Weapon Specialization

[ScottyG]

I’ve heard these complaints so many times, but as someone who has DMed the UA material consistently since its release, I’ve never seen them come up in play. No campaigns wrecked. No fighters dominating the party and setting, etc.
The real impact that specialization had on the game, in my very well play-tested experience, is that parties tend to have a better chance of surviving levels 1 – 3, which I think is a good thing. Specialization has a big impact with low level fighters in low level adventures, but it doesn’t take that long before the ability decreases in impact. There’s definitely an impact, that was the intent after all, but it has never been the game changer I read about. The down side is that fighters using various weapons just about disappeared. Almost every fighter that I have DMed since the UA was published has specialized in the long sword. A few dwarf fighters have taken battle axes, and there’s been a bastard sword or two, but that’s about it. I try to mix up the weapons the NPC fighters in the campaign specialize in.

[francisca]

No one mentions it, but UA brings a return to magic items like wands for ANYONE (ie fighters). Who cares if your sword specialist can only use a mace as alternate when you can blast things at range with a wand of fireballs, lightning bolts or ice storms?

Return from where? There are plenty of wands in the DMG that fighters can use, notably, the Wand of Magic Missiles.

Besides, what kind of wuss plays a dude with sword and board, but stands off on the side going "pew pew!" Fighting men meet their enemy face to face!

[ScottyG]

There were more wands that duplicate M-U spells available to all classes in OD&D that weren't in the DMG. Like wand of fireballs, etc.

[francisca]

There were more wands that duplicate M-U spells available to all classes in OD&D that weren't in the DMG. Like wand of fireballs, etc.

Ah, I see.

[AxeMental]

I’ve heard these complaints so many times, but as someone who has DMed the UA material consistently since its release, I’ve never seen them come up in play. No campaigns wrecked. No fighters dominating the party and setting, etc.
The real impact that specialization had on the game, in my very well play-tested experience, is that parties tend to have a better chance of surviving levels 1 – 3, which I think is a good thing. Specialization has a big impact with low level fighters in low level adventures, but it doesn’t take that long before the ability decreases in impact. There’s definitely an impact, that was the intent after all, but it has never been the game changer I read about. The down side is that fighters using various weapons just about disappeared. Almost every fighter that I have DMed since the UA was published has specialized in the long sword. A few dwarf fighters have taken battle axes, and there’s been a bastard sword or two, but that’s about it. I try to mix up the weapons the NPC fighters in the campaign specialize in.

The last point you mentioned (fighters no longer using multiple weapons) and going for the longsword was my experience. It removed a certain richness from the game, made it worse, and took away alot of the cool visuals of what a fighter is. Though it didn't bother you, I'll bet it bothered at least a few of your players (who probably didn't want to make a fuss).


As for surviving more easily at level 1-3, is that suppose to be easy? People play for the challenge (thats the point).

If, as DM, you screw up making things too difficult, have them recover a piece of magic, tone down the encounters, have monsters do bad tactics, etc. etc. etc.). As DM there are a million ways to help the party thats "over their head" (assuming you want to help). Weapons Specialization is the least eloquent method of doing so. If for no other reason that in the back of the mind of the player he knows he just "cheated" the 1E system, that his success wasn't due to luck, smarts, attitude, but rather his success was from buying into UAs "gaming the system". It might not even be true, it may have had nothing to do with it. But thats how he likely feels. The "HELL YEAH" rush of excitement from killing that troll is less "hmmm, did that +1 make the difference, would I be dead without it") It cheats them of their victory. Its like playing golf with one of those golf balls that go farther then normal. When they win the game its "Blahhh what a pussy I am" bouncing around, someplace in their mind.

If a PC finds magic (say taking it out of the hand of a powerful foe he just killed), he earned that and he can be proud of his accomplishments. Same with high stats he roles. But not WS. Its got "looser" written all over it. Don't let your PCs near WS. Its got bad mojo I tell you.

[TRP]

because they could only do it once, while the fighter could repeat the feat ad nauseum

You only have to kill everyone once.

[Matthew]

Just another data point for the discussion: AD&D CON bonus, only fighters got the +3/+4 per HD.

Yes, that is an interesting one, in that it was a net boost for fighters, but all classes benefited a little [i.e. because constitution 16 became +2 hit points].

And fighters had all they possibly needed by the time of 1e. WS & the UA was pushing the pendulum too far the other way (Which basically always happens).

No one mentions it, but UA brings a return to magic items like wands for ANYONE (ie fighters). Who cares if your sword specialist can only use a mace as alternate when you can blast things at range with a wand of fireballs, lightning bolts or ice storms?

well equiped fighters (and rangers et all) could take down the rest of the also well equiped party single handed in 1.5e

Fighters are pretty much fine in AD&D, I agree, and wands/rods/staves should be the preserve of spell casters, it makes them valuable even at only level one if they are the only ones that can utilise a wand of fire the party discovered or whatever. They could stand some small improvement to bring them more in line with like type monsters, such as hobgoblins, though.

I’ve heard these complaints so many times, but as someone who has DMed the UA material consistently since its release, I’ve never seen them come up in play. No campaigns wrecked. No fighters dominating the party and setting, etc.
The real impact that specialization had on the game, in my very well play-tested experience, is that parties tend to have a better chance of surviving levels 1 – 3, which I think is a good thing. Specialization has a big impact with low level fighters in low level adventures, but it doesn’t take that long before the ability decreases in impact. There’s definitely an impact, that was the intent after all, but it has never been the game changer I read about. The down side is that fighters using various weapons just about disappeared. Almost every fighter that I have DMed since the UA was published has specialized in the long sword. A few dwarf fighters have taken battle axes, and there’s been a bastard sword or two, but that’s about it. I try to mix up the weapons the NPC fighters in the campaign specialize in.

I am not sure the source of the complaints is really that it wrecks campaigns or utterly transforms them. Rather it is as you outline, that the trade off is no choice at all, anybody who has the option should specialise, as it is gold for copper. The net result is a reduction in weapon diversity and a highly conditional powering up of the fighter.

The last point you mentioned (fighters no longer using multiple weapons) and going for the longsword was my experience. It removed a certain richness from the game, made it worse, and took away alot of the cool visuals of what a fighter is. Though it didn't bother you, I'll bet it bothered at least a few of your players (who probably didn't want to make a fuss).

As for surviving more easily at level 1-3, is that suppose to be easy? People play for the challenge (thats the point).

If, as DM, you screw up making things too difficult, have them recover a piece of magic, tone down the encounters, have monsters do bad tactics, etc. etc. etc.). As DM there are a million ways to help the party thats "over their head" (assuming you want to help). Weapons Specialization is the least eloquent method of doing so. If for no other reason that in the back of the mind of the player he knows he just "cheated" the 1E system, that his success wasn't due to luck, smarts, attitude, but rather his success was from buying into UAs "gaming the system". It might not even be true, it may have had nothing to do with it. But thats how he likely feels. The "HELL YEAH" rush of excitement from killing that troll is less "hmmm, did that +1 make the difference, would I be dead without it") It cheats them of their victory. Its like playing golf with one of those golf balls that go farther then normal. When they win the game its "Blahhh what a pussy I am" bouncing around, someplace in their mind.

If a PC finds magic (say taking it out of the hand of a powerful foe he just killed), he earned that and he can be proud of his accomplishments. Same with high stats he roles. But not WS. Its got "looser" written all over it. Don't let your PCs near WS. Its got bad mojo I tell you.

It is definitely interesting to think about difficulty level as an indicator of fun with AD&D. A lot depends on what kind of game you are playing; if you are going through a standard module designed with the expectation that the party will be of a certain number of levels and classes, have a certain number of henchmen and hirelings, but weapon specialisation was not expect, it is definitely playing on "easy mode" to then use weapon specialisation. However, if the game master is half way competent he should have already adjusted things to take this into account (assuming he is using weapon specialisation to begin with). On the other hand, if you take away the elf's bonuses with swords and bows the game becomes a tiny bit more difficult. In the past, I have often felt the game was too easy on account of rolling a strength of 18 or something like that. Worse is when the game master makes a powerful magical item available for seemingly no good reason. That recently happened in an online game I am participating in, no magical items then suddenly my level three dwarf has a pole-axe +3 (he traded a very valuable gem the party found for it). It is not so bad because his THAC0 has not advanced, it being B/X, but still I thought it seemed incongruous.

[ScottyG]

I don't like the idea of adjusting modules to account for specialization, other than perhaps giving some NPC fighters specialization too. You neutralize the bump, and the bump was the intent. Why add it and then modify things to completely erase the effect adding it was supposed to have? It would be better to just drop it if the bump it offers seems that unbalancing. My experiencing is that it is not unbalancing.

[Matthew]

I don't like the idea of adjusting modules to account for specialization, other than perhaps giving some NPC fighters specialization too. You neutralize the bump, and the bump was the intent. Why add it and then modify things to completely erase the effect adding it was supposed to have? It would be better to just drop it if the bump it offers seems that unbalancing. My experiencing is that it is not unbalancing.

If the module was designed without specialisation in mind, then it seems obvious that to recreate the same challenge you would need to adjust the module. If you are not looking to create the same challenge level, but want the module to be easier, then sure do not adjust the difficulty.

[ScottyG]

And power creep is born.

[ScottyG]

WS was supposed to be a boost for fighters. It was not supposed to be the first step in a new, higher power level, status quo. The effect is not so earth shaking as it's being made out to be.

[Matthew]

Yes, I know, but we are talking here about permitting weapon specialisation without reducing the difficulty of a given module, are we not? Anyway, in my own case, I do think weapon specialisation is too powerful an advantage and do not use it, so it is academic to me how to deal with it. On the other hand I think modules should be adjusted to deal with different party strengths. I do not really see the point in running B2 with a party of fourth-level characters.

[genghisdon]

The down side is that fighters using various weapons just about disappeared. Almost every fighter that I have DMed since the UA was published has specialized in the long sword. A few dwarf fighters have taken battle axes, and there’s been a bastard sword or two, but that’s about it.

That alone is more than enough reason to never use the WS rules

No one mentions it, but UA brings a return to magic items like wands for ANYONE (ie fighters). Who cares if your sword specialist can only use a mace as alternate when you can blast things at range with a wand of fireballs, lightning bolts or ice storms?

Return from where? There are plenty of wands in the DMG that fighters can use, notably, the Wand of Magic Missiles.

Besides, what kind of wuss plays a dude with sword and board, but stands off on the side going "pew pew!" Fighting men meet their enemy face to face!

Already answered (thnx ScottyG ) The wusses that can appreciate a weapon 500-2000 years more advanced than the ones they are used to. IE: the ones with either intelligence OR wisdom over 8

because they could only do it once, while the fighter could repeat the feat ad nauseum

You only have to kill everyone once.

Only in the most banal of D&D games, where it runs "encounter, rest/recover, encounter, rest/recover, ect" One combat per game day is among the worst new school player traits.

I don't like the idea of adjusting modules to account for specialization, other than perhaps giving some NPC fighters specialization too. You neutralize the bump, and the bump was the intent. Why add it and then modify things to completely erase the effect adding it was supposed to have? It would be better to just drop it if the bump it offers seems that unbalancing. My experiencing is that it is not unbalancing.

If the module was designed without specialisation in mind, then it seems obvious that to recreate the same challenge you would need to adjust the module. If you are not looking to create the same challenge level, but want the module to be easier, then sure do not adjust the difficulty.

Agreed, and completely, painfully obvious.

WS was supposed to be a boost for fighters. It was not supposed to be the first step in a new, higher power level, status quo. The effect is not so earth shaking as it's being made out to be.

Go back to playing without it, or do some math. YES IT IS, and worse, it's not ONLY the massive power inflation you wrongfully attribute to actualy DMing to a group's power, it changes the game in numerous ways that have nothing to do with the "monsters". I'm sure if you take a moment to think about it, ScottyG, you will realise that DMs ALWAYS have had to take into account the power of the PC's so as to allow for challenges that are relatively within reason (this is not to say exceptions can't & shouldn't abound). If not, I suggest you run a group through UK 1 (SSoS), then proceed to D1 (DItDotE). Actually, try G1 instead, they actually could have a chance at that one. Sort of.

+1 to Axemental's & Matthew's last few posts

[AxeMental]

I don't like the idea of adjusting modules to account for specialization, other than perhaps giving some NPC fighters specialization too. You neutralize the bump, and the bump was the intent. Why add it and then modify things to completely erase the effect adding it was supposed to have? It would be better to just drop it if the bump it offers seems that unbalancing. My experiencing is that it is not unbalancing.

If the module was designed without specialisation in mind, then it seems obvious that to recreate the same challenge you would need to adjust the module. If you are not looking to create the same challenge level, but want the module to be easier, then sure do not adjust the difficulty.

Or just include an NPC ADVENTURER or invite someone else over to play a PC. If a module is too difficult, its probably because you don't have enough players, or everyone picked "assassin", or is too low in level. Published modules mention on the cover how many players are intended and of what level. Did you guys forget how to read?

I personally don't believe every room should be cleared in a dungeon. Nor should players ever feel the game is "balanced" (they can hope it all they want), its that fear that makes it feel less like a game, more like playing imaginary make believe. Some dungeons should be balanced, some slightly harder (and it usually works out that way without any interference of the DM, often times related to the dynamics of the PCs getting along, spells chosen, tactics used etc.)

[Matthew]

Or just include an NPC ADVENTURER or invite someone else over to play a PC. If a module is too difficult, its probably because you don't have enough players, or everyone picked "assassin", or is too low in level. Published modules mention on the cover how many players are intended and of what level. Did you guys forget how to read?

I personally don't believe every room should be cleared in a dungeon. Nor should players ever feel the game is "balanced" (they can hope it all they want), its that fear that makes it feel less like a game, more like playing imaginary make believe. Some dungeons should be balanced, some slightly harder (and it usually works out that way without any interference of the DM, often times related to the dynamics of the PCs getting along, spells chosen, tactics used etc.)

More or less true, but I think you are missing the point in the above. The question was not about introducing weapon specialisation to meet the challenge level, but what to do about the module if it was not designed for weapon specialisation and the group was using it.