Several threads this week have focused on various kinds of combat rules, level of detail of treatment of weapons, and related issues. This got me thinking about the 'fullest' version of Basic D&D (i.e., including all the stuff from the expert set, etc.), which includes some pretty elaborate weapon specialization rules. Including, weirdly, spending a significant fraction of its word count on several different kinds of exotic spiked shields (). What do people make of these rules? Do you use them? Do they strike you as funky, serviceable, great, or what? I haven't really played in a campaign where they mattered much, simply because the games where they were part of the core rules set at the table didn't get to high enough level for them to matter. But I do remember thinking they were a good 'solution' to something I've always regarded as a weakness in post chainmail-era D&D: A fighter's offensive power barely creeps up as the overall power level of the game rises. You could rationalize it if you really wanted to, but it seems like an obvious flaw to me. The Compendium style weapon specialization rules negate that criticism by providing substantial growths in offensive fire power as you level up. I kind of like that.

One of the best parts of the RC for me are the Weapons Mastery rules.

I think they are an excellent development in the D&D family of rules. They are in need of some revision and editing, but even the clunky version in the printed rules greatly enhances the game. I'm not sure I would play D&D without some version of them in place.

Well, it really is a must given the scope of the game. Armor class in OD&D goes from 9 to maybe -4 or so. AD&D goes from 10 to -10. BECM goes from 9 to -20 with the note "There is no limit to armor class".

And then the special stuff that goes with the mastery also makes melee more interesting.

I think that the weapon mastery rules were certainly clunky, but they were a step in the right direction.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1004859I think that the weapon mastery rules were certainly clunky, but they were a step in the right direction.

I think this about encapsulates what I make of it. D&D is just a better, funner game, and the fighter classes are much better choices, if rising level leads to substantial rises in offensive fire power. The scale and nature of the improvements in BCEMI are about right - damages double or even triple, AC bonuses of up to a few appear, special attack types get unlocked. But the mechanism for getting these things is goofy, with its parallel tracks of performance vs. armed or unarmed opponents, 50 million little foot notes, different dice progressions with skill level for every weapon, etc. None of that stuff adds a single thing to the value of the rules, and they wildly over complicate them. But, the idea is cool. And it really changes the game.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1005018But the mechanism for getting these things is goofy, with its parallel tracks of performance vs. armed or unarmed opponents, 50 million little foot notes, different dice progressions with skill level for every weapon, etc. None of that stuff adds a single thing to the value of the rules, and they wildly over complicate them. But, the idea is cool.

Agreed 100%

It's easy to simplify.

Basic x1
Expert x2
Master/grand master x3

Though that doesn't fix the special abilities, which become useless at higher levels -- with the exception of deflect, which becomes the god ability.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1004502[T]hey were a good 'solution' to something I've always regarded as a weakness in post chainmail-era D&D: A fighter's offensive power barely creeps up as the overall power level of the game rises. You could rationalize it if you really wanted to, but it seems like an obvious flaw to me.

You have identified the serious and very real issue that the rules were added to address. There were multiple ways that this was addressed in different TSR editions. OD&D I guess had getting to attack lots and lots on 1hd creatures in a round (yay :-|), but otherwise it and B/X really didn't address it. Holmes of course doesn't go that high. AD&D had fighter multiple attacks (and later, specialization). 2e... started out like 1e and then kept adding more things). And BECM did the weapon mastery rules.

They are... one way of addressing the problem. It's acceptable. It does stick much more with increasing the damage of one's single attack than in simply adding more and more attacks, like AD&D focused more upon. That's both good and bad. Bad because one super strong attack won't help it the enemy next to you only has a normal attacks' worth of hp (whereas multiple attacks can be split between opponents). Good because then anything that grants you an extra attack (such as whatever the attack of opportunity rules were for BECM, I'm sure we didn't use the official ones) grants you an extra super attack, not just a fifth attack when you already have 4 (this is the problem with 5e, in that the fighter has a terrible attack of opportunity compared to the rogue, etc.). As Pat points out, most of the special abilities either stop being useful, or are game-breakingly great.

I think that, much like the Wvs.AC chart for OD&D and 1e, or many other similar TSR era D&D rules, its heart was in the right place. However, it takes a serious amount of house rules for it to achieve, and you just look at it and think, "That? That was the solution to the problem we all knew was there that seemed intuitive to you?"

Quote from: Larsdangly;1005018I think this about encapsulates what I make of it. D&D is just a better, funner game, and the fighter classes are much better choices, if rising level leads to substantial rises in offensive fire power. The scale and nature of the improvements in BCEMI are about right - damages double or even triple, AC bonuses of up to a few appear, special attack types get unlocked. But the mechanism for getting these things is goofy, with its parallel tracks of performance vs. armed or unarmed opponents, 50 million little foot notes, different dice progressions with skill level for every weapon, etc. None of that stuff adds a single thing to the value of the rules, and they wildly over complicate them. But, the idea is cool. And it really changes the game.

Exactly! +1 or whatever we do here.

Agree with the general drift.  I like the weapon specialization rules, but if ever anything needed to have the 80/20 rule ruthlessly applied to it by a good editor, that section is it.

Aside:  Don't see how the 5E rogue opportunity attack is all that versus the 5E fighter, since the rogue only gets sneak attack once per round, whether in is regular attacks or as his reaction.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1005128Aside:  Don't see how the 5E rogue opportunity attack is all that versus the 5E fighter, since the rogue only gets sneak attack once per round, whether in is regular attacks or as his reaction.

I am AFB at the moment, but D&D 5e wiki states: "Rogues typically only get one Sneak Attack per round of combat. However if some circumstance or feature allows them to react during another creature's turn, such as an Attack of Opportunity, the Battlemaster's Commander's Strike, or the Thief Archetype's "Thief's Reflexes", and all other qualifications are met, the Rogue may get a second or third Sneak Attack during a single round of combat." Regardless, the point still works if you use paladin with spell slots to burn, or someone who has the War Caster feat and a SCAG Cantrips. The point is that OAs are more effective for people with one powerful attack than those who are given multiple normal sized attacks.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1005130I am AFB at the moment, but D&D 5e wiki states: "Rogues typically only get one Sneak Attack per round of combat. However if some circumstance or feature allows them to react during another creature's turn, such as an Attack of Opportunity, the Battlemaster's Commander's Strike, or the Thief Archetype's "Thief's Reflexes", and all other qualifications are met, the Rogue may get a second or third Sneak Attack during a single round of combat." Regardless, the point still works if you use paladin with spell slots to burn, or someone who has the War Caster feat and a SCAG Cantrips. The point is that OAs are more effective for people with one powerful attack than those who are given multiple normal sized attacks.

Ah, I see.  I'm playing core rules only, and the intent and text there is fairly clear that sneak attack is once per round.  Rant:  I don't know why they bother to have Sage Advice and errata, if they people writing it don't even understand their own game.

Looked it up. 1) the wiki I was referencing isn't an officially sanctioned thing (I guess I should have realized that). And 2) the Sneak attack on reactions is an interpretations of the rules-- the rules say "Once per turn," and so when you get to attack on someone else's turn... Sounds kinda not Rules as intended, but I get where it is coming from. Regardless, it is a side not on an aside on a tangent.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1005261Looked it up. 1) the wiki I was referencing isn't an officially sanctioned thing (I guess I should have realized that). And 2) the Sneak attack on reactions is an interpretations of the rules-- the rules say "Once per turn," and so when you get to attack on someone else's turn... Sounds kinda not Rules as intended, but I get where it is coming from. Regardless, it is a side not on an aside on a tangent.

The 5e rules are clear that a turn is one character acting; a Rogue can sneak attack on their turn and (with a reaction) on another character's turn. From the SRD:


The Order of Combat
A   typical   combat   encounter   is   a   clash   between   two   
sides,   a   flurry   of   weapon   swings,   feints,   parries,   
footwork,   and   spellcasting.   The   game   organizes   the   
chaos   of   combat   into   a   cycle   of   rounds   and   turns.   A   
round represents   about   6   seconds   in   the   game   
world.   During   a   round,   each   participant   in   a   battle   
takes   a   turn.   The   order   of   turns   is   determined   at   the   
beginning   of   a   combat   encounter,   when   everyone   
rolls   initiative.   Once   everyone   has   taken   a   turn,   the   
fight   continues   to   the   next   round   if   neither   side   has   
defeated   the   other.

I have no doubt that it is a correct interpretation of rules as written. And given that OAs are generally people rushing by and ignoring you to attack someone else, I'm getting more convinced that it fits. Not sure what I think about the implication that rogues make great lockdown characters (well, as great as any glass cannon can be. P1: "before you deal with them, you have to get through me." . P2: "Okay." ).

Regardless, weren't we here to talk about BECMI?