holt@convexs.UUCP (08/07/85)
Rather than eliminate double specialization, why not substitute specialization
for a weapon proficiency gained as a result of level advancement (if the
proper training is paid for, and time is spent in training, etc).
Allow no specialization for the weapons a 1st level fighter starts out with,
and you have reduced the play balance problem, while adding the possibility
that advanced fighters may choose to specialize in certain weapons.
Comments?
Dave Holt
Convex Computer Corp.
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!convexs!holtsrt@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/17/85)
In article <15300004@convexs> holt@convexs.UUCP writes: > >Rather than eliminate double specialization, why not substitute specialization >for a weapon proficiency gained as a result of level advancement In general, I like this idea. The problem is that for most systems, 90% of the time it doesn't matter what kind of weapon you are wielding. This greatly reduces the effectiveness of picking a second weapon in favor of a 5% bonus in your first weapon. Certainly after two weapons the utility is next to nothing. I'm not a min-maxer, but I don't expect players to choose obviously poor playing strategies, either. Anyone know of a system that makes knowing multiple weapons useful (apart from knowing a missile weapon along with a hand weapon, that is)? Scott R. Turner ARPA: (now) srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA (soon) srt@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt SPUDNET: ...eye%srt@russet.spud