Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

As the author of the supplement, let me say that Hyway has the right of it.

Hywaywolf wrote:Its pretty straight forward in the supplement. weapons specialization specifically states that it is for fighters. Two-weapon combat, defensive fighting, and crits and fumbles are for everyone, including monsters and NPCs. Now just like everything else, a DM can pick and choose what they want to use, or alter it in any way they wish.

Weapon specialization does say that it is for fighters, but the ranger/paladin supplement says that rangers and paladins should be treated as fighters for all purposes unless otherwise noted, and there is nothing there that specifically states they do not receive weapon specialization.

It says the same thing about rangers too. But rangers have their own specialization already (the bow). It also says they are "subclasses" of fighters. I personally wouldn't stack it. But a GM can rule to allow a paladin to have specialization if desired (there are other proficiencies systems to choose from as well.) Good luck

Yes, I was wondering whether giving fighters specialization but denying it to paladins would be too big a disincentive to play a paladin - they already require a lot more XP to advance, after all.

The ranger does seem more problematic, as his XP increase is much smaller.

Of course I realize that it comes down to "play it the way you want", but it's nice to get the "official" ruling, and to get a sense of how others play it.

Thanks to all who replied.

There is no official ruling when it comes to supplements. They are all individually created by the users on this site. You can get the "intention" of the person who wrote the supplement, but that doesn't make it official.

But my intention is that specialization is for fighters, and only fighters. It's meant in part to make them different from their subclasses. Otherwise, why play a fighter?

Normally no class has WS, each subclass has its own extras and that is why they pay extra XP each level.
Adding the WS to every sub-fighter does not change much of the above, sub-fighters are like fighter but with extras.

As I said before: Giving WS to only fighters or to including to sub-fighters is a matter of taste. If you give it to every sub-fighter then the fighter will loose it's special ability. If you go with this then do it on a sub-class per sub-class basis as some of them already have a form of WS

Hywaywolf wrote:There is no official ruling when it comes to supplements. They are all individually created by the users on this site. You can get the "intention" of the person who wrote the supplement, but that doesn't make it official.

That's why I put the word official in "scare quotes".

Solomoriah, I see your point about fighters needing something just for them. I just thought that maybe the XP-differential was a compelling enough reason (to play a fighter.)

I think I'll rule in my games that WS is just for fighters. Thanks again for all the advice and assistance.

I figured thats what you meant, existence. I just wanted to add that bit of a disclaimer because not everyone understands what an open source community is.

I'm impressed to see the updates to the combat options supplement, including "official" rulings for mounted combat.

For cross reference, I have also hammered out some alternative (BECMI/Mentzer influenced) "wilderness adventure" rulings on the Showcase under the Adventuring Supplement.

Regards