2nd edition Specialation - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

2nd edition Specialation

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
Apr 14, 2007 19:21:48 The rules says that only a Single-classed Fighter may specialize in a weapon. Does this mean that a Dual-classed character from Thief to Fighter may not take specialation?
#2
ozbirthrightfan
Apr 14, 2007 20:14:59 Dual classed characters are only considered to have a "single" class at any one time. Hence dual classed fighters CAN specialize in a weapon.
#3
zombiegleemax
Apr 14, 2007 20:26:38 Ah, thanks. Wasn't sure. :D
#4
Matthew_
Apr 17, 2007 17:52:12 There are also a number of other conflicting interpretations concerning Weapon Specialisation that appear in the Player's Option: Skills and Powers and the Player's Option: Combat and Tactics books.
#5
zombiegleemax
Apr 18, 2007 7:48:19 Yes, I know about that system, but I don't like it, resembles too much of 3rd edition.
#6
havard
Apr 18, 2007 8:15:54
Yes, I know about that system, but I don't like it, resembles too much of 3rd edition.

According to some WotC person writing here, much of 3E was indeed taking the basis of the Player's Options, developing those trends further. So that makes sense.

Havard
#7
Matthew_
Apr 18, 2007 13:42:14 Indeed, just about all the Combat Rules for D&D 3.x appear to have been taken over from Combat and Tactics. Weapon Focus first raised it's head in Skills and Powers, as did a number of other aspects of the game.

Weapon Specialisation also appears in The Complete Fighter's Handbook, where it is stated that Fighters can take multiple Weapon Specialisations, which runs contrary to the entry in the PHB regarding Paladins and Specialisation:

If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood: He is ever after a fighter. The character's level remains unchanged when this occurs and experience points are adjusted accordingly. Thereafter the character is bound by the rules for fighters. He does not gain the benefits of weapon specialization (if this is used) since he did not select this for his character at the start.

By this logic, a character Dual Classing from Thief to Fighter would not gain the benefit of Specialisation, though presumably he would not lose it permanently if he moved from Fighter to Thief. An analogue to this interpretation might be the Strength 18/00 Fighter who becomes a Wizard versus the Strength 18 Wizard who becomes a Fighter.

The point is, I think, that it's not cut and dried how Specialisation interacts with Dual Classed Characters, as the rule is derived entirely from the Optional Proficiency Chapter, where the stipulation is that the Character must be a Single Classed Fighter

For the record, though, I think ozbirthrightfan's interpretation is the most correct one.
#8
zombiegleemax
Apr 18, 2007 14:17:40
Indeed, just about all the Combat Rules for D&D 3.x appear to have been taken over from Combat and Tactics. Weapon Focus first raised it's head in Skills and Powers, as did a number of other aspects of the game.

Weapon Specialisation also appears in The Complete Fighter's Handbook, where it is stated that Fighters can take multiple Weapon Specialisations, which runs contrary to the entry in the PHB regarding Paladins and Specialisation:

By this logic, a character Dual Classing from Thief to Fighter would not gain the benefit of Specialisation, though presumably he would not lose it permanently if he moved from Fighter to Thief. An analogue to this interpretation might be the Strength 18/00 Fighter who becomes a Wizard versus the Strength 18 Wizard who becomes a Fighter.

The point is, I think, that it's not cut and dried how Specialisation interacts with Dual Classed Characters, as the rule is derived entirely from the Optional Proficiency Chapter, where the stipulation is that the Character must be a Single Classed Fighter

For the record, though, I think ozbirthrightfan's interpretation is the most correct one.

I don't think I really see the logic there, losing a Class is different from Dual-Classing. The thing that fallen Paladins are not able to take specialation is that the player should not see all benefits in the Fighter Class, cause that would be like Dual-Classing, hence very wrong. At least I think so.
But why is that contrary?
#9
Matthew_
Apr 18, 2007 15:10:17 It depends how you see it. Losing your Sub Class is different from changing Sub Class, but the logic as to why a Fallen Paladin is prohibited from taking a Weapon Specialisation is because he didn't start out with one. The same thing could be said of a Dual Classed Thief/Fighter who wanted to take Specialisation, 'since he did not select this for his character at the start'.
This passage is probably a hold over from (A)D&D 1.x Unearthed Arcana, where Characters had to declare Specialisation when created (as opposed to at any point when the requirements were met), but it is worth bearing in mind when thinking about Dual Class Characters, for whom the rules regarding Specialisation are not 100% clear. [i.e. A Dual Classed Character is not outright stated to be equivalent to a Single Classed Fighter].
#10
zombiegleemax
Apr 18, 2007 15:34:11 I see. Well, that dosen't make much sense to me, that a Fallen Paladin can't pick specialation just because he didn't start out with the option, dosen't really prevent him from taking it later. Or what is the essential idea of that?
#11
Matthew_
Apr 18, 2007 15:54:22 Well, when Specialisation was first introduced in Unearthed Arcana, Fighters and Rangers were the only Class and Sub Class that could make use of it, because at the same time Paladin became a Sub Class of the Cavalier Class, which had its own crazy weapon bonuses, but Specialisation had to be chosen from when the Character was created or could never be taken.
The Class and Sub Class reorganisation of (A)D&D 2.x moved Specialisation so that it was only the province of the Fighter, but also made it an Optional Rule. Presumably the stipulation that a Fallen Paladin could not gain Specialisation made it into the text before Specialisation was allowed to be taken after Character creation. It is worth noting that there is no such stipulation with regard to Fallen Rangers. As written, a Fallen Paladin can never make use of Specialisation, but a Fallen Ranger can.
More than likely, it is just a result of bad editing. (A)D&D 2.x rules have a lot of consistancy problems and this is one of them. Of course, since it was intended to be an Optional Rule and since the game was expected to be altered, the DM is empowered to impose his own consistancy or not, as he pleases. In this case, ozbirthrightfan has the 'most' literally correct interpretation for your question, but these oddities are worth noticing and being aware of.
#12
zombiegleemax
Apr 24, 2007 21:48:29 Its obviously a penalty to the fallen paladin and should be used. Remeber this is a game. If you want to add logic to it a fallen paladin had peeved off gods and could be lightly cursed(Look at his war horse it leaves him and could attack in some situtations).
I would hold this rule to punish the paladin character while maintaining that a dual class character can specialize(hey the dual class character needs good stats and it is not easy to be one so give them the benefit of the doubt.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Apr 14, 2007 19:21:48	The rules says that only a Single-classed Fighter may specialize in a weapon. Does this mean that a Dual-classed character from Thief to Fighter may not take specialation?
#2 ozbirthrightfan Apr 14, 2007 20:14:59	Dual classed characters are only considered to have a "single" class at any one time. Hence dual classed fighters CAN specialize in a weapon.
#3 zombiegleemax Apr 14, 2007 20:26:38	Ah, thanks. Wasn't sure. :D
#4 Matthew_ Apr 17, 2007 17:52:12	There are also a number of other conflicting interpretations concerning Weapon Specialisation that appear in the Player's Option: Skills and Powers and the Player's Option: Combat and Tactics books.
#5 zombiegleemax Apr 18, 2007 7:48:19	Yes, I know about that system, but I don't like it, resembles too much of 3rd edition.
#6 havard Apr 18, 2007 8:15:54	Yes, I know about that system, but I don't like it, resembles too much of 3rd edition. According to some WotC person writing here, much of 3E was indeed taking the basis of the Player's Options, developing those trends further. So that makes sense. Havard
#7 Matthew_ Apr 18, 2007 13:42:14	Indeed, just about all the Combat Rules for D&D 3.x appear to have been taken over from Combat and Tactics. Weapon Focus first raised it's head in Skills and Powers, as did a number of other aspects of the game. Weapon Specialisation also appears in The Complete Fighter's Handbook, where it is stated that Fighters can take multiple Weapon Specialisations, which runs contrary to the entry in the PHB regarding Paladins and Specialisation: If a paladin should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood: He is ever after a fighter. The character's level remains unchanged when this occurs and experience points are adjusted accordingly. Thereafter the character is bound by the rules for fighters. He does not gain the benefits of weapon specialization (if this is used) since he did not select this for his character at the start. By this logic, a character Dual Classing from Thief to Fighter would not gain the benefit of Specialisation, though presumably he would not lose it permanently if he moved from Fighter to Thief. An analogue to this interpretation might be the Strength 18/00 Fighter who becomes a Wizard versus the Strength 18 Wizard who becomes a Fighter. The point is, I think, that it's not cut and dried how Specialisation interacts with Dual Classed Characters, as the rule is derived entirely from the Optional Proficiency Chapter, where the stipulation is that the Character must be a Single Classed Fighter For the record, though, I think ozbirthrightfan's interpretation is the most correct one.
#8 zombiegleemax Apr 18, 2007 14:17:40	Indeed, just about all the Combat Rules for D&D 3.x appear to have been taken over from Combat and Tactics. Weapon Focus first raised it's head in Skills and Powers, as did a number of other aspects of the game. Weapon Specialisation also appears in The Complete Fighter's Handbook, where it is stated that Fighters can take multiple Weapon Specialisations, which runs contrary to the entry in the PHB regarding Paladins and Specialisation: By this logic, a character Dual Classing from Thief to Fighter would not gain the benefit of Specialisation, though presumably he would not lose it permanently if he moved from Fighter to Thief. An analogue to this interpretation might be the Strength 18/00 Fighter who becomes a Wizard versus the Strength 18 Wizard who becomes a Fighter. The point is, I think, that it's not cut and dried how Specialisation interacts with Dual Classed Characters, as the rule is derived entirely from the Optional Proficiency Chapter, where the stipulation is that the Character must be a Single Classed Fighter For the record, though, I think ozbirthrightfan's interpretation is the most correct one. I don't think I really see the logic there, losing a Class is different from Dual-Classing. The thing that fallen Paladins are not able to take specialation is that the player should not see all benefits in the Fighter Class, cause that would be like Dual-Classing, hence very wrong. At least I think so. But why is that contrary?
#9 Matthew_ Apr 18, 2007 15:10:17	It depends how you see it. Losing your Sub Class is different from changing Sub Class, but the logic as to why a Fallen Paladin is prohibited from taking a Weapon Specialisation is because he didn't start out with one. The same thing could be said of a Dual Classed Thief/Fighter who wanted to take Specialisation, 'since he did not select this for his character at the start'. This passage is probably a hold over from (A)D&D 1.x Unearthed Arcana, where Characters had to declare Specialisation when created (as opposed to at any point when the requirements were met), but it is worth bearing in mind when thinking about Dual Class Characters, for whom the rules regarding Specialisation are not 100% clear. [i.e. A Dual Classed Character is not outright stated to be equivalent to a Single Classed Fighter].
#10 zombiegleemax Apr 18, 2007 15:34:11	I see. Well, that dosen't make much sense to me, that a Fallen Paladin can't pick specialation just because he didn't start out with the option, dosen't really prevent him from taking it later. Or what is the essential idea of that?
#11 Matthew_ Apr 18, 2007 15:54:22	Well, when Specialisation was first introduced in Unearthed Arcana, Fighters and Rangers were the only Class and Sub Class that could make use of it, because at the same time Paladin became a Sub Class of the Cavalier Class, which had its own crazy weapon bonuses, but Specialisation had to be chosen from when the Character was created or could never be taken. The Class and Sub Class reorganisation of (A)D&D 2.x moved Specialisation so that it was only the province of the Fighter, but also made it an Optional Rule. Presumably the stipulation that a Fallen Paladin could not gain Specialisation made it into the text before Specialisation was allowed to be taken after Character creation. It is worth noting that there is no such stipulation with regard to Fallen Rangers. As written, a Fallen Paladin can never make use of Specialisation, but a Fallen Ranger can. More than likely, it is just a result of bad editing. (A)D&D 2.x rules have a lot of consistancy problems and this is one of them. Of course, since it was intended to be an Optional Rule and since the game was expected to be altered, the DM is empowered to impose his own consistancy or not, as he pleases. In this case, ozbirthrightfan has the 'most' literally correct interpretation for your question, but these oddities are worth noticing and being aware of.
#12 zombiegleemax Apr 24, 2007 21:48:29	Its obviously a penalty to the fallen paladin and should be used. Remeber this is a game. If you want to add logic to it a fallen paladin had peeved off gods and could be lightly cursed(Look at his war horse it leaves him and could attack in some situtations). I would hold this rule to punish the paladin character while maintaining that a dual class character can specialize(hey the dual class character needs good stats and it is not easy to be one so give them the benefit of the doubt.