Weapon Specialization

[TRP]

(ducks from TRP pelting his Female-Witch Ral Partha collection at me).

Have seen the tits on those bitches? Pointeee. They'll put your eye out.

[Matthew]

But the part I actually don’t like is the actual specialization. I’d rather fighters be able to use any weapon like they originally could. So he might start with a regular longsword, find a +1 Axe and upgrade to that, find a +1 broadsword and upgrade to that, then a +3 dagger or something... you know? With specialization, I have to make sure to plant magical copies of whatever weapon he is specialized to. Or not. But to me the fun of magic weapons trumps the cold mechanics of character creation.

Exactly so. The literary precedent that always makes me think again is Smith's "Zobal the Archer" and "Cushara the Pikeman" who refuse ensorcelled versions of their weapons in favour of the ones they are used to.

Guess I'm just not OS enough. I'll ask Zeb at my game tonight what he thinks.

Ha!

Basically, I think thieves should attack better than clerics, but clerics should defend better than thieves.

Intriguingly, the relative weakness of thieves as melee combatants is a change from OD&D to AD&D. I have no idea why Gygax decided to make this change, though.

I do not have a copy of OD&D to hand, but I think the reasons has to do with that fact that Greyhawk provides a Chain Mail fighting ability section for the thief that is definitely weaker than that of the cleric (or the other way around, I forget).

Essentially, at first level fighters and rangers with specialization are bumped up to about 4th or 5th level in combat ability at first level.

This is my issue with it. It changes the fundamental assumptions about what a "1st level Fighter" is and can do. If Fighters need to be powered up relative to the other classes, I'd tend to look at a solutions like putting a floor on their hit dice rolls (e.g. 6-10 instead of 1-10), which power them up without changing the fundamental assumptions. If you *do* want to change the fundamental assumptions, then I think you should just do it: shift the Fighter to hit columns to give them better probabilities, right off the bat.

Indeed. I find the idea of giving the fighter a blanket bonus much preferable

Does anyone allow weapon specialization for 0-level Fighters, like mercenaries? Also, for those who allow weapon specialization at 1st level, do you also allow monsters (e.g. a 1HD orc) to specialize?

Sort of. That is to say I have no problem increasing their combat abilities if it suits my purposes.

As for a fighter with less than 18% being not worth a fig, that's just nonsense. Their access to strength-enhancing magic, powerful combat weapons and substantial hp make them a fantastic character choice even without optimum ability scores.

True, but it is also the case that the jump in strength is very uneven and it does carry an advantage. Once I was playing a paladin and another player was running a fighter with exceptional strength and specialisation. Let me just say it sucked.

I’m not even sure I like Weapon Proficiencies. What do they add to the game? A sense of growth?

It's an interesting question and I'd love to hear from someone knowledgeable about the subject why Gygax added them in AD&D, because, ironically, I think they actually weaken the fighter compared to OD&D by limiting his weapon selection. Sure, other classes are even more limited but the role of none of them is as dependent as the fighter's in having access to any weapon on hand. (Mind you, I also think the ability of thieves to use magic swords also weakened the fighter, so what do I know?)

Proficiencies are the beginning of the end, character building resources. We hates them.

I think that and they allow the fighter to shine (having the best chance of finding a magic weapon they can use, and having a greater variety of weapons to do more damage (say pulling out that two handed when you run into that troll).

Get the fuck out! Shine? Is that you AxeMental junior?

That I think is the crux.

Again, in such a case with a small group I'd allow it, and all the benefits that it bestows.

Yeah, that is definitely the situation it makes most sense for.

You see, I don't believe that a 17 strength cleric should be better in melee than a 16 strength fighter.

Me neither, but specialisation is a poor response. Give fighters +1/+1 and call it a day, I reckon. My feeling is that first level fighters should be roughly equivalent to hobgoblins or other 1+1 HD humanoids.

Besides, I must be missing some nuance here, but ISN’T every 1st level Fighter a potential Conan by definition, just by the nature of the level system?

Yes, but only if he actually advances. Serjeants, for instance, are specifically barred from the advancement system. So really, it is only every first level player character fighter who is a potential Conan.

Lakofka invented this specialization crap. I don't care for it because of that. When I talk with all the old scabs in person about D&D and in this case in particular the archer class comes up ALWAYS.

Specialisation is definitely Lakofka's baby, and goes hand in hand with his desire for D&D as a more "realistic" simulation (by which is really meant, less abstract).

And now onto the original question to share my thoughts and wisdom...

Like a lot of people, when I was younger, I used weapon specialization as presented in Unearthed Arcana without any real thought. I recall thinking it was a little overpowered at the time, especially when it came to missile weapons, but it was an official, Gygax-approved rule, so I went with it. Later, I came to dislike specialization and considered it a good example of why UA was an unworthy addition to the 1e canon.

All that aside, I'm curious to hear other people's experiences with and thoughts about weapon specialization. Is it possible to use it in a fashion more in line with early 1e or is it wholly and irredeemable part and parcel of the power creep that Gary seemed to favor in his later days at TSR? I ask because I've been cogitating a bit about fighters and multiple attacks in Chainmail, OD&D, and AD&D and so, inevitably, I started to think about weapon specialization.

I'm not expecting any deep thoughts or philosophical musings on the topic (though I'd be happy to hear them if you have them), but I would love to hear what people's thinking these days is about specialization and its effects, both practical and theoretical on AD&D.

Thanks.

Between Greyhawk and AD&D Gygax was looking to achieve a greater parity between the fighter and the magician classes, as he mentions in the PHB and elsewhere. He increased the power of the fighter in some ways, and decreased the power of the magician in others. For some reason he also decreased the benefit fighters received from strength and their starting fighting ability, meaning that they generally started less powerful (presumably this was to balance them with the magician who also starts very weak). For whatever reason (perhaps a firmly entrenched notion that magicians should start out weaker than fighters before outmatching them at later levels) this did not work out, but rather than change the rules Gygax added weapon specialisation into the mix. For low level types it seems too much, but for high level types it can still be a massive jump mainly because of the increase in attack rate. I put together some comparisons on this subject a while back here: From Fighting Man to Fighter.

As far as Gygax's reasoning goes...

Q: Weapon specialization seems like a great feature that adds variety to the fighter class, but it is also accused of being overly powerful (esp. double specialization and bow specialization).

A: Too powerful? Sounds like a mage-lover's whine (as are most complaints about the barbarian class). Without the restrictions 2E placed on magic, the changes affecting fighters and their ilk were simply things that brought them more on a par with spell-casters. As for archery being too potent with dual specialization: real arrows can and did kill, were deadly, so why not?

I have messed around with all sorts of specialisation rules, but I am pretty much sold now on a blanket +1 to hit and +1 to damage for fighters and a B/X style approach to attributes, because the problem of specialisation is linked to exceptional strength.

[Ragnorakk]

"... because the problem of specialisation is linked to exceptional strength."

I don't follow this. Is it just that the stacking of WS bonuses on top of the sometimes really huge exceptional strength bonuses takes things 'too far'?

[Matthew]

I don't follow this. Is it just that the stacking of WS bonuses on top of the sometimes really huge exceptional strength bonuses takes things 'too far'?

That is one part of it, but more to the point it is because exceptional strength is too attribute loaded, but weapon specialisation fails to redress this. It is one thing to have fighter A be a specialist and fighter B exceptionally strong, but when fighter C is exceptionally strong and a specialist, but fighter D is neither you have massive disproportionation.

[AxeMental]

Mathew, I'm exceptionally impressed with your quote-fu. I'm still not sure how the hell that works. I can manage one...barely.

[Juju EyeBall]

Fighter D picked the wrong class?

Ignore me, I'm not a fan of proficiencies.

[James Maliszewski]

I do not have a copy of OD&D to hand, but I think the reasons has to do with that fact that Greyhawk provides a Chain Mail fighting ability section for the thief that is definitely weaker than that of the cleric (or the other way around, I forget).

Actually, clerics and thieves are remarkably close to one another in terms of their Chainmail fighting capability for the first 3 levels and then the cleric pulls slightly ahead of the thief, but not significantly so.

1st level - C: Man; T: Man
2nd level - C: Man +1; T: Man +1
3rd level - C: 2 Men; T: 2 Men
4th level - C: 3 Men; T: 2 Men +1
5th level - C: 3 Men +1; T: 3 Men
6th level - C: Hero -1; T: 3 Men +1
7th level - C: Hero; T: Hero -1
8th level - C: Hero +1; T: Hero
9th level - C: Superhero -1; T: Hero +1

[Bargle]

Let's build the chain of logic from CM to UA.

normal man: d6 hit points.
default hit dice and damage: d6.

The fighting-man, the cleric, and the magic-user all start out at the same level; they all require 0 xp to "reach" 1st level (this is overlooked I think, by almost everyone). The question is, "What do they get for reaching 1st level?" and "Is it balanced?"

Compared to the normal man
The fighting man gets +1 hit points.
The magic user gets 1 spell.
The Cleric gets to turn undead. (this is why 1st level clerics do not also get a spell).

Firstly, Yes, Gygax called the fighting-man's ability to use all magical weaponry, "...a big advantage", But this not realized at the moment of creation, so let's not dwell on it. Secondly, At first blush it is odd that the veteran in CHAINMAIL (and the 1+1 monster) also gets a +1 to his attack and that this is missing from the fighting man. Luckily for us this is rectified in:

ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS aka LLB (plus) all suppliments (minus) all optional rules.

Normal man d8 hit points.
Default hit dice and damage: d8.

Compared to the normal man:
The fighting man gets +1 hit points and +2 to hit (+20% damage per round (DPR)
The magic user gets 1 spell and -2 hit points.
The cleric gets 1 (or more!) spell and turn undead.

Firstly, the fighter's +2 to hit (thac0 19 vs. normal man 21) makes sense as default MtM chart of CHAINMAIL used a 2d6 attack roll, roughly speaking translating a +1 to hit from the MtM table to the d20 table is a +2. Secondly, I'm not sure why the magic-user needed to get wacked with the nerf-bat, Thirdly, I'm not really sure why the cleric needed the boost.

UNEARTHED ARCANA

Compared to the normal man:
The fighting-man gets +1 hit point, +3 to hit, and +2 damage and 3/2 attacks. (+200% DPR)
The magic user gets 1 spell and a few cantrips, -2 hit points.
The cleric gets 1 or more spells, a few orisions, turn undead.

This is quite a large increase in damage over the normal man (2.0 DPR vs. 5.85 DPR with a long sword vs. AC 10) almost 3x the damage. Perhaps balanced against the magic-users sleep spell which could take out 16 normal men in a single round (taking out 16 HD) which--if translated into damage is 32x normal man DPR, but only 5x the damage when used against an ogre (taking out 4 HD). Throw in extra ordinary strength and the 1st level fighter is doing some 500% more damage than a normal man.

The 1st level magic user is closer in power to the CHAINMAIL seer than the lowly 1st level fighter with no extraordinary strength and weapon specialization is to the hero. Obviously UA went a long way towards changing this, but the 1st level magic user is still much closer to the normal man than the 1st level extraordinary strength weapon specialized fighter is, big problem! He's either Conan the Barbarian, or Conan O'Brian.

The answer to me is to run the treasure tables BtB and get a magic sword into the hands of a 1st level fighter when the dice say so--20% of all magic items found will be intelligent magic swords in 0e and 25% of all swords are intelligent in Ad&d, which would fix this problem without resorting to either a weakling fighter or super man at 1st level. Gygax was right all along, the magic sword really is the fighting-man's and thief's! special ability.



My guess is that the default play for many groups is to grant extraordinary strength and weapon spec, but be stingy on the doling out of magic weapons, however this leads to the requirement of 18/00 fighters specialized in the bastard swords in order to balance them against the other classes and also to the feeling that thieves are too weak. It also turns Fighting-Men into one trick ponies. All weapon specialization and % strength does is make them hit harder, like a video game. It's not fun and it's not really what dungeons and dragons is traditionally about (brains, wit, over coming traps and ostacles). Give these characters a hammer and they'll look at everything like they were nails. Not giving intelligent magic swords to your fighters and thieves is like taking away bionics from cyborgs in a futuristic rpg. They are symbiotic classes. It makes them smarter than wizards (their swords can speak multiple languages cast charm person) and more canny than demi-humans (their sword can detect gold, or secret passages)! This makes for a fun class. The fighting-man is a class who's over arching endgame goal is leading NPC's, not +9 damage on every (yawn...) attack--a magic sword is their first Henchman/Follower and they can get it at 1st or 2nd level.

It's Excalibur that made Arthur who he was, it was Sting that gave Bilbo a chance. Stormbringer that transformed Elric. Fafhrd and the Mouser had Greywand, Scalpel and Cat's Claw. Give weapon specialization and extraordinary strength to the barbarian/conan/zen archer warrior archetype that eschews magic, but not to the fighting-man and thief.

[Lord Cias]

. . . awesome post . . .

+1!

Give weapon specialization and extraordinary strength to the barbarian/conan/zen archer warrior archetype that eschews magic, but not to the fighting-man and thief.

A most excellent suggestion.

[Dwayanu]

It is one thing to have fighter A be a specialist and fighter B exceptionally strong, but when fighter C is exceptionally strong and a specialist, but fighter D is neither you have massive disproportionation.

18/01-50 in AD&D gives +0/+1 over a straight 18. Specialization adds +1/+2, for +1/+3 total over straight 18 (+1/+2), or +2/+5.

18/91-99 also gives +2/+5. 18/00 gives +3/+6.

Double specialization givess +3/+3. Plus strength 18/01-50, that's +4/+6.

One can also get in AD&D a magic sword that grants +5/+5.

(Edit: Specialization also increases attack rate, which tends to be more significant.)

What I'm getting at is that "massive disproportions" were the thing even before WS. The game from the start was a matter of tosses of dice, with only the results over many histories of players and characters being "balanced". That balance was simply that in the long run there should be a low score for each high score.

There was no guarantee that any two characters should be equal at any time other than before the first roll for ability scores for either. There was no guarantee that luck should not give a run of high rolls to one player while giving another a run of low rolls.

It's often (depending on the base chance) 8 points easier to hit a character with dexterity 3 than to hit one with dexterity 18. A monster with a 50% chance to hit the former has only 10% to hit the latter, which is like giving the latter 5 times as many hit points. Of course, the former could actually have 10 times as many h,p. as the latter (especially if they're both 1st level), if the rule is by the book.

Method V generation of human PCs' ability scores, along with the starting hit points rule directly beneath that on UA p. 74, changes the distribution of such extremes.

[Dwayanu]

Normal man d8 hit points.
Default hit dice and damage: d8.

Note that in AD&D the normal 0-level fighting man gets (per DMG p. 30) 4-7 h.p., for the same average as the 1st level fighter's d10.

[TRP]

Chainmail is a wargame.

AD&D is a roleplaying game.

Trying to connect the dots between the apple and the pear is like trying to connect the dots between a set of rules meant to simulate a battle and a set of rules meant to explore the imagination. There's such a difference between deciding gamesmanship between adversaries in a head to head competition and a thought experiment with few parameters, that I don't see the usefulness of it.

I've since forgone debating the "usefulness", "manliness" or "munchkin-ness" of weapon specialization for fighters, but to dig through the rules for a wargame to justify, or negate, the concept of specialization is meaningless.

[Bargle]

Chainmail is a wargame.

AD&D is a roleplaying game.

[Dwayanu]

20% of all magic items found will be intelligent magic swords in 0e

20% of magic items are swords.

Only 50% of magic swords have "mental power", "communicative ability" and "egoism".

[TRP]

Chainmail is a wargame.

AD&D is a roleplaying game.

You win.

Do to a use of peculiar nomenclature to sell games over 35 years ago, AD&D is clearly a wargame, and it was always intended as such.