I'm confused, if i understood the video, you are telling that if you level up, you get an attempt, but if that attempt fails you do not only loose time and money,but also the attempt itself, and you have to level up again X levels to get another attempt, am i right? Because in the version of Rules Cyclopedia i have i can clearly read, at page 75: "Failure does nor mean that the character has lost his weapon choice for that experience level. The weapon choice is still there, and it's still dedicated to the weapon and level of mastery he has chosen for it. The student has lost the time and money he has spent, but he may spend more time and money until he reaches the level of mastery for which he has spent his weapon choice" and this is in contrast with what the video says
You’re right, sort of. 🙂 The Master Rules omits that extra bit of text from the Rules Cyclopedia and it has caused some confusion. I contacted Frank Mentzer about it to clarify the rules intent and he gave the most BECMI answer you can give: do what suits your game. 🙂 In my “Let’s roll…” series, I go with what’s in the Rules Cyclopedia, but many other players don’t because if Mastery is a forgone conclusion, the only point of the check is how much it costs you. Anyway, I’ll pin this comment to avoid further confusion. Otherwise, I hope this helped.
You've managed to do something that countless readings haven't done for me, help me understand Weapon Mastery to the point I want to know more. If you made a video where you did a deep dive on WM, I would be forever in your debt :)
The BECMI weapon mastery rules are brilliant. The rules for weapon-mastery, along with boxing and wrestling, make fighters far more viable characters at higher level and far more interesting to play. Getting the initiative on a magic user, closing distance using cover, and punching them on the jaw stunning them, preventing the spell from being cast, was a favourite manoeuvre of mine. Very rewarding. The only letdown is with a basic shield weapon skill, as a normal shield was a primary weapon used in combat. Skill with a shield should be improvable, which I home brewed for my group quite nicely.
We only ever played the Basic and Expert sets. I always figured the latter sets were only important if you got your party up to those levels. I didn't realize how many additional rules they added to the whole system. Thank you for making these videos!
I've watched most of your videos and can't wait to finish them all. I began as a DM 42 years ago with the Moldvay Basic set and BECMI is still my favorite fantasy system. Thanks for the videos!
Great stuff! I have to admit we depressed our DM when he spent a lot of time setting up our party to gain an artefact but when we finally found it we left it where it was. The adverse effects were not worth the risk. He told us later he had a huge adventure planned as he thought we would grab it and use it. Nope. To quote Faramir when he spoke of the One Ring to Frodo, "I would not pick it up if I found it laying on the road."
Just introduced weapons mastery into the campaign. Totally works, a great addition for third level characters, and a nice campaign feature to have the NPC trainers
Bringing back memories. I lost most of my BECMI collection over the decades. All I got left is Basic & Immortals lol. I'm a 3.5 type but I feel the need to pick up the Rules Enclyopedia. Never really BECMI RAW. We were young & mixed it w/ AD&D 1e. None the less we had some great times. Great Vid, cheers!
Well done once again. I was hoping you would have brought up the BECM version of the assassin but as Mick sang you can't always get what you want. Still another top notch video as usual.
Hello again, great videos! Man you are laying it down like nobody I've ever seen. Glad to see that passion. I was just talking about this the other day. The Normal sword isn't the longsword, it's the Broadsword, it was considered the common sword, even when D&D released the Conan version, they gave young Conan a Broadsword (he doesn't start with his magic Bastardsword). Long/short swords are just that, longer and shorter than a normal sword 😅. (5e) Broadsword 10 gp., 3 lb., 1d8 slashing. I converted 2e weapons over to 5e, took a minute, but once you see that numbers are changed to words like Light, Heavy, Versatile, etc... It becomes a lot easier. Thanks for the video you have a wonderful day!
The weapon specialization rules were created by Len Lakofka for his home D&D Greyhawk campaign around 1981. He traveled to Lake Geneva and convinced Gary Gygax to introduce them into AD&D which he did in Dragon magazine articles in 1982. They were later printed in AD&D's Unearthed Arcana and D&D's Master rules. Weapon proficiency is different and goes back to at least 1978's AD&D Players Handbook.
Love your stuff dude, love becmi :) I use house weapon mastery rules now but my house rules are just modified becmi rules. For instance I don’t use the unskilled half damage rule, just a -1,-2,-3 to hit for martial, semi-martial, non-martial characters respectively.
Well done. It is a great edition of the rules. I'm trying to get a party together at the moment and struggling with the principle of Entropy, or just lazy thinking, which always favours the bright and shiny new. Maybe this year, with players deserting the banner of the Wizards.
The one thing I remember about the Master box, and weapon mastery in particular, was that you could actually throw a sword like in Conan the Destroyer. It had a very poor chance to hit, but it was still a chance.
Playing at levels over 20 seems is such a foreign concept to me. I've never had a game go past 15th or so level (D&D 3.5) before it peters out and everyone is bored. Of course I never thought of having my characters manage a fortress or realm and attracting followers. That would probably have been a nice diversion from having to save the universe every game because they were such high level. Great video, as usual.
Another insightful video that has had me go back and read the rule book(s) again. Regrettably in PDF form these days. lol. Thank you so much for taking the time on this with such detail :)
Minor nitpick on the Weapon Mastery stuff - at least according to the Cyclopedia, Handheld (for primary type) includes melee and thrown weapons but not natural weapons (which are counted under M for "Missle and Monster") so you wouldn't get the normal sword's AC bonus against a ghoul. Equally, as far as I can tell from RAW, the only factor between dealing primary and secondary damage is based on your target's type, not how the weapon is used (so throwing a sword will still deal its primary damage against an enemy using a melee or thrown weapon, secondary against an enemy using a missile or natural weapon). The Mace, for example, is P=A and only lists one damage for each skill level even once it can be thrown (because it has no secondary type).
About favoring demi-humans... Depending on context, I might rule that demi-humans can count as favored for the Paths their progression fits - Paragon or Polymath for elves, Polymath for dwarves and halflings. Or I might rule that they're not favored at all, because of petty reasons...
Nice to see more videos on BECMI D&D. I'm old enough to remember waiting for the Masters boxed set to come out! I would however challenge your interpretation of the weapon mastery training, if I've understood what you are saying correctly. You refer to the number of attempts that can be made to advance being limited and the subsequent difficulty in advancing to grand master in a weapon. However, in the Rules Cyclopedia it is written more clearly than in the Masters book. It states that "Failure does not mean that the character has lost his weapon choice for that experience level". All that is lost is time and money. So the number of attempts is unlimited as long as the party is willing to wait and the player willing to spend the gold on training. Normally therefore most characters (including Magic Users) would gain Grand Mastery in their first weapon at level 11. Gold is unlikely to be an issue as characters need gold to gain XP and advance in level, so they usually have this. Time is only really an issue in a consistant campaign where the DM is tracking actions in between adventures. Your interpretation actually makes more sense, that a failed training roll uses up that attempt. It does still seem crazy though that a Magic User can become grand master in a dagger or staff so easily. I think there is a lot of modification needed to make Weapon Mastery useable in most campaigns. Personally I would suggest limiting the maximum level attainable by class with Fighters the only ones able to reach grand master.
You are correct. I was going by the Master Rules as written, which of course can be interpreted either way. I asked Frank Mentzer on the BECMI Facebook page what his thoughts were on this, considering the RC addition, and predictably he said it’s up to the DM and no one way is right. I guess that’s the beauty of old school. Whichever way you go, it won’t break the game. Thanks for the comment. I really appreciate it.
I think the guy riding the dragon on the cover of the Master Set is the same guy that was charging the dragon on the cover of the Basic Set (and on the sets in between, as well).
It's interesting where the non-Advanced Dungeons and Dragons designer went with BECMI. The previous iteration (B/X) is a pretty good restatement for all intents and purposes of the original Dungeons and Dragons rules (not including the supplements). The only thing which is glaringly not in Original D&D is the Thief, which appeared in Supplement I, Greyhawk, which also is the origin of the B/X and BECMI hit dice (apart from Halfings - d6 never seemed that fair). However, whilst the Basic and Expert parts of BECMI are essentially identical to B/X, the Companion and Master sets make it a different game. It is interesting that earlier printings of Expert preserve the original B/X thief skill percentages from B/X. Was this an oversight, or does this show that Frank Mentzer didn't really know what he would do with the game beyond 14th level? The BECMI Basic rules do mention that the Companion rules go from 15-25, and Master from 26 to 36, but there is no information about what they contain beyond the character levels. On the other hand, the Basic rules mention the Expert rules 35 times in the entire text. Reading the Expert rules, the Companion rules are mentioned 6 times, and the only interesting mentions are: "More details about the lands, peoples and cultures of a fantasy world are given in the D&D Companion Set.", "a player character thief may want to consider setting up a Thieves' Guild (the details of this are given in the D&D Companion Set).", "Large-scale battles often involve siege engines (catapult, ballista, etc.). Details on their use are given in the D&D Companion Set", "Providing details for character levels 15-25, the Companion Set features castle adventures and more magic and monsters than ever before.". On the other hand, the Companion rules contain large numbers of references forward to the Masters rules, so it feels more like it was designed together. When Frank Mentzer started on the new sets there were still a lot of content which hadn't made its way from Greyhawk and other supplements into the D&D game (spells, magic-items, artifacts, monsters), so that was more of a copy and paste job. However, I am guessing he looked at the things which were important in the original D&D game, but had lessened in importance in AD&D, i.e. castles, leading armies, and decided to make that a unique selling point of the D&D line. The brand new concept was the new endgame beyond settling down in a castle - Immortality.
The BECMI method of obtaining immortality sort of reminds me of the Epic Destiny mechanic from D&D 4th Edition. In that edition, once a character achieves 21st level, they can choose from one of several options available to them to be their "destiny", a particular goal for their character to achieve. This can range from simply being one of the best at whatever their class does to more unusual stuff like permanently fusing yourself with the very essence of a particular spell or creating a whole separate multiverse all to your own. Your chosen destiny grants you certain mechanical benefits, usually one of which lets you say "No, I'm not actually going to die right now, thank you" whenever you drop to 0 HP, until you reach 30th level. At that point, you must go on a final quest, possibly bringing along your party members, known as a Destiny Quest. The nature of your Destiny Quest is up to the DM, but should thematically tie into your chosen destiny in some way. Once this is finished, you pass on into legend, leaving a mark on the multiverse that ensures that you are remembered by all for aeons to come. You do still retire your character after achieving immortality, though, and rules for post-immortality gameplay never came out for 4e.
That was the thing that confused people, since the master set took so long to come out. But the next character you made had allllll the bells and whistles of all the books covering 1-36. The only bother with weapon mastery was remembering that if the player's had it, the monsters have it too based on hd and int.
I know you were talking about exploring the Gazetteers of Mystara, but I think it might be more fun to explore the more mechanical sides of Mystara and then some. After all, people like Mr. Welch tended to focus on the more setting aspects.
Get out of my head! 🙂 Yes, Mr Welch has done a sterling job and I can’t pretend to have his knowledge of the setting, but I can totally focus on how the Gazetteers expand the BECMI game.
Great video! There is a thing in RC with weapon mastery that when gained and you have chosen what to use it for it is not lost even if you fail to learn the next step but the money and time is still gone. You still get the 10% bonus if you finish the first training. In your description it sounds like you have to wait untill the next time you gain a new mastery choice untill you can try again. Is there a difference from RC or did I just miss understand you?
Hi. The difference is indeed in the RC. I was discussing this with Frank Mentzer on the BECMI Facebook group last night. He favours leaving it up to the DM…of course.🙂
Weapon mastery was the most interesting thing in BECMI to me. I was curious when it was introduced. Makes me wonder why it didn't make the leap to ad&d2e.
10:00 in expanded rules for second edition, you could have weapons of good or exceptional quality... I had a fighter who thought he was buying a sword of very high quality, not magical, just exceptionally crafted weapon... But in game he got scammed, and it was just a really nice looking bastard sword 🙂.
I've tried to wrap my head around the WM rules but I just finally admitted I didn't like them. I eventually just added "fighting styles" for fighters and thieves. Two-handed, sword and shield, duelist, dual-weapon, and ranged. They all gave simple bonuses that were easy to remember. The players that wanted to create some kind of trip or entangle expert were invited to bite my ass. None of the fighting styles applied any kind of penalty. Characters could always use the weapons available to their class.
I have never used WM but I'm starting a new campaign and thinking of trying it. In your opinion did you ever find it to be too fiddly or that the PCs were too powerful?
Combat was quicker, certainly. I don’t think the damage output is too overkill given the level a character would have to be. And as a DM, you could always limit the highest mastery achievable. That’s the beauty of older systems. Making changes doesn’t upset much.
I remember the Weapon Mastery system, I thought it was great at helping the martials keep up with the magic wielder's damage, in addition to differentiating a 20th-level fighter's skill and damage with a weapon vs a first level outside of the magic item bonus. What I didn't like was the totally random chance of training successfully, it made no sense to me. It should have been an ability check, or at least been subject to an modifier based on an ability.
Sadly I only ever got up to the BEC part - I moved onto AD&D and Dragonlance. Also picking up the Rules Cyclopedia seemed to make the idea of picking up the Master box and beyond redundant though I do regret that. Still have them all though the boxes are gone from being badly damaged sadly.
Why are demi-humans not allowed to serve Matter? Metzer does not give a reason. Matter also seems ideal for dwarves. They are good fighters, have a stable temperament, and they spend much of their lives mining and crafting.
I don't want to steal your thunder (in case you plan on talking about this), but do you think the Rules Cyclopedia is a good substitute for the box sets? I want a print version, but box sets are hard to find. I can get a POD copy of the cyclopedia on Drivethru RPG.
The cyclopedia is great, but it does not contain everything. The complete immortals rules are not included, but it does contain pages from master that include basic information for immortals, including rules for PC ascension. Other things like rules for jousting in tournaments were excluded from the cyclopedia. All that said, it’s still amazing =) imo one of the ultimate rpg resources.
I don't like giving coin to WotC, but original copies on eBay or Amazon are just too expensive. The RC is a great book for any D&D player. The DriveThru PoD has a glued binding that makes cracking sounds every time I open it and the printer left ink smudges on some pages, but it's the only way to get it reasonably priced. Wait until it's on sale.
The RC is the perfect substitute and has everything but the Immortal Rules. In terms of giving WotC your money, I would say it’s a personal choice, but there are plenty of companies out there we give our money to without thinking about the ethical dilemma. Such as the ones who make our clothes or even the devices we communicate on. That’s not to diminish the current tensions in the ttrpg gaming sector, but some perspective is required. Again though, it’s a personal choice.
Thank you all for the feedback. I've had good luck with the POD stuff I've ordered so far. I can imagine a book of this size would not benefit from a glued binding though. As far as giving WotC my money, I try not to when I can help it. To make myself feel better, I create a head cannon where i'm sending my money back in time to the much more ethical Lorraine Williams' TSR times : )
I didn't really like the randomness of the results of training weapon masteries. My problem is that it was just a plain dice roll, unrelated to the character or the trainer. It was like using a slot machine to buy something: you put in your money, but you may not receive your purchase. No skill or merit, only pure luck. The weapon mastery rules themselves were quite good, though. The mystic is the origin of D&D 3.x's monk class. It's basically the same outdated concept transplanted into a completely different rules system with almost exactly the same features. In my opinion, it has never worked properly. 3.x was not BECMI, so it simply didn't fit in. In BECMI it was OK, although the 16 levels limit was really crippling.
The subject of gods and deities is replaced by the concept of immortals. They can be worshipped if people want to, and players can even gain immortality if they wish and are successful. Mechanically, you could just call the immortals gods if you wanted to. I think the author wanted to stay away from the term gods to keep religion out of the game. Thanks for your comment.
@@becmiberserker that's only one of my complaints. it doesn't have feats, skills or backgrounds so calling it complete is a disservice at best and deceitful at worst but shows absolute bias nonetheless.
@@iandstanley this is FALSE. WOTC rules specifically say every decision is up to the dm regardless of what the rules say. Obviously YOU haven't read the WOTC books. All rules, regardless of edition, are optional. Always have been.
@@BeardedDevil-cn9tw if he's going to claim it's the "most complete" edition of the game it should have those things, that's why it's a false statement and it irks me. Just say you PREFER BECMI don't make false claims about it.
Great stuff! Have to admit we depressed our DM when he spent a lot of time setting up our party to gain an artefact but when we finally found it we left it where it was. The adverse effects were not worth the risk. He told us later he had a huge adventure planned as he thought we would grab it and use it. Nope. To quote Faramir when he spoke of the One Ring to Frodo, "I would not pick it up if I found it laying on the road."
Great stuff! Have to admit we depressed our DM when he spent a lot of time setting up our party to gain an artefact but when we finally found it we left it where it was. The adverse effects were not worth the risk. He told us later he had a huge adventure planned as he thought we would grab it and use it. Nope. To quote Faramir when he spoke of the One Ring to Frodo, "I would not pick it up if I found it laying on the road."
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm confused, if i understood the video, you are telling that if you level up, you get an attempt, but if that attempt fails you do not only loose time and money,but also the attempt itself, and you have to level up again X levels to get another attempt, am i right?
Because in the version of Rules Cyclopedia i have i can clearly read, at page 75: "Failure does nor mean that the character has
lost his weapon choice for that experience level.
The weapon choice is still there, and it's still
dedicated to the weapon and level of mastery he
has chosen for it. The student has lost the time
and money he has spent, but he may spend more
time and money until he reaches the level of
mastery for which he has spent his weapon
choice"
and this is in contrast with what the video says
You’re right, sort of. 🙂
The Master Rules omits that extra bit of text from the Rules Cyclopedia and it has caused some confusion. I contacted Frank Mentzer about it to clarify the rules intent and he gave the most BECMI answer you can give: do what suits your game. 🙂
In my “Let’s roll…” series, I go with what’s in the Rules Cyclopedia, but many other players don’t because if Mastery is a forgone conclusion, the only point of the check is how much it costs you. Anyway, I’ll pin this comment to avoid further confusion. Otherwise, I hope this helped.
@@becmiberserker it's cool that you contacted directly the author, thanks for the clarification!
@@valeriodestefano3784No problem!
diving into BECMI gets me asking a question to myself: "why would i ever need any other edition of Dungeons & Dragons?"
You've managed to do something that countless readings haven't done for me, help me understand Weapon Mastery to the point I want to know more. If you made a video where you did a deep dive on WM, I would be forever in your debt :)
On the list!
My thoughts exactly :-D and also +1 to deep dive WM video.
Weapon mastery is just early weapon proficiency. It is kind of simpler in 1e but they added the complexity back in 2e.
It's like I just click like right away because you've never failed me so far :)
Same
Another excellent video, Berserker.
To me, BECMI was the perfect way to gradually introduce more advanced mechanics and rules.
The BECMI weapon mastery rules are brilliant. The rules for weapon-mastery, along with boxing and wrestling, make fighters far more viable characters at higher level and far more interesting to play. Getting the initiative on a magic user, closing distance using cover, and punching them on the jaw stunning them, preventing the spell from being cast, was a favourite manoeuvre of mine. Very rewarding.
The only letdown is with a basic shield weapon skill, as a normal shield was a primary weapon used in combat. Skill with a shield should be improvable, which I home brewed for my group quite nicely.
We only ever played the Basic and Expert sets. I always figured the latter sets were only important if you got your party up to those levels. I didn't realize how many additional rules they added to the whole system. Thank you for making these videos!
Thanks for this. It’s something I think OSE should sit up and take notice of.
Just loving the videos. BECMI seems to be the best edition!
Love your vids Brother. Your hard work & outstanding content is greatly appreciated
I appreciate that!
This is such a work of love and respect, refreshing in this current era of corporate control.
I've watched most of your videos and can't wait to finish them all. I began as a DM 42 years ago with the Moldvay Basic set and BECMI is still my favorite fantasy system. Thanks for the videos!
You’re more than welcome.
Great stuff! I have to admit we depressed our DM when he spent a lot of time setting up our party to gain an artefact but when we finally found it we left it where it was. The adverse effects were not worth the risk. He told us later he had a huge adventure planned as he thought we would grab it and use it. Nope. To quote Faramir when he spoke of the One Ring to Frodo, "I would not pick it up if I found it laying on the road."
I can just picture the forlorn look on the DM’s face. 😀
Just introduced weapons mastery into the campaign. Totally works, a great addition for third level characters, and a nice campaign feature to have the NPC trainers
This is by far the best Channel for becmi Content.
Great work you are doing on these videos. Brings back fond memories of my childhood.
Glad you like them!
I got the Rules Cyclopedia reprinted from Drive Through RPG.
Hello from Brazil
Bringing back memories. I lost most of my BECMI collection over the decades. All I got left is Basic & Immortals lol. I'm a 3.5 type but I feel the need to pick up the Rules Enclyopedia. Never really BECMI RAW. We were young & mixed it w/ AD&D 1e. None the less we had some great times. Great Vid, cheers!
Sadly these books are all gone for me too. Wish I knew where.
Those Immortal Boxes are hard to find these days. So is the Master Set
Thank you for making this! It's really hard to find hard copies of these now days tho
Well done once again.
I was hoping you would have brought up the BECM version of the assassin but as Mick sang you can't always get what you want.
Still another top notch video as usual.
Always loved Weapon Mastery. That chart though... In my older years, I have the hardest time reading it.
Hello again, great videos! Man you are laying it down like nobody I've ever seen. Glad to see that passion.
I was just talking about this the other day. The Normal sword isn't the longsword, it's the Broadsword, it was considered the common sword, even when D&D released the Conan version, they gave young Conan a Broadsword (he doesn't start with his magic Bastardsword). Long/short swords are just that, longer and shorter than a normal sword 😅. (5e) Broadsword 10 gp., 3 lb., 1d8 slashing. I converted 2e weapons over to 5e, took a minute, but once you see that numbers are changed to words like Light, Heavy, Versatile, etc... It becomes a lot easier.
Thanks for the video you have a wonderful day!
I never got to dive this far into the becmi rules. Very cool. Thanks for sharing this. Kinda shows where weapon proficincy rules in ad&d 2e come from
The weapon specialization rules were created by Len Lakofka for his home D&D Greyhawk campaign around 1981. He traveled to Lake Geneva and convinced Gary Gygax to introduce them into AD&D which he did in Dragon magazine articles in 1982. They were later printed in AD&D's Unearthed Arcana and D&D's Master rules. Weapon proficiency is different and goes back to at least 1978's AD&D Players Handbook.
@@jasonjacobson1157Thanks for clarifying. Yea I’d forgotten that the 1st ed of ad&d came out in the 70s. Makes sense
Glad to see this one. Keep doing your thing.
Love your stuff dude, love becmi :) I use house weapon mastery rules now but my house rules are just modified becmi rules. For instance I don’t use the unskilled half damage rule, just a -1,-2,-3 to hit for martial, semi-martial, non-martial characters respectively.
Well done. It is a great edition of the rules. I'm trying to get a party together at the moment and struggling with the principle of Entropy, or just lazy thinking, which always favours the bright and shiny new. Maybe this year, with players deserting the banner of the Wizards.
I saw those books, but did not yet develop the social skills to persuade someone to invite me to a game. Thanks for revealing us those rules.
The one thing I remember about the Master box, and weapon mastery in particular, was that you could actually throw a sword like in Conan the Destroyer. It had a very poor chance to hit, but it was still a chance.
Playing at levels over 20 seems is such a foreign concept to me. I've never had a game go past 15th or so level (D&D 3.5) before it peters out and everyone is bored. Of course I never thought of having my characters manage a fortress or realm and attracting followers. That would probably have been a nice diversion from having to save the universe every game because they were such high level. Great video, as usual.
The best release for D&D. So right you are. I owned that boxed set. In fact, I owned them all. After that, came the Immortals set.
Another insightful video that has had me go back and read the rule book(s) again. Regrettably in PDF form these days. lol. Thank you so much for taking the time on this with such detail :)
Minor nitpick on the Weapon Mastery stuff - at least according to the Cyclopedia, Handheld (for primary type) includes melee and thrown weapons but not natural weapons (which are counted under M for "Missle and Monster") so you wouldn't get the normal sword's AC bonus against a ghoul. Equally, as far as I can tell from RAW, the only factor between dealing primary and secondary damage is based on your target's type, not how the weapon is used (so throwing a sword will still deal its primary damage against an enemy using a melee or thrown weapon, secondary against an enemy using a missile or natural weapon). The Mace, for example, is P=A and only lists one damage for each skill level even once it can be thrown (because it has no secondary type).
Great video as usual
Brilliant! I never used the weapon mastery rules, but you've made them really simple and easy to understand. I'll have to think about bringin them in!
You’re welcome.
About favoring demi-humans...
Depending on context, I might rule that demi-humans can count as favored for the Paths their progression fits - Paragon or Polymath for elves, Polymath for dwarves and halflings.
Or I might rule that they're not favored at all, because of petty reasons...
Fantastic video. Going to bring weapon mastery into my OSR game.
Thanks for the video!
You're welcome!
Nice to see more videos on BECMI D&D. I'm old enough to remember waiting for the Masters boxed set to come out! I would however challenge your interpretation of the weapon mastery training, if I've understood what you are saying correctly. You refer to the number of attempts that can be made to advance being limited and the subsequent difficulty in advancing to grand master in a weapon. However, in the Rules Cyclopedia it is written more clearly than in the Masters book. It states that "Failure does not mean that the character has lost his weapon choice for that experience level". All that is lost is time and money.
So the number of attempts is unlimited as long as the party is willing to wait and the player willing to spend the gold on training. Normally therefore most characters (including Magic Users) would gain Grand Mastery in their first weapon at level 11.
Gold is unlikely to be an issue as characters need gold to gain XP and advance in level, so they usually have this. Time is only really an issue in a consistant campaign where the DM is tracking actions in between adventures.
Your interpretation actually makes more sense, that a failed training roll uses up that attempt. It does still seem crazy though that a Magic User can become grand master in a dagger or staff so easily.
I think there is a lot of modification needed to make Weapon Mastery useable in most campaigns. Personally I would suggest limiting the maximum level attainable by class with Fighters the only ones able to reach grand master.
You are correct. I was going by the Master Rules as written, which of course can be interpreted either way. I asked Frank Mentzer on the BECMI Facebook page what his thoughts were on this, considering the RC addition, and predictably he said it’s up to the DM and no one way is right. I guess that’s the beauty of old school. Whichever way you go, it won’t break the game.
Thanks for the comment. I really appreciate it.
Great video!
I think the guy riding the dragon on the cover of the Master Set is the same guy that was charging the dragon on the cover of the Basic Set (and on the sets in between, as well).
Yeah. I think the concept was his pathway to being a powerful ruler.
It's interesting where the non-Advanced Dungeons and Dragons designer went with BECMI. The previous iteration (B/X) is a pretty good restatement for all intents and purposes of the original Dungeons and Dragons rules (not including the supplements). The only thing which is glaringly not in Original D&D is the Thief, which appeared in Supplement I, Greyhawk, which also is the origin of the B/X and BECMI hit dice (apart from Halfings - d6 never seemed that fair).
However, whilst the Basic and Expert parts of BECMI are essentially identical to B/X, the Companion and Master sets make it a different game. It is interesting that earlier printings of Expert preserve the original B/X thief skill percentages from B/X. Was this an oversight, or does this show that Frank Mentzer didn't really know what he would do with the game beyond 14th level? The BECMI Basic rules do mention that the Companion rules go from 15-25, and Master from 26 to 36, but there is no information about what they contain beyond the character levels. On the other hand, the Basic rules mention the Expert rules 35 times in the entire text. Reading the Expert rules, the Companion rules are mentioned 6 times, and the only interesting mentions are: "More details about the lands, peoples and cultures of a fantasy world are given in the D&D Companion Set.", "a player character thief may want to consider setting up a Thieves' Guild (the details of this are given in the D&D Companion Set).", "Large-scale battles often involve siege engines (catapult, ballista, etc.). Details on their use are given in the D&D Companion Set", "Providing details for character levels 15-25, the Companion Set features castle adventures and more magic and monsters than ever before.".
On the other hand, the Companion rules contain large numbers of references forward to the Masters rules, so it feels more like it was designed together. When Frank Mentzer started on the new sets there were still a lot of content which hadn't made its way from Greyhawk and other supplements into the D&D game (spells, magic-items, artifacts, monsters), so that was more of a copy and paste job. However, I am guessing he looked at the things which were important in the original D&D game, but had lessened in importance in AD&D, i.e. castles, leading armies, and decided to make that a unique selling point of the D&D line. The brand new concept was the new endgame beyond settling down in a castle - Immortality.
The BECMI method of obtaining immortality sort of reminds me of the Epic Destiny mechanic from D&D 4th Edition. In that edition, once a character achieves 21st level, they can choose from one of several options available to them to be their "destiny", a particular goal for their character to achieve. This can range from simply being one of the best at whatever their class does to more unusual stuff like permanently fusing yourself with the very essence of a particular spell or creating a whole separate multiverse all to your own. Your chosen destiny grants you certain mechanical benefits, usually one of which lets you say "No, I'm not actually going to die right now, thank you" whenever you drop to 0 HP, until you reach 30th level. At that point, you must go on a final quest, possibly bringing along your party members, known as a Destiny Quest. The nature of your Destiny Quest is up to the DM, but should thematically tie into your chosen destiny in some way. Once this is finished, you pass on into legend, leaving a mark on the multiverse that ensures that you are remembered by all for aeons to come. You do still retire your character after achieving immortality, though, and rules for post-immortality gameplay never came out for 4e.
I wasn’t familiar with this. Thanks for detailing it.
That was the thing that confused people, since the master set took so long to come out. But the next character you made had allllll the bells and whistles of all the books covering 1-36. The only bother with weapon mastery was remembering that if the player's had it, the monsters have it too based on hd and int.
I know you were talking about exploring the Gazetteers of Mystara, but I think it might be more fun to explore the more mechanical sides of Mystara and then some. After all, people like Mr. Welch tended to focus on the more setting aspects.
Get out of my head! 🙂
Yes, Mr Welch has done a sterling job and I can’t pretend to have his knowledge of the setting, but I can totally focus on how the Gazetteers expand the BECMI game.
Great video! There is a thing in RC with weapon mastery that when gained and you have chosen what to use it for it is not lost even if you fail to learn the next step but the money and time is still gone. You still get the 10% bonus if you finish the first training. In your description it sounds like you have to wait untill the next time you gain a new mastery choice untill you can try again. Is there a difference from RC or did I just miss understand you?
Hi. The difference is indeed in the RC. I was discussing this with Frank Mentzer on the BECMI Facebook group last night. He favours leaving it up to the DM…of course.🙂
Weapon mastery was the most interesting thing in BECMI to me. I was curious when it was introduced. Makes me wonder why it didn't make the leap to ad&d2e.
Seems crazy it wasn’t revisited.
10:00 in expanded rules for second edition, you could have weapons of good or exceptional quality... I had a fighter who thought he was buying a sword of very high quality, not magical, just exceptionally crafted weapon... But in game he got scammed, and it was just a really nice looking bastard sword 🙂.
I've tried to wrap my head around the WM rules but I just finally admitted I didn't like them. I eventually just added "fighting styles" for fighters and thieves. Two-handed, sword and shield, duelist, dual-weapon, and ranged. They all gave simple bonuses that were easy to remember. The players that wanted to create some kind of trip or entangle expert were invited to bite my ass.
None of the fighting styles applied any kind of penalty. Characters could always use the weapons available to their class.
What most people call a longsword is really an “arming sword”
Just FYI
I have never used WM but I'm starting a new campaign and thinking of trying it. In your opinion did you ever find it to be too fiddly or that the PCs were too powerful?
Combat was quicker, certainly. I don’t think the damage output is too overkill given the level a character would have to be. And as a DM, you could always limit the highest mastery achievable. That’s the beauty of older systems. Making changes doesn’t upset much.
I am still confussed about Primary and Secondary attacks.
I remember the Weapon Mastery system, I thought it was great at helping the martials keep up with the magic wielder's damage, in addition to differentiating a 20th-level fighter's skill and damage with a weapon vs a first level outside of the magic item bonus. What I didn't like was the totally random chance of training successfully, it made no sense to me. It should have been an ability check, or at least been subject to an modifier based on an ability.
Sadly I only ever got up to the BEC part - I moved onto AD&D and Dragonlance. Also picking up the Rules Cyclopedia seemed to make the idea of picking up the Master box and beyond redundant though I do regret that. Still have them all though the boxes are gone from being badly damaged sadly.
Why are demi-humans not allowed to serve Matter? Metzer does not give a reason. Matter also seems ideal for dwarves. They are good fighters, have a stable temperament, and they spend much of their lives mining and crafting.
I don't want to steal your thunder (in case you plan on talking about this), but do you think the Rules Cyclopedia is a good substitute for the box sets? I want a print version, but box sets are hard to find. I can get a POD copy of the cyclopedia on Drivethru RPG.
The cyclopedia is great, but it does not contain everything. The complete immortals rules are not included, but it does contain pages from master that include basic information for immortals, including rules for PC ascension. Other things like rules for jousting in tournaments were excluded from the cyclopedia. All that said, it’s still amazing =) imo one of the ultimate rpg resources.
I don't like giving coin to WotC, but original copies on eBay or Amazon are just too expensive. The RC is a great book for any D&D player. The DriveThru PoD has a glued binding that makes cracking sounds every time I open it and the printer left ink smudges on some pages, but it's the only way to get it reasonably priced. Wait until it's on sale.
The RC is the perfect substitute and has everything but the Immortal Rules. In terms of giving WotC your money, I would say it’s a personal choice, but there are plenty of companies out there we give our money to without thinking about the ethical dilemma. Such as the ones who make our clothes or even the devices we communicate on. That’s not to diminish the current tensions in the ttrpg gaming sector, but some perspective is required. Again though, it’s a personal choice.
Thank you all for the feedback. I've had good luck with the POD stuff I've ordered so far. I can imagine a book of this size would not benefit from a glued binding though. As far as giving WotC my money, I try not to when I can help it. To make myself feel better, I create a head cannon where i'm sending my money back in time to the much more ethical Lorraine Williams' TSR times : )
I didn't really like the randomness of the results of training weapon masteries. My problem is that it was just a plain dice roll, unrelated to the character or the trainer. It was like using a slot machine to buy something: you put in your money, but you may not receive your purchase. No skill or merit, only pure luck. The weapon mastery rules themselves were quite good, though.
The mystic is the origin of D&D 3.x's monk class. It's basically the same outdated concept transplanted into a completely different rules system with almost exactly the same features. In my opinion, it has never worked properly. 3.x was not BECMI, so it simply didn't fit in.
In BECMI it was OK, although the 16 levels limit was really crippling.
you claimed becmi is the most complete edition of D&D but it doesn't even have God's in it.
The subject of gods and deities is replaced by the concept of immortals. They can be worshipped if people want to, and players can even gain immortality if they wish and are successful. Mechanically, you could just call the immortals gods if you wanted to. I think the author wanted to stay away from the term gods to keep religion out of the game. Thanks for your comment.
@@becmiberserker that's only one of my complaints. it doesn't have feats, skills or backgrounds so calling it complete is a disservice at best and deceitful at worst but shows absolute bias nonetheless.
@stephaniebri5837 why would BECMI need to have feats or backgrounds?
@@iandstanley this is FALSE. WOTC rules specifically say every decision is up to the dm regardless of what the rules say. Obviously YOU haven't read the WOTC books. All rules, regardless of edition, are optional. Always have been.
@@BeardedDevil-cn9tw if he's going to claim it's the "most complete" edition of the game it should have those things, that's why it's a false statement and it irks me. Just say you PREFER BECMI don't make false claims about it.
Great stuff! Have to admit we depressed our DM when he spent a lot of time setting up our party to gain an artefact but when we finally found it we left it where it was. The adverse effects were not worth the risk. He told us later he had a huge adventure planned as he thought we would grab it and use it. Nope. To quote Faramir when he spoke of the One Ring to Frodo, "I would not pick it up if I found it laying on the road."
Great stuff! Have to admit we depressed our DM when he spent a lot of time setting up our party to gain an artefact but when we finally found it we left it where it was. The adverse effects were not worth the risk. He told us later he had a huge adventure planned as he thought we would grab it and use it. Nope. To quote Faramir when he spoke of the One Ring to Frodo, "I would not pick it up if I found it laying on the road."