AD&D 2E Do you consider the Handbooks canon?

[Belen]

One thing I've recently come to appreciate about 2E is how optional a lot of the subsystems were. Easy to add complexity or take it away to customize an experience.
My favorite OSR game (Swords & Wizardry) is similar in that respect. Optional rules are clearly marked.

This. If 5.5 had cleaned up the rules issues and added masteries etc as optional systems, then I would have been happy.

2e really allowed you do customize each campaign.

 

[James Gasik]

I can't imagine playing 2e without at least the Complete Fighter's Handbook.

 

[cbwjm]

I think I don't care. Like, I don't need the complete handbooks but they can bring in some good options I'm not going to complain if they are or aren't used in a campaign. Even if you do decide to use them, it doesn't mean everything in them has to be used, like the core 3 books have optional rules in them, how many used the optional rule of maximum spells per level in 2e? I do like many of the complete handbooks, but they are only as canon/core as you want them to be.

 

[cbwjm]

A few days ago I asked Steve Winter if he could change anything from that book, what would it be. He said since he was in charge of everything, he got to do what he wanted It was a tight time frame to get it out, however, and if there was one thing, it would be to simplify the mechanics.

I would like to see some simpler mechanics, maybe take out rolling to activate powers and definitely removing the whole contact situation. I think you need 3 hits or something to bust into someone's mind.

 

[SableWyvern]

Canon in my games is whatever I decide it is (potentially in consultation with the players although, for the most part, they're happy to just leave the effort of making those assessments to me). That decision is made on a case by case basis -- not merely book-by-book, but section-by-section. If I was running 2e, I may or may not include some kits and rules from some of the Complete handbooks.

The same applies to anything found in the PHB or DMG.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would like to see some simpler mechanics, maybe take out rolling to activate powers and definitely removing the whole contact situation. I think you need 3 hits or something to bust into someone's mind.

Yep. That part was fairly wonky. I don't think it's game breaking to just have the powers available vs. the defenses and skip the 3 successful mind contacts first

 

[MGibster]

For 2e however, the Complete Handbook series wasn't just a collection of optional rules. There were standalones meant to be part of the core game. So that begs the question, do you consider the Complete Handbooks as part of the core game, or an optional expansion? Do you only consider some of them core, like the Fighter's Handbook, while others optional, like the Psionics handbook (by the way, my favorite version of psionics in the game)?

I consider the Complete Handbook series to be optional rules as they weren't really designed for use in every setting. Let's take the Amazon kit from the Complete Book of Fighters. It's been 30 years or so since I've read it, so bear with me, but from what I can recall the Amazon kit gave her some advantage against men who were not accustomed to seeing women fight. Even back in the 1990s, most AD&D settings I played in had women as Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, etc., etc., so for this kit to confer an advantage for women fighting men did not make sense.

I will say the Complete Book series was fantastic with the exception of the Complete Book of Elves (I will curse the Bladesinger kit until the day I die.) I had no use for the Complete Book of Psionics, so will make no judgment about it. My feelings about the series as a whole are overwhelmingly positive as they added some much needed variation to AD&D character classes. I wasn't so keen on the kits from the Thieves book, but I really loved the equipment list.

 

[Tonguez]

They were only there for the Kits innit?
I cant even remember anything else being impactful, so entirely optional sourcebook of possible Kits