ed / C&C always roll high motif. so subtracing them all from 10 and adding the difference seemed an easy fix... if there are EV over 10, then subtract from 20, I dunno.

As always, YMMV.

Um... maybe I'm missing something. Isn't the higher EV number heavier or more awkward compared to a lower one?

A dagger has an EV of 1 (I think) compared to a longsword (EV of 3 or 4). If you 'subtract' from the roll (as a you would a penalty), you are still going for the 'higher the better'. Obviously wielding a dagger should not penalize you the way swinging a two-handed sword would.
Or did I get something backwards.
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Jynx]

moriarty777 wrote:
Um... maybe I'm missing something. Isn't the higher EV number heavier or more awkward compared to a lower one?

A dagger has an EV of 1 (I think) compared to a longsword (EV of 3 or 4). If you 'subtract' from the roll (as a you would a penalty), you are still going for the 'higher the better'. Obviously wielding a dagger should not penalize you the way swinging a two-handed sword would.
Or did I get something backwards.
M

Highest Initiative goes first - correct, so if you add 1 from a dagger to your roll of 5 you get 6. If the opponent adds 3 from another weapon to his roll of 5, he gets 8 therefore goes first. Not what you want. Unless you play 2e in which case low number goes first!

LOL!

Now I've got THAC0s on my mind
My head hurts.

[concobar]

Relaxo wrote:
to me, reach would be a separate rule.

Agreed but again it starts getting even more complex. the reach of a longsword is roughly 4 times that of a dagger. realistically to close within a few feet of a combatant with a sword so that you can stab them to death would require avoiding the reach of his sword.

The swordsman would get to attack before you closed to range. the actual lengths of weapons have to be considered at this point...

Also the height and arm length of the combatants could be a real factor.
_________________

[concobar]

Jynx wrote:
Highest Initiative goes first - correct, so if you add 1 from a dagger to your roll of 5 you get 6. If the opponent adds 3 from another weapon to his roll of 5, he gets 8 therefore goes first. Not what you want. Unless you play 2e in which case low number goes first!

LOL!

Now I've got THAC0s on my mind
My head hurts.

What happens if after initiative is rolled I drop my dagger and pull my longsword or I am duel wielding a dagger and short sword?
_________________

[Treebore]

concobar wrote:
Yes but lets think about this AD&D rule for a minute. the person with a dagger gets to attack twice in one combat round against the person with a pole arm.. fine

The dagger wielder gets to attack before the person with the pole arm even if the dagger wielder has to run 20 feet to engage the pole arm wielder. ridiculous!

This is why weapon speed was dropped from later editions. weapon speed can not be properly modeled in an abstract combat system like that used by D&D.

In AD&D I believe, again its been years, and could have been a house rule, that pole arms always go first in a "closing" situation.

The groups I game with on line have also been talking about using these rules again, in particular Slimy, Kayolan and I. As has been brought up we are not sure how to go about implementing them in C&C.

C&C rounds are 10 seconds, and the initiative modifiers would make PC's go last in the round compared to most monsters, etc... Which often really doesn't matter, except in the cases of stopping/interrupting a spell caster or saving a comrade from a killing blow.

So what I have been thinking is:

Small, 1 handed weapons, such as Dagger. Modifier: 0

Short, one handed weapons, such as short sword, mace, light hammers: 1

Medium length/moderately heavy weapons, such as long swords: 2

Larger and heavy weapons, such as bearded axes, 2-handed weapons of all types: 3

Pole arms, except in "closing" situations: 4, in closing situations pole arms get to strike first, unless a surprise situation.

I think 4 is the most serious I want to go with. Now these numbers are if I were to not allow DEX modifier to be added. If DEX were to be allowed I would double all the values and up daggers and the like to a 1.

As for spells, I think using their spell level is good until higher levels, plus some of those higher level spells are meant to be fast casting, such as teleport and Dimension Door.

So what I was thinking, for spells that don't already take more than one round:

Base of 1, Verbal changes nothing, somantic adds 1, material component adds 2, so most spells will have a modifier of 4, some only a 2, and a half dozen or so would be a 1. This gives a defined window of opportunity for attackers to try and disrupt spells, causing Concentration checks, and spell casters can get rid of the +2 for components by preparing that one spell before combat. A spell component belt pouch could reduce the modifier from 2 to a 1.

Plus this allows fast higher level spells to stay fast, but 9th level spells won't always go off last in the round.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Go0gleplex]

There was, if I recall correctly the 2e stuff (god grief..the years involved..*shudders*) there was an optional rule for pole arms gaining an automatic first attack vs shorter weapons IF the enemy started 10 or more feet away. Or was it more simply put as an attack of opportunity, then they got their normal initiative + speed attack in. I hate gettin older.

If you have a minus to a d10 roll, then you're going to end up with a lower number. Hence why I was saying minus to the roll. This produces an auto 1 result for anything with a mod of -9 or more on weapon speed.

Wt. / EV = init. penalty (rnd down) is good enough for me. Weight and bulk accounted for. Using Str + Dex mod/ 2 as the penalty mitigator lets you have an auto max of 10. So you've not changed the initiative method any at all...and you're taking into account muscle and agility to offset wt and unwieldiness. That's about an accurate model as you'll get.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society