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

[Mannahnin]

When Unearthed Arcana came out for 1e, it was largely considered optional rules, much in the same way Dragon was. Which makes sense, because UA was pretty much pulled from Dragon magazine.

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 don't think I can grant your premise! I know some older and experienced existing DMs exerted their privilege to decline using stuff from Unearthed Arcana, but TSR was quite clear about it being Official Rules, in a distinctly different way at the time from how material in Dragon was presented. Historically they consistently said Dragon stuff was optional and non-official, unless specifically stated otherwise (which was sometimes the case, for example, with new rules content or rulings in Gary's From the Sorcerer's Scroll column). Part of the reasoning behind that position was that most of the expanded rules content printed there was reader-submitted rather than internal TSR design, and of course another reason was availability, since Dragon was not kept continually in print like the official rulebooks were.

A big chunk of the back of UA was indeed directly from Dragon articles (polearms, demi-human deities), but most of the class and race and ability (Comeliness is now the OFFICIAL 7th ability score, unlike Perception, that widely-liked but unofficial spawn of Dragon articles ) rules, weapon specialization, the new spells and spell book rules and magic items, the updated demi-human racial level limits (some of which had previously been released as official errata in Dragon Magazine), etc. were officially Teh Rules.

As for the Complete series, while 2E had a broad stance of rules being modular and up to the DM's judgement to include or exclude, generally those books (Psionics obviously excepted, as someone pointed out) were not marked Optional Rules the way so many rules in the PH and DMG (like critical hits, or XP for gold) were explicitly labeled. I just had a took through the opening pages of the Complete Fighters* and Complete Priests Handbooks to check and make sure.

*(While I was there, interestingly, I was reminded that the CFH recommends that single-class Warrior PCs all start with max HP at 1st level! It tells you they roll normally for higher levels, however, and this doesn't apply to multi-classed or other classes).

 

[Mannahnin]

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

Kits usually took up the bulk of the space, but they often had additional spells, proficiencies, equipment and sometimes other new rules. The Fighters Handbook got a lot of use in part for the extra weapon group and weapon style proficiencies and specializations, especially Two Weapon style and Ambidexterity, to reduce or eliminate penalties for TWF.

 

[James Gasik]

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

Well, the Complete Fighter's Handbook, for example, introduced using Int language slots for weapon proficiencies, four fighting style specializations, martial arts, piecemeal armor, several new weapons, armor damage, called shots, jousting, advice for running themed games (gladiators, swashbucklers, etc..), and probably more I'm forgetting about.

The Kits were mostly lackluster (Barbarian) and some were actively bad (Savage). Some were packed with features, but came with strict rp requirements (Cavalier, Samurai). I think the only ones that I saw get routine use were Myrmidon and Gladiator for the free weapon specializations for any Warrior class (since they weren't Fighter-only Kits).

Later books were a mixed bag- the bits on Elven culture in Complete Elves was nice, for example, but a lot of overpowered Elf-loving nonsense was packed in there as well (Elves with 19 Str?). Complete Ranger had some truly wild ideas (Ranger who can communicate with fish! Ranger who turns into a tree! AD&D Ranger!).

A personal favorite of mine was Complete Humanoids, even though some of the options were...strangely designed, to say the list, and Complete Bards, for giving us Demihuman Bards (because the restriction on who could be a Bard was so nonsensical that Kate Novak wrote several novels including a "Take That!" character, Olive Ruskettle) and some truly wild multiclassed Bard options that I loved to torment my playgroup with.

 

[Marc17]

Never had them. Wasn't impressed with them when they were coming out, as people tended to say they were all over the place and often only picked for some exploit. Don't expect to ever pick them up. If I was to run 2E AD&D again, I wouldn't use or allow them (but when I used to run 2E, I also never bothered to buy the Monstrous Compendium either and just kept using 1E monster books).

 

[haakon1]

I didn’t play deep enough into the 2e era for it to matter, but our approach with UA was that was optional, so the same would have applied, similar to what the OP said.

My history with AD&D:
1982-1988: AD&D 1e player
1988-1989: AD&D 2e player
1984-1986, 1996-2001: AD&D 1e DM
1986-1991: Oriental Adventures DM

Lots of other RPG’s once 2e got me out of the D&D family, until I decided to DM what I wanted with a bunch of folks from whom AD&D = 1e (or were first time players).

 

[Dire Bare]

Of course you don't use it all at once, because it's not all going to be relevant to any given campaign. Just like the rules for warlocks aren't relevant if your game doesn't include any (PC or NPC), or how none of us use every official monster in our games.

And "bad design" is subjective

This.

If I allow "anything" from the PHBR series in my 2E games . . . that doesn't mean my campaign will be flooded with all sorts of crazy, mish-mash ideas. Most of my players will choose pretty vanilla options, or close to, while a few will swing for the fences and go for that one weird ranger kit where the PC developed a third arm . . .

I also agree with "bad design" being subjective. Most folks agree that the PHBR series wasn't the most carefully planned out and balanced but . . . the series wasn't the balance disaster it's often made out to be. It was fine. Well, except for that third-arm ranger . . . .

 

[Gradine]

Nothing is canon unless it happens at the table

 

[Morrus]

I don't understand the use of the word 'canon' here. It's not what I understand canon to mean.

Are they official? Yes. They were published by TSR.

Are they good? Varies. Some were better than others.

Are they optional? Yes, all the books (beyond the PHB, I guess, otherwise you don't have a game) are optional. It would be a weird and very expensive situation where all of the hundreds of 2E books were mandatory. Are you not playing D&D if you're missing one?

Where the term 'canon' fits into that, I don't really know.

 

[Fenris-77]

I fits on the left-hand shoulder pad so it can interface with the tri-laser targeting system.

 

[SableWyvern]

I fits on the left-hand shoulder pad so it can interface with the tri-laser targeting system.

Why do people keep insisting this is the only type of canon?!?!