Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
Revised and Rebalanced Cavalier for 1e AD&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9883206" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Yes. I know I should rewrite them but oh the pain of that job. I do miss segments and spell casting time though in later editions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, it is, though I've been balancing most things around the idea if that if they aren't better than a weapon specialized fighter then they aren't broken. Weapon specialization is I'm afraid like critical hits, something players will demand even if it is bad for the game. I couldn't take them out of 3e either; players just like the mechanics.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have given thought to rewrite weapon specialization to come in incrementally like BECMI weapon mastery or the Kensai from OA. </p><p></p><p>The bonus to hit is not nearly the problem that the bonus to damage is. The reason I could leave Cav's weapon of choice in place and in some ways make it even more powerful and flexible is I didn't touch how much damage it did. </p><p></p><p>The one thing I will disagree with you on in this is I never played back in the day that Specialization was only for single classed fighters. The original UA article didn't specify that. Only a Dragon magazine article later corrected that. But even had I known about that at the time, I would have rejected it as yet more unnecessary homocentric rules in a game that already kicked down non-humans pretty hard. As long as you have weapon specialization, the worst situation of all is that it is just gravy for single-classed (mostly human) fighters since you are rarely from a meta perspective going to choose to play another race as single-classed fighter. Half-orc or dwarf maybe if you rolled 17's in Strength 18's in Constitution, but your end game is going to be staring you in the face in either case AND you can't have an 18/00 in Strength with those two races.</p><p></p><p>Either get rid of WS or assume it is ubiquitous. Don't silo it off into the most favored class and most favored race in the game as an exclusive.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9883206, member: 4937"] Yes. I know I should rewrite them but oh the pain of that job. I do miss segments and spell casting time though in later editions. Yes, it is, though I've been balancing most things around the idea if that if they aren't better than a weapon specialized fighter then they aren't broken. Weapon specialization is I'm afraid like critical hits, something players will demand even if it is bad for the game. I couldn't take them out of 3e either; players just like the mechanics. I have given thought to rewrite weapon specialization to come in incrementally like BECMI weapon mastery or the Kensai from OA. The bonus to hit is not nearly the problem that the bonus to damage is. The reason I could leave Cav's weapon of choice in place and in some ways make it even more powerful and flexible is I didn't touch how much damage it did. The one thing I will disagree with you on in this is I never played back in the day that Specialization was only for single classed fighters. The original UA article didn't specify that. Only a Dragon magazine article later corrected that. But even had I known about that at the time, I would have rejected it as yet more unnecessary homocentric rules in a game that already kicked down non-humans pretty hard. As long as you have weapon specialization, the worst situation of all is that it is just gravy for single-classed (mostly human) fighters since you are rarely from a meta perspective going to choose to play another race as single-classed fighter. Half-orc or dwarf maybe if you rolled 17's in Strength 18's in Constitution, but your end game is going to be staring you in the face in either case AND you can't have an 18/00 in Strength with those two races. Either get rid of WS or assume it is ubiquitous. Don't silo it off into the most favored class and most favored race in the game as an exclusive. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
Revised and Rebalanced Cavalier for 1e AD&D
Top