Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9652234" data-attributes="member: 7026594">Yes, you're confused.Rules and fiction are different things.  Most of the time rules are written to represent a given fiction, such as the B/X Halfling class being unable to use large weapons because they are physically small.  But it is a longstanding practice for players and especially DMs to CHANGE the fiction in their game while keeping the existing rules which everyone has already agreed on.  Whether that's playing the Halfling class AS a Ranger, or the OSR concept of introducing a new monster with a new description and fiction but <a href="https://talesofthegrotesqueanddungeonesque.blogspot.com/2016/08/just-use-bears.html" target="_blank">just using the stats for a bear</a>. Incorrect.  In the 1974-1977 Original D&D rules (usually referred to as 0E or OD&D), like in AD&D, race and class were separate, but demihumans were limited in class selection.  In the 1974 original boxed set Dwarves and Halflings could only be Fighters, and Elves were all Fighter/Magic-User multiclass, though they operated as only ONE of those during any given adventure, so they might wind up in practice only playing as one or the other if the player so chose.  Once the Greyhawk supplement was released in 1975 the Thief class was introduced as an option, as was the Half-Elf race, and demi-humans got more options.  Dwarves and Halflings, for example, could now be Fighters, Thieves, or Fighter/Thief multiclass. And now multiclassing worked the same way it does in AD&D- you got to use the abilities together, and all your XP was split evenly between them for your whole adventuring careers.AD&D (PH 1978, DMG 1979) also has the same split between race and class. The concept of making races INTO classes didn't come around until B/X in 1981, as a simplification for new and young players, and as another way to make D&D different from AD&D when TSR was fighting Dave Arneson in court over royalties and arguing that he wasn't entitled to them on AD&D because it was a different game. I'm not sure how you could object to "nonsensical details" in 2E if you like 1E.  I don't think much of anything makes LESS sense in 2E than in 1E.  They're very compatible games, but the rules for 2E are generally clearer in lots of places.I think that opinion indicates that you don't know anything about how 70s D&D was very much "anything goes", including Gary in the original 1974 rules saying there was no problem with players playing as dragons as long as the DM made up an advancement chart and made them start off weak like everyone else.  Or the famous Arduin grimoire, which was at least as weird as anything in 4E or 5E.</blockquote>

Verification