TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

Wow, how did I never notice that? That's wild, especially when the Dark Sun Gladiator grants the ability to specialize in multiple weapons as a class feature. And they just handed weapon specialization to Rangers and Paladins, too? All this time, I thought only certain Kits would let me do that...

However, it seems there was some contention about this in-house at TSR, which is why later books don't support this. In fact, in Sage Advice, they had this to say:

"Q. The Player’s Handbook, on pages 26 and 52, makes it clear that only single-classed fighters, not paladins and rangers, can use weapon specialization. However, the Complete Fighter’s Handbook, on page 58, pretty clearly implies that all warriors (fighters, paladins, and rangers) can specialize. Did the rules change when the Complete Fighter’s Handbook hit the shelves? If so, why would anyone want to play a simple fighter?

A. According to a short conversation I had with TSR, Inc.’s Dave "Zeb" Cook a while ago, the rules in the Player’s Handbook and Dungeon Master’s Guide are intended to serve as the fundamental basis for the AD&D® 2nd Edition game and are supposed to remain unchanged until that far off day when a new version of the game comes along (there are no plans for another edition currently in the works, but no set of game rules stays current forever). While there is a continuous stream of new material planned for the game, all of it is intended to supplement the core rules, not replace them. All of the rules in the Complete Fighter’s Handbook are optional, but the phrase giving weapon specialization to all warriors is an error."

However, then we have:

"Q. With how many weapons can a fighter specialize? Is it possible to specialize in both a fighting style (from the Complete Fighter’s Handbook) and a weapon or combination of weapons? How do you use weapon specialization if you also are using weapon groups from the Complete Fighter’s Handbook? Is it possible to double specialize? If so, how do you get it and what bonuses do you get for it?

A. In the core rules, a single-classed Fighter, and only a fighter, can specialize in exactly one particular weapon. If you’re using weapon groups, the fighter must pick one weapon within the group as a specialty. If you’re using the rules in the Complete Fighters Handbook, you can allow fighters to take more than one weapon specialization, but they still must choose their specializations one weapon at a time.

Style specialization is actually just a weapon proficiency available to warriors, rogues, and priests. Don’t let the name confuse you; a style specialization is a general set of tricks for fighting a certain way, not an intensive study of one particular weapon. It is possible for a character to have more than one style specialization.

There are no rules for double specializations in the current version of the AD&D game. However, if you play a variant game and allow all warriors (including rangers and paladins) to take weapon specialization, you might allow fighters only to spend two extra proficiency slots on one weapon (and one weapon only) and become double specialized. The effect of a double specialization is up to the DM, but increasing the specialization bonus to +2 ’to hit’ and +3 damage seems most reasonable. If you use this unofficial optional rule, be prepared to start adjusting your campaign’s play balance, because your poor monsters are going to have a hard time going toe-to-toe with your campaign’s fighters."

Clear as mud, lol. Apparently since all the Complete Books are "optional", you can use them and allow multiple specializations to Fighters if you want to, but that's not ever going to be in the PHB...???

(And supposedly they cleared this up in the 9th printing of the CFH, though I have no way to confirm that).
The double specialisation rule from UA was better, as it did allow Rangers (only) to specialise, but they were much restricted in which weapons they could gain proficiency and (double) specialise in. Paladins were a subclass of Cavaliers at that point, so they couldn't specialise but got "Weapons of Choice" (again, with limited choices.)
But giving Rangers and Paladins in 2e unlimited access to Weapon Specialisation was a no-no in my games (we never used any splatbooks, and the game worked just fine; Fighters only could gain specialisation.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The double specialisation rule from UA was better, as it did allow Rangers (only) to specialise, but they were much restricted in which weapons they could gain proficiency and (double) specialise in. Paladins were a subclass of Cavaliers at that point, so they couldn't specialise but got "Weapons of Choice" (again, with limited choices.)
But giving Rangers and Paladins in 2e unlimited access to Weapon Specialisation was a no-no in my games (we never used any splatbooks, and the game worked just fine; Fighters only could gain specialisation.)
In my 1e/2e stupidly homebrew; pure fighters and samurai can spec; nobody else can. One can spec in more than one weapon.
 

One thing I can't figure out is why 2e simplified specialization in the first place. Even as a Fighter-only benefit, it's only nice not exactly fantastic as a class feature. They should have just let anyone with the proficiency slots specialize, and retain further levels of mastery to Fighters.

I remember seeing some BECMI weapon masteries that had multiple levels and looked way cooler than what PHB specialization got you.
 

One thing I can't figure out is why 2e simplified specialization in the first place. Even as a Fighter-only benefit, it's only nice not exactly fantastic as a class feature. They should have just let anyone with the proficiency slots specialize, and retain further levels of mastery to Fighters.

I remember seeing some BECMI weapon masteries that had multiple levels and looked way cooler than what PHB specialization got you.

One has to consider context: pure fighters don't get a whole crapton of fun stuff in old-school .... but being able to mash crap was a huge advantage.
 


Fighters were pretty devastating. Even at high levels they could drop a magic user in one round most of the time. They never got tired or ran out of "powers".
In 1e fighters with multiple attacks always won initiative, so a magic-user was screwed in melee. In 2e they changed the rule so the fighter with multiple attacks was still subject to initiative; that was a change for the worse.
 

One thing I can't figure out is why 2e simplified specialization in the first place. Even as a Fighter-only benefit, it's only nice not exactly fantastic as a class feature. They should have just let anyone with the proficiency slots specialize, and retain further levels of mastery to Fighters.

I remember seeing some BECMI weapon masteries that had multiple levels and looked way cooler than what PHB specialization got you.
All Weapon Masteries had multiple levels, and they could be achieved by non-Fighters. But fighters got way more opportunities to achieve mastery in multiple weapons. It was an interesting system, but by admission of Frank Mentzer, it was not thoroughly playtested.
 


I have been thinking about the OP's topic of late. I started playing D&D with BECMI, then we moved to 2e as soon as it hit the market. Originally I only bought the 2e DMG, as I thought it was a simple expansion to make our D&D game "advanced", and since I was always the DM, I didn't need anything else...:oops: :ROFLMAO:
Anyway, 2e became the longest running game I have ever run, and I will always a soft spot for it (and BECMI).
Fast forward decades, I discovered 1e (some years ago) after a hiatus from gaming, and now I am planning a campaign, I am thinking what edition to run, and I am really torn.
As someone said above, 1e does feel more "complete" out-of-the-box (and I have always been a minimalist DM even in the 2e days; never used any of the class or race splats, for example). Between PHB, DMG, and MM you get a lot of stuff that in 2e requires extra books; from more classes; to half-orcs; artifacts; rules for castles/constructions; detailed gem/treasure tables; clear dungeon crawling/exploration guidelines (which unfortunately are very vague or nonexistent in 2e); clear reward system (XP for gold is a staple; something we were suprised to find was optional when we transitioned from BECMI). Also, the classes feel more distinctive, in particular spellcasters' spell lists (2e nerfed Druids, and the Clerics are way too powerful, stealing many Druid spells; the PO:S&M reworking of the spell lists are pretty much mandatory); Paladins are more powerful; Rangers are more interesting and powerful; Fighters with multiple attacks auto-win initiative; Thieves have fixed scores (yes, I never cared for customisable thieves...) We never cared particularly for specialists (which in 2e aren't very distinctive anyway), nor specialty priests (most of which turned out extremely overpowered.)
All in all, for an "old-school experience" which is a step above B/X/ECMI, and I had to run a game in Greyhawk, or the original Forgotten Realms, or even BECMI's Known World (my current choice), I would choose 1e over 2e.
On the other hand, if I had to run Birthright or Dark Sun, 2e would be my choice simply because the settings provide tons of rules changes which would be awkward to port back.
 


Remove ads

Top