| - | - | - | - | - |
| 1st Edition AD&D | - | Dragon #140 | - | Dragon |
For some Dungeon Masters, the weapon
specialization rules introduced on page
18
of Unearthed Arcana are troublesome.
The melee advantage conferred to fighters
and rangers who specialize in a weapon
can be quite powerful, as evinced by
Lenard Lakofka?s analysis in DRAGON®
issue #104, page 28. A 1st-level fighter
with single specialization in the long
sword has his offensive power dramatically
improved. A 4th-level fighter who gains
double specialization with a weapon is a
serious threat to game balance in many
campaigns, dominating play over less
powerful characters. For these reasons,
Lenard Lakofka and others have suggested
revising the existing rules to tone down
the efficacy of weapon specialization.
This article presents one such revision
of the official system, with a more gradual
progression of weapon specialization
modifiers for melee weapons provided.
The idea of double and triple specialization
with a weapon is extended to include
all weapons, both melee and missile.
The advantages of single specialization
in a melee weapon are altered for characters
of 1st through 3rd levels, as shown in
Table 1. The +2 hp damage bonus is
reduced to + 1, and the attack routine is
changed to four attacks every three
rounds, for an extra melee attack every
third round. The official advantages of
single specialization are not gained until
4th level.
Double specialization in a melee weapon
is not possible until a fighter attains the
7th level. Double specialization grants only
a +2 on ?to hit? and damage rolls.
Characters may receive double and
triple specialization in missile weapons as
well ? a change from the official rules.
Double specialization cannot be achieved
until 7th level, and triple specialization
must wait until 10th level, as with melee
weapons. Tables 2-4 give the bonuses for
bows, crossbows, and all other hurled or
missile weapons. In each table, under the
range columns, two numbers are given for
each level of specialization. The number
before the slash is the ?to hit? bonus; the
number after the slash is the damage
bonus. The number of attacks for each
missile weapon at a given experience level
is unchanged from the Weapon Specialization
Table for Fighters and Rangers in
Unearthed Arcana, page 18, regardless of
double or triple specialization.
Rangers suffer an odd problem when
they specialize in bows. Because each
ranger must spend all three of his weapon
proficiency slots in order to specialize in a
bow, he cannot be proficient in any melee
weapon until he attains 4th level. Some
Dungeon Masters may feel this is an unfair
penalty to be imposed upon a bowspecialist
ranger at the start of his adventuring
career. The DM might consider
allowing the ranger to use one of his nonweapon
proficiency slots as a fourth weapon
proficiency slot with which the
bow-specialist can acquire one melee
weapon of proficiency.
Table 1
Melee Weapon Specialization
| Specialization | Experience level | "To hit" bonus | Damage bonus | No. of attacks |
| Single | 1-3 | +1 | +1 | 4/3 |
| Single | 4-6 | +1 | +2 | 3/2 |
| Double | 7-9 | +2 | +3 | 2/1 |
| Triple | 10-12 | +3 | +3 | 2/1 |
Table 2
Bow Weapon Specialization
"To Hit"/Damage bonuses
| Specialization | Experience level | Point blank | Short | Medium | Long |
| Single | 1-6 | +2/+2 | +1/+1 | 0/1 | 0/0 |
| Double | 7-9 | +3/+2 | +2/+1 | +1/0 | +1/0 |
| Triple | 10+ | +3/+3 | +2/+2 | +1/+1 | +1/0 |
Table 3
Crossbow Weapon Specialization
"To Hit"/Damage bonuses
| Specialization | Experience level | Point blank | Short | Medium | Long |
| Single | 1-6 | +2/+2 | +1/+1 | +1/0 | 0//0 |
| Double | 7-9 | +3/+2 | +2/+1 | +1/0 | +1/0 |
| Triple | 10+ | +3/+3 | +2/+2 | +1/+1 | +1/0 |
Table 4
Other Hurled or Missile Weapon Specialization
"To Hit" / Damage bonuses
| Specialization | Experience level | Short | Medium | Long |
| Single | 1-6 | +1/+2 | +1/+2 | +1/+2 |
| Double | 7-9 | +2/+2 | +2/+2 | +2/+2 |
| Triple | 10+ | +2/+3 | +2/+3 | +2/+3 |
Some weapons, such as the spear, dagger,
and hand axe, can be considered both
melee and missile weapons. Just because a
fighter is specialized in wielding a hand
axe in melee does not mean he is also
highly skilled in throwing that axe. Melee
and missile specialization in a single weapon
must be considered separately. The DM
might allow a PC to obtain both forms of
specialization in a weapon. For example, a
fighter who has melee specialization in the
spear at 1st level might take missile specialization
with his spear at 4th level by
expending a weapon proficiency slot. At
7th level, the fighter takes double specialization
with the spear as a melee weapon,
and at 10th level, he takes double specialization
as a missile weapon. The fighter
may ultimately attain triple specialization
with the spear in melee and as a hurled
weapon at 16th level.
By enforcing a more gradual progression
of weapon specialization advantages for
melee weapons, the Dungeon Master
restores fighters and rangers to a fairer,
more balanced position in the game.
Instead of being highly efficient hack-andslash
machines with a strong damage
bonus and impressive attack routine,
fighter and ranger weapon specialists are
more in balance, keeping them from
becoming the sole centers of attention in a
low-level campaign.
By providing for double and triple specialization
with missile weapons, the DM
encourages characters to be led away
from always choosing the trusty long
sword as the only weapon for specialization.
A fighter who wishes to emulate
William Tell or Robin Hood can continue to
improve in his mastery of the crossbow or
long bow as he gains levels.
Weapon specialization need not be an
overly powerful ability of PC warriors that
forces the Dungeon Master to increase the
number of monsters in every encounter to
restore balance to the campaign. Specialization
can instead be a moderate advantage
that allows PCs to pursue their
weapons of interest and to portray the
heroic characters of interest to the players,
whether swordsmen or archers.
DECEMBER 1988
I am writing this letter to
offer my thoughts
on weapon
specialization as outlined on page 18
of the AD&D Game
book, Unearthed Arcana. At
first glance, it is an attractive
addition to the
game because it offers fighters
the realism of
achieving more skill with
one weapon over
another. However, its danger
is realized once it
is introduced into a campaign,
for the power
levels of all the PC fighters
rise to unmanageable
levels. For example, a 1st-level
fighter who
chooses to double specialize
with a melee
weapon, as any player would
naturally have his
novice character do, is thus
granted not only a
chance to hit better than
that of an unspecialized
4th-level fighter, but the
capability to regularly
inflict damage in the two-digit
range. This
is not to say, though, that
weapon specialization
should be removed from the
game entirely.
Since it is now possible
for a player to determine
the class of his character
before any dice
are thrown (à la Player
Character Generation
Method V), something must
be done to improve
the fighter and thereby make
the class equally
as attractive as the more
powerful cavalier or
fighter subclasses.
Here, then, is my suggested
addition to the
rules for weapon specialization:
Only those
proficiency ?slots? gained
as a result of attaining
a level of experience higher
than first can be
counted toward any type of
weapon specialization.
This means that normal specialization
cannot be gained by any fighter
of less than
third level, and that double
specialization and
bow specialization (the most
unmanageable of
all) are restricted to those
below fifth level.
This stipulation makes the
system workable
for me, but more conservative
DMs can limit it
further by not allowing specialists
any more
attacks per round than they
would normally be
allowed. Remember that, as
a Dungeon Master,
it is your duty to run your
campaign by what
feels right to you and your
players, and not by
the dictates of the sometimes
seemingly illconsidered
words of the rule books.
Peter C. Zelinski
Mansfield, OH
(Dragon
#118)
I am writing in response to
a "Forum" letter
written by Mr. Sides in issue
#119. I strongly
disagree with his opinions
of weapon specialization
and nonweapon proficiencies.
I think
specialization is a needed
booster to the fighter
class. It allows a fighter
to pick a weapon and
concentrate his abilities
on using it. The bonuses
given are sensible, and the
fighter does have to
pay the penalty of using
up proficiency slots to
become better with the desired
weapon. The
increase in fighting power
allows the DM to put
in harder monsters for the
PCs to fight. If the
PC fighters insist on constantly
using their
specialized weapon, then
make some diverse
encounters. For example:
if the PC fighter
specialized with a melee
weapon, have some
giants bombard the party
with boulders from
the top of a hill. If your
fighters are specialized
with a missile weapon, limit
their power by
having monsters sneak up
on the party before
the PCs can use their missiles.
This will quickly
get the party to change its
ways and pick more
diverse weapons.
Note that PCs are not the
only ones who can
specialize. NPC fighters
may also specialize. For
example, a 10th-level half-ogre
fighter your
party runs into happens to
be double specialized
with a bastard sword (which
he can use to
full effect in one hand).
He uses a large shield in
the other hand. With the
not-uncommon 18/00
strength of the half-ogre,
this opponent will be
able to do a maximum of 34
hp damage in one
round. Note that this is
without any magical
bonuses, which could increase
damage greatly.
About nonweapon proficiencies,
Mr. Sides
states that all 1st-level
characters will take
healing and blind-fighting.
But most fighter
types (including cavaliers
and paladins) will not
be able to take these at
1st level for lack of
proficiency slots. If they
do take them at the
first opportunity, they will
be in for a rude
awakening. For example: A
party is being
chased by a large band of
hobgoblins, but
blocking the escape route
is a deep river. Since
no one has taken the swimming
proficiency, the
party is forced to turn and
make a stand.
In another instance, the party
has been on a
long expedition to find and
kill a dragon that
lives hundreds of miles from
any civilization.
They reach the dragon and
manage to slay it.
Much to their chagrin, they
realize that their
supplies are exhausted. Since
no one has any
food-obtaining proficiencies,
they will undoubtedly
perish in the wilderness.
As is obvious,
there is more to AD&D®
game life than healing
and blind-fighting.
Nathan Perkins
Highland Park IL
(Dragon
#123)
I like the idea of allowing
fighters to specialize
with a preferred weapon.
I also have a few
additional ways for a fighter
character to specialize
which I include in my campaign.
There is parry specialization.
This can be
taken with any melee weapon.
When this specific
type of weapon is wielded,
the user?s armor
class is improved by one
against one opponent,
as it would be by a small
shield. This doesn?t
interfere with attacks using
this weapon. This
type of specialization also
allows a disarming
attack similar to that allowed
with a spetum.
Also available is a two-weapon
fighting specialization.
According to the rules on
page 70 in the
DMG, a person attacking
with a weapon in his <two weapon fighting,
Best of Dragon IV>
off hand suffers a -2 to
hit with the good hand
and a -4 to hit with the
off hand. These are
both modified by the character?s
attacking
adjustment, which depends
on the character?s
dexterity. A character who
specializes with two
weapons must specify what
type of weapon is
being wielded in each hand.
The weapon in the
off hand must be a small
one-handed weapon,
such as a dagger, a hand
axe, or a spiked buckler.
If the character has a dexterity
of 16 or
more, then the negative modifiers
to hit are
eliminated. If dexterity
is between 6 and 15,
then the net modifier is
+0 for the good hand
and -1 for the off hand.
For a dexterity of 5 or
less, use the reaction/attacking
adjustment for
the main hand and add -1
to that for the other
hand.
Characters can also specialize
with a sling, but
not a staff sling, using
the same rules and modifiers
as for a crossbow. (This
is instead of specializing
as an other missile weapon.)
However,
close range for a sling is
10? to 30?.
Characters who have already
specialized with
a bow, a crossbow, or a sling
can choose an
extended-range specialization.
With this, there
is no additional change at
close range. At short
range, there is a +2 to hit,
+1 to damage. At
medium range, there is a
+1 to hit and damage.
At long range, there is a
+1 to hit. From long
range to twice the maximum
long range is the
extended range. The range
modifiers still need
to be included; they are
+0 for close and short
ranges, -2 for medium range,
-5 for long
range, and -8 for extended
range. A 5th-level
fighter with a long bow would
have an extended
range from 210 yards to 420
yards ; to hit AC 10
requires a roll of 14 or
better in this range.
Characters are not allowed
to take more than
one type of specialization
at 1st level. Double
specialization is also restricted
to characters
who have a little more experience.
However, a
fighter at higher levels
could easily take several
of these specializations.
A 10th-level ranger
could easily be double specialized
with a long
sword, take parry specialization
with his dagger,
and take two-weapon specialization
with the
long sword in his good hand
and the dagger in
his off hand. If he has 18/83
strength and 16
dexterity, then his nonmagical
bonuses are +5
to hit and +7 damage with
the long sword, and
+2 to hit, +4 damage, and
+1 AC with the
dagger.
I also see no reason why a
barbarian character
couldn?t specialize with
a weapon common
to his tribe. Many types
of barbarians depend
on hunting for food. Specialization
would indicate
a hunter or warrior has practiced
extensively,
so his aim is more deadly.
Stephen Rasmussen
West Valley UT
(Dragon
#132)
Let's settle once and for
all the matter of
Unearthed Arcana's
weapon-specialization
rules.
Recent letters in "Forum"
have claimed that this
is a good thing and that
(heaven help us) it
should be extended to clerics
as well.
Weapon specialization is grotesque
and unbalancing.
Let?s quote some figures
here, a rather
elementary thing to do which
no previous
writer has bothered to pester
readers with.
Consider our standard 1st-level
fighter. He has
17 strength (a fair average
for a fighter) and
uses a long sword. Now, how
much damage
does he do? That depends
on the armor class of
an enemy, so what we do is
calculate the average
damage per round against
all enemies from
AC 9 to AC -2. This average
comes out as 1.54
hp/round in the old combat
system. With weapon
specialization, it becomes
3.66 hp/round,
fully 238% of the old figure.
With double specialization
(perfectly reasonable for
1st-level
fighters; how many of them
ever use more than
one sword and a bow anyway?),
we get 5.43 hp/
rd, a staggering 353% increase
over the old
average. It is obvious from
these figures ? and
the numbers don?t change
radically if one considers
other weapon types and strength
values
? that the effect of specialization
is absurdly
unbalancing to the game.
Did anyone ever claim
in the past that fighters
should be able to do
four times the damage they
were doing? If no
such claim was made, why
do we need a system
in which damage by fighters
is virtually quadrupled
by double specialization?
Actually, the laughable rules
on firing a crossbow
at point-blank range give
new average
damage figures which exceed
by 600% the old
damage in certain cases,
but these are so outrageous
that I cannot bring myself
to detail them.
Weapon specialization must
be written out of
the AD&D® Second
Edition game, together with
other unbalancing elements
which have produced
overpowered characters: Method
V
character generation (if
you want this type of
character, why don?t you
save yourself the time
and just write down six straight
18s?);
svirfneblin and their elemental
conjurations;
barbarians; and drow with
their spell bonuses.
All these are equivalents
of the treasure-packed
Monty Haul in the area of
character abilities.
Finally, to deal with the
people who have
written in about the ?pitiful
mages? who at 1st
level have but one spell
(another variant on the
childish ?gimme a real powerful
character and
gimme it now? mentality).
Stop snivelling, use
your brains, and you might
even try doing
something really radical
when that spell has
been used ? like role-playing.
A magic-user is
highly intelligent, and he
should have plenty of
input into tactical discussions,
interpreting
observations, and anything
else which calls for
some smarts.
Steve Allen
London, U.K.
(Dragon
#140)
I am writing this letter in
response to Tim
Merrett?s comments in issue
#136. Although I
have no problem with his
idea of requiring the
use of a weapon proficiency
slot for shield use,
his comments on weapon specialization
show
that he did not fully understand
weapon specialization.
He stated that a ranger could
become ?specialized
in a bow, double specialized
in a sword and
an axe, and finally specialized
with a dagger.?
According to Unearthed
Arcana (page 18), the
decision to specialize ?must
be made when the
character is initially created?
? in other words,
the only time a character
can chose to specialize
is at first level. Furthermore,
careful reading of
the text also reveals the
following text, ?This
discipline is manifested
in the character?s choice
of one weapon to practice
and use, to the exclusion
of others.? A character can
never specialize
in more than one weapon.
Allowing fighters the use
of weapon specialization
gives them a great advantage.
To allow
fighters to specialize in
more than one weapon
would greatly unbalance the
game.
Jimmy B. Ellis
Victoria TX
(Dragon
#141)
Hurrah for Ivy K. Reynolds
in issue #144, for
her views on the D&D
game! Long have I sat
watching people belittle
this marvelous system.
Weapon specialization has
always been a
problem with the AD&D
game, as no one is able
to agree on how it should
be utilized. The
weapon-mastery structure
in the D&D Masters
Set presents a colorful
comparison to the bland
chart offered by its newer
companion [in Unearthed
Arcana]. Weapon mastery
allows a
character to carefully chose
which weapon to
master by allowing certain
benefits to the
character when he has reached
a certain rank
of mastery. These can be
reviewed for the best
effect to the PC. It also
gives the player a sense
of ability by ranking a PC
as Basic, Skilled,
Expert, Master, or Grand
Master of his chosen
weapon. The weapons are closely
examined by
giving only abilities that
would suit. One can
hardly imagine a thief with
a dagger trying to
disarm a fighter with a halberd!
The AD&D game's
weapon specialization
imbalances play at higher
levels. Characters
naturally become more proficient
with weapons
even though they are not
technically learning
any new, specific techniques
with them. This is
unrealistic to a degree that
cannot be ignored. A
character may be a brilliant
swordsman, but he
is not going to suddenly
become more powerful
overnight simply because
he advances in level.
The weapon-mastery system
requires much of a
PC who wishes to learn it.
He must have the
correct amount to pay his
teacher, but that
doesn?t guarantee that he
will be able to find a
teacher who is genuine (characters
would be
surprised at the number of
charlatans who
might attempt to harm them).
Also, as a PC
advances his weapon mastery,
it becomes increasingly
hard to find acceptable teachers,
and
the chances to learn are
much less. These
adventures [to find teachers]
could be extraordinarily
dangerous, allowing the character
to
prove that he is worthy.
Anyone who has ever used the
D&D system
might have noticed that magic-users
are allowed
to gain levels of mastery
just as fighters can. I
personally allow this but
with a penalty to the
magic-user. As he trains,
he gains no experience
and loses 100 points of experience
per day that
he neglects his magical studies.
This is the
penalty one faces for such
endeavors. This is
not that perilous considering
that the magicusers
in the D&D game
have the choice of only
one weapon, the dagger, and
so are much more
limited than their AD&D
game counterparts.
Players may feel that the
AD&D game is a
system that largely depends
on skill, but what I
have said only proves otherwise.
After all, a fun,
balanced, and realistic game
is much better than
an unbelievable campaign
with unlimited power
at the player?s fingertips.
Robert Morrison
Calgary, Alberta
(Dragon #151)