Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Which rules can and can't be changed in 1E without changing the game into something new is of course anyones opinion. There are critical rules that relate to real things that you role for, and there are critical rules that relate to game philosophy (or how the game is supposed to work). I think I have a pretty good idea of which rules are too important to mess with. Not everyone will agree, but thats their problem.

UA's too major blunders were Weapons Specialization, and forced behavior (taking away choice) for barbarians and caviliers (ie. a barbarian must destroy magic and fear magic, and a cavilier must fight to the death) even a paladin doesn't do that.

Both are toxic. Both cut at the very fabric of the game, and were huge mistakes by Gygax to have included (if it was his choice). Their acceptance is what led to 2E.

AxeMental wrote:at that point "you are playing something, just not 1E AD&D." to paraphrase Gygax....at least IMHO.

And what is the problem with that? If a consumer buys a gaming book he's free to use it as he sees fit.

I don't anyone plays out of ideological purity, we play to have fun. If fun can be maximized for a particular group by changing things from what they are by-the-book, even if drastically so, that is no one else's business.

vargr1105 wrote:

AxeMental wrote:at that point "you are playing something, just not 1E AD&D." to paraphrase Gygax....at least IMHO.

And what is the problem with that? If a consumer buys a gaming book he's free to use it as he sees fit.

I don't anyone plays out of ideological purity, we play to have fun. If fun can be maximized for a particular group by changing things from what they are by-the-book, even if drastically so, that is no one else's business.

Well, of course not. But we are discussing rules that were canonized in UA (WS) and I'm responding to Matt's arguement related to elves to allow it (a non-arguement IMO due to its fundamental impact on the games feel, he needs an example that is not so critical and so common to be noticed every game session...elves are very common, and their loss of +1 to long sword would be too impactful).

In any event, the damage of WS was noticed by everyone in our group (and in many groups of what I consider good players) and we quickly dropped it. You can say all day long it doesn't matter till your blue in the face (that its a small thing really), but you are wrong.
When you have players playing a classic fighter watching the guy with WS kill everything, with a body like Barney Fife to boot, welll...yeah...thats fucked.

AxeMental wrote:Well, of course not. But we are discussing rules that were canonized in UA (WS) and I'm responding to Matt's argument related to elves to allow it.

That's the issue. Maybe it is time to drop the whole "canonical" argument.

A rule either leans towards good or bad for the play style of a group regardless if it was made by Gygax or by the 12 year old kid down the street. I have seen a fair number of threads since i joined AD&D forums were in a discussion about rule A or B the source eventually becomes *the* argument for determine its validity. For example: data from Dragon magazine seems to be considered less "kosher" than that in the books or supplements...why? Either it is a good rule, or idea, or new class or whatever on its own within the framework of what a group wants out of the game and their play style; or it isn't. Who cares where and when it was printed?

Instead of asking "Is WS good, bad or irrelevant?" we should be asking:

a - For which tastes and play styles is WS designed for?

b - What changes and benefits will it bring to the game in view of the above?

b1 - What challenges will it cause? Will some accommodation be needed or does it fit more or less seamlessly?

c - Which gaming styles is WS not designed for?

d - In what manner(s) would incorporating it to the game spoil or hinder it for (c) ? And to what extent?


And this could be done for every "official" rule, 3rd-party rule and house rule. DH Level Limits, class restrictions, etc you name it.

Axe doesn't like WS, and he is making good points of why it doesn't work for him and his playstyle. But dozens of folks, myself included use it and like it. So there is some inherent worth to this set of rules even if it isn't universal. Instead of the "Yays" and "Nays" tossing words at each other maybe each group should do a separate analysis and come up with a list of the reasons why they think so. You put the two together and you get a better image of what the rule is. Then anyone can have a feel if it is a "bad" or "good" rule for them according to specific paradigms of play.

I would expect that in nearly 40 years of gaming some consensus would have been achieved already.

AxeMental wrote:In any event, the damage of WS was noticed by everyone in our group (and in many groups of what I consider good players) and we quickly dropped it.

Well good. If it didn't fit your play style that was the right thing to do. Canon be darned.

AxeMental wrote:You can say all day long it doesn't matter till your blue in the face (that its a small thing really), but you are wrong.

Well of course it matters. Adding or omitting rules from the game (supplement canonical or not) changes it into a different beast. Just how much the impact of change will be felt depends on...wait for it, individual play style and preference.

AxeMental wrote:When you have players playing a classic fighter watching the guy with WS kill everything, with a body like Barney Fife to boot, welll...yeah...thats fucked.

I don't know who barney fife is, but I guess you are making a verissimilitude argument. It jives with it that a fighter with a body below a certain minimum of excellence can become a killing machine by adding WS. That is a fair point and the solution is obvious: limit access to WS for specific weapons based on Abilty Score minimums. That will make sure no scrawny geeks are running around slaying back and forth with battleaxes and no wheezing lardasses can become deadly rapier masters who move like a butterfly and sting like a bee.

AxeMental wrote: Thats just it, you are attempting to change fundamentals of the game, the very things that make 1E 1E. What makes an elf cool is what you imagine in your head. Yes thats true. But what makes it a dynamic in the game in a statistical way (a heavily playtested game) is its set of advantages and disadvantages that really count (+s, ability to see in dark, ability to surprise etc.). You can fuck with alot of things in 1E AD&D Matt (movement rates, WSF, tactical stuff, etc.) but you can't fuck with with the meaningful identifiers of the races. Or at that point "you are playing something, just not 1E AD&D." to paraphrase Gygax....at least IMHO.

1E has two sets of rules: those that can't be changed, and those that can. With WS and the idea of removing an elf's +1 with longsword, you are attempting to change rules that can't be changed without changing the game.

That is just not it. No offence, AxeMental, but you are off your rocker if you think a +1 modifier here and there is messing with the fundamentals of the game. The whole reason weapon specialisation is bullshit is because it is so out of whack with anything else, it blows the mathematics of the game out of the water, a +1 or −1 to hit is just not significant enough to impact the feel of the game. You may not like it, but that is another matter.

AxeMental wrote: Yes, I agree. For instance, I imagine my ranger is better with his long sword then he is with his other two WPs. But, in game terms, its not enough of a difference to register as a +1. Likewise, Bill first level fighter is slightly better with his longsword then Jack another first level fighter. But that difference isn't enough to count in chance to hit.

1E AD&D is simply an abstraction of a fantasy reality (with much left up to chance and the role of the die).

And why stop at Weapons Specialization. You could argue that a dagger can do as much (or close to as much) damage as a two handed sword if that dagger can be placed more accurately. And with that logic, you could make all weapons do the same damage (say 1-8). Likewise, You could argue that a character's greater wisdom or intel would make for a better, smarter fighter and thus boost its chances to hit by +1 or what have you. All thats fine, and those rules would define your new game.

What your doing with WSpecialization is creating another game. It delves into the unchangable rules. The ones that define the foundation of the system.

Hey, do not lay this on me, all I am saying is that a +1 is not significant, I am not trying to introduce weapon specialisation into the game. You have your blinkers on here, you are just rehearsing the same arguments as before without appreciating the difference between "+1 to hit" and "+1 to hit, +2 to damage and +½ attack rate". They are night and day in terms of their effect on play, not least because the former is not better than the least magical weapon (well, except maybe a dagger +1). You are also creating a false logical connection, since weapon specialisation has nothing to do with the properties of weapons as depicted in the game. Indeed, your own logic concerning weapon proficiencies actually argues for weapon specialisation, since it admits that fighters can have different skill levels with different weapons and have that represented within the abstraction. On the other hand, I reject weapon proficiencies and weapon specialisation for the very reasons you cite above, that the abstraction is sufficient.

AxeMental wrote: Which rules can and can't be changed in 1E without changing the game into something new is of course anyone's opinion. There are critical rules that relate to real things that you role for, and there are critical rules that relate to game philosophy (or how the game is supposed to work). I think I have a pretty good idea of which rules are too important to mess with. Not everyone will agree, but thats their problem.

UA's too major blunders were Weapons Specialization, and forced behavior (taking away choice) for barbarians and caviliers (ie. a barbarian must destroy magic and fear magic, and a cavilier must fight to the death) even a paladin doesn't do that.

Both are toxic. Both cut at the very fabric of the game, and were huge mistakes by Gygax to have included (if it was his choice). Their acceptance is what led to 2E.

As Trent Foster has said in the past, their acceptance did lead to second edition, but not in the manner you suggest, rather second edition reacted to Unearthed Arcana by rejecting it almost completely. You are quite right, though, what individuals think the core of AD&D is will differ from person to person. It is no real surprise to find you taking the ultra-conservative position, I suppose, but it is kind of ironic given that your group has been happily playing the game allowing magic missile to target ropes and stuff!

What I mean by that is it is possible to play AD&D with really bad ideas and not actually affect the fundamental structure or feel of the game; it so much more robust than you are giving it credit for. To put it another way, AD&D is not so delicate a little flower that any minor alteration will tip it over into destruction, you have to really hack the roots of the tree to damage it.

Nah, I am on my rocker...it is you who have fallen off.

BTW I didn't mean there is a direct link in ideas between UA and 2E only that it opened the door to change (major change) in basic core concepts. Before that the 1E core rules were untouchable. You could publish all the DL series you wanted to and it didn't harm our table at all. UA turned it upside down (until we finally chucked the bulk of it).

Matt: "Hey, do not lay this on me, all I am saying is that a +1 is not significant, I am not trying to introduce weapon specialisation into the game. You have your blinkers on here, you are just rehearsing the same arguments as before without appreciating the difference between "+1 to hit" and "+1 to hit, +2 to damage and +½ attack rate". They are night and day in terms of their effect on play, not least because the former is not better than the least magical weapon (well, except maybe a dagger +1). You are also creating a false logical connection, since weapon specialisation has nothing to do with the properties of weapons as depicted in the game. Indeed, your own logic concerning weapon proficiencies actually argues for weapon specialisation, since it admits that fighters can have different skill levels with different weapons and have that represented within the abstraction. On the other hand, I reject weapon proficiencies and weapon specialisation for the very reasons you cite above, that the abstraction is sufficient."

Matt you might as well be speaking Chinese, I can't make heads or tails of this.

All I'm saying is that a +1 added to a players ability to hit by him "specializing" in a weapon (giving up slots for a bonus) is toxic. It disses the guy with 16 or 17 str., disses the elf (who before then was the only race that got a +1 to a weapon), it disses the guy who finds a really cool +1 long sword in a trolls lair (earning it), and it disses those that succeed with superior luck. Those pluses are earned, the WS is not. It begins the concept of stacking. Also, it makes a player controlling a fighter think in terms of powergaming (gotta take that WS) and alters the archetype of what a fighter "is" in 1E (master of many weapons, among other things).

AxeMental wrote:Before that the 1E core rules were untouchable. You could publish all the DL series you wanted to and it didn't harm our table at all.

I really don't think this was so. My older brothers played AD&D before I joined in, and I remember their games being a mish-mash of core hardbacks and Dragon articles before 1E came out.

To put it another way - I think many campaigns had extensive house rules documents long before 1985.

Now, if it all boils down to "Before UA the core rules were untouchable at Axe's game table" that's a different thing than the core rules as untouchable everywhere. The tournament ideal was essentially dead years before Gygax was ousted.

AxeMental wrote: BTW I didn't mean there is a direct link in ideas between UA and 2E only that it opened the door to change (major change) in basic core concepts. Before that the 1E core rules were untouchable. You could publish all the DL series you wanted to and it didn't harm our table at all. UA turned it upside down (until we finally chucked the bulk of it).

This is a complete misunderstanding of how AD&D fits into the context of the development of the game. It is itself a redefinition of the D&D rules, and the changes to it started as soon as it was released, indeed the MM, PHB and DMG do not quite agree with one another precisely because of this. Gygax was redefining the game from at least 1981, probably in 1980 too.

AxeMental wrote: All I'm saying is that a +1 added to a players ability to hit by him "specializing" in a weapon (giving up slots for a bonus) is toxic. It disses the guy with 16 or 17 str., disses the elf (who before then was the only race that got a +1 to a weapon), it disses the guy who finds a really cool +1 long sword in a trolls lair (earning it), and it disses those that succeed with superior luck. Those pluses are earned, the WS is not. It begins the concept of stacking. Also, it makes a player controlling a fighter think in terms of powergaming (gotta take that WS) and alters the archetype of what a fighter "is" in 1E (master of many weapons, among other things).

The thing is a +1 will not force players to think that way because it is worth the trade off. In that respect it is no different than forcing the player to choose between a long sword and battle axe (where there is a clear winner). As far as attributes go, though, it is not really much of a competitor, again because the +1 with one weapon does not compete with +1 damage with all weapons or +1/+1 with all weapons. When you are talking about +1/+2 and +½ attack rate you have got a point, but in this case it is just not. A magical long sword +1 is a much better find, but by that logic a strength 17 disses the guy who finds such a treasure, after all he did not earn his strength either, nor the elf his +1 to hit with bows and swords. In fact AD&D is easy to "power game", elf fighter/thieves with dexterity 18 already make human thieves of the same sort look like a very bad choice; the system encourages such things only so far as the players are susceptible to that way of thinking.

vargr1105 wrote:Maybe it is time to drop the whole "canonical" argument.... Who cares where and when it was printed?

Your post is thoughtful and intelligent. HOWEVER, let it suffice that some people care. Some people like the idea of playing AD&D by the book. AD&D itself assures the reader that playing by the book is a valid way to play. If multiple groups play by the same rules, it facilitates cross-pollination -- characters, monsters, dungeons, ideas, and conversations are relevant in a larger context because a common language exists. As I understand it, the "By The Book" forum presupposes this attitude.

So, any one article in Dragon or any house rules document had as its basis the core AD&D rules. Why is UA different? Because after it came out, any article in Dragon or any house rules document by default had the core AD&D rules AND UA as its basis.

Now today, that is probably not true. Probably most people cherry-pick UA the way they cherry-pick Dragon. But, due to the FACT of UA's historical canonicity, there is still the sense that you have to take a stance on what to use and not use from UA, which is not true of Dragon.

Matthew wrote:

AxeMental wrote: BTW I didn't mean there is a direct link in ideas between UA and 2E only that it opened the door to change (major change) in basic core concepts. Before that the 1E core rules were untouchable. You could publish all the DL series you wanted to and it didn't harm our table at all. UA turned it upside down (until we finally chucked the bulk of it).

This is a complete misunderstanding of how AD&D fits into the context of the development of the game. It is itself a redefinition of the D&D rules, and the changes to it started as soon as it was released, indeed the MM, PHB and DMG do not quite agree with one another precisely because of this. Gygax was redefining the game from at least 1981, probably in 1980 too.

AxeMental wrote: All I'm saying is that a +1 added to a players ability to hit by him "specializing" in a weapon (giving up slots for a bonus) is toxic. It disses the guy with 16 or 17 str., disses the elf (who before then was the only race that got a +1 to a weapon), it disses the guy who finds a really cool +1 long sword in a trolls lair (earning it), and it disses those that succeed with superior luck. Those pluses are earned, the WS is not. It begins the concept of stacking. Also, it makes a player controlling a fighter think in terms of powergaming (gotta take that WS) and alters the archetype of what a fighter "is" in 1E (master of many weapons, among other things).

The thing is a +1 will not force players to think that way because it is worth the trade off. In that respect it is no different than forcing the player to choose between a long sword and battle axe (where there is a clear winner). As far as attributes go, though, it is not really much of a competitor, again because the +1 with one weapon does not compete with +1 damage with all weapons or +1/+1 with all weapons. When you are talking about +1/+2 and +½ attack rate you have got a point, but in this case it is just not. A magical long sword +1 is a much better find, but by that logic a strength 17 disses the guy who finds such a treasure, after all he did not earn his strength either, nor the elf his +1 to hit with bows and swords. In fact AD&D is easy to "power game", elf fighter/thieves with dexterity 18 already make human thieves of the same sort look like a very bad choice; the system encourages such things only so far as the players are susceptible to that way of thinking.

Yes, the guy who rolled up a 17 did earn it (he rolled it when everyone else rolled 11s). Yes the guy who chooses an elf "earns" his +1 longsword, because he has chosen to be an elf. Would you want to look like this guy.



Also I realize D&D was a thing in flux created by Gygax (I understand its history). But what he should have done is leave 1E ALONE and done a new game. IF SOMETHING IS NOT BROKEN, DON'T ATTEMPT TO FIX IT. And thats the problem with UA.

EOTB wrote:

AxeMental wrote:Before that the 1E core rules were untouchable. You could publish all the DL series you wanted to and it didn't harm our table at all.

I really don't think this was so. My older brothers played AD&D before I joined in, and I remember their games being a mish-mash of core hardbacks and Dragon articles before 1E came out....

For what it's worth, Axe's overall point resonates with my own experiences. The PHB was the player's resource. It was usually the player's perogative to play any of its races/classes. And that was never a problem. I was also a Dragon subscriber. Of course, the DM could approve the use of something from it (i.e. we had a few Duelist PCs), but everyone understood it was up to the DM. When UA came along as a collection of those Dragon articles, bound in a hardcover, with "Gary Gygax" on its front cover, we treated the UA race/class stuff the same way as the PHB. In hindsight, that was a poor choice. But, it is what we did.

Our experience with Dragonlance was completely different. I picked up the first three modules, read them, and we tried to play them. We played one session. The next time we got together, without discussion we dropped the DL campaign and went back to doing what we were doing.

Earlier Axe said, "The key to remember is that 1E played with UA in full is a different game then 1E played without UA. When you have a fighter with WS, a cavilier, a barbarian...any of this, and the table notices. The dynamics change...". That's well said. As someone who played with UA as core or close to core for about two decades, I couldn't agree more. Since eliminating UA many of those dynamics have changed back, for the better.

AxeMental wrote:Yes, the guy who rolled up a 17 did earn it (he rolled it when everyone else rolled 11s). Yes the guy who chooses an elf "earns" his +1 longsword, because he has chosen to be an elf. Would you want to look like this guy.

I wouldn't consider randomly rolled ability scores, or their adjustments, as "earned" in any sense of the word. Player choice MUST be a factor to significant degree for anything to be earned. It's no coincidence that as D&D kept adding more and more significance to ability scores that it also kept creating methods to remove the randomness from, and add player choice to, their determination.

A player that chooses to play an elf "earns" his +1 with swords & bows but a player that chooses to play a specialized fighter doesn't earn his +1 with only one weapon*? Tell me, how does one bonus gained from a player choice during chargen count as earned and another does not?

* Assuming Matthew's toned-down suggestion.

I'm no fan of weapon specialization. I don't think it works very well given the abstract nature of D&D combat. However, a toned-down version that presents a true give-and-take choice is not going to alter the game in any significant way or throw the "balance" off one iota. If I had a player that wanted his fighter to specialize with a single weapon I'd have no problem giving him a +1 "to hit," and maybe even some other small perk, in exchange for a -1 "to hit" with all other weapon types. I CANNOT imagine a sane, mature player of a non-specialized fighter being offended in the slightest if another player chooses to be a specialized fighter when that choice is available to both players equally and it comes with a limiting factor. Now if that player was not given the option to specialize and the other player got no significant penalties for specializing then that's a different story, but that isn't what we're talking about here.

Personally I find a +3 "to hit" and +4 to damage bonus for only one player simply because of a lucky die roll to be more offensive and "unbalancing" than giving a player a +1 bonus due to a set of choices that are equally available to all players.

When a fighter charges an oger with his two handed sword manages to hit with a 17 and then chop off his head with 3d6 for 18 pts damage, thats luck (he earned it).

As for the elf....did you see that Metron picture?

When a player rolls an 18 strength that is pure luck, that is earned (how many PCs has this chump rolled up before getting an 18)? Is it earned In the same way, of course not...its not the PC its the player, but still the player did it. Its going to urk him to see the guy across the table with shit roles, say a 9 strength, get a +1 by giving up a few slots (big deal). Watch out, its Barney Fife with his one bullet... Or the guy that roles a 17 but sticks it on his dex and puts his lowest role on str. knowing it doesn't matter, he still gets his +1 (cough cough power gamer...cough).

What really rubbed me the wrong way with Weapons Specialization is that its introduced a new rule dynamic where PCs substitute game play (just being a bad ass despite bad attributes) with "building" (fine tuning your PC in a meaningful way rather then in your imagination and depending on good luck and smart play). What WS does (even a simple +1) is remove variability from the game. Gygax could have chosen not to include attributes (saying all PCs are basically the same). But wisely he did not.

Attributes are a way of creating "forced variability" within each archetype (including the fighter class). The reality of bad roles vs. good roles was and is apparent in every group (ex. in a group of 8 with 3 fighters, likely one is going to be getting a + to hit and damage and be a bit of a hog. But thats OK next go round that guy will probably role average str. and one of the other guys will role a high str.

The reality of subpar strength for instance, strongly encourages the player who always wants to be muscle bound Conan (the bad ass fighter cutting everyone down before him) to play something more akin to Subotai (with say an average str. but a high dex). This makes one PC different then the other. It creates depth, forces the guy who's the whimp to come up with new ideas he might otherwise not have. Attributes (espl strength) create a means to picture your PC differently and to create different stories. It removes homogenization between similar PCs (so you can remember one fighter from the next, rather then "oh yeah that was Joe with the +1 WS longsword and the other was fred with the +1 WS long sword" etc.)

It also tended to force the guy who did role a 17 or 18 strength to take a WS of +1 just to stay one up on the dweeb who takes WS with his 9 str. even if he doesn't want to do it (otherwise he's just on par with every fighter who did take it). What ended up happening was every fighter took WS every game (no one wanted to be "stumpy left behind"). No one missed having 4 weapons, since they all chose Long Sword anyway (the most common sort of magical sword found) And so the dreaded rule was canned after about a year.


The concept of WS was also a potential pandoras box - why not allow other players who role badly in attributes , trade one thing to get a +1 to hit with a bow, or go a little farther in combat (the equiv. of a 16 or 15 dex or con?. Afterall the guy with a 9 str. suddenly is given the equiv. of a 16 str.). Just make the trade off steep, right???

What makes fighters special? Why not allow an MU spell specialization (I'll give up 2 spells to double the range and damage of the one I "specialize in" ( Spell Spec.),

"hey you let Bill do it with his fighter, why not me, I only get to memorize one spell at first?" And he'd make a good point). etc. etc. Tony the thief with his 12 Dex sees Stuart with his 18 dex thief about to be kicking some ass as a thief, and before the game starts declares "NO FARE". "DM I will gladly give up X if you give me a +10% HIS as my sneak specialization. I am a master sneak and don't care about PP or FRT...let me have the +10% I want to backstab. Where would it end? Pretty soon your dealing with a new game and a bunch of pussies.

Bottom line, WS does change the game (even a minor +1) into a new game. Its a fact.

PS WS does exist with NPCs and monsters (Joshux the 0 level guard gets a +2 with his spear, Murry the halfling a +3 with his bow). Leave it there.

AxeMental wrote:When a fighter charges an oger with his two handed sword manages to hit with a 17 and then chop off his head with 3d6 for 18 pts damage, thats luck (he earned it).

He earned that result despite the element of luck, not because of it. He made a series of choices that led to the result, and one of those choices was to accept the consequences if the roll failed. The player knew his approximate chance of hitting the ogre (based on his level, to hit modifiers, and the apparant AC of the ogre) and chose to charge in and make the roll. The player made the choice to use a two-handed sword, using his judgement to determine that the high damage provided outweighed the lack of a shield bonus to AC. The player could have equally chosen to not charge in and attack.

Unless the player can make some choice that gives the player some control over his ability scores during chargen, no ability score is "earned." By definition you can't earn anything assigned by pure chance.

Note that I'm not saying that the player isn't entitled to the score rolled, merely that it is not earned.

When a player rolls an 18 strength, that is earned (how many PCs has this chump rolled up before getting an 18)? Is it earned In the same way, of course not...its not the PC its the player, but still the player did it. Its going to urk him to see the guy across the table with shit roles get a +1 by giving up a few slots. Sorry, thats my experiance and everyone I know thats tried it.

So the guy that rolls an 11 strength, with no way to alter this no matter how intelligent his choices is NOT going to be urked when the other player across the table happens to roll an 18, BUT the guy who just got a butt-load of bonuses with NO drawback due to pure luck has the right to feel urked if the first player chooses to take a -1 penalty in one area to gain a +1 bonus in another? Why doesn't that player also specialize if it's such a big deal? That attitude just doesn't make any sense. Like I said before, such a player is either insane or (more likely) immature.

What really rubs me the wrong way with Weapons Specialization is that its introducing a new rule dynamic to PCs where you substitute game play with building (WS does already exist in NPCs and monsters. For instance Halflings get something like this with +3, sure some of it is high natural dex, but some is just being better at it then their HD suggest).

It's not a new dynamic at all. The game is full of choices that allow a bonus in one area in exchange for a penalty in another. Hell, weapon proficiencies have far greater consequences in this respect than a simple toned-down weapon specialization rule.

If we allow WS for PCs you could open pandoras box - why not allow PCs other give and takes? Why not allow an MU spell specialization (I'll give up 2 spells to double the range and damage of the one I specialize in, hey you let Bill do it with his fighter, why not me, I only get to memorize one spell at first? And he'd make a good point). etc. etc. on end? Pretty soon your dealing with a new game. And yes, we used WS for years. We limited to +1 and yes it did effect the feel of the game in a negative way (in all the ways I mentioned earlier). But maybe thats just me.

I think it's just you.

And I don't even like weapon specialization.