Very much so – Blindfighting being the most definitive of all examples of this.

Of course, some of 2e’s non-weapon proficiencies did provide some combat bonuses. Off the top of my head, the riding proficiency let you control your mount without using your hands. Nowaday, such an ability would come from a feat rather than a skill.

You don’t get upset that Legend of the Five Rings assumes Southeast-Asian-as-Default, do you?

We’re talking here not about 5e, where WotC made real and concerted efforts to improve on issues of representation. We’re talking specifically about the 2e Complete Fighter’s Handbook, which does exactly as Cuix says. Giving Amazons bonuses based on “men always underestimating them” (even though they should look as fearsome or more fearsome than other female characters) was a retrograde choice at the time, to say nothing of how it looks in 2017. The rest of Cuix’s points are, likewise, exactly what I was talking about.

What is wrong with both of you?

Where is white privilege or anything similar even mentioned, Paul? You’re tainting my morning read with unrelated nonsense.
What the hell does being straight or cisgender have to do with the fact that the 80’s were racist and kinda stupid, Cuix?

These things are in the past and should *stay* there. The example human given in the PHB is a black woman and there’s a section in the character creation chapter giving suggestions on how to subvert gender norms. The industry has by and large moved on from those times.

This conversation is something that shouldn’t just be dumped into unrelated articles.

Funny enough, I’ve got a copy of that book in storage, and I’d forgotten about it until you brought it up. Thanks for the reminder that I need to dig it out and see if it has anything I want to cover!

One other fun fact: older copies of the Dragonlance novel The Second Generation had an extensive appendix with AD&D 2E class information for the Knights of Takhisis, which as far as I’m aware were never reprinted anywhere else! The write-up details class information for the Knights of the Lily (warriors), Knights of the Skull (priests), and Knights of the Thorn (mages). Newer reprintings, insofar as I know, don’t have this information either, so it’s actually rather hard to find nowadays.

This was just one of several instances of Dragonlance novels having game statistics in them, for whatever reason.

Spot on.

I’m gonna say that releasing new parent-class features (i.e., it applies to all Warrior classes) in one particular part of PO:CT is taking “burying the lede” to new and heretofore unseen levels.

On top of that, it’s about trading noncombat potential for combat potential, which is trade players will make approximately 100% of the time. The stakes of noncombat situations vary, but failing in combat situations almost always means someone loses their character. So yeah, not my favorite design decision.

Funny how there’s an Amazon kit, but no male-equivalent, making it clear that women warriors will always be the odd ones. Funny how the special benefit Amazons get is being underestimated, as if the rules are specifically saying that any other female warrior *should* be considered lesser by default (since they aren’t the super special Amazon; it even says that non-Amazon female warriors should check with their DM!).

Notice, too, how the Barbarian and Beast Rider are outsiders. Savages. Strange and “animal”. Makes sense from a white cishet European default, doesn’t it? “This is not the barbarian of history, but of fantasy fiction,” as though the fantasy fiction they read didn’t already start from a very specific perspective. “The Cavalier is the ultimate mounted warrior of civilized cultures” is said without a hint of irony or self-awareness.

Don’t be a dumbass. Those books DID show their time, and the perspectives of their creators. The biases are plain and obvious. Nerds getting defensive about this sort of thing helps literally nobody, and is the main reason that geek/nerd circles are losing their greatest qualities: acceptance, inclusivity, safety, and awareness.

Player’s Option: Combat & Tactics confirms that only members of the Warrior group (i.e. fighters, paladins, and rangers) can spend bonus proficiency slots from a high Intelligence score on weapon proficiencies or non-weapon proficiencies. All other characters can spend them on non-weapon proficiencies only, if I remember correctly.