Pondering mechanics for drawing weapons, and how this fits into initiative generally (a bigger question).
Generally RPGs seem to differentiate between "your weapon is in hand" and "your weapon is sheathed or elsewhere". I thought there were 2 systems for this, but recently stumbled across a third (in SenZar, of all places).
The ones I can think of offhand are:
1. You need to spend some sort of action to draw a weapon; or
2. You suffer an initiative penalty if your weapon isn't ready; or
3. You suffer a penalty to attack and/or parry on the first round if your weapon isn't ready.

Any thoughts from anyone on which method is best, and how it interacts with other mechanics ? I'm fairly sure I mislike the "spend an action" solution (a la D&D 3.x, or even the "action points" cost version you see in say the Aliens! RPG).

Between #2 and #3 I'm trying to figure out which is better - is it better to have a system where you fail initiative because your claymore is in its baldrick ? Or is it better to keep initiative more abstract (maybe giving the GM more control over the narration?) and let the GM decide that you failed to parry on round 1 because your failed to draw in time??

So - any thoughts on which is better, or any weird Quick Draw mechanics, other systems I missed, anything ??

I like the initiative cost myself. A person can attack and defend a lot more seriously if they have a weapon in hand as well. I think that if someone is attacked before they draw it, they should have hefty penalties to defense.

If two guys decide to fight, they should be able to draw about the same time. Even the guy that loses initiative will be armed before the winner is able to draw AND attack.

D&D's is kinda of stupid. It assumes that your average trained killer can't draw is sword and move, or pat is head and rub his stomach at the same time.

I always just ignore it, and assume combatants have equipped and trained with their weapons as such to make the act of drawing as quick as possible, or at least quick enough to be unworthy of worry outside of an actual Old West gunfight.  

This is generally how men are trained and operate in modern militaries, and I see no reason why a skilled medieval soldier wouldn't do the same.  The peasant rabble may not be so skilled, but they're mostly just walking about with their spears at hand anyway.

OK - cool. Thanks, that really does help the pros and cons come out of the woodwork. The initiative penalty really is quite good, since it makes it less likely a guy with his sword sheathed will somehow still win initiative against an armed guy and gank him.

On the other hand, if as you say two fighters can both be expected to have sword in hand before either swings, it makes life more difficult since you need to distinguish between  "sword in hand/sword not in hand" separate to whether they've acted yet, which makes life more difficult. Hmm. Maybe a hit penalty is better here since its more abstract, so you don't actually care if they failed to parry because their sword is still in its scabbard, vs. it just wasn't quite ready ?

PS: agree on D&D here. Hey, you can't have a detailed feat system unless the rules ban you from doing anything ever, so they can sell you back abilities like "can use both arms" or "can use a shield"!

Quote from: J Arcane;395457I always just ignore it, and assume combatants have equipped and trained with their weapons as such to make the act of drawing as quick as possible, or at least quick enough to be unworthy of worry outside of an actual Old West gunfight.  

This is generally how men are trained and operate in modern militaries, and I see no reason why a skilled medieval soldier wouldn't do the same.  The peasant rabble may not be so skilled, but they're mostly just walking about with their spears at hand anyway.

Yeah, that does make life simpler...I guess that's what we more or less do in our current 3.5 game actually, mostly due to the GM not paying much attention. Would you give any penalties to the warrior who wants to run around with 10 different weapons and switch between them, though?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;395461Yeah, that does make life simpler...I guess that's what we more or less do in our current 3.5 game actually, mostly due to the GM not paying much attention. Would you give any penalties to the warrior who wants to run around with 10 different weapons and switch between them, though?

That's the sort of thing that "fails the sniff test", as it were, at least to me.  A rogue with daggers hidden in her boot and sleeves, sure, but if he's toting around a battle-axe, three broadswords, a long spear, and a broken whiskey bottle, yeah, I'd probably interject something there.

It depends on the level of realism you want.

The real world classis here are the gunslinger and the Iajitsu expert.

The best gunslingers (and here I take Bob Munden as the exemplar) can draw their gun fire it accurately at a range of 20 yards in under 1/10 of a second - Munden's world record is 2/100s of a second. In addition Muden refuses to cheat he uses a colt .45 with few modifications (no spoons welded to the hammer no teflon coating )

Iajitsu is the art of drawing the sword it is a distinct martial discipline in its own right. From a standing position you can draw the blade and strike in 2/10s of a second.

Both of theses disciplines need training though and the wepons in each case are fit for purpose. You can not draw a falchion  as fast as you can draw a shortsword. You can't draw a broadsword as fast as you can draw a scimitar.

Personally I think a weapons speed modifier to all initiiative, double that if the weapon is not drawn and add a skill that reduces that penalty for each rank.  This looks a lot like the way 2eD&D works at my table

Thanks again JJ, JA...
True about the the "depends on the level of realism you want...". Cross-referencing both of your posts...whatever system ideally seems to need to be sometimes significant, but ignorable if you don't want to bother. (Talking about Iajutsu, 3.0 Iajutsu was a good example of why this is the case...the rules for it in Oriental Adventures didn't really mesh with the rest of the rules for initiative or drawing weapons particularly well).

Speed factors could be one way to do it. I've seen systems where your STR modified your weapon speed as well which was interesting  Also gets weird when you start thinking about reach too much...I remember RuneQuest has basically the opposite system, where longer weapons go first instead of slower weapons going last...

I cast my vote with a modification to initiative as well.  Except my rationale is that it would simply be more interesting, mechanically.  Your average game is already going to have a table of 1-2 dozen attack and defense modifiers, why add another?  Give initiative some love.  In play, you're just going to forget about weapons in hand anyway.

Like J Arcane, this was something that just as often got ignored in our D&D games.  You can only bicker about who said they had their weapons drawn 20 minutes ago so many times before it becomes annoying.

As a complete tangent I remember grinning wildly when I read the Iajitsu duel rules in the d20 Oriental Adventures book.  I can't think of too many instances where an initiative roll can kill ya.

Thanks WB. Interesting way to look at it. True for most of the systems out there, yeah. D&D 3 could use some more initiative mods anyway.
2e already has its speed factors, and 1e has its segments thing (though I don't know offhand, I'd guess 1e probably already uses an initiative penalty for drawing weapons).

OK, Iajutsu Focus kind of was fun. The prestige class was completely insane too - we did have someone try to make one once, but their LG Samurai had RP/party compatibility issues and got retired before they got too far into it.

Apply as a mod. to in itiative is very straight forward.
If trying to draw in a compromised situation (ie, surprised @ short range) Could also do a saving throw that if botched fumbles weapon, or mod. initiative  +/- depending on result of save..could even carry over results to mod. hit # depending on how you feel things are interconected.
I think tricking out the initiative to mod. combat is a good idea. Makes the first few blows more relevant and grity.

You could just say that it's too tiring to walk around with sword in hand all the time, and that being surpriised and losing initiative can include fumbling with drawing it.

Not many problems here that couldn't be solved with a nod to realism.

A character can walk around with a sword in hand for damn near any amount of time but if they have to climb a ladder or open a big door or do anything else they have to let go of it. In any sort of civilized setting a drawn sword is a sign of aggression so in a situation that's not 100% combat opponents it's a problem, maybe a penalty to social encounters. If a trap springs the sword becomes a hindrance. Say a classic fall-in trap like a tiger pit or trap door opens under the adventurer. If they want to make a grab for something they have to drop their sword then, boom, sword falls into the bottomless pit. If they tumble down a chute or fall down a rotted staircase they will land on an unsecured sword. Any attack with a repulsing effect might cause party members to tumble into eachother, again causing problems with unsecured weapons.

As long as the GM remembers that the character has weapon out and takes it into account the hindrance is self evident.

As for the problem of weapons with initiative penalties, just say certain weapons have no initiative penalty. You can do it by weapon type, with a little asterisk on a weapon list or somesuch or by description, saying "All weapons under X weight" have no penalty. It adds a little balance in a system where a character can use near any sort of weapon, making smaller, unappreciated, weapons more desirable and adding a little more strategy in both the scenario and metagame level (do I try to take first hit advantage with my short sword or hope the long sword gives me long term effect, ect.)