Vargr1105 wrote:ragnboneshopper wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think most AD&D games actually worry about weapon speed at all. Maybe if it's needed to decide who goes first, and even then I think most people use weapon reach to decide simultaneous attacks, based on the set to receive a charge rule.
Except for AD&D2nd, where weapon speed is an integral part of the initiative system (and don't ask me how it works because I don't know), WS is only used to resolve Initiative ties in melee. In AD&D Weapon Speed
is weapon length. OSRIC just called it weapon length and did away with the numerical value, I do not know why. It is easier to have a numerical weapon speed scale than debate weather a Spontoon is longer or shorter than a Flamberge. Then again, for most weapons it is easy to eyeball it. Spear longer than sword longer than gladius longer than dagger, etc
I'm in a game on Dragonsfoot where the DM uses a modified and much simpler version of weapon speed, and that's seriously the first time weapon speed has made sense to me -- the first time I've even seen it in action on a regular basis.
What edition?
And his system is really awesome, actually, because it lets you pile on extra things you want to do in a round (within reason) but each one costs initiative.
I do the same thing by adding initiative segments. Drawing a weapon adds 1 segment to your Ini, getting up from a prone position adds 2 segments, etc.
But regardless, I have changed my mind. I think we should keep Initiative in Aqua's DCC game as it is.
Hey Vargr, I had never connected the dots between weapon speed and length being exactly equivalent, but I see what you mean. The dragonsfoot game I'm in is 1e, and yes, basically the idea is to add segments for actions like drawing weapons, taking a potion out of a pack before using it, etc. What you roll for initiative is the base segment of your action, while attacking with natural weapons/fists adds 0, weapons add from 1 to 3 based on length/type, movement has a cost, and so on. The ftf games I've played in just ignored all of that unless, like I said, the necessity to break a tie came up. For myself, I really appreciate the level of strategy that adding segments based on combat actions brings to the game, but I don't personally like to bother with it when I'm running a combat.
I'm fine with keeping initiative as-is, and listing the initiative order without the spoiler box helps a lot actually, but I still think changing to round by round initiative would speed things up. For my own DCC games, I'd rather houserule a few things on spell duels, which I've yet to see happen, and gain what I think is an overall better flow of combat in keeping with the DCC vibe. (shrug)
A question, Aquebman, to clarify: are you saying that Rolfo could move through the squares occupied by party members and also through squares occupied by beastmen? By my reading, the DCC rulebook isn't clear on moving through occupied spaces, so I just want to be sure if this is how we'll be running from now on or if you're making a one-time exception. Thanks!
