Favorite resurrected old-school aspect of 5e

[VoxRationis]

To all the people who like that 5e harkens back, in some fashion, to earlier editions of D&D (pre-3rd):

What is your favorite way in which this occurs?

[gullveig]

No feats, no skills, no skyrocket abilities, simpler monsters, no magic item dependency... the list goes on.

I only miss the lesser ability modifier of B/X.

[MaxWilson]

As a player, that you can play with no magic items at all.

As a DM, the fact that ACs actually mean something concrete. It's not just a numbers game. A.C. 15 means "hard as rock, but not steel."

[Flashy]

the fact that ACs actually mean something concrete. It's not just a numbers game. A.C. 15 means "hard as rock, but not steel."

I didn't play anything before 3.5 so I can't compare to older editions, but I too love this. The flat AC curve lends a sense of weight that I deeply value. The sense that an opponent with 18-20 AC is a tough customer is just delightful. That and you can usually estimate the AC of a humanoid enemy based on what they're wearing without a lot of nasty guesswork about magic items.

[Suteinu]

The beautiful simplicity, the backgrounds that help to customize a character, the option of stat advancement OR feat without favoring one over the other. It doesn't feel like anything but D&D Goodol' Edition. That's why I've been converting older edition characters into 5th lately; they just fit! And your PC's can be heroes wiTHOUT depending on magic items so heavily.

'Course, the moment they convert Drizzt, it's all over ....

[mgshamster]

I love that my players are no longer constrained to the character sheet. If they want to try something not on their character sheet, they have a reasonable chance at success. If they want to try something outside the box, they have a reasonable chance at success. They've stopped thinking that if its not specifically allowed, they can't do it (or won't have a reasonable chance at success).

Just like it was back in 1e and 2e.

[mer.c]

Chiming in with my support of the Bounded Accuracy system and its faces (like lowering magic item prevalence/power).

[Flashy]

the backgrounds that help to customize a character

This. I was totally sold on the edition the moment I realized how easy it was to make a bard without having to play a Bard.

[Dredemer]

There's a lot of things, but when I opened the PHB the first time and saw that's the charts were formatted the same as the 1st edition PHB...I knew that I was home.

[gullveig]

I love that my players are no longer constrained to the character sheet. If they want to try something not on their character sheet, they have a reasonable chance at success. If they want to try something outside the box, they have a reasonable chance at success. They've stopped thinking that if its not specifically allowed, they can't do it (or won't have a reasonable chance at success).

Just like it was back in 1e and 2e.

Oh yeah! Forgot that!

Is is the best thing about 5e... The mindset that you don't need to follow the book. This is the biggest advantage of 5e over 3e and 4e.

Like the TSR slogan... Products of Your Imagination.

[Lines]

No feats, no skills, no skyrocket abilities, simpler monsters, no magic item dependency... the list goes on.

I only miss the lesser ability modifier of B/X.

Agreed on the lack of magic item dependency, the best thing 5e did was get rid of the numbers treadmill (and one of the worst is adding in things like +3 weapons and belts that give you 29 strength, breaking their own carefully established bounded accuracy).

[ad_hoc]

Magic items are special/break the game/make characters more powerful.

[Lines]

Magic items are special/break the game/make characters more powerful.

Not quite sure what you mean there, elaborate?

[JumboWheat01]

My only experience with "old" DnD is withe the two Baldur's Gate games, so I can't compare too much. In Baldur's Gate, it feels more like I pick a class and can enjoy it through out the whole campaign. None of this 'take a splash of this' or 'you need to multi-class with that' in order to feel like your character is any good.

In 5e, I like the feeling each class gives, and all the kits the classes have help improve the classes without forcing thrm to become another class. 3e seemed to be all about the multi-classing, while 4e had classes too similar to each other.

[Segev]

I love that my players are no longer constrained to the character sheet. If they want to try something not on their character sheet, they have a reasonable chance at success. If they want to try something outside the box, they have a reasonable chance at success. They've stopped thinking that if its not specifically allowed, they can't do it (or won't have a reasonable chance at success).

Just like it was back in 1e and 2e.


Oh yeah! Forgot that!

Is is the best thing about 5e... The mindset that you don't need to follow the book. This is the biggest advantage of 5e over 3e and 4e.

Like the TSR slogan... Products of Your Imagination.

Okay, the shift in attitude is a fair thing to appreciate. I will point out that "there aren't rules to cover it, so make something up" is not absent from 3e. If it's not on the stat page, you can try it just as well in 3e as in 5e. I'm honestly not sure what you think you can do in 5e that you can't in 3e based on this.

But again, the fact that the attitude is less rigid might be all you need to encourage the players to TRY this more, so if that's what you mean, I'm with you.

[MaxWilson]

Okay, the shift in attitude is a fair thing to appreciate. I will point out that "there aren't rules to cover it, so make something up" is not absent from 3e. If it's not on the stat page, you can try it just as well in 3e as in 5e. I'm honestly not sure what you think you can do in 5e that you can't in 3e based on this.

It might have something to do with not wanting improv to step on class abilities' toes. Let's say a fighter wants to throw caution to the winds and go kamikaze. I can grant him advantage on all his attacks, but enemies get advantage to hit him. Sounds totally reasonably except... Now the Barbarian's 2nd level feature is pointless. Either I edit the Barbarian to improve him, or I tell the fighter, "No, you can't do that because you don't have that power." Editing the Barbarian is more work and I bet most DMs would just choose to tell the fighter "No."

The more crunch/splatbook bloat you have in the game, the more this will happen and the less free players will free to improvise.

[Segev]

It might have something to do with not wanting improv to step on class abilities' toes. Let's say a fighter wants to throw caution to the winds and go kamikaze. I can grant him advantage on all his attacks, but enemies get advantage to hit him. Sounds totally reasonably except... Now the Barbarian's 2nd level feature is pointless. Either I edit the Barbarian to improve him, or I tell the fighter, "No, you can't do that because you don't have that power." Editing the Barbarian is more work and I bet most DMs would just choose to tell the fighter "No."

The more crunch/splatbook bloat you have in the game, the more this will happen and the less free players will free to improvise.

Alright, that's about what I was thinking it was.

It's interesting that you used a 5e example, though, when the assertion is that 5e - due to having fewer rules - has less of that. It obviously doesn't invalidate the claim, but it's a bit undermining in a debate sense.

[Lines]

It might have something to do with not wanting improv to step on class abilities' toes. Let's say a fighter wants to throw caution to the winds and go kamikaze. I can grant him advantage on all his attacks, but enemies get advantage to hit him. Sounds totally reasonably except... Now the Barbarian's 2nd level feature is pointless. Either I edit the Barbarian to improve him, or I tell the fighter, "No, you can't do that because you don't have that power." Editing the Barbarian is more work and I bet most DMs would just choose to tell the fighter "No."

The more crunch/splatbook bloat you have in the game, the more this will happen and the less free players will free to improvise.

That's really not the case. More crunch and splatbooks (I'm not using bloat, that's an incredibly loaded term) means everyone has more choices, and gives you a baseline to judge such effects on - you know the barbarian can get advantage and have enemies have advantage against him at will. That's the baseline, so for a fighter who is less used to channeling such reckless ferocity you give him the barbarian ability but have him take a level of exhaustion at the end of the encounter or you rule that he has to fuel it by using up his second wind ability.

If the player wants to do something and a similar ability already exists, that's a good thing. You have a baseline for someone who specialises in that very thing, now give the person wanting do to it who isn't trained in it or used to doing it the opportunity to do it but weaken it or add a downside or give it extra costs.

[mephnick]

Alright, that's about what I was thinking it was.

It's interesting that you used a 5e example, though, when the assertion is that 5e - due to having fewer rules - has less of that. It obviously doesn't invalidate the claim, but it's a bit undermining in a debate sense.

It just shows that any kind of system can have this problem. 5e has a few for sure.

3.5 has a lot.

[mephnick]

More crunch and splatbooks (I'm not using bloat, that's an incredibly loaded term) means everyone has more choices...

...during character creation.

After character creation, RAW dictating how everything must be done inherently limits all other characters not built to satisfy it.

[MaxWilson]

Alright, that's about what I was thinking it was.

It's interesting that you used a 5e example, though, when the assertion is that 5e - due to having fewer rules - has less of that. It obviously doesn't invalidate the claim, but it's a bit undermining in a debate sense.

That might be because, coming from AD&D as I do, 5E does appear to have rather a lot of that. I see it as a WotC thing and a definite negative to 5E, but one that so far I've been able to work around well enough to not throw out 5E. 5E has a lot of WotC-isms like that--you can definitely tell that it's made by the same company as Magic: the Gathering and not by TSR or Gygax.

[Segev]

It is related to, but not quite exactly, the Air-Breathing Mermaid problem.

To put it in D&D-like context, imagine that mermaids were a playable race in the core book. They have the obvious problem of moving around on land, and the obvious advantage of being able to breathe water. It is only later, say in the Elemental Evil expansion, that a new feat for them is introduced: Air-Breathing. It states that those who take this feat, unlike other mermaids, can breathe air and do not suffocate if out of the water. The issue here is that, prior to this book, nothing suggested mermaids couldn't breathe air! Introducing this feat didn't expand their abilities; it gave them a tax to be able to function in all areas they might have been assumed to, before.

Every time you codify a new trick, stunt, etc. in the rules, especially if you make it cost a feat or a spell or something to pull off, you narrow the possible actions for people to "make up" and take. It's not quite the same thing, because there wasn't a specified way to do it at all in the rules, before (whereas the mermaid may well have assumed she could breathe air until the rules "allowing" her to do so revealed that she couldn't before).

But it's a potential problem. I think, though, it's also justified: before, there weren't rules at all for such things, and thus it was total improve. Which may not be a DM's forte. After all, he is running a system he didn't invent whole cloth.

[Lines]

...during character creation.

After character creation, RAW dictating how everything must be done inherently limits all other characters not built to satisfy it.

That's the direct opposite of what I just said, in which more options give the DM a guide for rules to use when a character wants to improvise - 'all right you want your fighter to go all out and attack recklessly - well, let's see here, the barbarian has basically that exact thing, so I know the baseline strength for someone who specialises in it - you don't, so I'll give you a modified version with this extra cost/downside/weakness'. Don't get me wrong, you're allowed to disagree with me, but when I say 'A is so, for these reasons' saying 'no, B is so' without giving any reasons yourself is a bit pointless.

And it's not just more options in character creation. By definition, the more options we have to choose from the more we can actually do - so while the amount of options a character has might stay the same (though hopefully not, I'm really hoping we get a martial class with proper options) a greater potential range of options means you're more likely to have options that fit the character you wanted.


Every time you codify a new trick, stunt, etc. in the rules, especially if you make it cost a feat or a spell or something to pull off, you narrow the possible actions for people to "make up" and take. It's not quite the same thing, because there wasn't a specified way to do it at all in the rules, before (whereas the mermaid may well have assumed she could breathe air until the rules "allowing" her to do so revealed that she couldn't before).

But it's a potential problem. I think, though, it's also justified: before, there weren't rules at all for such things, and thus it was total improve. Which may not be a DM's forte. After all, he is running a system he didn't invent whole cloth.

As stated that's a good thing, not a bad thing. The more codified tricks and stunts there are the more baselines the DM has to work with and the more he has a good idea of the cost - if it's a feat then it's powerful enough that you'll need a weakened version or a hefty downside. The more of the game is codified, the more the DM has a quick reference for an outlandish trick a player might want to perform.

[brainface]

Goofy monsters in the monsters manual. The flumph, mephits!, modrons!!

Subclasses also feel like 2e kits done right, to me.

[MaxWilson]

...during character creation.

After character creation, RAW dictating how everything must be done inherently limits all other characters not built to satisfy it.

Precisely. WotC tends to want to shift more choices to character creation, before the game starts. I think that's a telltale sign of their MtG background.

WotC's been in control so long that there are many players who think this is the only way to play it, and then get upset when they can't make fighters that "use intelligence" in combat because there are no Int-based powers for fighters. Le sigh.


It is related to, but not quite exactly, the Air-Breathing Mermaid problem.

That's a good analogy. Yes, very similar.

[Lines]

Precisely. WotC tends to want to shift more choices to character creation, before the game starts. I think that's a telltale sign of their MtG background.

WotC's been in control so long that there are many players who think this is the only way to play it, and then get upset when they can't make fighters that "use intelligence" in combat because there are no Int-based powers for fighters. Le sigh.

It's mostly a problem because they made an int based fighter and it was fun as hell, while 5e has nothing like it. And you do realise codified rules are good, right? It gives a useful baseline and means the game has less 'mother may I?' - if you try to improvise a maneuver you may be told that what you're trying is way too strong while if you animate 30 skeletons the DM can't really say 'no that's too much damage'.

The rules will never cover everything, and that's fine. It'd be way too complicated if they did, this is why we have humans that can improvise running the game - but 'we can just improvise x' is not the answer to things like why are there no intelligence using martials, if you thought it was you'd be playing a freeform game.


Goofy monsters in the monsters manual. The flumph, mephits!, modrons!!

Subclasses also feel like 2e kits done right, to me.

Aside from flumphs only appearing as an April fool's joke in 4e, have there been any edition those monsters didn't appear in at some point?

[hymer]

Precisely. WotC tends to want to shift more choices to character creation, before the game starts. I think that's a telltale sign of their MtG background.

I see what you mean. But isn't that the direction Gygax was taking the rules, anyway? In 1st edition, after character creation, a fighter is done making character choices, IIRC.

Edit: Having looked it up, I see 2nd edition options after character creation; dual-classing and proficiencies gained after character creation. These don't show up in my 1st edition PHB. The D&D Rules Cyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Rules_Cyclopedia), which is also TSR and not Gygax, also has General Skills, which are similar to NWPs, but somewhat broader in scope. And here fighters e.g. get to choose between advancing from name level as Avengers, Knights or Paladins, as their alignment indicates.

[themaque]

Everyone is going on how all your choices front loaded is a WotC thing. In the basic handbook I don't remember a ton of choices for my 2nd edition Fighter.

Heck I find myself with more meaningful choices as I level in 5th than I did in most of my experience in 2nd edition.

I do like the feel of being smaller people going against bigger odds in 5th.
I do agree the system encourages you to try new things.
I like that I can mostly ignore the big fancy sword and stick to the one my Grandfather gave me as my 16th birthday present my entire career. (less dependent on Magic Items)

[Oramac]

As a player, that you can play with no magic items at all.

As a DM, the fact that ACs actually mean something concrete. It's not just a numbers game. A.C. 15 means "hard as rock, but not steel."

I agree that bounded accuracy is mechanically superior to THACO or any of that other crap.

That being said, I disagree that AC gives a meaningful definition for a characters toughness.

I tend to play characters using Great Weapons (Greatsword/Greataxe/Maul), and because of that I take a -2 penalty to AC for not using a shield. Which is fine. The problem is that with the B.A. system, a 15-16 AC is significantly easier to hit than a 17-18 AC.

So while my Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin might roleplay like he's hard as a rock, he plays like he's made of jell-o.

[Roderick_BR]

Agreeing with the simpler skill checks (ranks are a mess in 3.x), and that all number crunching is so much smaller now instead of the "+47 to attack, AC 58, 75% chance to miss anyway".

Bounded Accuracy also brings back meaningful battles. You needed to maneuver among monsters to chip away and outlast them instead of rockettagging and killing stuff in one hit like 3.5 became.

Magic items, as was mentioned, are not imporant tools, but an eventual boost to a character. You could say, get a +5 fire/ice/shock sword and a +5 heavy fortification armor and several stats enhancing items, and if you didn't, you were underpowered.
Now finding a +3 weapon is an awesome, but not fully needed boon to the character. You got a Giant Strenth Belt? You hit the motherload! You didn't? You'll survive.

Then they mix it well with Class Features from 3.x. AD&D had then for some classes, but since 3.x all of them get these, and this time each class gains something every level, so it's not boring anymore. In fact, the reason to level up are to gain new powes, not just increase numbers (HP, attack roll, saves).

And the new spellcasting format is pretty much what many groups had houserulled, which makes making casters easier, while not (too) much overpowered like 3.x was.

[MaxWilson]

I see what you mean. But isn't that the direction Gygax was taking the rules, anyway? In 1st edition, after character creation, a fighter is done making character choices, IIRC.

Edit: Having looked it up, I see 2nd edition options after character creation; dual-classing and proficiencies gained after character creation. These don't show up in my 1st edition PHB. The D&D Rules Cyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Rules_Cyclopedia), which is also TSR and not Gygax, also has General Skills, which are similar to NWPs, but somewhat broader in scope. And here fighters e.g. get to choose between advancing from name level as Avengers, Knights or Paladins, as their alignment indicates.

I'm not understanding your point. Maybe you could rephrase it.

In AD&D, parrying and disarming are things you do, not things you are. Systems like GURPS go even farther in this direction, where most combat maneuvers are generic and available to anyone, although you can specialize to be better at a signature move. WotC usually makes it illegal to do things you're not specialized in, although the DMG has a Disarm variant available to anyone.

How does being able to dual-class in AD&D constitute a counterexample to that point.

[hymer]

I'm not understanding your point. Maybe you could rephrase it.

In AD&D, parrying and disarming are things you do, not things you are. Systems like GURPS go even farther in this direction, where most combat maneuvers are generic and available to anyone, although you can specialize to be better at a signature move. WotC usually makes it illegal to do things you're not specialized in, although the DMG has a Disarm variant available to anyone.

How does being able to dual-class in AD&D constitute a counterexample to that point.

Well, I was talking about Gygax. You said (my emphases)


That might be because, coming from AD&D as I do, 5E does appear to have rather a lot of that. I see it as a WotC thing and a definite negative to 5E, but one that so far I've been able to work around well enough to not throw out 5E. 5E has a lot of WotC-isms like that--you can definitely tell that it's made by the same company as Magic: the Gathering and not by TSR or Gygax.

And


WotC tends to want to shift more choices to character creation, before the game starts. I think that's a telltale sign of their MtG background.

It seems to me the trend with Gygax at the helm is the same. He adds more classes with predefined progression and no choices in their further development. So instead of a fighting man, we have fighter, paladin and ranger (you might even lump monk in there). These all have more specialized abilities. Rangers are the best example for what I'm trying to say. They get wilderness survival and stealth, and a smattering of various spells.
So before this, the table might want someone to look for tracks, and anyone could decide to try that, and it'd be up to the DM how to handle it. You might be a really competent tracker as a fighter. But after 1st edition, only rangers can do this.
2nd edition (without Gygax in the credits) moved this back at least to a degree, because anyone could take the NWP and be a tracker. Same sort of thing in Rules Cyclopedia (also sans Gygax) with General Skills. Or a fighter could dual class in 2e and pick up some Thief skills. In 1e he should've picked a ranger from level 1.

So what I was trying to get at is that I'm not so sure the further specialization, the moving towards 'only-this-class-can-do-that-thing', isn't what Gygax was doing, and the logical next step for him if he had remained in control may well have been to continue along those lines.

[brainface]

Aside from flumphs only appearing as an April fool's joke in 4e, have there been any edition those monsters didn't appear in at some point?
They've not been in the first monsters manual in some time. (Ever? I didn't play in the 1e days.) So they're not in some obscure source and never mentioned elsewhere, they're right in the wild mage table (along with modrons!) That is, being in the original monsters manual gives them much greater potential impact on the game?

[Lines]

They've not been in the first monsters manual in some time. (Ever? I didn't play in the 1e days.) So they're not in some obscure source and never mentioned elsewhere, they're right in the wild mage table (along with modrons!) That is, being in the original monsters manual gives them much greater potential impact on the game?

They've never been in the first monster manual, no. Nor have modrons. Them being in the monster manual isn't an old school aspect of 5e, it's entirely new.

[brainface]

They've never been in the first monster manual, no. Nor have modrons. Them being in the monster manual isn't an old school aspect of 5e, it's entirely new.

Well I guess I'm just wrong. Sorry?

[themaque]

Well I guess I'm just wrong. Sorry?

Sorry is not good enough, and you shall now be punished.

Fetch, THE COMFY CHAIR!

[Lines]

Well I guess I'm just wrong. Sorry?

Not sure what to say here. If it's a thread about what old-school aspect of 5e do you like (what's the cutoff there, by the way?) and someone says they like something new, should I not point out that it's new?

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Not sure what to say here. If it's a thread about what old-school aspect of 5e do you like (what's the cutoff there, by the way?) and someone says they like something new, should I not point out that it's new?

It does come across as needlessly pedantic since this isn't a debate thread. It's more of a love-in.

[Lines]

It does come across as needlessly pedantic since this isn't a debate thread. It's more of a love-in.

But surely this is an even higher form of love - pointing out that they added a new thing that he likes.

[eastmabl]

They've not been in the first monsters manual in some time. (Ever? I didn't play in the 1e days.) So they're not in some obscure source and never mentioned elsewhere, they're right in the wild mage table (along with modrons!) That is, being in the original monsters manual gives them much greater potential impact on the game?

They've shown up in material in all editions, IIRC. I wish I could find my Dungeon magazine with the flumph adventure in it - it'd be a blast to convert to a 1st level 5e adventure.

[themaque]

That being said... Modrons. They seemed to be fazed out for a while, replaced with Fomians, but I'm glad they are back. I LOVE those wacky little mechanical horrors.

Edited to reflect proper monster. Thanks to our friendly neighborhood pedantic. :smallwink:

[Lines]

That being said... Modrons. They seemed to be fazed out for a while, replaced with Fomorians, but I'm glad they are back. I LOVE those wacky little mechanical horrors.

Do you mean fomians, the creepy giant ant people? Fomorians are the twisted giant things.

Man I am just on a roll with the pedantry this thread.

[KorvinStarmast]

I see what you mean. But isn't that the direction Gygax was taking the rules, anyway? In 1st edition, after character creation, a fighter is done making character choices, IIRC.
Nope, and for sure not after Unearthed Arcana came out.

[Zalabim]

What I appreciate is the improvised style actions being more accessible. In 3rd, you had to take multiple feats to try to trip someone, and different ones if you want to disarm them than you do if you want to break something they're holding or push them back. 4th let anyone try these things easier, but they still fell behind as they didn't use any weapon or implement and thus got worse over time due to lacking magic modifiers and a proficiency bonus. So for me, it's not that 5e leaves options undefined to make them accessible, but that the definition of the defined options leaves them more accessible than before. That design bleeds over when people try to come up with new options.

[thepsyker]

Edit: Having looked it up, I see 2nd edition options after character creation; dual-classing and proficiencies gained after character creation. These don't show up in my 1st edition PHB.
Dual Classing was available for humans in the AD&D 1st edition PHB and Wilderness/Dungeon Survival Guides both offered skill proficiency systems.


Edit: The 1st Edition DMG also had a table for Secondary Skills, if I remember right all these were more thematic like Hunter, Armourer, Tracker, etc.

More on topic I would say that in general I feel like there were fewer mechanical options for defining ones character in 1st edition. So it became more about the way the DM decided to rule on whatever particular actions you wanted to take at the moment, "I want to body check him with my shield" "Okay, both make a strength check...You did beter so you slam him up against the wall." that sort of thing. The rules were a lot more free form in a lot of ways.

Edit Edit:I'm pretty sure Flumphs were from the Fiend Folio, which collected a lot of player generated monsters, IIRC.

[hymer]

Dual Classing was available for humans in the AD&D 1st edition PHB and Wilderness/Dungeon Survival Guides both offered skill proficiency systems.

Oh, interesting. Well, the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide I have, but that's not Gygax. It's Douglas Niles, with Gygax only credited as overall game designer, not for any work on that book. He must've okayed it, though.
I still can't seem to find any dual-classing in the PHB. Multi-classing, yes, but not dual. Whereabout should I be looking?

[thepsyker]

Oh, interesting. Well, the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide I have, but that's not Gygax. It's Douglas Niles, with Gygax only credited as overall game designer, not for any work on that book. He must've okayed it, though.
I still can't seem to find any dual-classing in the PHB. Multi-classing, yes, but not dual. Whereabout should I be looking?
Pg. 33, right after the Multi-Classed Character. It is called The Character With Two Classes, but is clearly the predecessor to 2nd edition Dual Classing. Biggest diference I noticed at a glance is you can Dual Class four times, once into each of the basic Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard categories, while the 1st ed. version is a one off.

As for Wilderness and Dungeon Survival Guides, true Gygax didnt write them, but the Introduction for the DSG calls out that non-weapon proficencies were introduced in Oriental Adventures, which honestly I had forgotten was the earlier book, which Gygax did write.* So those were bad examples, but it does look like Gygax was at least involved at some point in the development of non-proficencies.

*or I should say his name is the only one on the cover, two other authors are mentioned as involved in the credit page with David Cook being given credit for "design." So who credit goes to for the idea isn't exactly clear, but it obviously wasn't a development he was opposed to or would have nixed it then.

[hymer]

@ thepsyker: Thank you for the CWTC-directions!
I think the potential to dual-class multiple times in 2e is mostly theoretical anyway, considering the extreme stat requirements even on the first dual-classing.
Gygax did make something very similar to nonweapon proficiencies in Unearthed Arcana, which came out before Dungeoneer's at least. Rowing, running, animal handling, etc. But it struck me as being part of the initial character generation, again. And, of course, tied to a specific class, which is part of the worry that sparked this debate.
I don't think I've even seen 1e Oriental Adventures. Maybe I should consider looking!
Thanks for all your insights, I feel much wiser on 1e for it! :smallsmile: