Where were the additional specialization levels?

[VoxRationis]

I've heard other people on this forum refer to levels of specialization beyond simply "specialized," and I doubt Baldur's Gate got the idea from nowhere, but I don't see any references to that in my PHB. Where are the rules for that?

[MeeposFire]

I assume you are talking about weapon specialization in which case check out the Combat and Tactics book.

Though to be fair actual weapon specialization rules are actually more brutal than the ones you find in BG.

[VoxRationis]

More brutal? How so?

[MeeposFire]

More brutal? How so?

At the highest levels it is an extra 1.5 attacks per round rather than just 1 extra and effects related to knockdowns and criticals.

[SaurOps]

At the highest levels it is an extra 1.5 attacks per round rather than just 1 extra and effects related to knockdowns and criticals.

And also increasing the weapon damage by one die size. Some weapons, like daggers or the Zhuge Nu* repeating crossbow, also got even more attacks per round.

*It's Romanized differently in the older books.

[hamlet]

It's also not terribly well regarded amongst a certain crowd of older school gamers.

I find that if I desire even more than regular specialization in 2nd edition, I pick up the unearthed arcana from 1e and copy of the specialization rules from there. It makes better sense (to me at least) and is simpler and less . . . gamey I guess. Fiddly.

It includes "double specialization" which is adding yet another proficiency slot to it and getting another edge in damage and attack. It also makes a specialized bow wielder a very dangerous thing in tighter quarters. Double damage for close range is brutal. Put it in the hands of a 1e style ranger and a horde of humanoids and . . . well . . . scary.

[MeeposFire]

It's also not terribly well regarded amongst a certain crowd of older school gamers.

I find that if I desire even more than regular specialization in 2nd edition, I pick up the unearthed arcana from 1e and copy of the specialization rules from there. It makes better sense (to me at least) and is simpler and less . . . gamey I guess. Fiddly.

It includes "double specialization" which is adding yet another proficiency slot to it and getting another edge in damage and attack. It also makes a specialized bow wielder a very dangerous thing in tighter quarters. Double damage for close range is brutal. Put it in the hands of a 1e style ranger and a horde of humanoids and . . . well . . . scary.

Going with the rules used in BG actually is not that bad and essentially are a way of going beyond the 1e double specialization (which in BG terms is the same as going to the mastery level of specialization at the same number of proficiency slots).

I would agree that the other benefits given probably add some things many groups do not want to deal with (knockdowns and the like).

Also if you think that is vicious have you ever used the weapon mastery rules from older D&D (Rules Cyclopedia type)? Those were really potent and made weapons very different from each other.

[hamlet]

I have seen and never used the weapon mastery rules in the Rules Cyclopedia (originally in the Companion Rules I believe). Too fiddly. Very little real return for the campaign IMO. Too much time devoted to worrying about every fiddly little rule rather than just being immersed in the combat and getting the heck on with things.