Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Haha Cias, we have different opinions on what is earned. If I play a game of dice with you for money and you win, you have earned it. You took the risk of playing. The player who roles his attributes takes the risk of rolling terribly and playing anyway.


Anyhow, I think you guys are miss-understanding me. WS works, its just no longer 1E AD&D, its a hybrid. In 1E, you role attributes and then build a PC based on what you feel like playing with those attribute roles in mind. So, let me get this straight. You guys don't see a problem with this: during character generation, the PC with 9 Str. takes WS and suddenly has an effective bonus of someone with a 16 str. (+1 to hit) to his weapon "as not a big deal". That same player then moves the 16 he did role down to Con say (to get a few extra HPs) and has effectively "cheated the system". Sorry charlie, thats a big deal, perhaps not to the player or to the DM, but to the other players that showed up wanting to play straight up 1E AD&D (and they will likely cave not wanting to be called immature or what have you).

So what happens is exactly what Cias stated, the other players then feel obligated to follow the other guys lead just to keep up (and sitting quite resent the rule). Thats what happened at every table I saw WS used at in person, including ours. It actually created rifts amongst the players that never existed before. Yeah, UA was poison.

In a game like 1E yes a +1 to hit can make a huge difference (when your trying to hit that 3 AC).

I understand 1E is a game with many trade offs. I'm simply saying that specific set of trade offs define 1E (from other games) they make 1E 1E (and not 0E or some other RPG). Some rules and "trade offs" can be messed with without notice to the players, or without any real problems, others can't. They are immediately noticed (WS is one).

UA's Weapons Spec changes 1E AD&D into a hybrid. It delves into the area of "untouchable rules". Why not give the low dex thief a +10 to his MS and HIS if he takes a -20% on his PP and CW (we can call him a sneak specialist)? Why not give an MU double damage on one spell if he drops his other two slots (a spell specialist).

Specialization is a concept that has no place in 1E....little or alot. ITs a poison pill...so don't take it, even if its covered in yummy sugar and Matt offers you a cold beer to wash it down.

Poor axe, still staggering around under that heavy weight of misunderstanding.

WS is fine for small (1-2 players) parties, QED. It changes nothing, except stopping the DM going "HAHA Roll up another character!" every five minutes, or the game devolving into Chainmail (excuse me, Chain Mail) because everyone has to run three characters and the DM manage a host of NPC hirelings and henchmen.

I'll say it again, because it's correct: WS is fine for small parties or solo games.

You know what wrecks the special sauce of AD&D? Handing out magic items willy nilly rather than having the characters in question earn them, in a ham-fisted attempt to rebalance a game that shouldn't have gone that far off the rails in the first place.

thedungeondelver wrote:Poor axe, still staggering around under that heavy weight of misunderstanding.

WS is fine for small (1-2 players) parties, QED. It changes nothing, except stopping the DM going "HAHA Roll up another character!" every five minutes, or the game devolving into Chainmail (excuse me, Chain Mail) because everyone has to run three characters and the DM manage a host of NPC hirelings and henchmen.

I'll say it again, because it's correct: WS is fine for small parties or solo games.

You know what wrecks the special sauce of AD&D? Handing out magic items willy nilly rather than having the characters in question earn them, in a ham-fisted attempt to rebalance a game that shouldn't have gone that far off the rails in the first place.

Edit.

OK Bill as a Solo game or a few players all using it...I guess it can be a one shot thing now and then. I'm talking in generality though...for those who may not "get" 1E AD&D (which you do far better then me).

AxeMental wrote:Anyhow, I think you guys are miss-understanding me. WS works, its just no longer 1E AD&D, its a hybrid.

Technically it is 1e with UA, which is a 1e rulebook, so it is still 1e. Technically.

In 1E, you role attributes and then build a PC based on what you feel like playing with those attribute roles in mind. So, let me get this straight. You guys don't see a problem with this: during character generation, the PC with 9 Str. takes WS and suddenly has an effective bonus of someone with a 16 str. (+1 to hit) to his weapon "as not a big deal". That same player then moves the 16 he did role down to Con say (to get a few extra HPs) and has effectively "cheated the system".

I see a problem with that because you are blatantly ignoring several factors, and are also assuming that one can "move the 16" to constitution (which is also not BtB D&D, so by your logic allowing the player to do that is not playing 1e but some form of hybrid and is as likely a source of your perceived problem as weapon specialization is). Let me restate this situation including all relevant factors:

1. Player rolls ability scores, the DM allows assigning of rolled scores to specific abilities.
2. For whatever reason, the player is down to a 9 and 16 to assign to strength and constitution.
3. The player then has four options, but your analysis only compares two:

Option A: 16 strength, 9 constitution, no weapon specialization
+0/+1 attack/damage
+350 weight allowance, open doors on a 1-3 in 6, 10% bend/lift
+0 hp/HD
65% system shock, 70% resurrection survival

Option B: 9 strength, 16 constitution, with weapon specialization
+1/+0 attack/damage with ONE weapon, -1/+0 for all other weapons
no other strength adjustments
+2 hp/HD
95% system shock, 96% resurrection survival

Not a very useful comparison for determining the effects of weapon specialization since most of the differences between the two options is a result of swapping ability scores, so let's also consider the other two possibilities:

Option C: 16 strength, 9 constitution, with weapon specialization
+1/+1 attack/damage with ONE weapon, -1/+1 with all other weapons
+350 weight allowance, open doors on a 1-3 in 6, 10% bend/lift
+0 hp/HD
65% system shock, 70% resurrection survival

Option D: 9 strength, 16 constitution, no weapon specialization
+0/+0 attack/damage
no other strength adjustments
+2 hp/HD
95% system shock, 96% resurrection survival

Sorry charlie, thats a big deal, perhaps not to the player or to the DM, but to the other players that showed up wanting to play straight up 1E AD&D (and they will likely cave not wanting to be called immature or what have you).

No, I don't consider those options to be big deals. Well, other than allowing ability scores to be arranged after rolled. Personally I see from the above that the differences between options A and D are far greater than the differences between options A and C or B and D.

So what happens is exactly what Cias stated, the other players then feel obligated to follow the other guys lead just to keep up (and sitting quite resent the rule).

Umm, that's not exactly what I said.

Thats what happened at every table I saw WS used at in person, including ours. It actually created rifts amongst the players that never existed before. Yeah, UA was poison.

If you say so. I'm willing to bet that the rules you were using were the UA rules, though, and thus such experiences are not really evidence that the same result would apply with a different type of rule that actually inflicts more penalties than it does bonuses. Still, are you honestly telling me that you remember a specific situation in which one player rolled a high strength and didn't specialize but was pissed that another player rolled average strength and did specialize?

In a game like 1E yes a +1 to hit can make a huge difference (when your trying to hit that 3 AC).

I'd say this is definately the case in OD&D, but not so much in AD&D.

UA's Weapons Spec changes 1E AD&D into a hybrid.

I agree that the UA rules do change the game. But as far as a hybrid, it is only a hybrid between early 1e and late 1e.

It delves into the area of "untouchable rules". Why not give the low dex thief a +10 to his MS and HIS if he takes a -20% on his PP and CW (we can call him a sneak specialist)? Why not give an MU double damage on one spell if he drops his other two slots (a spell specialist).

Of course which rules are "untouchable" and which ones aren't is entirely subjective. And of course any competent DM would have no problem allowing weapon specialization without allowing specializtion in other class abilities. It's not much of a stretch to treat melee attacks and magic attacks differently since the core rules already do so (you have to make an attack roll to make a hit but spells are automatically effective unless a saving throw is made, melee attacks are unlimited but a caster has only so many spells). That being said, I'll answer you question. Why not allow a thief (high or low dex, doesn't matter) to gain a +10% in one area for a -20% elsewhere? Why not let a MU cast one spell at increased effectiveness at the expense of casting other spells? I do see some potential problems with such options, but these are not absolute problems. Potential problem one: codifying and keeping track of all of the possible options and trying to make sure that any give option doesn't have some unintended consequence may not be worth what little those options add to the game. Potential problem two: some players don't like games with an over abundance of character creation options (hence our dislike of 3e) and may be put off by, or feel indecisive in the face of, too many options. Of course just because these are potential problems doesn't mean that a cooperative playing group with a competent DM couldn't handle these things. Although I have no desire to use any of these options (or even weapon specialization) I can already think of several ways to implement any of these options while avoiding these potential problems.

Ultimately I think this is what it comes down to. You see certain potential problems with weapon specialization under very specific circumstances. You seem to be extrapolating that to mean that such problems are the likely outcome under any circumstance. My position is that it is very possible that such problems can be readily avoided given a capable DM or under different circumstances than those in your assumptions.

CIAS: "Still, are you honestly telling me that you remember a specific situation in which one player rolled a high strength and didn't specialize but was pissed that another player rolled average strength and did specialize? "

Honestly, yes. Everytime someone with a 16-18 str. saw some clown with average strength getting a +1 like they did, it urked them (at first we didn't say anything, but once the cat was out of the bag everyone at the table admitted it kinda sucked). Honestly, wouldn't you? Normally (pre-UA) the exceptional Str. guy would seem....um, I don't know, exceptional. espl. at first level before magic is found its a problem.

You mention your not a fan of WS, so why not? Same reasons as me?

This is not rocket science. Its common sense, WS is a problem to many if not most guys that used it (as I recall). And its why we have this WS conversation every so many years whenever UA is brought up. If WS didn't bug the living shit out of people do you think it would be bantered about so much?

As for the stat rolling, we use method 1. Role 4 d 6 keep highest 3, place as will.
So, if your wanting to be a fighter and have one 16 and the rest average, in the past you'd probably have stuck that 16 on str. now you can stick a lower role on Str and put that 16 to use in Dex or Con. Or you can put the 16 on str, make that a +2 (stacking) to your longsword or whatever, and really kick some butt.

"Back up fellow 1st level fighters, and behold a sword master. Bixo, don't try these moves or you will hurt yourself. Perhaps I can work with you to help you improve your form, when I'm not busy chopping off the heads of orcs"!



The fact is, no amount of extra training is going to allow a 1st level fighter become a 3rd level fighter equiv with that one weapon. Not when you consider the work it takes to get to 3rd (the next table jump).

What we did was UA (I think it was two or three weapons slots for +1 to a WS). We didn't mess with anything else, we wanted to start slow with it, seeing ihow it went. Likewise we never used the Cavilier...not even once, barbarian, what everyone was salivating for (post Conan the Barbarian movie) was attempted several times.

I don't understand how luck is earned. Isn't luck something that just occurs?

AxeMental wrote:CIAS: "Still, are you honestly telling me that you remember a specific situation in which one player rolled a high strength and didn't specialize but was pissed that another player rolled average strength and did specialize? "

Honestly, yes.

Then he should have specialized. If it was available, and he didn't select it, then he's a moron. He certainly has no right to cry about it if he voluntarily passed on the option.

I'm thinking of allowing weapon specialization for illusionists. What do you think. Good idea?

AxeMental wrote:You mention your not a fan of WS, so why not? Same reasons as me?

I don't like the UA rules because they are way over powered IMO. By that same token I don't like large ability score adjustments to class abilities and have decided to do away with exceptional strength. I also don't think it's a good fit within the abstract combat system of D&D.

A weapon specialization rule were you only get a +1 for several -1s is ok, but still not worth my effort to put into a house rules document or to actively offer it to players. If I had a player that really wanted to specialize, though, and asked me about it I'd give them this option.

AxeMental wrote: Yes, the guy who rolled up a 17 did earn it (he rolled it when everyone else rolled 11s).

That is not a recognisable definition of "earn", that is just pure luck.

AxeMental wrote: 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.

What you are describing here is a trade, whereby a player accepts certain disadvantages in return for a number of advantages. This is exactly how weapon specialisation works, a character trades a weapon proficiency for a commensurate (or close to commensurate) benefit. No matter which way you cut it, that is how the facts pan out.

AxeMental wrote: 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.

One problem with this line of argument is that the MM, PHB and DMG are not consistent between themselves; this is because Gygax was tinkering with the rules during the period of their publication. You can draw an arbitrary line and say "this far and no farther", but it will not change the fact that a +1 bonus traded against a weapon proficiency is fair, reasonable and precedented in the rules of the game even as they stood in 1978. AD&D is a robust enough system to endure many minor rule changes without undermining or transforming its spirit. what you are arguing is tantamount to saying that halflings are not halflings with/without the +3 to hit with bows and slings (depending on your point of view). Much like the fighter we imagine to be specialised without granting a hit bonus, a halfling is a halfling because we imagine him to be, not because he gets or does not get a bonus to hit with missile weapons.

Probably the biggest problem with WS was that it created the false perception that their was something "lacking" 1E fighters. Before UA no one complained about fighters seeming too weak or too cookie cutter. Post UA, suddenly there's something needing "fixed". Personalization through numbers becomes the norm, which leads to the slicing and dicing seen in 2E.

Another thing: archers and pikeman (the two most often referred to examples of "specialized experts") are NPCs (powerful adventuring parties hire archers). All archers do is practise shooting arrows and pikemen using pikes in formation. They aren't "fighters" in the sense of AD&D "adventurer fighters" capable of level progression (who are trained in far more then one weapon, including mounted combat, wearing and caring for armor, and the other things we associate with what a knight would do in the middle or dark ages). And then you have to wonder, WTF is a longswordsmen, or a bastardswordsman, or a maceman, or a scimitarman (they sound like aquatic beasts)" why on earth would anyone specialize in weapons like that (if there isn't a need to produce such experts, they wouldn't even have a trainer). The entire rational is horrible.

UA could have easily introduced cool new classes (the archer rather then WS) the hunter. etc. Instead it was a poor selection of new uninteresting classes all botched to the point they can't even work in a normal group. Dragon had its gems (witch, anti-paladin, etc.), but it also had its crap (and no amount of squeezing could turn it into a diamond).

TRP wrote:I don't understand how luck is earned. Isn't luck something that just occurs?

Its rare to have good luck. When it occurs you expect to reap the rewards. Perhaps thats a better way of explaining what I'm trying to say.

And no, luck is not earned in the standard definiton of earn: to do a task for a reward. But a gambler does earn his trade. He risks and invests his time (in a broader understanding. Go to vegas and see what I mean).


Cias: " If I had a player that really wanted to specialize, though, and asked me about it I'd give them this option."

As would I. I don't see any reason not to do it as a one shot if someone wants it (and I'd have no problem making up a class for that PC if he wanted to be an "archer", nor would I have a problem allowing a player have a PC troll sheman...1E does not equal a straight jacket). But I wouldn't make a habit of it (or risk loosing the feel of the game), and certainly wouldn't put it into official rules status. Dragon is fine as an option, something to include now and then if you choose. UA was forced inclusion so you had to have it if you wanted to be an up-to-date purist (someone in a group would point and say "see official rules").

Matt: "This is exactly how weapon specialisation works, a character trades a weapon proficiency for a commensurate (or close to commensurate) benefit. No matter which way you cut it, that is how the facts pan out".

Sure, but those are the known trade offs of 1E AD&D. They infact define the game (because when you employ them they will result in a specific feel regardless of place or time). These rules define 1E AD&D the way moving armies about defines the game of Risk.

You can start adding new trade offs, some will be fine others will be noticed by the players. If its noticed by even one player as negative, IMHO its off the table. Unfortunately the guys that disliked WS the most were the nice quiet ones, so they didn't speak up soon enough. I think a good number of players (traditionalist weekend players) may have started leaving 1E at this time (just as the powergamers started seeing promise). Its about this time the game started getting a little geekier as well.

AxeMental wrote:Probably the biggest problem with WS was that it created the false perception that their was something "lacking" 1E fighters. Before UA no one complained about fighters seeming too weak or too cookie cutter.

Good greif, where do you come up with this stuff? Every new edition of D&D since OD&D made a point to increase the power of the fighter class. Supplement I gave fighters more hit points, exceptional strength, and variable weapon damage (which clearly makes fighters more leathal). AD&D increased hp further, added the 3/2 and 2 attacks/round at 7th & 13th level for fighters, and weakend all other classes in terms of AC (magic-users went from AC 9 to AC 10, thieves when from AC 7 to AC and "to hit" numbers (In OD&D 1st level clerics, magic-users, and thieves had the same to hit numbers as fighting-men). Adding to the fighter and/or taking away from the other classes has been a trend right from the beginning.

Lord Cias wrote:

AxeMental wrote:Probably the biggest problem with WS was that it created the false perception that their was something "lacking" 1E fighters. Before UA no one complained about fighters seeming too weak or too cookie cutter.

Good greif, where do you come up with this stuff? Every new edition of D&D since OD&D made a point to increase the power of the fighter class. Supplement I gave fighters more hit points, exceptional strength, and variable weapon damage (which clearly makes fighters more leathal). AD&D increased hp further, added the 3/2 and 2 attacks/round at 7th & 13th level for fighters, and weakend all other classes in terms of AC (magic-users went from AC 9 to AC 10, thieves when from AC 7 to AC and "to hit" numbers (In OD&D 1st level clerics, magic-users, and thieves had the same to hit numbers as fighting-men). Adding to the fighter and/or taking away from the other classes has been a trend right from the beginning.

Thanks for the 0E history lesson. But so what? Hows that supposed to convince me 1E needed WS?

Cias, I never heard a single person ever complain about a 1E fighter being too weak until I came to the online boards. And I still disregard it as nonsense. Those that complain are simply wrong as I see it (too weak compared to what?). Fighters are not in competition with the other PC classes. If a MU is more powerful then a fighter at high level so what? He prevents the MU from getting over-run. And when the MU runs out of spells and the groups pushing on or resting, who do you think keeps the little robed fellow safe?

A thief is a weakling until the group hits that one stone door in the dungeon that no one can get past, except the guy that can pick locks.

Thats the way 1E works. If monsters are too scary, go with more NPCs, bring oil, use tactics, or simply run. 1E isn't about "winning" its about surviving and accumulating cool stories of what you did. Level progression is just a bonus.

AxeMental wrote:Cias, I never heard a single person ever complain about a 1E fighter being too weak until I came to the online boards.

Perhaps you never experienced it. I never did either. But I think the evidence shows that that was the case amongst the larger D&D community, and even within Gary's own group, as far back as '75.

And I still disregard it as nonsense. Those that complain are simply wrong as I see it (too weak compared to what?).

And I agree with you. In fact, I think the standard AD&D fighter is overpowered, not compared to the other classes but relative to the monsters (where it really counts).

AxeMental wrote: Thanks for the 0E history lesson. But so what? Hows that supposed to convince me 1E needed WS?

Who's arguing that 1e *needs* weapon specialization? 1e no more needs weapon specialization than it needs an armor class adjustment table, but they're both there if the DM wants to use them.