Optional Specialization Ruling
Brent G Davis
specialization that I would like to share with the fellow DM's
of rec.games.frp.dnd. It has gone over quite well in my campaign
and has added some spice/variety to the characters.
Background: I was getting tired of the generic 1st level fighters
inhabiting my campaigns. Each one seemed to be a carbon-copy
specialized w/ long sword. I decided that more variety was needed
which led to the following rule(s).
Original Test-Ruling: 1st level characters couldn't specialize. The
players shrugged, and it seemed that most of them left a slot open to
specialize when they reached 2nd level. Surprisingly, at 2nd level some
fighters (like the one who found a magic hand axe) decided to use the open
slot for a new weapon rather than specialize (which was exactly the kind of
variety I was after). However, the jump in combat skill from 1st
(non-specialized) to 2nd (specialized) was quite drastic and unbalancing.
The test-ruling needed some tinkering.
Eventual Ruling: Characters below 4th level couldn't specialize.
Characters no longer needed to leave slots open, but a few did anyways.
When characters reached 4th, they ended up specializing in a wide variety
of weapons (typically magic ones they had found through the previous
adventures). I also built in a role-playing idea of seeking out and
finding a weapon-master to teach him/her specialization. This
weapon-master was a minimum 7th level fighter proficient with the weapon
in question. Some characters had to pay to get trained, while others
performed small tasks (leading to mini-adventures) for the training.
Results: Concerning balance, 4th level seems to work very well,
fitting nicely in the middle of 1st (unspecialized) and 7th (added
combat attack). I've been using this ruling now for over 2 years,
and the players actually think it's a good idea. This is one of the few
times I've changed the rules to limit low-level characters (they need
all the breaks they can get), but in some ways it may actually be to
their benefit. My campaigns are strongly political with humans rather
than monsters as the main opponents. In a combat situation, low level
fighters will now survive longer against enemy low level fighters (since
the attacks are now 1/1 rather than 3/2), giving the players more
opportunity to outwit and best their opponents. For beginning players
it also makes attack simple: one attack per round, not to mention
helping novice DM's (wasn't that your double attack round last time?).
Brent
--
/ bda...@romulus.cray.com Cray Research Inc. Chippewa Falls, WI \
( Just another Engineer/Musician/AD&D'er multiclass with Internet access )
\ "I`m a zombie in the a.m., when it's just too early to wake the dead." /
Jon Edwards
through it, but I've heard there are lots of options...
Two weapons, Weapon w/ Shield, etc....
What does everyone think of these?
Jon
aka Selk, Denek, Landon, Elhmo
--
Jonathan R. Edwards gt6...@prism.gatech.edu
Georgia Institute of Technology
eng...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
>through it, but I've heard there are lots of options...
>Two weapons, Weapon w/ Shield, etc....
>
>What does everyone think of these?
Two weapon style combined with specialization gets way too silly.
Start with a Swashbuckler kit (Myrmidons will work just as well,
though). Specialize in Longsword (or even rapier if you want to)
and then specialize in Two Weapon fighting style. While you're at
it, take Ambidexterity too. All this only costs you four weapon
proficiency slots.
What you end up with is an obscene fighter able to do on
average three attacks a round (3/2 with right hand and 3/2 with
left) with +1 to hit and +2 damage each (the Ambidexterity
practically nullifies the off-hand penalty). Then combine this with
an 18-something strength (not unheard of) and you have a killing
machine of gargantuan proportions. All at first level too!
Andrew Earl
-- Watch out for quantum ducks. Quark quark. --
Donald Tsang
>Two weapon style combined with specialization gets way too silly.
>
>Start with a Swashbuckler kit (Myrmidons will work just as well,
>though). Specialize in Longsword (or even rapier if you want to)
>and then specialize in Two Weapon fighting style. While you're at
>it, take Ambidexterity too. All this only costs you four weapon
>proficiency slots.
It's not at all clear to me that "Specialization in X" means
that the character is specialized with X in either hand. I would
require the character to take "X-Sword proficiency", and then
"X-Sword Specialization(R)" and "X-Sword Specialization(L)".
With the additional restriction that only one specialization can
be taken at first level (including style specializations, perhaps),
the character doesn't become amazingly sick until 3rd or 6th level.
> What you end up with is an obscene fighter able to do on
>average three attacks a round (3/2 with right hand and 3/2 with
^^^^^^^^
>left) with +1 to hit and +2 damage each (the Ambidexterity
^^^^
This is explicitly wrong. You *never* get more than one extra
attack for using two weapons (per observed combat round -- haste
is a different story, of course).
>practically nullifies the off-hand penalty). Then combine this with
>an 18-something strength (not unheard of) and you have a killing
>machine of gargantuan proportions. All at first level too!
18/xx strength in a Swashbuckler always seemed... wrong.
(besides, 18/xx strength and dart specialization is sicker)
--
Donald Tsang "Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge!
ts...@june.cs.washington.edu Spin! Ha! Thrust!"
..!uw-beaver!june!tsang -- Robin Hood Daffy
JAMES ZAKANY
eng...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes...
>Two weapon style combined with specialization gets way too silly.
Can't with argue that.
>Andrew Earl
>-- Watch out for quantum ducks. Quark quark. --
Hee, hee, hee...
Anyway, on to the subject at hand. I do something a little different that
doesn't limit 1st-leveler's as much, but encourages weapon diversification.
I allow everyone to freely change weapon proficiencies at first level.
That allows them to try out various weapons in different situations. It's
not until second level that these prof's get "set" (this is also one's
first "training period"). Also, to specialize, one must find a tutor...
James S. Zakany
Winston Sorfleet
>>an 18-something strength (not unheard of) and you have a killing
>>machine of gargantuan proportions. All at first level too!
>
>18/xx strength in a Swashbuckler always seemed... wrong.
>
>(besides, 18/xx strength and dart specialization is sicker)
Our group had also noted that an 18/xx STR with sword-dagger (or darts) is
much better than a 2-handed sword, since you get the STR bonus twice. Our
solution: STR bonus + specialization (if any) can not exceed maximum base
damage of the weapon (neglect magical bonuses here). So, it's better (and
more theatrical) for the 18/00 fighter against a giant to use a 2-handed sword
(3d6+6) than two daggers (1d3 + 3)x2. And it makes sense that the high-STR
characters would be the ones using large weapons, even if they are slower.
So far, this house rule seems to be balanced.
('Course, if you want the 18/xx fighters with darts to act like MX missile
launchers....)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Sorfleet |
Contributing Editor, Ianus Publications | Bell-Northern Research, Dept. 7K34
w...@doe.carleton.ca | sor...@x400gate.bnr.ca
Opinions expressed are purely personal and do not represent Northern Telecom
or Bell-Northern Research in any way.
James E. Kittock
>
> I've implemented and game-tested a rule concerning weapon-
>specialization that I would like to share with the fellow DM's
>of rec.games.frp.dnd. It has gone over quite well in my campaign
>and has added some spice/variety to the characters.
[stuff deleted]
Actually, among the better weapon-specialization rules I have seen
(although not played extensively) are the D&D Weapon Mastery Rules.
Leaf through the (relatively) new D&D Rules Cyclopedia at your local
game store, if you get a chance. Among the things I like about their
system: damage dice change with mastery levels (there are five levels,
I think), new maneuvers become available at various levels, mastery
affects various weapons differently, the rules for training to each
level are fairly explicit.
--
James Kittock -- Duke class of 1992 -- Computer Science/Mathematics
j...@cs.duke.edu | mcnc!duke!jek | PO Box 5750, Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706
"Yes, I will kiss the girl from Venus for science." - They Might be Giants
Kintair of Hawkehaven MKA Bill Hately
only allow one attact per round with the off hand *ever* - this stops me fr om
having mega attacks (and of course theres a top end limit too at level
something)
bill
Kintair of Hawkehaven | Bill Hately | Talk (403) 381-1741
Shire of Windwyrm | Lethbridge AB | proct_...@hg.uleth.ca
Crown Principality of Avacal | Canada | Smile Dammit
An Tir (I wouldn't dream of subjecting any corp. or Educational Institution to
these opinions, so they certainly aren't the opinions of the UofL)
(And I'm not an officer of the SCA so I can't have an official opinion There
- even if I wanted to )
Life is a Sexually Transmitted Terminal Condition
Ithlial the Archer
> Hey I have a character like this (well kindof) and my DM got smart and will
>only allow one attact per round with the off hand *ever* - this stops me fr om
>having mega attacks (and of course theres a top end limit too at level
>something)
>bill
I believe that this is explicitly stated somewhere in the PHB or CF
handbook/manual (I can't remember).
Ithlial
The only good Troll is a dead Troll
Collary:
Trolls regenerate - There are no dead Trolls
The ELF
The AD&D 2E PHBK states that for two-weapon use, the off hand ONLY ever
gives ONE additional attack. Therefore a F8 with longsword spec,
two-weapon spec (twice) will have 3 attacks/rnd (2 with wpn #1, 1 with wpn #2).
I really enjoy the Fighter's Handbook style specializations...
but the 2 weapon style can be the most powerful. Oh well. AD&D is
unbalanced enough as it is...
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Merric Blackman merricb@mundil
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor Who"
Craig V Lewis
specifying which race could use what weapons in primary and secondary
hands in two weapon fighting. Even Humans were not allowed two long swords.
And certain races were logically denied the use of certain weapons, i.e.
that halfling Bastard Sword specialist is out, and he has to use the long
sword two handed.
Personally I believe that some realism should be imposed on the combination
of weapons chosen, i.e. no two weapon Long Sword + Long Sword combos.
Typical medieval combinations were more like long-sword/dagger from what
I have read.
Perhaps a house rule to the effect of no two wielded weapons may exceed 3/4
of your height in total length or 1/4 of your weight in total weight. With
strength modifiers. This would disallow the use of two long swords but retain
long/short for humans, long/dagger for elves, etc.
"Your right hand is waving around 3' of steel and your left hand is
trying to make 3' of steel stay out of the way of the right hand. Subtract
2 from each too hit roll and 2 from each damage roll due to interference
between the weapons."
Just my opinions, I welcome constructive criticisms, direct all flames to
someone who cares.
CVL
--
Craig Lewis c...@athena.mit.edu
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (508)457-2000x4814
Nobody but me has any idea what I'm doing; and I don't know either.
Sea Wasp
>An old Dragon article about fighting with two weapons had a long table
>specifying which race could use what weapons in primary and secondary
>hands in two weapon fighting. Even Humans were not allowed two long swords.
Question: Someone previously mentioned taking "ambidexterity".
If you're REALLY ambidextrous, you don't HAVE an "off hand". So
what do you do?
>Personally I believe that some realism should be imposed on the combination
>of weapons chosen, i.e. no two weapon Long Sword + Long Sword combos.
>Typical medieval combinations were more like long-sword/dagger from what
>I have read.
Medieval Europe, yes. But in the Oriental melieu, there were several
equivalent styles, most obviously the one which was katana/katana (not to
be confused with katana/wakazashi).
If you're strong and very dextrous (and especially if you're
ambidextrous) you should be able to wield quite large weapons in both
hands very well indeed.
>"Your right hand is waving around 3' of steel and your left hand is
>trying to make 3' of steel stay out of the way of the right hand. Subtract
>2 from each too hit roll and 2 from each damage roll due to interference
>between the weapons."
"Your right katana blocks his downswing as your left slashes the
opponent to that side; continuing that swing, your lefthand katana blocks
your rearward opponent's slash while the righthand one arcs around and
disarms your frontward opponent."
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Identity Unknown
hand, but you know that this does happen to make a first level character the
ability to attack 5/2. Isn't this still a little bit over board? Just one
thing that I don't think is too real, but what is real?
over...@wam.umd.edu
UMCP, the Bermuda Triangle of everything.
Carl E. Anderson
>eng...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
>>>What about the 2nd ed Fighter Manual(??). I've never really looked
>>>through it, but I've heard there are lots of options...
>>>Two weapons, Weapon w/ Shield, etc....
>>>What does everyone think of these?
>>
>>Two weapon style combined with specialization gets way too silly.
>>
>>Start with a Swashbuckler kit (Myrmidons will work just as well,
>>though). Specialize in Longsword (or even rapier if you want to)
>>and then specialize in Two Weapon fighting style. While you're at
>>it, take Ambidexterity too. All this only costs you four weapon
>>proficiency slots.
>> What you end up with is an obscene fighter able to do on
>>average three attacks a round (3/2 with right hand and 3/2 with
>>left) with +1 to hit and +2 damage each (the Ambidexterity
>>practically nullifies the off-hand penalty). Then combine this with
>>an 18-something strength (not unheard of) and you have a killing
>>machine of gargantuan proportions. All at first level too!
>
>only allow one attact per round with the off hand *ever* - this stops me fr om
>having mega attacks (and of course theres a top end limit too at level
>something)
I believe it says in the rules somewhere that an off hand weapon
will only ever give one extra attack per round. Thus a 7th level fighter
specialized to 2/1 gets 3/1 including his offhand weapon. A 1st level fighter
specialized to 3/2 gets (including the offhand weapon) 2 attacks the first
round and 3 attacks the second round.
I have a Ranger character who wields a bastard sword in either hand
(being a horrible Celt, they are claymores), has 2-weapon style, and 18/81
Strength. But he cannot weapon specialize because he isn't a pure Fighter,
he's a Ranger. So he's not _that_ outrageous.
Carl
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Edlund Anderson "Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn
can...@isr.harvard.edu at manni at eigi hafi vidh kommit."
OR
ande...@husc.harvard.edu - Skarphedhinn Njalsson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl E. Anderson
Some one mentioned that sword/sword 2 weapon combos didnt make
sense, at least in Medieval Western Europe. I should say that I believe I
recall such combos mentioned in Icelandic sagas (largely written in the
13th century, portraying earlier events). I can't recall any specific
references off hand but will check my sources tonight and post them
tomorrow.
Cheers,
Stephanie J. Kessler
I cannot remember which book this is from, but somewhere it says
that you cannot use a weapon in your off-hand that is the same
size or larger than the main hand weapon without a special
proficiency (can't remember what it is... ambedexterity???).
Otherwise, it must be smaller, like a dagger or short sword...
--
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and
randomly enforced. Frank Zappa
cb317 @ cleveland.Freenet.Edu
eng...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
>
> I cannot remember which book this is from, but somewhere it says
> that you cannot use a weapon in your off-hand that is the same
> size or larger than the main hand weapon without a special
> proficiency (can't remember what it is... ambedexterity???).
> Otherwise, it must be smaller, like a dagger or short sword...
Actually, in the Fighters' Handbook under Two Weapon Style it
specifically states that you can use two same-sized weapons. They give
an example of two longswords.
Andrew Earl
--- TECO Madness. A moment of convenience, a lifetime of regret. ---
Bill - Vitro
>In article <1992Aug12....@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
cb...@cleveland.Freenet
>.Edu (Stephanie J. Kessler) writes:
>>
>> I cannot remember which book this is from, but somewhere it says
>> that you cannot use a weapon in your off-hand that is the same
>> size or larger than the main hand weapon without a special
>> proficiency (can't remember what it is... ambedexterity???).
>> Otherwise, it must be smaller, like a dagger or short sword...
>
>Actually, in the Fighters' Handbook under Two Weapon Style it
>specifically states that you can use two same-sized weapons. They give
>an example of two longswords.
>Andrew Earl
>--- TECO Madness. A moment of convenience, a lifetime of regret. ---
For G.O.D. only knows what reason, I have been looking at these very
rules lately. <Putting on my white wig and black robe> p64 of _The
Complete Fighter's Handbook_ says: "...Unless the character has
Style Specialization in this style [Two-Weapon Style], the second
(off hand) weapon must be shorter than the primary weapon."
Ambidexterity, on the other hand (so to speak O:> ), when
fighting with two weapons, eliminates the off-hand penalty.
Which means that rangers fight at no penalty on each weapon,
(which is standard, since that's one of the Ranger bonuses)
and all others (warriors and rogues, again according to TCFH), fight
at -2 on each weapon, modified by Reaction/Attacking Adjustment based
on DEX. In neither case can the R/A Adj give the character a bonus
to hit. Ambidexterity requires 1 _weapon_ proficiency slot.
In defense of TWSS/Ambidex, this gives you the same benefits
a Ranger gets, while taking 2 weapon proficiency slots. i.e. if you
think TWSS is unbalancing, try minimaxing a Ranger sometime.
You know, it always amazes how well that wig fits..... ;(
Billy T.
"To make the laws better, we must first understand them."
wil...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
By the rules the "Off" hand is only allowed ONE and ONE only attack no matter
what level or specialization the character is. This limits it to 2 first then
3 the second. But also remember that the weapons must be of different sizes,
thus the charater will need to be either proficient in 2 weapons or have a
minus added to the already off hand weapon...
There are other ways around this...but I prefer to think of them as enjoyable
characters. I had a Swashbuckler that took the "Broad" group of swords,
specilized in the rapier took 2 weapon style specilization and single style
specilization along with a few other things...Eneded up when fighting with 1
weapon with an AC of 0 with leather armor. The extra profs required for all
the specilizations were gained from the language bonuses. The rules say that
these can be used in the place of "normal" profs if wanted (allowed).
However after all the above the character was not a munch machine. Doing
only on the average of 3 to 5 HP a hit (secondary weapon was 1-3 damage). He
was however the funnest character I ever played. The campaine we played in
had little or no melee at all so the character grew under a role-playing
environment.
The worst/best character I ever saw was a Gladiator specilized with the
fist (+ the glove things that give you 1-4 damage) with the 18 and percent
strength damage bonus. To many attacks a round and he could kill just about
everthing in one hit.
wil...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
>>>an 18-something strength (not unheard of) and you have a killing
>>>machine of gargantuan proportions. All at first level too!
>>
>>18/xx strength in a Swashbuckler always seemed... wrong.
>>
>>(besides, 18/xx strength and dart specialization is sicker)
>
> Our group had also noted that an 18/xx STR with sword-dagger (or darts) is
> much better than a 2-handed sword, since you get the STR bonus twice. Our
> solution: STR bonus + specialization (if any) can not exceed maximum base
> damage of the weapon (neglect magical bonuses here). So, it's better (and
> more theatrical) for the 18/00 fighter against a giant to use a 2-handed sword
> (3d6+6) than two daggers (1d3 + 3)x2. And it makes sense that the high-STR
> characters would be the ones using large weapons, even if they are slower.
> So far, this house rule seems to be balanced.
> ('Course, if you want the 18/xx fighters with darts to act like MX missile
> launchers....)
I have been looking for a solution for this before. My first level
characters are wading through my campains! I will try you idea and see how it
turns out.
Matt Keary
s/he can't muster a str bonus on more than one hand. Off-hands always
are at penalties or unmodified.
Mateo
Kwei-Cee Chu
>> In article <1992Aug11.0...@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, ts...@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang) writes:
>>
>> Our group had also noted that an 18/xx STR with sword-dagger (or darts) is
>> much better than a 2-handed sword, since you get the STR bonus twice. Our
>I have been looking for a solution for this before. My first level
>characters are wading through my campains! I will try you idea and see how it
>turns out.
>
potentially the most dangerous enemies players can face in a game.
If survival dictates different fighting styles, trust me, people (and
monsters) will adapt. Alternately, emphasize things other than combat
- like politics - real fun (evil laugh). Give them something that they
just can't walk up to and kill. If you want to be really nasty, there
is a trap that involves two parallel mirrors of opposition...
Kwei-Cee Chu
Doreen Devlin
What?? That's what having the ambidextrous proficiency is _for_!!! You
don't _have_ an off-hand!!!
That DM is being just a bit silly....
Phil Kernick
>>> Our group had also noted that an 18/xx STR with sword-dagger (or darts) is
>>> much better than a 2-handed sword, since you get the STR bonus twice. Our
One of my characters asked me about this, and we came up with a simple
ruling. The maximum extra damage that strength can give to a thrown weapon
is equal to its weight in pounds, rounded up.
Therefore:
dart has weight 0.5, so maximum extra damage is +1 when thrown.
hammer " " 5 " " " " " +5 " "
etc.
It seems to work well. Magical plusses are still added as normal.
Just another ruling from the BDMFH.
Phil.
--
_-_|\ Phil Kernick E-Mail: ph...@adam.adelaide.edu.au
/ \ Departmental Engineer Phone: +61 8 228 5914
\_.-*_/ Dept. of Psychology Fax: +61 8 224 0464
v University of Adelaide Mail: GPO Box 498 Adelaide SA 5001
Gavin Williams
>Just another ruling from the BDMFH.
muahahahahahaahah!!!!!! :-)
Ami A. Silberman
a) The maximum damage that can be added due to strength and specialization
with any weapon is equal to the maximum that the weapon can do counting
only its magic (if any.) Thus, at most 5 points could be added to the damage
done by a +1 dagger vs. man-sized creatures.
b) For thrown or missle weapons, reduce this maximum damage by 1 for each
range class over point blank. So a dart thrown at short range may have
at most 2 points added to its damage due to strength.
--
ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
sil...@cs.uiuc.edu