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.
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.