OD&D The OA Theory- When OD&D Became Second Edition

[ccs]

There is an utterly fatal flaw in this theory, though. UA came out in June 1985 and OA October 1985. The order is reversed.

I know. I just wasn't going to mention it & spoil his fun.

 

[ccs]

Yep, the copy I have never fell apart, unlike most.

I disbelieve.

 

[ccs]

But my only question is: Did anyone actually own 1st edition Legends and Lore, and if so, why?

Yes. Still have it too. I use it interchangeably with my D&DG mk.2. Unless I need Elric or Cthulu....

As to the why? It was a Birthday gift from my brother. I knew it was just a reprint of my D&DG mk.2 with a new cover & title. He didn't.
He just knew it was a title he'd never seen in our bookshelf or at the table when we'd play. He never DM'd & never made any use of anything beyond PHB/DMG (everyone did for the attack/save charts).
I never told him it was a dupe.
I just thanked him & began using both the mk.2 & L&L interchangeably.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

With its introduction of Proficiences et al I'd think OA belongs much more with the post-85 lineup, and indeed initiated that lineup!

I was surprised to read the OP after seeing the thread title, because I agree with you that OA clearly belongs on the other side of the classic/post-classic divide.

For me the biggest difference isn't mechanical (proficiencies etc) though they're not nothing, but the whole way the setting and situation is presented: PCs, by default, have connections (families, daimyos, masters/mentors, etc) and a resulting place in the world, and they confront NPCs and creatures (spirits, the Celestial Bureaucracy, etc) which likewise have connections and loyalties that bear upon the PCs'. No one who begins their reading of D&D with OA would think that Gygax's PHB advice about Succcessful Adventuring was talking about the same game!

 

[teitan]

When it comes to classic D&D, to me, AD&D 2e was the pinnacle when it came to the core rules when you consider how it refined many elements that were clear as mud in 1e. But there is a caveat to that... things like Non-Weapon Proficiencies, Specialty priests and other “optional rules” are discluded in that.

Remove those optional rules and you have the peak of classic D&D design and it’s still compatible with original, 1e and Basic. Improvements to initiative and thief skills becoming customizable rather than cookie cutter, official adoption of THAC0, and similar streamlining through all the classes. Specialty wizards were well done. It’s just damn near perfect. Changes to the ranger notwithstanding.

Why did I disclude the optional rules? Well Non-Weapon Proficiencies are a skill system that is inconsistent with the established system for rangers and thieves. Why were Rangers & Thieves poor in their core skills but super adequate in their Non-Weapon Proficiencies? Specialty priests were great with Legends & Lore but later implementations were inconsistent.

Monsters were also well done aside from the psionics being core to some monsters with no options for nonPsionic versions of those monsters. The Monstrous Compendium was a garbage idea but hey whatcha gonna do?

The flaw that makes 2e a hot mess is that all those optional rules weren’t optional as mentioned with Psionics. All the later supplements assumed the use of optional rules.

So for a classic D&D experience your pinnacle is 2e core.