Weapon Specialization

[francisca]

Weapon spec in UA, is over-juiced, IMO. I have a cut-down version around here somewhere....

[rogatny]

I grabbed my UA tonight. Here's an elf PC (Dex 18) in the PHB v. the same elf PC (Dex 18) specialized in a long bow per UA...Total: +7 to hit, Max Damage = 32 (this is a 1st level fighter!)

Now give him surprise...

And also note that pretty much all dungeon combat will be at "point blank" range as that range is the same as the range of most light sources.

[Matthew]

Even though these examples bump up the Fighter relative to the other classes, "4th level Fighter" means the same thing, combat wise, as it does in the original rules. You don't have to mentally adjust your definition of "4th level Fighter" and its capabilities vs. the rest of the system (e.g. 4th level dungeon, 4HD monsters, et cetera). I like that approach better.

Interestingly, though, fighters and monsters do not have the same THAC0 at the same levels in AD&D; for example, a level one fighter has THAC0 20, but HD 1 monster has THAC0 19, a HD 1+1 monster has THAC0 18 and a HD 2 monster has THAC0 16. That makes for a decent argument for at least starting fighters off at better than THAC0 20 in some respect.

[vargr1105]

Good call. You could make the case doing away with weapon versatility in exchange for better fighting ability is more about evening the odds than pure muchkinism.

And the more weapon specialized you are, the less chances you will be proficient in that dandy magical weapon that eventually appears in the game.

[AxeMental]

Weapon spec in UA, is over-juiced, IMO. I have a cut-down version around here somewhere....

Even if they were tamed, they still don't sit well with me. The concept simply doesn't jive with the rest of the rules of 1E. Pre-UA you had three ways to have a destinctive flavor in say strength at hitting things, 1. stat modifier, 2. class table, 3. luck (and to a degree clever play, getting in positions to get a +1 or +2, perhaps avoiding a shield etc.)

Post UA, there's a 4. And that 4 basically acts to stick its middle finger up at 1-3.
It says, "hey you didn't role a 17 str? No biggy take a WS". "Hey, you got bad luck, bump it up". "You an unimaginative player lacking a brain, bump it up."

What that does is screw everyone else that happens to have or be good at 1-3 (suddenly rolling a 17 strength is ho hum, being lucky ho hum, being smart ho hum. Its D&D for the stupid, or the cry baby.)

Its a rule that doesn't fit any of the paradigms of the game, and honestly belongs in another game written that way the entire way threw (as we see in later RPGs).

[Matthew]

I dunno; I reckon that I might be able to live with it as a +1 bonus to hit. Elves already get that with long swords and bows, so it would be reflective of their already existing "specialisation".

[Chainsaw]

By the way, in case anyone wants MORE, don't forget we also have this Weapon Specialization thread as well.

[Matthew]

I think this one should be combined with that one in order to locally maximise the awesome!

[AxeMental]

I dunno; I reckon that I might be able to live with it as a +1 bonus to hit. Elves already get that with long swords and bows, so it would be reflective of their already existing "specialisation".

That is completely different. An elf is a demihuman, not human. That reflects a meaningful difference in defining that race. Without it it would be a human in any meaningful way (same with the other races with their particulars).

Each race also has a minus of sorts to balance that power out. First off, they get a minus to one of their attributs. Second, they get level limits, and probably have a harder time fitting into a human centric D&D world (when in civilized lands).

WS has no minus to balance things out (practically). And it doesn't define squat. It just makes people that can't destinguish themselves in play using luck, skill or cleverness have a fall back.

[Matthew]

That is completely different. An elf is a demihuman, not human. That reflects a meaningful difference in defining that race. Without it it would be a human in any meaningful way (same with the other races with their particulars).

Each race also has a minus of sorts to balance that power out. First off, they get a minus to one of their attributs. Second, they get level limits, and probably have a harder time fitting into a human centric D&D world (when in civilized lands).

WS has no minus to balance things out (practically). And it doesn't define squat. It just makes people that can't destinguish themselves in play using luck, skill or cleverness have a fall back.

I do not think it is completely different at all, I am pretty sure it is very, very similar. The different between a 0-level human and a first level fighter is 1 point of fighting ability, and we can see in the DMG that there are even less capable humans who trail by several more points. Sure, the races all have advantages and disadvantages (do not talk to me about balance, though, because that is rubbish, elves are clearly a better choice of race than halflings, but that is no big deal), but if we are talking about literally one point then the loss of a weapon proficiency does in fact balance it out, since that human is now one weapon worse off. Really, the question is whether you want to model weapon specialisation at all, which depends on whether you want to see characters like Zobal the archer and Cushara the pikeman, as penned by Clark Ashton Smith.

[AxeMental]

The races are defined by many things, and no balance does not factor into it. We both understand "balance" in 1E has to do with each member having his unique role (related to class and race) not that one could hold off the other in a hand to hand battle (the way balance is defined in later games).

You loose me when you say they are very much the same thing. How? One is race, another is profession. And a pikeman is a fighter who strikes with a pike. He does not need a +1 or +4 or some silly other rule related ot WS. An elf is an elf. Thats defined in 1E AD&D as a specific set of things. WS also screws the elf by taking away one of his defining uniquensses Suddenly he's no longer as special (thus loosing a bit of his party balance).

PS I don't have a problem with pikeman or archer NPCs (or monsters) where I'll give them a + of some sort to hit. Thats because "adventurers" (PCs) are specific things, we are told so in the DMG. We are given the list of classes we can choose from (pikeman is not one of the PC choices). Now, if you wanted to have a pike man or archer I'd make it a unique PC type. For instance, "A pikeman gets a D8 HD, and starts with 2 weapons prof. (both shorter then pike, a spear and dart say). When they reach 3rd they get to finally use a pike. When in formation with at least two other pikeman he effectively lowers his AC by x, or what have you. But I would stay clear of WS concepts for players.

[Matthew]

The races are defined by many things, and no balance does not factor into it. We both understand "balance" in 1E has to do with each member having his unique role (related to class and race) not that one could hold off the other in a hand to hand battle (the way balance is defined in later games).

You could drop the elf's bonus to hit with swords and bows no harm done, it only exists to give them a sense of difference (it appears to be descended from a rule in Chain Mail concerning their use of magical swords). All of the demi-humans have some sort of conditional bonus to hit, of course, dwarves and gnomes versus various humanoids, halflings with slings, bows and thrown weapons (depending on edition), clearly these are not really about giving them a unique role, they are to make the players feel like they are playing a different race.

You loose me when you say they are very much the same thing. How? One is race, another is profession. And a pikeman is a fighter who strikes with a pike. He does not need a +1 or +4 or some silly other rule related ot WS. An elf is an elf. That's defined in 1E AD&D as a specific set of things.

As I say, in fact men-at-arms are differentiated from other 0-level characters by their fighting ability and hit points (both of which they have more of). If you want to create specialists who eschew the use of other arms (or even magical versions of those arms) along the lines of the aforementioned characters (I guess you have not read the stories in question) then trading a weapon proficiency for a +1 to hit is pretty reasonable and not out of whack with other modifiers in the game, unlike weapon specialisation as it stands. That relies on you wanting to have specialists, of course, for which there is very first edition relevant literary precedent. Personally, I do not, but my preferences are neither here nor there, a +1 modifier is small enough that the structure and spirit of the game remain intact and inviolate.

[AxeMental]

The races are defined by many things, and no balance does not factor into it. We both understand "balance" in 1E has to do with each member having his unique role (related to class and race) not that one could hold off the other in a hand to hand battle (the way balance is defined in later games).

You could drop the elf's bonus to hit with swords and bows no harm done, it only exists to give them a sense of difference (it appears to be descended from a rule in Chain Mail concerning their use of magical swords). All of the demi-humans have some sort of conditional bonus to hit, of course, dwarves and gnomes versus various humanoids, halflings with slings, bows and thrown weapons (depending on edition), clearly these are not really about giving them a unique role, they are to make the players feel like they are playing a different race.

You loose me when you say they are very much the same thing. How? One is race, another is profession. And a pikeman is a fighter who strikes with a pike. He does not need a +1 or +4 or some silly other rule related ot WS. An elf is an elf. That's defined in 1E AD&D as a specific set of things.

As I say, in fact men-at-arms are differentiated from other 0-level characters by their fighting ability and hit points (both of which they have more of). If you want to create specialists who eschew the use of other arms (or even magical versions of those arms) along the lines of the aforementioned characters (I guess you have not read the stories in question) then trading a weapon proficiency for a +1 to hit is pretty reasonable and not out of whack with other modifiers in the game, unlike weapon specialisation as it stands. That relies on you wanting to have specialists, of course, for which there is very first edition relevant literary precedent. Personally, I do not, but my preferences are neither here nor there, a +1 modifier is small enough that the structure and spirit of the game remain intact and inviolate.

I have no problem makling a monster or NPC into a specialist of any particular weapon type (and give them any plus you wish). But its an NPC or monster, so no need to get so specific. I would never allow a PC fighter to specialize in X weapon at the expense of learning other weapons because that is not a fighter in 1E AD&D. A fighter is defined as a person learning a bunch of weapons (starting with 4 and going up everfy 3 levels). A fighter without that range of training is not a 1E AD&D PC fighter, he would be a failed student who would get kicked out of fighting school.

PS I don't think you could remove an elfs pluses and minuses and other powers without destroying what makes the race special and worth playing.

[Matthew]

I have no problem makling a monster or NPC into a specialist of any particular weapon type (and give them any plus you wish). But its an NPC or monster, so no need to get so specific. I would never allow a PC fighter to specialize in X weapon at the expense of learning other weapons because that is not a fighter in 1E AD&D. A fighter is defined as a person learning a bunch of weapons (starting with 4 and going up everfy 3 levels). A fighter without that range of training is not a 1E AD&D PC fighter, he would be a failed student who would get kicked out of fighting school.

I think you are getting hung up on definitions and not appreciating the abstract nature of the fighter. Weapon proficiencies themselves are at best optional, and if you are not using weapon types versus armour class there is a whole layer of pluses and minuses missing from the game. A fighter is a fighter, he is not exclusively "defined", the DMG even allows for 2:2 or 1:1 fighting ability advancement as the game master prefers. As you have argued yourself, fighters who are not proficient are not incapable in the use of those weapons, it just happens that they are better in the use of four (and paladins and rangers in three); it is no great stretch of the imagination for such an individual to be better with the long sword than the spear and dagger, whilst better in those than any other weapon. Of course, if it is just the alteration to the fighter that bothers you, just create a "specialist fighter" as a subclass. The bottom line here is that the modifier is so small that it actually is a trade off worth thinking about, because you lose more than you gain.

PS I don't think you could remove an elfs pluses and minuses and other powers without destroying what makes the race special and worth playing.

Well, that is a very narrow view of things. If you think nothing about the game can or should be changed there is not much point in debating, because there is no room for negotiation. To me, as long as it does not undermine the spirit and structure of the game, all manner of minor campaign specific variations are acceptable, which is of course exactly what the books say.

[AxeMental]

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.

Matt: " it is no great stretch of the imagination for such an individual to be better with the long sword than the spear and dagger, whilst better in those than any other weapon. "

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.