Weapon Specialization

[James Maliszewski]

Does that help?

A little

[Benoist]

But, like I said, this may be a better topic for a new thread of its own.

Start it, James. This might be interesting. I don't get the feeling many people around here play AD&D strictly by-the-book, so you might get more agreement on this question than you'd expect.

[rredmond]

...It certainly matches the approach to play described in Greg Svenson's account of the first Blackmoor "dungeon adventure" (which I can't find a working link to at the moment, but I imagine most of you have already read it anyway). ...

Quick threadjack, I'm not sure I've read this. Anyone have a link... think I have Greg's email address somewhere too, but if anyone has this I'd appreciate it. Thanks ahead of time. Good thread! /jack

[achijusan]

Sorry off topic

[James Maliszewski]

Then why on earth bother posting in the "By the Book AD&D" threads ?

Mostly because the question that started this thread was about using weapon specialization as-is without any changes. The thread's meandered quite a bit since then and, as I said above, my musing on what "by the book" actually means is probably something better suited to a thread of its own.

[James Maliszewski]

Start it, James. This might be interesting. I don't get the feeling many people around here play AD&D strictly by-the-book, so you might get more agreement on this question than you'd expect.

I'll admit to some curiosity on this point, but I also know, based on past experience, that going down this road is fraught with peril, so I think I'll just let sleeping dogs lie for the time being.

[rogatny]

There's a lot of meat to chew on in here.

First, with regard to the "zero to hero" question, my take on it was that starting pcs are supposed to be extraordinary, but largely extraordinary in their potential. Joe the Fighter isn't Conan and Jane the Magic-User isn't Circe, but both have the potential to become so, which in and of itself sets them apart from stock 0-level npcs.

Thus, the first level fighter is a "veteran." He's seen some combat. Probably as a levy fighting some skirmish for some local lord. But I think AD&D gets things muddy with its classes as to whether they are types or professions. The OD&D "fighting-man" was clearly a "type." He was the "strong guy" on every super hero team. The AD&D fighter, on the other hand is clearly a soldier. If you look at the way the rules are set up, he's a soldier trained at killing other humans in hand to hand combat.

Use the entire by the book combat and run a 2nd or 3rd level fighter against 3 or 4 0-level men-at-arms. Give the men-at-arms typical soldier's equipment - let's say, chain, shield, spear, hand axe - and let the fighter pick his arms and armor. For these purposes, let's say plate and two-handed sword. With the multiple attacks per round, with weapon v. AC bonuses and penalties, with the multiple attack routine rule, the 3rd or 4th level fighter will chew through those mercenaries like they were nothing, even without strength bonuses. With weapon v. AC adjustments, the fighter hits about 45% of the time, and the m-a-a's only hit 5%. The fighter gets at least one attack off every round before the m-a-a's can even respond.

For most normal human beings, a 4th level fighter (or even 2nd or 3rd level fighter) is a complete bad-ass. Now, put that fighter up against a 3 or 4 HD monster and all of a sudden, the multiple attacks go away and the W v. AC rule goes away.

What weapon specialization does is takes some of those bonuses a low-level fighter would normally have against regular humans and gives it to him when fighting monsters. Whether that is a good or bad thing, is largely up to you and what you consider to be a fighter's job in your game.

[AxeMental]

Authored by Gary+published by TSR = AS "OFFICIAL" and "BtB" as it gets.

This may be fodder for a new thread, I don't know, but I'd say that one of the main reasons I don't play AD&D and instead opt for OD&D + bits from the various Supplements and Strategic Review is the question of what's official and what's not. A good portion of the AD&D players I've known in real life (as opposed to online) are of the mindset that "if it's in the books, it's allowed." Now, maybe such people are a small minority of a small minority, but they seem to be common enough in my experience that I no longer try to go against the grain by saying, "I play AD&D but with the following changes ..." For a great many people out there, saying "I play AD&D" brings with it certain expectations about what such a campaign will include, expectations I don't get when I say "I play OD&D."

But, like I said, this may be a better topic for a new thread of its own.

Ahhh your just trying to rationalize your preference for 0E...a less manly game.

[James Maliszewski]

Ahhh your just trying to rationalize your preference for 0E...a less manly game.

So I've been told.

[francisca]

Ahhh your just trying to rationalize your preference for 0E...a less manly game.

Holy crap, you're funny!

[Ragnorakk]

What weapon specialization does is takes some of those bonuses a low-level fighter would normally have against regular humans and gives it to him when fighting monsters. Whether that is a good or bad thing, is largely up to you and what you consider to be a fighter's job in your game.

Interesting - Looking at it this way sort of brings it back to Chainmail.

[rogatny]

What weapon specialization does is takes some of those bonuses a low-level fighter would normally have against regular humans and gives it to him when fighting monsters. Whether that is a good or bad thing, is largely up to you and what you consider to be a fighter's job in your game.

Interesting - Looking at it this way sort of brings it back to Chainmail.

Very much so. I think in Chainmail you have a baseline assumption of regular medieval humans fighting other regular medieval humans. The combat against monsters from the fantasy supplement is special and different. I think you've got mechanics based on an assumption that humans don't fight monsters all that much, and when Joe puts his troll or dragon mini on the battlefield, it should be cool and different from your normal Battle of Hastings or Crecy scenario.

I think the weapon specialization rules are a tacit acknowledgment that as of 1980-whatever, D&D players didn't have their characters fighting 0-level humans, didn't use the weapon v. AC chart, and didn't use the weapon speed breaks ties rules.

[AxeMental]

Ahhh your just trying to rationalize your preference for 0E...a less manly game.

Holy crap, you're funny!

Yes I kill myself.

[Dwayanu]

What weapon specialization does is takes some of those bonuses a low-level fighter would normally have against regular humans and gives it to him when fighting monsters.

And adds it on top of the bonuses vs. normal men.

Yes, all this is clear. What's not clear to me is why. Are you using other stuff from UA that would otherwise put the fighter in shadow? Does your campaign structure not provide the same incentives as the Blackmoor/ Greyhawk model?

I'm curious about how people assess AD&D game balance -- surely a subject for a new thread.

[rogatny]

And adds it on top of the bonuses vs. normal men.

Correct. Although, I think there was an assumption, when the w.s. rules were published that people were not using most or even all those rules.

Yes, all this is clear. What's not clear to me is why. Are you using other stuff from UA that would otherwise put the fighter in shadow? Does your campaign structure not provide the same incentives as the Blackmoor/ Greyhawk model?

Just to be clear -- I'm not using WS rules. And I have the same basic question that you do.

Dungeon Delver stated earlier in the thread that the initial reasoning for WS was to pump up the party's damage dealing ability in groups that were quite a bit smaller than the 1970s assumed group of 6 to 8 players plus a similar number of cronies, henchmen, and hangers on. I had heard that earlier as well, and I had thought I had heard/read that reasoning from directly from a Gygaxian source. (Whether a Sorcerer's Scroll or one of his various Internet Q&A sessions, I don't remember.)

However, his reasoning in The Dragon 66, page 27, October 1982, where the concept of weapon specialization was first introduced is as follows...

Fighters have too long been the last-choice class, the group who posed the least threat. This does not apply to paladins, rangers, or the new barbarian sub-class either; these all have abilities and powers far beyond the mundane world of a fighter. Therefore, weapon specialization applies only to fighters, excluding all sub-classes.

Thus w.s. was to give fighters something to stand out from the paladin, ranger, and barbarian. This concept was, of course, completely defeated when w.s. was amended in UA to allow rangers to have it, and when the UA also included cavaliers and paladin-cavaliers, with their very-similar-to-w.s. "weapons of choice."

Perhaps the reasoning DD cited before was the reason the w.s. rules were extended to rangers when UA was published in 1985.