Weapon Specialization

[Chainsaw]

We used WP/WS, but it didn't add much depth in retrospect. People were stronger at lower levels, but less flexible at higher ones. I felt "pressured" to include magical weapons of a certain type. I think now I'd probably lean toward moving over a column at level X *IF* I wanted to empower fighters. YMMV.

[Benoist]

The suggestion to use weapon proficiencies but let the specializations kick in later is interesting. You still get the advantage of customization, different character types and whatnot, and you don't have the potential double-spec v. simple proficiency "problem" at level 1.

[achijusan]

Can a mod clean up the mess in here, please? Grown folks were talking.

What mess? achijusan + Foe list = instant cleanup!

LOL I think rather you meant to say "wheggi, oldanhan, and yourself"

Thanks for the tip !

Done !!

[achijusan]

The suggestion to use weapon proficiencies but let the specializations kick in later is interesting. You still get the advantage of customization, different character types and whatnot, and you don't have the potential double-spec v. simple proficiency "problem" at level 1.

Which retains the benefit of allowing fighters WS while neatly removing the "weapon master 14 year old half orc" I mentioned earlier

[TRP]

In light of recent posts to this thread, by PJ, Trent & dd, I *might* consider amending my allowance of weapon specialization for 1st level fighters.

Specifically, requiring a fighter to "give something up" of value to obtain the specialization .. well, that now appeals to me. A one-half proficiency penalty in the remaining weapons of proficiency doesn't seem too draconian a payment. Perhaps at 7th level, the fighter would be able to "proof" his other proficient weapons back up to normal proficiency by allocating another proficiency slot to do so. By then, the fighter will certainly have it's double specialization, and at that level of play, I'm sure we can agree that a couple of extra points of damage per round, and one extra attack every other isn't all that powerful.

DungeonDelver points out the main reason I allow weapon specialization in the first place. My current number of players is 5, that seems to be the norm the last few years and it was my opinion that they need some extra firepower for the trials that lay ahead of them.

I'll probably stick with weapon specialization for 1st level fighters (yes, rangers too), but might require an actual sacrifice in the future. No. I mean a sacrifice. A real. Human. Sacrifice. Okay, maybe a -1 nerf on the fighter's "normal" proficient weapons will suffice.

Axe, you'll just have to stew about it.

[Ragnorakk]

... Perhaps at 7th level, the fighter would be able to "proof" his other proficient weapons back up to normal proficiency by allocating another proficiency slot to do so. By then, the fighter will certainly have it's double specialization, and at that level of play, I'm sure we can agree that a couple of extra points of damage per round, and one extra attack every other isn't all that powerful.

That's neat. Makes me think of RMFRP skill category & skill division, to be allowed to develop more specifically or more generally.

[TRP]

... Perhaps at 7th level, the fighter would be able to "proof" his other proficient weapons back up to normal proficiency by allocating another proficiency slot to do so. By then, the fighter will certainly have it's double specialization, and at that level of play, I'm sure we can agree that a couple of extra points of damage per round, and one extra attack every other isn't all that powerful.

That's neat. Makes me think of RMFRP skill category & skill division, to be allowed to develop more specifically or more generally.

Thank Gary Gygax and Dave Newton for the idea, and T.Foster for planting their idea in this thread. It comes from Mythus as well.

[Ragnorakk]

Neat indeed!

[Solinor]

How did the game survive 11 years without specialization?

If specialization is available its stupid not to take it.

I don't use UA but I do allow players to invent weapon abilities at higher levels that seem appropriate to how they have played their character.

[AxeMental]

TRP: "Axe, you'll just have to stew about it."

You know this is going to keep me up at nights.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

See this? This is the line in the sand.

-----------------

Now that you've crossed the line, you need to know that the next ad hominem in this thread will lead to me using some mod tools.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

And now, taking the mod hat off, where I agree with achijusan about this is that weapon specialisation takes the emphasis (and need) off high ability scores and puts it back to class choice. You see, I don't believe that a 17 strength cleric should be better in melee than a 16 strength fighter.

And my personal feeling is that weapon specialisation addresses a creeping problem in the rules c. 1980-1982, which is hp inflation. In OD&D, a fighter would, on average, kill an orc in one hit. In AD&D with weapon specialisation, a fighter will, on average, kill an orc in one hit. But in AD&D c. 1980-1982, if you look at the published modules, the orc will always have 5-7hp, so on average our fighter will kill an orc in two hits unless the fighter has high strength.

Weapon specialisation speeds up fights, particularly at lower level, and in my mind faster fights have to be a good thing.

As a third point, Gary Gygax repeatedly explained that player characters are supposed to be exceptional. In Gygaxian D&D, first level fighters aren't peasants with pitchforks who can just about take on one orc on even terms---they're Young Conan, or Young Fafhrd or whatever.

It does undeniably make fighters more powerful, but as Odhanan says, the default assumptions about group-size changed. Nowadays we've got to assume 3-6 players (and typically 4 or 5) plus DM. In such an environment player characters do need a bit of a boost if they're to cope with a module with a reasonable chance of getting through it alive.

You can change the game such that the player characters really are helpless mooks who're lucky to make it through first level and you can make a fun game out of that paradigm, but that isn't the paradigm Gary wrote. He thought player characters were exceptional individuals with the potential to become heroes.

[achijusan]

And that is one of the reasons I like and use weapon spec... virtually BtB (well; except rangers cant double specialize).

Fighters should be the very best at fighting. In any event, once higher levels are reached and you are fighting monsters with lots of hp and great AC; that extra +1 to hit +2 to damage doesnt break the game.

in fact it might even help avoid the temptation (and pressure on the DM - at least for a while) to have to give shinier and more powerful magical weapons away just to keep the fighter PCs happy... particularly once clerics are flame striking and magic users are fire balling right and left... and the thief is creeping up behind to give something a X4 backstab...

It also helps give the fighter player satisfaction in the knowledge that he is the best in the party - at something he by all rights should be.

WS may even help the demihuman single class fighters enough to keep the BtB level limits.. (well - the UA ones anyway ) a max level Elf fighter spec in longbow is pretty badass, and so is a max level Dwarf double spec in battle axe, and even a max level halfling fighter speced in shortbow or sling is worthy of respect !

[James Maliszewski]

As a third point, Gary Gygax repeatedly explained that player characters are supposed to be exceptional. In Gygaxian D&D, first level fighters aren't peasants with pitchforks who can just about take on one orc on even terms---they're Young Conan, or Young Fafhrd or whatever.

If that's something Gary said -- though I do wonder when he said that -- then it probably goes a some way toward explaining why my devotion to "Gygaxian D&D" will always be less strong than most of the other denizens of this forum. (Mind you, I'd also disagree that a weapon specialist, post-UA 1st-level fighter is at all emulative of a "Young Conan, or Young Fafhrd," but that's at least partially a matter of literary interpretation and not really the subject of this thread.)

Your point, though, is well taken: Gary likely envisaged a 1st-level fighter as being more potent a combatant than I do and that may be why I am uneasy about weapon specialization. That's also probably why I prefer OD&D these days.

[ScottyG]

It's in the PH in the beginning of the abilities section, where it also states that a PC should have at least two 15s to be considered viable.
That was always his PoV though, even if it wasn't expressly stated in OD&D. The first characters of the game, Robilar, Yrag, etc. all have heroic stats. They rolled, and then rolled agaon, and then rolled somemore until they came up with a stat set that was heroic enough. That's per Rob Kuntz when I asked him what method they used to roll up those characters.