Character Generation

[barna10]

I've never minded the Barbarian or Cavalier (in fact, a few of my all-time favorite characters were Cavaliers...), but I am fine without them.

[FronkyDondo]

Just airing my personal opinion on the subject of Specialization, but I just came here to play in YOUR world, so whatever you decide is fine with me.

1. Fighters, and I mean the original 100% pure fighter, got shafted. Everyone else got something cool. Paladins and Rangers get special abilities and spells, Clerics and Mages get SUPER powers, Thieves get to do things that nobody else can do, and multi-classed and dual-classed characters get the best of both worlds. And the pure, single class Fighter gets left in the dust. So in my opinion, granting both Specialization and Double Specialization EXCLUSIVELY to the pure single-classed Fighter is a way to say "here Mr Robin Hood is your something cool just for fighters".

2. The problem with position #1 is that while it is 'fair', most people will probably still choose Paladins and Rangers and multi-classed Demi-humans, so specialization becomes a cool rule that never gets used. If the goal is then to get the Specialization rules used, then opening Specialization (and Double Specialization) to all Fighters, including the subclasses, makes sense.

So the ultimate call is 100% yours, and those are my thoughts.

With respect to UA and the Paladin and Cavalier, I personally found the Cavalier class to be disruptive to game balance, especially at lower levels and would be quite happy to NOT have my Paladin add all of the Cavalier disruption to the game. I just don't want to be the only 'Fighter' without weapon specialization and, personally, I wouldn't mind having more skill with fewer weapons rather than a weapon for every occasion.

You have crystallized perfectly my thoughts and opinions on the matter. On the one hand, what do fighters get? But on the other, for multiclassed demi humans - that IS their advantage, but balanced with lower level limits.
For our adventure, if we are heavy on spellcasters/multiclassed, we could allow it. It was one reason I created a fighter npc - to add some oomph. But I could allow it for all fighter types and eliminate the need for the fighter npc.

A semi compromise would be multiclassed fighters and rangers/paladins get specialization (and maybe only on one weapon?), pure fighters get double spec. on any number of weapons.
[rangers and paladins get powers and spells already, Multiclass similar]

Still thinking about it...

[FronkyDondo]

I've never minded the Barbarian or Cavalier (in fact, a few of my all-time favorite characters were Cavaliers...), but I am fine without them.

Don't get me wrong - when the cavalier first came out, my next 3 or 4 characters were, you guessed it, cavaliers. But with the benefit of age, it just seems to upset balance. Plus, quite frankly, if played as intended, they actually kinda suck (the milieu you are limited to is feudal knight settings only, large battles - not so much dungeon crawls). And all the limitations and restrictions... yikes.

[Amalric]

I think double specialization for pure Fighters only makes the most sense, it's a definite advantage for them and evens the playing field, IMO.

[barna10]

My two cents:
I like the idea of Regular Specialization for all Fighter-Types, and Double for Fighters only. I also like the idea of allowing Fighters to specialize in multiple weapons. But I still favor specialization for single-classed characters only.

In the last 1st Ed. campaign I ran, I drew from the 2nd ed book Combat & Tactics for a solution, Weapon Expertise (it's not the same as 3rd edition). It costs the same as Weapon Specialization, but ONLY grants the extra attacks of weapon specialization, not the to-hit or damage bonuses.

On level limits, not a big fan, but if we keep using them, how about allowing advancement after the limit is reached just at 1/2 speed (ie require double XP to advance)? This has always worked well for me in the past.

[atpollard]

My two cents:
I like the idea of Regular Specialization for all Fighter-Types, and Double for Fighters only. I also like the idea of allowing Fighters to specialize in multiple weapons. But I still favor specialization for single-classed characters only.

In the last 1st Ed. campaign I ran, I drew from the 2nd ed book Combat & Tactics for a solution, Weapon Expertise (it's not the same as 3rd edition). It costs the same as Weapon Specialization, but ONLY grants the extra attacks of weapon specialization, not the to-hit or damage bonuses.

On level limits, not a big fan, but if we keep using them, how about allowing advancement after the limit is reached just at 1/2 speed (ie require double XP to advance)? This has always worked well for me in the past.

Not that it affects me, but along these lines ...
I would prefer to see multi-classed characters loose BOTH specialization AND level limits.

So ...
Pure Fighters get lots of Specialization and Double Specialization
Rangers and Paladins get Specialization (but no Double Specialization) and spells at high level
Multi-classed Demihumans get no specialization but spells at low level.

I have less problem imagining a 15th level Halfling Illusionist than a Fighter-Mage with Specialization in the Two-handed sword. (YMMV)

[FronkyDondo]

Ahhh... but one could argue "But elves already get +1 to hit with swords/bows - they MUST be able to have some extra skills with weapons..."

I am still thinking...

[atpollard]

Ahhh... but one could argue "But elves already get +1 to hit with swords/bows - they MUST be able to have some extra skills with weapons..."

I am still thinking...

And in my universe they still could, as long as they are not also multi-classed.
So the Elf Ranger can specialize, and the Elf Fighter-Mage can not.

[barna10]

Like I said, I'm fine with whatever the DM decides.

[atpollard]

Like I said, I'm fine with whatever the DM decides.

Yeah, me too.

Now I have some trouble with this:

THACO (Use unmodified THACO)

Not trouble accepting it, just trouble understanding exactly what is being asked for.
Are you asking for the unmodified THAC0 in the weapon section of the character sheet?
So I should list THAC0 16 for a 5th level Palidin and not add in the +1 to Hit for strength, +1 for a magic weapon and +1 for Specialization.

[shaidar]

Like I said, I'm fine with whatever the DM decides.

Yeah, me too.

Now I have some trouble with this:

THACO (Use unmodified THACO)

Not trouble accepting it, just trouble understanding exactly what is being asked for.
Are you asking for the unmodified THAC0 in the weapon section of the character sheet?
So I should list THAC0 16 for a 5th level Palidin and not add in the +1 to Hit for strength, +1 for a magic weapon and +1 for Specialization.

that's what I have done, listed base thac0 and then under notes the total modifiers

[FronkyDondo]

Like I said, I'm fine with whatever the DM decides.

Yeah, me too.

Now I have some trouble with this:

THACO (Use unmodified THACO)

Not trouble accepting it, just trouble understanding exactly what is being asked for.
Are you asking for the unmodified THAC0 in the weapon section of the character sheet?
So I should list THAC0 16 for a 5th level Palidin and not add in the +1 to Hit for strength, +1 for a magic weapon and +1 for Specialization.

that's what I have done, listed base thac0 and then under notes the total modifiers

I understand the confusion, and when I first started playing I would put the modified THACO *plus* the modified rolls in the macro (doubling my bonuses!). So: put base unmodified THACO in the weapon field, put pluses (itemized ) in description, and then in the Macro, put the adjustments, so e.g.:
Gumby the 5th level paladin has a base THACO 16. His weapons would show: long sword, 1d8, 1d10 description: To hit: +1 spec, +2 strength; Damage: +2 spec, +3 Strength.

Then, create a macro, maybe called "Gumby sword", with a formula: To hit [1d20]+3; Damage [1d8]+5
GreyWolfVT correct me if you have different suggestion.

[Starbeard]

Hello, and thanks for having me in the game!

This may have been answered already, but I'm assuming we're only using the UA level limits, but not the expanded PC class selection. Is that right? For example, rolling up a gnome Cleric would be exnayed.

[FronkyDondo]

You may also use the class selection

[Starbeard]

You may also use the class selection

Cool. Alright, done and done. After going over some of the options with you, I think I've decided on a gnome Illusionist/Cleric. That way I'm not totally getting in the way of the other Illusionist.

My character sheet is written up as a single-class Illusionist, but I'll have that changed by the end of the weekend.

[FronkyDondo]

Great! And welcome aboard. Alas we are losing Simon (he had something come up), but we'll hold a place for him when he can join back up. Everyone else, welcome Starbeard.

[atpollard]

Everyone else, welcome Starbeard.

Greetings, Starbeard. Welcome aboard.

[barna10]

Hmm...I have been hankerin' to play a Fighter-type. Since we have so many casters, and if the DM is OK with it, I think I'll play a Fighter (I have the scores to be a great one!).

Would you be OK with the switch DM? That will still leave us with 3 Arcane caster types (instead of 4...)

I might...might that is...do a dual-classed Human Fighter/Thief...might, but I've been thinking about a straight Fighter.

And Welcome aboard Starbeard!

[shaidar]

Everyone else, welcome Starbeard.

Greetings, Starbeard. Welcome aboard.

welcome

And do we have a final decision on weapon specialisation?

[atpollard]

Everyone else, welcome Starbeard.

Greetings, Starbeard. Welcome aboard.

welcome

And do we have a final decision on weapon specialisation?

Even without a final decision, we have a semi-final decision that all fighters, rangers and paladins (including multi-classed) can specialize, so only double specialization is still up in the air [unless the GM has a major change of mind].
So you can pencil in fairly close to the absolute final results.