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

[Sacrosanct]

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)?

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

Core for me is the core 3 of PHB, DMG, and MM. All other books are options.

 

[Professor Murder]

There is no canon. All rules in the end are optional. That said, some rules are load bearing, that if removed, you are affecting many aspects of play. Nothing in the Handbooks are load bearing.

 

[M.L. Martin]

They were always optional and at DM's discretion, and very few products assumed that they were in use by default, with some exceptions such as Dark Sun and the Complete Psionics Handbook. This is in opposition to Unearthed Arcana, which was treated as in play by several subsequent modules, or the 3.5 revision, which was taken as the baseline going forward. You'd have a stronger case for Tome of Magic as a core book.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

Other = optional rules.

 

[GreyLord]

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)?

View attachment 434960

Are they "Canon" in that they are part of the rules of the game. Yes.

However, they are also, optional. Just like the books detail Gold=XP is an optional rule, or creating your class rules are optional...these are also optional rules that are and can be considered 'canon' in that they would be utilized and organized as default rules in tournaments...etc.

However, unlike the Core three, they are not required for you to play the game or the base game as written. The added rules would be used as a default set of rules of the game with TSR in many instances, but they are not required as core to actually play the game.

Hence, I voted...other.

Edit - At least early on. As time went on and they got more and more rules, some which were contradictory to each other, they got less and less utilized as part of the default rules with the early ones being more 'the full rules inclusive' than many of the later ones.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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)?

View attachment 434960

I always allowed any rules from 2e (and 1e) books, provided they make sense for the setting of the campaign.

 

[Fenris-77]

Those books are awesome, but wildly not balanced. I don't even consider the core rulebooks 'canon', so no, I wouldn't call the handbooks canon.

 

[VashVet]

Those books are awesome, but wildly not balanced. I don't even consider the core rulebooks 'canon', so no, I wouldn't call the handbooks canon.

Agreed. For me, canon comes from in-game play and setting lore, not the rules themselves.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Those books are awesome, but wildly not balanced. I don't even consider the core rulebooks 'canon', so no, I wouldn't call the handbooks canon.

2e taught me how unimportant game balance really is compared to earnest modeling of the setting.