That sounds familiar but I still can't be bothered to dig out my rq2/3 rules at the moment.

I do remember pretty clearly that attacking multiple times with a single melee weapon isn't allowed in either edition unless you've got > 100% skill. But the house rule applied the SR rule from missile weapons, so you could attack more than once if your SR was low enough.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;491713But the house rule applied the SR rule from missile weapons, so you could attack more than once if your SR was low enough.

Did that, too! It made more sense that the business of splitting 1 high-probability attack into 2 or more low-probability attacks (of at least 50% chance each). You still couldn't carry over SR into the next round (mainly because that got complicated really quickly), but if you were very fast with a dagger and got close to someone, you could poke them 2 or 3 times in that round.

However, it's not so satisfactory with long weapons kept at distance, because it's less realistic that two halberdiers whack each other multiple times in the same round at great speed.

Nevertheless, it's one of the best simulations I've come across so far. But it is, admittedly, not fast-flowing.

Quote from: Vile;491715Did that, too! It made more sense that the business of splitting 1 high-probability attack into 2 or more low-probability attacks (of at least 50% chance each). You still couldn't carry over SR into the next round (mainly because that got complicated really quickly), but if you were very fast with a dagger and got close to someone, you could poke them 2 or 3 times in that round.

See, I think that's an example of possibly misapplying/misinterpreting an abstraction (as I described in a post further up) since what it results in is, all of the sudden, having a low SR can double your effectiveness rather cheaply compared to just doubling your skill. Not that I would get all religious about it, but RQ 2/3 melee is one of those examples where I think each round is supposed to represent a "flurry of activity", with the attack rolls representing the overall effectiveness of one's efforts to harm one's foe, rather than individual swings. Under this interpretation, if you're faster, you might get the first chance to damage your opponent, but whatever improvement in your chance of doing so should just be represented by a higher attack percentage--which in many versions of BRP (and near relatives such as Harnmaster) does derive from higher dexterity.

Re: carrying SR into the next round, actually, I played RQ for a while with a group that did just that, effectively turning combat into a continuous impulse system. Believe it or not, they wrote a program that ran on their Mac Plus to keep track of who could act when.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;491793See, I think that's an example of possibly misapplying/misinterpreting an abstraction (as I described in a post further up) since what it results in is, all of the sudden, having a low SR can double your effectiveness rather cheaply compared to just doubling your skill. Not that I would get all religious about it, but RQ 2/3 melee is one of those examples where I think each round is supposed to "flurry of activity", with the attack rolls representing the overall effectiveness of one's efforts to harm one's foe, rather than individual swings. Under this interpretation, if you're faster, you might get the first chance to damage your opponent, but whatever improvement in your chance of doing so should just be represented by a higher attack percentage--which in many versions of BRP (and near relatives such as Harnmaster) does derive from higher dexterity.

Re: carrying SR into the next round, actually, I played RQ for a while with a group that did just that, effectively turning combat into a continuous impulse system. Believe it or not, they wrote a program that ran on their Mac Plus to keep track of who could act when.

we had the same programming witten up in the late 80s.  we use a script for IRC as well.

AD&D's speed factors aren't really difficult. They are explained in a truly horrible fashion, which makes them very difficult to understand. Not difficult to use once you understand them, though.

In AD&D, weapons are all given speed factors - lower the integer, the faster the weapon. Weapon speed is used to break initiative ties when both sides are using weapons, and to determine whether a spell is disrupted if an attacker uses a weapon on a caster in melee.

1. Tiebreaker uses:

If opponents using weapons in melee tie on initiative, instead of resolving simultaneously, the faster weapon goes first.

IF it breaks the tie, AND the two combatants spend the melee round in combat (no charging, no closing to melee), AND the faster weapon is either 2x faster or at least 5 points faster than the slower one, the faster weapon gets one instant extra attack, also before the opponent goes.

IF the above is true, and the faster weapon is 10 points faster, the faster weapon gets a third attack at the normal "simultaneous" time. Bo, jo, fist, dagger, and short sword get this third attack against an awl pike. It's never used otherwise.

2. Disrupting spellcasting. Subtract attacker's weapon speed from attacker's initiative roll, discarding negative signs on results. If the number is equal to or lower than the casting time of the spell, it's disrupted.


--- Examples.
A thief with a dagger (speed factor 2) is in melee combat with a pikeman using an awl pike (speed factor 13). They tie on initiative. The thief gets to strike twice before the pikeman gets to hit, then they both strike simultaneously. This is as complicated as this rule gets.

A wizard tries to cast a fireball (casting time 3) while in combat with an orc armed with a battle axe (speed factor 7). The orc gets a 4 for his initiative. Four minus 7 is (disregarding the negative) a 3. This is equal to the casting time, and the spell is disrupted. This is as complicated as this rule gets.

We always used speed factors when we played 2nd ed. They only really do have the job though; it lets the guy with the knife go first, but doesn't give him any extra attacks compared to the guy with the claymore.

HackMaster Basic/Advanced HM uses a continuous initiative so of course weapon speed is tracked as a matter of course. Also, as characters advance they can spend BPs(Building Points), that are gained every level, to specialize in various areas of weapon skill, one of which is Speed. So, after a few levels you have some characters who are much faster with a weapon than normal. It makes a good force of choices of if you want to go with a faster, but less damaging weapon, or if you want a slow, more massive weapon that does more damage.

Okay, I finally looked up the rule in RQ3. Briefly, your strike rank in melee is a sum of numbers derived from your DEX and SIZ, and your weapon's length. The larger each of these is, the less it adds to the sum.

People attack in strike rank order, counting up from 1.

If someone (usually with a shorter weapon) wants to "close" with an opponent, they can do so but must add 1 to their SR on that round. The opponent can maintain the distance by also adding 1 to their SR, provided there's room to give ground. If the distance isn't maintained, then the combatants are in close range of each other. The effect of this is that the person with the shorter weapon automatically attacks on strike rank 1, while the person with the longer weapon can only do one of attack, parry, or dodge during the round. (Ordinarily you can do two out of those three.)

If both characters have the same length weapon (I think this means "same SR modifier"; a difference of a cm doesn't matter), then both suffer the penalty.

One thing to note is that you could have a shorter weapon and still attack first against a longer weapon, provided you have an advantage in reach (SIZ) and/or dexterity. But you'd still have an incentive to close and reduce your opponent's actions.

Scion does weapon speed very, very well.  Basically, there's a wheel that is used for initiative, whereon everyone has their initial starting position.  Each action takes a certain number of "ticks" (basically action points) which move you around the wheel.  That way, someone with a small, fast weapon is going to attack more often than someone with a large clumsy one.

Wu Xing has a similar system in it, although instead of a wheel there are a series of tracks.  You start at the top of the track and everyone acts in turn, moving their marker X amount of spaces based on speed.

As I see it, there's a basic set of elements to weapon speed systems. There's little sub-systems and corollaries, but these are the basic elements.

1. One or more advantages given to fast weapons.
2. Frequency advantage is brought into play.
3. Procedure for implementing the advantage as it comes into play.

So. Fast weapons get an advantage - earlier hits or more of them or whatever. Those are the most common, but others can easily be imagined. It's good when it's evocative and "feels" speedy, it's bad when it doesn't feel speedy, or distorts play in a way that "feels" unrealistic.

Advantage comes into play more or less often. Either always - a permanent bonus to initiative or number of attacks, or less often, only when there's a tie on initiative, maybe only when you choose to close in. It is good when it comes into play often enough to feel important, it is bad when it doesn't come into play often enough or when it comes into play so often it's boring or subsumed into the math.

And then there's the procedure you go through to implement the advantage. Perhaps as simple as factoring in a bonus to initiative when you create your character and never modifying it again. Perhaps as complicated as dynamically modifying a number based on range, fatigue, weapon length, burst length, surprise. It's good when this is simple. It's bad when it's complex.

Evaluating the system I'm most familiar with, AD&D.

Advantages - attack sooner, attack more often, disadvantages - faster weapons do less damage. F

I'd give this an 8. You get multiple advantages, it's useful to disrupt spellcasters, but not so useful that everyone will use fast weapons. Still, it doesn't "feel" terribly realistic - but not in glaring contravention to notions of reality. It's abstractly faster, which is why it's so high - I like abstract, as long as it "makes sense".


Frequency - about 1 in 12 rounds you'll melee a caster, or tie a weapon user on initiative. Happens often enough to feel like you're getting an advantage for having a faster weapon, but rarely enough that it doesn't just fade into the background math - it's notable when it comes into play, but rare enough that it doesn't bog down the game.

I'd give this a 10. Intermittent is better than constant, if your goal is to make a system "notable". The whole goal is to make weapons "feel" fast. Much of the time, it won't matter that your weapon is fast. But when dueling with another weapon user, it becomes a big deal. When trying to stop a spellcaster, it's extremely important. The system draws attention to itself sometimes, and is invisible other times. A good balance of how often it comes up - if it came up every round, perhaps by a permanent static bonus to initiative or number of attacks, it would quickly become banal.

Procedure - Find weapon speed factors from chart, spell casting time from book. Two possible processes, either subtract and compare or compare and choose one of multiple results based on magnitude of difference. Somewhat complex, requires a chart lookup on the DM's part (unless he's memorized all the speed factors). The player can just write theirs down.

Maybe a 3. A 1 if you have to try to figure out how it works cold - the explanation is very, very bad. Subtraction, chart lookups, comparison? It could be more elegant, have fewer steps. It could very much be improved by having 3 categories of speed, "Fast, Normal, Slow". Or, have the weapon speeds and casting times simply add to a person's initiative - which is rolled "lower is better". Something like 2nd edition, if I remember right.

Quote from: LordVreeg;490749Mine.
continuous initiative
smaller weaps are faster
larger weapns have more damage.

Yeah, continuous initiative (Exalted2, Scion) does this pretty smoothly. Of course magical "large" weapons can be as fast as a dagger, if that's their enchantment...

So what happens if someone attacks with a slow weapon and his target simply moves out of range of the attack?  The attack automatically misses or what?

Is that addressed to any of the specific systems that have been described?

Any and all, I suppose.  I have no experience in the area, unfortunately.

Quote from: B.T.;492300So what happens if someone attacks with a slow weapon and his target simply moves out of range of the attack?  The attack automatically misses or what?

Well, with fluid initiative, move actions also take up some time?  Not sure what you're getting at here.

Example:

Danny Daggerman and Zach Zweihanderman are fighting.  We roll for initiative, Danny will go on "2", Zach on "4".

GM says "1", nobody does anything.
GM says "2", Danny says, "I close with Zach!" Moving takes 3 segments. Danny will now act on 5.
GM says "3", nobody does anything.
GM says "4", Zach says "I attack." Attacking takes 3 segments with a big sword. He hits or misses or whatever.  Zach will now act on 7.
GM says "5", Danny says "I attack."  Attacking takes 2 segments with a dagger. He hits or misses or hwatever. Danny will now act on 7.

Or whatever length of time the system assigns to various actions. I've seen systems where moving a Very Short distance was just 1 segment, etc.