foster1941
Warlock
Duke of California, Earl of Los Angeles, Knight Bachelor
Posts: 475
|
Post by foster1941 on Jun 13, 2018 14:44:28 GMT -5
Semi-hidden in the statblocks of module EX1 is that the various numerically-designated soldiers serving the Red Queen are all broadsword specialists (though since that module was published in 1983, the effects are a bit different than what was eventually published in UA - +2 to hit & damage instead of +1 to hit & +2 damage). I can't recall if there are any weapon-specialists in EX2 (which means there probably aren't).
Other than those, I judge case-by-case whether to retroactively make an NPC fighter into a specialist. Most of them are not, since I assume being a generalist is the default (and I also apply the other-weapon penalty to specialists, already mentioned upthread), but if the NPC's description makes it seem likely that they would have received dedicated and intensive training in one weapon to the exclusion of all others, then I might declare them to be specialized (e.g. the tailor in T1 is specialized with both the crossbow and throwing knife, various drow in the D series are probably specialists (and others are cavaliers), Drelzna in S4 is specialized with her two-handed sword, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jun 13, 2018 16:48:01 GMT -5
From POLYHEDRON #10 FEB 1983:
Module: Tl : Village 01 Hommlet Sug. Retail:$5.50 Type: A (Advance D&D game modules) #pages: 16 Demo Art: No #Players: 4-6 Level of Characters: 1 - 3 Town, Dungeon or Wilderness: T/D Other modules in the series: T2 Position on WORLD OF GREYHAWK Map: N4/95
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 13, 2018 17:04:40 GMT -5
From POLYHEDRON #10 FEB 1983: Module: Tl : Village 01 Hommlet Sug. Retail:$5.50 Type: A (Advance D&D game modules) #pages: 16 Demo Art: No #Players: 4-6 Level of Characters: 1 - 3 Town, Dungeon or Wilderness: T/D Other modules in the series: T2 Position on WORLD OF GREYHAWK Map: N4/95 Gotcha, I wasn't familiar with the post publication Ployhedron rating for T1...it still seems too tough if it is strictly all first level PCs for only 4-6 players...? Do you think EGG endorsed this Polyhedron rating or the later published TOEE guideline Frank implied with the giant frogs encounter? I like it played by all first level PCs, but feel that the party size, including party NPCs, should be larger for the moathouse challenge, or else a smaller PC party needs to include some 2nd/3rd level characters?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 13, 2018 17:24:04 GMT -5
The only early adventure module that comes to mind for me that is a good fit challenge for a small party (4-6 without any accompanying NPCs) made up entirely of first level characters is B1.
Even in N1, a small party has Ramne and his pet...
U1 suggests 5-10 PCs, with two NPCs added for the Sea Ghost portion.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jun 13, 2018 21:30:32 GMT -5
IMO, T1 is a perfect example of a by the book, 1E AD&D starting adventure. Maybe the only one written that plays out the way the rules, as written, assumed the game would be played. A single party, doing it on their own, together for the duration was a foreign concept to Gary and old school D&D. It was an assumed part of play that the PCs would hire NPCs for help, or they would die. It's really a core component of the original game. A small, all 1st level party that was very good tactically, and lucky, could do it, but the tactics required (running away a lot, hit and run, etc.) aren't popular either with the players that don't like NPCs.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Jun 14, 2018 9:13:41 GMT -5
In some ways, UA looks like EGG adapting to players wanting to do it on their own without NPCs, since there is weapon specialization, minimum hit points, a better ability generation method, and even spells like armor -- all seemingly there to make starting PCs a bit more survivable.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 14, 2018 9:31:56 GMT -5
In some ways, UA looks like EGG adapting to players wanting to do it on their own without NPCs, since there is weapon specialization, minimum hit points, a better ability generation method, and even spells like armor -- all seemingly there to make starting PCs a bit more survivable. As long as all of the UA modifications also apply to NPCs, I'm ok with using them. It makes characters potentially more dangerous to reckon with, whether PCs or NPCs/adversarial characters. The UA fits because EGG wanted AD&D to be humanocentric as a first priority, with epic multi-racial character adventuring parties as a second priority. It seems much of the UA modifications particularly strengthen low-level human characters. The impact of the UA modifications on gameplay seem to fade quickly after the first few level advancements are made. Demi-human characters gain some benefit from the UA modifications, but these are mostly pertaining to increased character class options, racial sub-class options, and some maximum possible class level increases.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 14, 2018 10:18:57 GMT -5
In the past I have added specialization to some of the fighters. In my current campaign the have dropped the UA stuff while running the pre-UA adventures. There’s more to consider than just giving the fighters specialization. Take T1 for example. A party with 2 or 3 specialized fighters is going to drastically alter the challenge of the module. You need to reconsider the number of monsters, the toughness of the monsters, etc. I’m a fan of the UA stuff, but I’ve come to prefer running the old material as assumed when written. EGG also had later consideration to adjust the toughness of large and powerful monsters by both re-assigning HD types (up to d12 HD type for very large powerful monsters) and using the upper end range of the HD type to totalizes hit points (7-12 HP per HD for very large powerful monsters). I think he also was considering damage bonuses equivalent to # of HD of large and powerful monsters? Has anyone implemented house rule changes like this for monsters? If so, what specific changes did you make? If you thought about this and decided against implementing this, what were your reasons for keeping the status quo? As a note, some of the moathouse monsters are tougher than usual: for example, moathouse zombies only take 1 hit point of damage inflicted by piercing weapons! Do you use these monster modifications when playing T1, or do you revert to MM? Why or why not?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jun 14, 2018 10:56:13 GMT -5
As a parallel to that KOTB also had adjusted undead but it wasn't subsumed in the form of amulets.
As part of the "trick" formula.
Honestly, I have to keep my disgust for specialization as almost an old standby truism where it doesn't necessarily help in a palpable manner but it keeps me where I want to be semantically which helps considering how far D&D has fallen in flavor.
I will use it but just I still like to think of them as sword fuckers.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Jun 14, 2018 11:23:31 GMT -5
I am a big fan of the idea of modifying and changing monsters from what is in the MM. In the early days, it was very exciting because the players had no idea what they were up against. Now, almost every player is familiar with the MM -- or some edition of it -- and so an important element of play gets lost. But if the DM changes the monsters, it puts the players back into that position of not being sure what to expect, which IMO is a big thrill in playing D&D. Giving monsters a strength bonus is a no brainer (ogre STR 18/00, hill giant STR 19, etc.), as is giving some expertise with certain weapons, and better hit points or creating 'greater' versions with the assumption the original versions were 'lesser.'
|
|
foster1941
Warlock
Duke of California, Earl of Los Angeles, Knight Bachelor
Posts: 475
|
Post by foster1941 on Jun 14, 2018 11:36:42 GMT -5
Semi-hidden in the statblocks of module EX1 is that the various numerically-designated soldiers serving the Red Queen are all broadsword specialists (though since that module was published in 1983, the effects are a bit different than what was eventually published in UA - +2 to hit & damage instead of +1 to hit & +2 damage). I can't recall if there are any weapon-specialists in EX2 (which means there probably aren't). Other than those, I judge case-by-case whether to retroactively make an NPC fighter into a specialist. Most of them are not, since I assume being a generalist is the default (and I also apply the other-weapon penalty to specialists, already mentioned upthread), but if the NPC's description makes it seem likely that they would have received dedicated and intensive training in one weapon to the exclusion of all others, then I might declare them to be specialized (e.g. the tailor in T1 is specialized with both the crossbow and throwing knife, various drow in the D series are probably specialists (and others are cavaliers), Drelzna in S4 is specialized with her two-handed sword, etc.). After taking a quick glance through the "Greyhawk canon" modules, the only other NPC fighters that really stand out as likely specialists are the "special guards" on level 2 in WG5 - they all have long swords as their only weapon and, by their very name, are intended to be "special." The drow in G3 and the D series don't feel like specialists to me, because almost all of them are listed with 3 weapons (short sword, dagger, and hand crossbow or atl-atl), but there are lizard-mounted drow nobles in D3 that should almost certainly be cavaliers (and thus kind of quasi-specialists) in a UA-inclusive game. Weapon specialization is a long-term sticky and problematic point for me, because I want to exist as an option - the character who focuses exclusively on one weapon to the effective exclusion of all others - in a way that could be appealing to a low-strength fighter (to effectively allow them to make up the difference vs high-str fighters when using their specialized weapon) or someone using an exotic weapon (to make up for the fact that they're not likely to find a magic weapon), but that most fighters would see it as unnecessarily limiting and prefer to remain generalists, but that's not how it plays out in real life - the benefits of specialization are too good so every player takes it and it becomes a de-facto across-the-board power-up for fighters. Maybe in addition to the other-weapon penalty I've already implemented there should also be an extra XP requirement for specialists, maybe +20% required XP per level (+30% for a double-specialist or bow specialist)?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 14, 2018 12:03:58 GMT -5
As a parallel to that KOTB also had adjusted undead but it wasn't subsumed in the form of amulets. As part of the "trick" formula. Honestly, I have to keep my disgust for specialization as almost an old standby truism where it doesn't necessarily help in a palpable manner but it keeps me where I want to be semantically which helps considering how far D&D has fallen in flavor. I will use it but just I still like to think of them as sword fuckers. I understand the disgust...I have three of the PCs in the current campaign that elected double weapon specialization: human ranger (bastard sword); half-Orc fighter (long sword); dwarf fighter (battle axe)...these first level PCs are tough in melee!
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jun 14, 2018 12:43:13 GMT -5
Its almost like we all know D&D continued but it didn't continue with what specialization would have fit into therefore is UA half a book?
UA has a Players and DM section but the fact that it includes certain things like Moore's gods for players (PC race gods)but not Moore's gods for the DM (monster gods) creates a sense of desire for completion.
Gygax's ORIENTAL ADVENTURES might have handled this but what we were presented was not Gygax's ORIENTAL ADVENTURES.
D&D as a continuance and a flow of what was presented needs an AI of how Gygax would adjudicate to get what would be the resolve for specialization.
Specialization was the "still suit" for the dark sun of 2nd edition.
Lack of treasure was formula once the crack team of Lorraine Williams took over. They broke the whole system with arbitrary shifts of information. Reclassifying letters as "individual" and "small lair", reduction in monetary rewards for certain monsters, and at a glance it would seem like they maintained/increased the magic percentage but without an alternate chance for maps then no more chance for an endless loop to lead to another location with even more danger treasure.
If we look at it in the harshest of tone, specialization is certainly a "Lakofka-ism" (mirroring those ridiculous affectations of a tight-fisted campaign) it might even be called "Lakofka-lization". Did Gary's love of Len cloud his mind just enough to get this through the gate as the building crumbled?
I don't know. So many things rely on specialization.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 14, 2018 13:06:08 GMT -5
Semi-hidden in the statblocks of module EX1 is that the various numerically-designated soldiers serving the Red Queen are all broadsword specialists (though since that module was published in 1983, the effects are a bit different than what was eventually published in UA - +2 to hit & damage instead of +1 to hit & +2 damage). I can't recall if there are any weapon-specialists in EX2 (which means there probably aren't). Other than those, I judge case-by-case whether to retroactively make an NPC fighter into a specialist. Most of them are not, since I assume being a generalist is the default (and I also apply the other-weapon penalty to specialists, already mentioned upthread), but if the NPC's description makes it seem likely that they would have received dedicated and intensive training in one weapon to the exclusion of all others, then I might declare them to be specialized (e.g. the tailor in T1 is specialized with both the crossbow and throwing knife, various drow in the D series are probably specialists (and others are cavaliers), Drelzna in S4 is specialized with her two-handed sword, etc.). After taking a quick glance through the "Greyhawk canon" modules, the only other NPC fighters that really stand out as likely specialists are the "special guards" on level 2 in WG5 - they all have long swords as their only weapon and, by their very name, are intended to be "special." The drow in G3 and the D series don't feel like specialists to me, because almost all of them are listed with 3 weapons (short sword, dagger, and hand crossbow or atl-atl), but there are lizard-mounted drow nobles in D3 that should almost certainly be cavaliers (and thus kind of quasi-specialists) in a UA-inclusive game. Weapon specialization is a long-term sticky and problematic point for me, because I want to exist as an option - the character who focuses exclusively on one weapon to the effective exclusion of all others - in a way that could be appealing to a low-strength fighter (to effectively allow them to make up the difference vs high-str fighters when using their specialized weapon) or someone using an exotic weapon (to make up for the fact that they're not likely to find a magic weapon), but that most fighters would see it as unnecessarily limiting and prefer to remain generalists, but that's not how it plays out in real life - the benefits of specialization are too good so every player takes it and it becomes a de-facto across-the-board power-up for fighters. Maybe in addition to the other-weapon penalty I've already implemented there should also be an extra XP requirement for specialists, maybe +20% required XP per level (+30% for a double-specialist or bow specialist)? That's the issue I see with UA, if you want to play a human fighter or cavalier, (or one of their sub-classes), you get this massive character power boost: method V character generation for very high ability scores and guaranteed achievement of desired character class minimum attribute scores + either weapon specialization options or extensive cavalier/paladin or barbarian abilities?! Maybe another direction could be considered as something like this: limit weapon specialization availability solely to single class, upper social class gray half-elven fighters and Rangers? Nobody wants to be a half-elf character anyway: why would you when you can either have all of the various racial benefits of a full-blooded elf, or else unlimited level advancement capability and method V character generation available to full-blooded human characters? Half-elves as pariahs to both their human and gray elven racial ancestry, yet long-lived, of adequate social class, and talented enough to achieve weapon-specialization capabilities...? Maybe even limit their melee weapon specialization options strictly to swords? Then they can be either sword or bow half-breed MFers and we keep Gene happy😀?! On another thought...perhaps melee weapon specialization should be restricted to weapons other than swords? Then we can get increased use of non-sword melee weapons into the campaign? Swords are already typical weapons of choice for fighters and Rangers....
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 14, 2018 13:21:31 GMT -5
Its almost like we all know D&D continued but it didn't continue with what specialization would have fit into therefore is UA half a book? UA has a Players and DM section but the fact that it includes certain things like Moore's gods for players (PC race gods)but not Moore's gods for the DM (monster gods) creates a sense of desire for completion. Gygax's ORIENTAL ADVENTURES might have handled this but what we were presented was not Gygax's ORIENTAL ADVENTURES. D&D as a continuance and a flow of what was presented needs an AI of how Gygax would adjudicate to get what would be the resolve for specialization. Specialization was the "still suit" for the dark sun of 2nd edition. Lack of treasure was formula once the crack team of Lorraine Williams took over. They broke the whole system with arbitrary shifts of information. Reclassifying letters as "individual" and "small lair", reduction in monetary rewards for certain monsters, and at a glance it would seem like they maintained/increased the magic percentage but without an alternate chance for maps then no more chance for an endless loop to lead to another location with even more danger treasure. If we look at it in the harshest of tone, specialization is certainly a "Lakofka-ism" (mirroring those ridiculous affectations of a tight-fisted campaign) it might even be called "Lakofka-lization". Did Gary's love of Len cloud his mind just enough to get this through the gate as the building crumbled? I don't know. So many things rely on specialization. I am convinced there is enough collective AI amongst all of you on this board who knew, gamed with, and/or worked with Gary, in order to craft any UA or other modifications and also importantly NEW extensions into an accurate direction that Gary would have continued to develop the AD&D game!
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 14, 2018 13:35:34 GMT -5
Its almost like we all know D&D continued but it didn't continue with what specialization would have fit into therefore is UA half a book? UA has a Players and DM section but the fact that it includes certain things like Moore's gods for players (PC race gods)but not Moore's gods for the DM (monster gods) creates a sense of desire for completion. Gygax's ORIENTAL ADVENTURES might have handled this but what we were presented was not Gygax's ORIENTAL ADVENTURES. D&D as a continuance and a flow of what was presented needs an AI of how Gygax would adjudicate to get what would be the resolve for specialization. Specialization was the "still suit" for the dark sun of 2nd edition. Lack of treasure was formula once the crack team of Lorraine Williams took over. They broke the whole system with arbitrary shifts of information. Reclassifying letters as "individual" and "small lair", reduction in monetary rewards for certain monsters, and at a glance it would seem like they maintained/increased the magic percentage but without an alternate chance for maps then no more chance for an endless loop to lead to another location with even more danger treasure. If we look at it in the harshest of tone, specialization is certainly a "Lakofka-ism" (mirroring those ridiculous affectations of a tight-fisted campaign) it might even be called "Lakofka-lization". Did Gary's love of Len cloud his mind just enough to get this through the gate as the building crumbled? I don't know. So many things rely on specialization. Maybe Trent can work with GT and others on this site to create a DEITIES & DEMIGODS companion? (One request, please don't call it the Legends & Lore Companion)! I'd rather use something like that as gods expansion material rather than the Roger Moore stuff, whether it was published in UA, Dragon magazine, or elsewhere...
|
|
foster1941
Warlock
Duke of California, Earl of Los Angeles, Knight Bachelor
Posts: 475
|
Post by foster1941 on Jun 14, 2018 17:32:39 GMT -5
Weapon specialization is a long-term sticky and problematic point for me, because I want to exist as an option - the character who focuses exclusively on one weapon to the effective exclusion of all others - in a way that could be appealing to a low-strength fighter (to effectively allow them to make up the difference vs high-str fighters when using their specialized weapon) or someone using an exotic weapon (to make up for the fact that they're not likely to find a magic weapon), but that most fighters would see it as unnecessarily limiting and prefer to remain generalists, but that's not how it plays out in real life - the benefits of specialization are too good so every player takes it and it becomes a de-facto across-the-board power-up for fighters. Maybe in addition to the other-weapon penalty I've already implemented there should also be an extra XP requirement for specialists, maybe +20% required XP per level (+30% for a double-specialist or bow specialist)? Looking at the XP requirements for the cavalier and the Dragon magazine archer class (created by Len Lakofka and something of a dry-run for the specialization rules) it looks like a +20% XP requirement for normal specialists and +25% XP requirement for bow specialists (and possibly double-specialists?) would be pretty much in line with those. Plus perhaps an extra training requirement - weapon specialists require double-normal training time and must train with a master specialized in the same weapon. That feels like maybe we've finally added sufficient downside to make whether or not to specialize feel like a real choice for the players, with a tangible downside, rather than an automatic gimme power-boost.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jun 15, 2018 8:21:39 GMT -5
I have to mention that something is included in my upcoming module that addresses specialization but I can't really talk about it because its currently in development. Maybe afterwards but right now I have to focus on finishing the bulk of it.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 15, 2018 8:59:01 GMT -5
Weapon specialization is a long-term sticky and problematic point for me, because I want to exist as an option - the character who focuses exclusively on one weapon to the effective exclusion of all others - in a way that could be appealing to a low-strength fighter (to effectively allow them to make up the difference vs high-str fighters when using their specialized weapon) or someone using an exotic weapon (to make up for the fact that they're not likely to find a magic weapon), but that most fighters would see it as unnecessarily limiting and prefer to remain generalists, but that's not how it plays out in real life - the benefits of specialization are too good so every player takes it and it becomes a de-facto across-the-board power-up for fighters. Maybe in addition to the other-weapon penalty I've already implemented there should also be an extra XP requirement for specialists, maybe +20% required XP per level (+30% for a double-specialist or bow specialist)? Looking at the XP requirements for the cavalier and the Dragon magazine archer class (created by Len Lakofka and something of a dry-run for the specialization rules) it looks like a +20% XP requirement for normal specialists and +25% XP requirement for bow specialists (and possibly double-specialists?) would be pretty much in line with those. Plus perhaps an extra training requirement - weapon specialists require double-normal training time and must train with a master specialized in the same weapon. That feels like maybe we've finally added sufficient downside to make whether or not to specialize feel like a real choice for the players, with a tangible downside, rather than an automatic gimme power-boost. It would be interesting to hear now, directly from LL, his background recollection discussions/collaborations with EGG regarding specialization development and how he felt things would have developed had EGG remained in firm technical control of TSR throughout his lifetime, as he was from roughly 1971 to 1981...? Would the UA publication have been much different? If so, how? What would have been left out or modified? What was intended to be published within UA, but was ultimately left out due rough, unfinished development? Which of the UA elements were most thoroughly play tested prior to publication, and by who, if not by EGG?
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Jun 15, 2018 11:38:20 GMT -5
Things went off the rails when people started playing NPC-only races and classes. Even before UA came out, I knew many playing archers, ninjas, etc. One guy even came up with his own class, that a DM allowed him to play: the prismatic archer -- a more magical version of the archer class. Another guy played the shade race and had all of the bonus shadow powers. Ninjas and throwing stars were everywhere. People were playing Drow before UA. It was like people saw "NPC only" as code for "Here, try this out."
|
|