|
Post by GRWelsh on Nov 26, 2008 21:13:54 GMT -5
Can multi-classed characters specialize in the UA rules? Can they double-specialize?
I was considering some modifications of the specialization rules. I was thinking something like this: allow a single-classed fighter a slight advantage in specializing over others, such as the ranger and the multi-classes (if they can specialize at all):
1st level: only single-classed fighters can specialize, but not double-specialize.
3rd level: rangers can specialize, and single-classed fighters can double-specialize.
5th level: rangers can double-specialize.
Or, alternately, not let anyone specialize in a weapon until 3rd level. This would allow characters to find a weapon first that they like, perhaps a magical weapon that a proficiency is not normally taken in (say, a broadsword, two-handed sword, spear, etc.), and then the character can practice with it, become proficient in it, and even specialize:
3rd level: single-specialization can first be taken.
5th level: double-specialization can first be taken.
Along with this, I like the 5% rule, which means fighters improve their "to hit" chances at every level, rather than every other level. The upshot of such modifications means to allow characters to improve significantly and also offer an in-game justification of having some experience under their belts to do so. The downside is not all 1st level characters get to benefit from UA specialization. But, core 1e characters didn't have it anyway, so it is still a bonus. What does everybody think?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 27, 2008 9:40:52 GMT -5
Multi-class characters cannot specialize. I like the rule, as is, because it helps characters get past the lowest levels, where even very skilled players are just a die roll away from death, but the variant ideas are good ones, probably more intuitive.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Nov 27, 2008 11:03:23 GMT -5
I hear ya, Grashyewl but whats the alternative for everything else? Specialization is so dated and out of context. It always felt like it still would be good with more Gygaxian updates, additions , new classes and perhaps surrounded by other class options. It seems like a roleplaying thing ("I am the master of the long sword!" etc.) that just became standard lubing procedure. (I think when I start new characters the new rule will be if I don't hear at least 10 obsessions with their weapon type during the game then they lose it! ) Seriously, back in the summer of 1983, it took a week of adapting that Dragon article (72 April 1983) for the players to lose the significance of specialization. Some had already adopted their own "specialization" from getting it from other npc classes (like the archer by Lakofka which was a big headache back then.). They retroactively said old characters had specialized and its been this shitty unsubstantial play ever since. I'd like to see new AD&D rules for other classes or more options besides specialization before "speadin' the weapon obsession around". You know what I mean? Perhaps, "scrollization" that would be perfect for Taylor's illusionist... Seriously, I think that beefing up characters to give the referee a headache should be turned back to the players (et. al. like I said above keep talking about the weapon or lose it) because its such a drag to have to note these exceptions as a sublimated "standard" during combat. I suppose you could have a multiclass but what of the other penalties? It would be impossible to manage. Yet with no other options for the other classes. I'd like to see something like a fighter specialize in "door breaking" that seems more likely than a "mono-weaponed maniac", right?
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Nov 27, 2008 11:23:24 GMT -5
I like specialization for Fighters--brought folks back to the fold as it were (Gene: "Fossil! Relic!!" ^__^). Yeah, but I use the UA, so I just deal with it. The crafty DM can arrange for encounters for PC's who try to abuse that particular addition, and frankly most new players in my world prefer something simple like a Fighter anyway...
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Nov 27, 2008 11:55:08 GMT -5
I think perhaps its time to consider the non-existent Gygax 2e seriously. Would there have been a combat chart for specialists separate from fighters? That seems likely in a homogenization of the updates. Ease of play should be first and foremost in generating appeal.
And what of these specialist magic-users has anyone ever considered that seriously in full class format?
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Nov 27, 2008 13:26:47 GMT -5
Well, in a way; yes, as I considered the INT bonus to spells (which still makes sense to me, as it really only affected "low-level survival"), and given my Mythus predilections, I love "necromantic" or other specialized areas--and, yes, Gary was certainly headed that direction. ^__^
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Nov 27, 2008 13:29:06 GMT -5
As far as Fighter Specialization; I only find it cumbersome as it is added... once in place it takes care of itself! ^__^
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Nov 27, 2008 14:02:40 GMT -5
Yeah, but its one more thing to keep track of on the other side of the screen where numbers blur it would be more convenient if they had a separate chart right there to remind the DM that these specialists aren't fighters who rotate through a set of weaponry. And implementation of the NPC specialist would be easier as well.
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Nov 27, 2008 14:08:08 GMT -5
So... maybe we should develop a chart to "stitch on" to the DM screen to facilitate this?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Nov 27, 2008 14:14:23 GMT -5
I tried to do a chart a while back but I got thrown off.
Maybe this weekend I'll take a another look into it. besides the charts i have are relics.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 12, 2018 17:01:18 GMT -5
When DMing pre-UA modules, have you gone back to retcon weapon specialization for NPCs within the modules?
If it's available to the PCs, wouldn't it make sense to retcon NPCs on case-by-case basis to decide if NPC fighters and rangers are weapons generalists or specialists?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jun 12, 2018 17:49:05 GMT -5
Crust...
I suppose if all the players were post-modern specialists with no regard for being a weapon-flavored figures some figures would have to be in the same club.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jun 12, 2018 21:35:13 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.
|
|
|
Post by Merkholz on Jun 13, 2018 2:36:54 GMT -5
I just decided on the spot that fighters starting with specialization should have a penalty to their starting Money, i.e. getting trained by an expert swordsman would be costlier than a standard training. Perhaps halving their funds would suffice?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 13, 2018 9:50:13 GMT -5
I just decided on the spot that fighters starting with specialization should have a penalty to their starting Money, i.e. getting trained by an expert swordsman would be costlier than a standard training. Perhaps halving their funds would suffice? I hadn't thought about making specialization costly, but I have applied Trent's -1 'to hit' penalty, per his AD&D companion, to weapon specialists when they use any weapons outside of their specialized weapons...
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 13, 2018 10:07:09 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. Good points with the T1 example...in the case of T1, I did look at the fighter and ranger NPCs, and decided which would be weapons specialists or not...in some cases, it empowered the party via allied NPCs, in other cases, it empowered party adversaries...T1 is already so tough for an inexperienced party of all first level PCs, that I decided not to increase the number or toughness of its monsters...the challenge of T1 is so severe for an all first level party, that I am wondering if there is not some to-be-understood adventuring/exploration within the village itself, prior to the party undertaking an expedition to the moathouse...? Maybe the intent is to have some village intrigue, investigation, and adventuring, which would enable some PCs to attain second, or even third level prior to moathouse adventuring...? There is certainly a substantial amount of both monetary and magic treasure present within the village alone...?!
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jun 13, 2018 12:26:37 GMT -5
Hommlet is kind of strict if you go by the DM notes:
Technically, T1 is for 4 to 6 players of 1st level.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jun 13, 2018 13:31:01 GMT -5
Another factor is that specialized fighters usually won't use spears/poles which can go first even if initiative is lost. So that whole frog approach might seem different.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 13, 2018 14:04:37 GMT -5
Hommlet is kind of strict if you go by the DM notes: Technically, T1 is for 4 to 6 players of 1st level. I don't think the original monochrome T1 module had a stated guideline of 4 to 6 players of 1st level? I know T1-4 TOEE has Frank Mentzer in the text stating that the giant frog encounter should challenge a party of 5 to 8 first or second level characters, and that if fewer characters than that or none or but one 2nd level character is in the party, the encounter should be scaled back?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jun 13, 2018 14:26:09 GMT -5
It seems like something nearly equivalent to the original adventuring party size of seven (Burne, Rufus, Jaroo, Murfles, Terjon, Y'dey, and Otis) PCs (of which some of the PCs were above second level?) should be needed to challenge the tough adversaries in T1? Especially given that the PCs above second level were being played by experienced players? And didn't that party also include some NPC adventurers, hirelings, men-at-arms, and/or henchmen when they adventured into the moathouse?
T1 just seems too tough for a party of 4 to 6, with all of them first level PCs, to gain success at the moathouse without significant additional personnel to bolster the party...?
|
|