Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Giltonio_Santos" data-source="post: 7612958" data-attributes="member: 36874">This is very common, but from the point of view of 2e fans, makes no sense at all. Truth is that not a lot of people used to learn D&amp;D by reading the core books. I don't know if this has really changed, but it appears that between 1980 and 2000, many people were playing a mashup of D&amp;D editions passed on through an oral tradition that was sometimes close to what the core books said but would also sometimes travel far away from them.Just as a very common example: I keep reading from people here (based on what they know about 1e) that 2e thieves were incompetent with their thieving skills, but a half-elf with a Dexterity of 17, no armor and the cutpurse kit could start at 1st level with a 75% chance of successfully pick-pocketing if pick-pocketing was his/her thing. That same half-elf could then raise that chance to 90% upon reaching 2nd level, and to 95% (the maximum allowed) at 3rd.I think that's a good example because I really don't know by now how many times I've read from people here that being competent with thieving skills was not an option before higher levels (which is at least a bit true for 1e thieves).There are two AD&amp;Ds, each with its own qualities and drawbacks. If we move from the core books to the actual publishing history of each of them, the departure becomes clear. If we are going to discuss 2e for what it's worth, we should stop talking about it like it was AD&amp;D 1.5.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Giltonio_Santos, post: 7612958, member: 36874"] This is very common, but from the point of view of 2e fans, makes no sense at all. Truth is that not a lot of people used to learn D&D by reading the core books. I don't know if this has really changed, but it appears that between 1980 and 2000, many people were playing a mashup of D&D editions passed on through an oral tradition that was sometimes close to what the core books said but would also sometimes travel far away from them. Just as a very common example: I keep reading from people here (based on what they know about 1e) that 2e thieves were incompetent with their thieving skills, but a half-elf with a Dexterity of 17, no armor and the cutpurse kit could start at 1st level with a 75% chance of successfully pick-pocketing if pick-pocketing was his/her thing. That same half-elf could then raise that chance to 90% upon reaching 2nd level, and to 95% (the maximum allowed) at 3rd. I think that's a good example because I really don't know by now how many times I've read from people here that being competent with thieving skills was not an option before higher levels (which is at least a bit true for 1e thieves). There are two AD&Ds, each with its own qualities and drawbacks. If we move from the core books to the actual publishing history of each of them, the departure becomes clear. If we are going to discuss 2e for what it's worth, we should stop talking about it like it was AD&D 1.5. [/QUOTE]

Verification