Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I wonder how many get that TRP.

TRP wrote:

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.

Agreed. They are there if you want to use them...per Gygax and tradition.

But there are those who define a game by its rules, they don't understand the main rule of 1E is the DM chooses how to adjudicate, using tables, thumbtacks tossed in the air, however he likes. A good DM is loved no matter what, because he runs a good challanging table, describes his setting well, and keeps the game flowing smoothly. Players want to know the guy is neutral and fare. Thats about it. Hell, a player isn't supposed to know of the existance of the tables necessarily. They only know the rules presented in the PH.

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. Post UA, suddenly there's something needing "fixed". Personalization through numbers becomes the norm, which leads to the slicing and dicing seen in 2E.

Gygax said fighters lacked and needed to be fixed in the Dragon article in which weapon specialisation first appeared. To him it was not just a perception, it was a fact that people were not choosing fighters, but instead rangers and paladins. It may well be that this speaks to the toxic environment that AD&D found itself released into when there were thousands upon thousands of players, the most committed of whom were trying to "game the system".

AxeMental wrote: 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.

If we are looking for precedent for specialised fighters then we are talking about specific Clark Ashton Smith characters, not some historical model. They are very much protagonists and player characters who eschew even magical versions of their weapons in favour of their own.

AxeMental wrote: 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).

Oh, God no. Len Lakofka's archer subclass was even worse than weapon specialisation.

AxeMental wrote: 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).

Right, but a gamblers takes calculated risks, he does not just roll the dice for six attributes and play what he gets. Anyway, yes, you used completely the wrong word to describe what you were talking about, partly because it was not really related to your point, which is that weapon specialisation is not an earned advantage; we know that, and as pointed out nothing about character generation is earned, that is what happens afterwards in play.

AxeMental wrote: 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").

No troll shamans, thanks!

AxeMental wrote: 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.

Right, so now you are falling back into "what is written is written". As I say, I do not agree with you that a +1 bonus here or there will affect the feel of AD&D or "undefine" it. There is no evidence at all to support that point of view, neither theoretical nor practical, and comparing something so minor with one of the major actions players take in a game as simple as Risk is no comparison at all. Of course, the truth is that as soon as AD&D introduced any sort of character building options it started down the garden path to power gaming. How far you go down that road is up to you. Personally, I think weapon proficiencies are antithetical to the abstraction of the game, so you can guess how I feel about weapon specialisation and elf bonuses with swords and bows. After all, fighters do not get better with particular weapons as they advance in ability level, they get better with all of them as a result of getting better at "fighting". Such things are of only the most minor concern to the actual game, though, which does not begin and end with combat, let alone the 5% increments of the D20.

While we are on the subject of specialists.

Matthew wrote:Gygax said fighters lacked and needed to be fixed in the Dragon article in which weapon specialisation first appeared. To him it was not just a perception, it was a fact that people were not choosing fighters, but instead rangers and paladins.

Well of course they were. Without WS you are better off getting a Ranger or Paladin, all the abilities of the Fighter plus a few more to boot and a more defined archetype.

AxeMental wrote: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).

Matthew wrote:Oh, God no. Len Lakofka's archer subclass was even worse than weapon specialisation.

It is? I was thinking of making the Archer a legit class in my game. What is so bad about it?

Matthew wrote:No troll shamans, thanks!

No Troll player-characters, period. Half-ogres are ok though. As are NPC Troll shamans.

Matt, "Gygax said fighters lacked and needed to be fixed in the Dragon article in which weapon specialisation first appeared. To him it was not just a perception, it was a fact that people were not choosing fighters, but instead rangers and paladins."

Gygax was wrong.

Or he was just trying to help sell Dragon Mag so TSR stayed afloat (and said what needed saying, while pinching his nose, to sell magazines). Or both.

People chose rangers or paladins because they were interesting (some loner dude who fights off the monsters from civilization, think Strider, or the Lone Ranger or what have you. The Paladin, a warrior against supernatural evil....also fucking rocks). Note, both have stat requirements very hard to meet. You don't choose to be a ranger or paladin, you jump at it when you happen to role astronomically well.

So unless you role a 17 you aint playing a Paladin. Period. Otherwise your a cheat.
Anyhow, what does "power" have to do with 1E AD&D. You work as a team against monsters, you don't fight other PCs???

Matt: "If we are looking for precedent for specialised fighters then we are talking about specific Clark Ashton Smith characters, not some historical model. They are very much protagonists and player characters who eschew even magical versions of their weapons in favour of their own."

What does that have to do with 1E AD&D? Your talking about 1 guy in a story. I'm talking about an entire system. Every fighter, not just the one in a million.

If you want to have WS so you can create a "dartman" because you once read a about a guy that threw alot of darts dead on and you want to recreate that then either 1. don't take any weapons but darts and get the highest dex you can muster, or go write another RPG, so you don't fuck up 1E. Unfortunately, Gygax was more concerned about TSR going bankrupt. I suspect thats the real reason this shit got included.

AxeMental wrote:Unfortunately, Gygax was more concerned about TSR going bankrupt. I suspect thats the real reason this shit got included.

No, he was broadcasting through his Dragon column as early as '81 or '82 that a "Players Handbook II" would be put out with additional material for players, and TSR was riding high in the cash flow at that time.

Certainly, the speed with which UA was published in '85 after his return from California was attributable to the cash flow issue, but the overall intent to expand the rules had nothing to do with it. It would have happened eventually even if TSR was shitting gold bricks.

EOTB wrote:

AxeMental wrote:Unfortunately, Gygax was more concerned about TSR going bankrupt. I suspect thats the real reason this shit got included.

No, he was broadcasting through his Dragon column as early as '81 or '82 that a "Players Handbook II" would be put out with additional material for players, and TSR was riding high in the cash flow at that time.

Certainly, the speed with which UA was published in '85 after his return from California was attributable to the cash flow issue, but the overall intent to expand the rules had nothing to do with it. It would have happened eventually even if TSR was shitting gold bricks.

Well, what do you do when you hit perfection like 1E and your a creator.
I would have wished he'd let it alone and gone and developed 1E Space, 1E CoC, 1E Conan, 1E wild west, (using the same general system so that 1E players, millions, could have walked into these new worlds and game systems without a hitch.). That was a lost opportunity.

As for the next D&D, I suspect his version would not have looked like UA (at least I hope not). Alot of our idols go down roads we wish they wouldn't have taken (music groups, painters, actors) its possible Gygax was about to go down a road I wouldn't have liked. But I doubt it. My impression was that he wanted to just offer more -classes, spells, magic items, etc.) not mess with fundamental systems. But, who knows.

"If it isn't broken, don't fix it"! Yet so many make that mistake.

Matthew wrote:If we are looking for precedent for specialised fighters then we are talking about specific Clark Ashton Smith characters, not some historical model. They are very much protagonists and player characters who eschew even magical versions of their weapons in favour of their own.

Oooooh! That gives me a fantastic idea, one that even Axe may appreciate.

Let me walk you through my thinking process:
The goal - to create a rule that is 1) simple, 2) fits well with the existing systems and assumptions of D&D, and 3) represents examples of fantasy fiction heroes that not only prefer one weapon type but that feel an OVERWHELMING compulsion to use one specific weapon even if other available weapons are superior or more tactically advantageous.

I think that last point - moments when other weapons would be superior - is very important. The traditional UA method of weapon spec simply negates that by offering bonuses so that the specialized weapon is almost always the superior choice, even in some cases where the specializied weapon is non-magical and another type of magical weapon is available. Thus accepting a penalty, even a fairly large one, for using other weapon types isn't much of a penalty at all because except in rare circumstances there is little or no advantage to using another weapon type. So we need a way create moments when using another weapon would be tactically superior but the specialist fighter still has some other incentive for using his specialized weapon. There must be some form of trade off, both a bonus and a penalty for using the specialized weapon.

Another issue, I think one of Axe's main issues with UA weapon spec, is "unearned" or instant gratification bonuses. So instead of an immediate bonus, we need a way to grant a specialized fighter a gradual, long-term bonus. A back-ended bonus recieved only AFTER enduring some form of penalty or restriction for several adventures. This will help Axe's players feel like the bonus was "earned."

The next piece of the puzzle was actually suggested by Axe, although indirectly, in his Str & Dex = Weapon Specialization thread. There he was talking about equating the attack bonuses from strenght and dex to weapon specialization, but that made me realize there is a better way to model weapon specialization on the way ability scores affect class abilities - exp adjustments.

Thus using my Superior Intellectual Abilities(TM) I came to the conclusion that the best way to represent weapon specialization while keeping attack adjustments to a minimum is to give the fighter a +10% bonus to exp when using his weapon of choice, but a -20% penalty to exp when using any other weapon type. Furthermore, if a specialized fighter should depend too greatly on non-specialized weapons then the character forfeits ALL exp for the adventure just like a dual-classed human does when he resorts to his previous class abilities. A specialized fighter is free to use any weapon type he wants, and receives no bonus to attack or damage rolls if he uses his specialized weapon, but a faithful adherence to his specialization even when using another weapon would grant better short-term benefits will ultimately yeild long-term benefits.

So are there significant situations in which a fighter using his specialized weapon would be at a disadvantage? One example would be ranged vs. melee weapons. A fighter that specializes with a melee weapon will always take at least a -20% penalty to exp for the fight if he uses a missile weapon (unless the specialized weapon acts as both melee and missile, like a thrown spear). Next would be the use of some type of weapon vs. AC type adjustment table, one that encourages the use of many different weapon types. Also there are certain monsters that are more resistant or vulnerable to different types of weapons.

Since longswords are one of the most common, varried, and powerful magic weapons in the game, we can even take it a step further and limit a fighter that specializes with a sword to only one or two varieties of magical swords. The first magical sword with a special property that the fighter claims is the only type of special property magical sword the fighter can use to gain his +10% exp bonus. Want to be able to use a frost brand to get your exp bonus? Then you're going to have to pass up (or immediately sell) that flametongue sword you just found. Some leway could be given. A fighter that claims a flametongue sword might also be able to use a sword +3 vs. regenerating creatures; a fighter that claims a sword +4 vs. reptiles can also use a dragon slaying sword; etc. Of course this could be especially tricky if the fighter later picks up a magic sword with a strong ego . . .

I'd say that a fighter that specializes with a miscellaneous weapon, or even a rare type of magic sword like short or two-handed swords, can use any magical version of the weapon.

So what do you think, Axe?

Going to have to digest this.

"I came to the conclusion that the best way to represent weapon specialization while keeping attack adjustments to a minimum is to give the fighter a +10% bonus to exp when using his weapon of choice, but a -20% penalty to exp when using any other weapon type."

I like the idea of tying WS to exps. I could imagine someone slowing level progression in favor of more rapidly increasing ability in a favored weapon. Is that what your getting at?

Is it possible to give a real example of a fighter at 1st level choosing a spear as his WS? How would it work?

AxeMental wrote:Matt, "Gygax said fighters lacked and needed to be fixed in the Dragon article in which weapon specialisation first appeared. To him it was not just a perception, it was a fact that people were not choosing fighters, but instead rangers and paladins."

Gygax was wrong.

Or he was just trying to help sell Dragon Mag so TSR stayed afloat (and said what needed saying, while pinching his nose, to sell magazines). Or both.

People chose rangers or paladins because they were interesting (some loner dude who fights off the monsters from civilization, think Strider, or the Lone Ranger or what have you. The Paladin, a warrior against supernatural evil....also fucking rocks). Note, both have stat requirements very hard to meet. You don't choose to be a ranger or paladin, you jump at it when you happen to role astronomically well.

So unless you role a 17 you aint playing a Paladin. Period. Otherwise your a cheat.
Anyhow, what does "power" have to do with 1E AD&D. You work as a team against monsters, you don't fight other PCs???

Matt: "If we are looking for precedent for specialised fighters then we are talking about specific Clark Ashton Smith characters, not some historical model. They are very much protagonists and player characters who eschew even magical versions of their weapons in favour of their own."

What does that have to do with 1E AD&D? Your talking about 1 guy in a story. I'm talking about an entire system. Every fighter, not just the one in a million.

If you want to have WS so you can create a "dartman" because you once read a about a guy that threw alot of darts dead on and you want to recreate that then either 1. don't take any weapons but darts and get the highest dex you can muster, or go write another RPG, so you don't fuck up 1E. Unfortunately, Gygax was more concerned about TSR going bankrupt. I suspect thats the real reason this shit got included.

He WAS wrong indeed, and certainly seemed to be in the process of making a new game (& it looked to suck ass), AS WELL AS looking for $ by any means necessary.

I can give him this much with the UA...he ALSO abandoned the "needs score(s) Y to play class X" idea from the game. The "new" die rolling method for PC generation meant that everyone could play anything they wanted (so long as they were human; humanocentricism apparently being the only thing Gygax valued above all else for the game). Perhaps under that rubrik, fighters really were lacking. I don't believe that at all, and the idea everyone could/would play rangers & paladins instead, every time, makes me LOL, but then again, the wisconcin crew really seemed to view alignment as nothing more than a team designation/logo, so perhaps "must be good" really didn't matter to their games. I wouldn't have guessed that BITD, as the majority of the PC's we see from that era seem to be nuetrals & rangers quite rare & paladins non existant, but without the reason Gygax gives, we are left with nothing but him directly contradicting himself & shitting on his own game design to shill for a few dollars by playing the power inflation game all these days rightly pan modern game companies for doing. I don't think many of us really want to beleive that.

So, Axemental, it's not cheating if one eats the poisonous UA whole. Consider it edition 1.5e; it's much more palatable if one treats it as it really is...a different game entirely.

To earlier mentions about new classes & dragon...many were better than the turds that got published. Yes, Len's Archer was munckin-y bad. One certainly can make a NON-munchkin archer class though, and it's terribly easy to do so.

Matthew can (if he hasn't already) quote Gygax for you arguing against WS & essentially stating much the same positions you put forward on the idiocy of WS in the context of AD&D combat. He reverses himself often, sadly, but if there is one trend I've noted, it's that younger Gygax seemed much wiser than later Gygax in the TSR era. I'd say he recovered from whatever ailed him in those years later on.

AxeMental wrote:I wonder how many get that TRP.

Not my problem; theirs.

genghisdon wrote:younger Gygax seemed much wiser than later Gygax in the TSR era

Maybe, but you also have to take into account the comparative lack of playtesting, combined with the fact that it’s third parties (Grubb, Moore, Mohan, Mentzer) compiling said raw, un-playtested materials and putting them into their final form (freely combined with their own stuff). Yet the “later Gygax” stuff is STILL MILES better than anything else TSR is putting out. There’s NOTHING else in the league of Mordenkainen’s Fantastic Adventure, The Temple of Elemental Evil, and Unearthed Arcana in 1984-85.

He claimed it WAS playtested, indeed, he said it had been in use in his own games. The UA stuff nearly all came out in dragon under Gary's pen. One of the few things I DON'T hate in that book (although I don't love them) are Moore's demi human pantheons (also in dragon).

I'd need to look at the 84-85 line up to compare, but I'm not buying. Mordenkainen’s Fantastic Adventure is far more a Rob Kuntz work, he DMed Gary through that adventure. The Temple of Elemental Evil was done by Frank Mentzer with advice from Gary.

I'm sorry Falconer, but I'm not convinced in the slightest.

vargr1105 wrote: Well of course they were. Without WS you are better off getting a Ranger or Paladin, all the abilities of the Fighter plus a few more to boot and a more defined archetype.

I have every confidence that the fighter+ nature of paladins and rangers was the core attraction, along with very "liberal" attribute generation rules. However, the reason I like fighters is because they have a less defined (or rather specific) archetype.

vargr1105 wrote: It is? I was thinking of making the Archer a legit class in my game. What is so bad about it?

Off the top of my head, it trades good for bad, which is to say it is a fighter++

AxeMental wrote: Gygax was wrong.

Or he was just trying to help sell Dragon Mag so TSR stayed afloat (and said what needed saying, while pinching his nose, to sell magazines). Or both.

People chose rangers or paladins because they were interesting (some loner dude who fights off the monsters from civilization, think Strider, or the Lone Ranger or what have you. The Paladin, a warrior against supernatural evil....also fucking rocks). Note, both have stat requirements very hard to meet. You don't choose to be a ranger or paladin, you jump at it when you happen to role astronomically well.

So unless you role a 17 you aint playing a Paladin. Period. Otherwise your a cheat.
Anyhow, what does "power" have to do with 1E AD&D. You work as a team against monsters, you don't fight other PCs???

Actually, he was right. That is obvious in the sheer volume of players who love D20/3E and even in the old school who play with weapon specialisation. In other words, it was exactly what the majority of players wanted. Those of us who think this was a bad idea are in the minority.

AxeMental wrote: What does that have to do with 1E AD&D? Your talking about 1 guy in a story. I'm talking about an entire system. Every fighter, not just the one in a million.

If you want to have WS so you can create a "dartman" because you once read a about a guy that threw alot of darts dead on and you want to recreate that then either 1. don't take any weapons but darts and get the highest dex you can muster, or go write another RPG, so you don't fuck up 1E. Unfortunately, Gygax was more concerned about TSR going bankrupt. I suspect thats the real reason this shit got included.

It has everything to do with AD&D if you want it to. That is the whole point of this conversation. I am not advocating weapon specialisation, but I am telling you that a +1 bonus to hit will not wreck the system, neither the feel of it nor the mathematics underlying it. All of us have played with, and continue to play with, much more radical variants on the combat engine, voluntarily or not, knowingly or not. From weapon type versus armour class to interpretive disagreements about how initiative works; from stacking strength and dexterity with missile weapons (or not as the case may be) to disagreements over whether halflings get +0, +1 or +3 to hit with missile weapons. Your position of resistance to a +1 bonus or penalty is undefendable, and easily overrun. If somebody wants to include some form of weapon specialisation (for whatever reason, such as genre imitation) then trading a weapon proficiency slot for a +1 bonus with some weapon a character is already proficient with is a good way to go, because it neither harms the structure nor the spirit of the game system. In other words, it does not "fuck up 1E". Basically, you just do not like it, which is perfectly fine, but you have not mustered a single objective notion in support of this contention, it is all subjective and so in the eye of the beholder (pun intended).

Mind, if race, class, and weapon proficiencies were all randomly rolled you might have a point. The player would have no control over the character creation process, be at the mercy of the vagaries of fate, and rated on how well he managed to capitalise on his strengths and mitigate his weaknesses during play.

I must be missing the earlier conversation, because I know you understand that WS is no mere +1 bonus Matthew.

I couldn't agree more that players are incapable of seeing power inflation as anything but beneficial; indeed I'm sure i just posted that sentiment last night.