Addicted to buying 1e AD&D Player's Handbooks!

[Mark CMG]

You realize you might be preventing other people from buying it and experiencing 1e without you?

I wonder how many actually still exist?

 

[thedungeondelver]

I wonder how many actually still exist?

You could ask Frank Mentzer; he seems to have a good handle on TSR production info and that might give you some insight.

(Assuming you meant how many Player's Handbooks still existed and not people who prefer older editions )

 

[teitan]

I wonder how many actually still exist?

There are quite a few actually. 1e has yet to be outsold by any later edition outside of the basic boxed set. Some people think they are collectors items but they aren't. They are so common I wouldn't pay more than 5 bucks for one, 7 or 8 with shipping. Also considering that the binding of most 1e books was vastly superior to later editions, you can find them in decent shape with spines intact regularly. The only problem with 1e books is that paper stock they used. It gets dirty easy and yellows easily. That is the hard part of searching for 1e books, finding white, clean pages.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

Actually all of those classes were published in OD&D Supplements. It's interesting, actually, that up through 2nd edition D&D had 4 core classes only. All the other classes were variants on those 4.

Sure, but Diaglo would say, "OD&D three-booklet boxed set (1974) is the one true game. All the supplements that were released after were just pale imitations of the real thing."

 

[howandwhy99]

I guess that means you consider psionics to be alternate wizardry or something? What makes 3E different if the base 4 can be stretched that far?

Psionics was originally an addendum of cool powers for players to gain by chance. It was balanced by removing other powers for the character. In 2E it became a completely separate "special effects" system to parallel magic. I think this happened mainly because so many wanted to play D&D with a magic point system. 3E followed this trend. The XPH is the best incarnation of psionics as a magic point system, but it's still vastly unbalanced and unnecessary IMO.

 

[howandwhy99]

Sure, but Diaglo would say, "OD&D three-booklet boxed set (1974) is the one true game. All the supplements that were released after were just pale imitations of the real thing."

Seeing as we play with these Supplements and a homebrew class and race to boot, I'm going to have to disagree.

 

[JustKim]

Psionics was originally an addendum of cool powers for players to gain by chance. It was balanced by removing other powers for the character. In 2E it became a completely separate "special effects" system to parallel magic. I think this happened mainly because so many wanted to play D&D with a magic point system. 3E followed this trend. The XPH is the best incarnation of psionics as a magic point system, but it's still vastly unbalanced and unnecessary IMO.

Yes, I know where psionics came from. What I'm asking is if you consider all the 1E and 2E classes (including psionics) to be variants of the core 4, what makes 3E different? It seems to me that WotC classes have adhered pretty well to the core 4. At least as well as 2E did, when you count oddities like psionics.

 

[Silver Moon]

Sure, but Diaglo would say, "OD&D three-booklet boxed set (1974) is the one true game. All the supplements that were released after were just pale imitations of the real thing."

I won't disagree, my first gaming group had and used those. Alas, the box with my only copy of those rules are still sealed in the original plastic so I plan to keep it that way to retain the value.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If you can find any of the paperback ones that still have any binding, they should be worth a mint for rarity value!

My paperback PHB became an involuntary loose-leaf version by 1980!

(The UK first editions were all paperback, I believe)

 

[RFisher]

Yes, I know where psionics came from. What I'm asking is if you consider all the 1E and 2E classes (including psionics) to be variants of the core 4, what makes 3E different? It seems to me that WotC classes have adhered pretty well to the core 4. At least as well as 2E did, when you count oddities like psionics.

The only real difference, IMHO, is that 1e & 2e specifically categorized the classes. (Using subclasses in 1e & the superclasses--I forget what they really called them--in 2e.) 3e just dropped the explicit categorization, but the heritage is still there. (At least in 3.0e core.)

(1e & 2e also leveraged the categorization a bit by saying that rule X applied to all fighters (including subclasses) or Warriors.)

As I recall, though, the 1e UA Cavalier was not a subclass of Fighter.