WotC Announces 1st Edition AD&D Reprints Benefiting Gygax Memorial

[Enevhar Aldarion]

When I was talking about errata earlier, I was talking about official errata that was put out by TSR, not some new "errata" that someone at WOTC thinks should be in the books. Duh

For example, there was official errata published in Dragon #35 for earlier printings that I am assuming was incorporated into later printings of the books. But was there any more official TSR errata published after the final printings of these three books were released that should be included in these new printings?

[Jerry Wright 307]

I can't say if the errata was in it, but the last printing of 1E was in July of 1990, and Dragon #35 was printed in 1980. So if they did incorporate the errata in any previous printing, it'll be in the Reprints.

[Jerry Wright 307]

I just did a check of my Monster Manual, which is labeled "Fourth Edition, August 1979". It doesn't have the Dragon #35 errata, but the PDF copy I bought from Drive-Thru RPG (also labeled "Fourth Edition, August 1979") does. So they were incorporating errata in the PDFs, at least.

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Alright, just for the heck of it, I called WOTC customer service to ask them about which printing was being used. The guy that answered said the versions of the books being reprinted are the original 1st printings, not the final printings of the books. I guess that makes sense, since the item details say the reprints include all the original interior art and it would be very hard to use updated text with the original art, as the formatting would be all off. Now that makes me wonder if there was ever any other official errata published besides what was in Dragon 35. I would think there was, since there was 10 years in between Dragon 35 and the final printing of the PHB, as you pointed out.

[Stefan Hill]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

If the people at Knights & Knaves can't grasp this, then they haven't read the DMG section on Combat as thoroughly as they should.

Ok so far so good. Now explain the interaction of Fighters with multiple attacks, spell casting, and speed factors...

For example, a Fighter always strikes first if they have multiple attacks, but does this count when faced with a spell caster i.e. do we apply sub-rules for caster vs melee?

I personally say no, the fighter just strikes, as technically the spell hasn't begun to be cast because we aren't in the first segment of the round yet. Others say the round starts at declaration so the spell is in the process of being cast. Under my thinking the caster can not loose their spell from a 'before initiative' attack, where as under the other spell can be lost. Which is correct?

"4. The only real exception is when there is a true tie in the initiative roll."

In which case speed factors of the weapons were compared with a dagger stabbing a 2H-sword guy multiple times before they got to strike.

I'll look over the rules again and give examples - this isn't to trip you up I m interested in hearing how your group handled these situations. We found the more we looked the more of a rabbit hole we went down. It didn't help that Gygax himself sort of made stuff up as he went while DMing.

S.

[Jerry Wright 307]

I don't remember any changes to the artwork over the years. I own three print copies of the 1E DMG, two with the original David C. Sutherland III cover (City of Brass) and one with the Jeff Easley cover (Gates of Hell, orange spine). Internally, they're identical, down to the Gencon ad on page 235, even though I bought the first one in late 1979, and the Easley cover edition was printed in the late '80s. All three say they're the December, 1979 Revised Edition.

[memorax]

Raven Shadowz wrote:

If WOTC really wanted to honor him then it should come out of their own pocket not have gamers paying for it, as for as I'm concerned AD&D will never be a trademark of WOTC, it was a TSR product that was dropped when Mr. Gygax left the company. If this new book has WOTC instead of TSR that does not make it a reprint, I saw where it said the Players Handbook had only 112 pages, the orginal has 128 pages so how can it be a reprint?

This makes no sense. Not only should Wotc print the books they should give them away for free. How many companies you know just give stuff away. Espcially when wotc stands to lose 100-120$ on all three books.

[Jerry Wright 307]

Stefan Hill wrote:

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

If the people at Knights & Knaves can't grasp this, then they haven't read the DMG section on Combat as thoroughly as they should.
Ok so far so good. Now explain the interaction of Fighters with multiple attacks, spell casting, and speed factors...

For example, a Fighter always strikes first if they have multiple attacks, but does this count when faced with a spell caster i.e. do we apply sub-rules for caster vs melee?

I'll look over the rules again and give examples - this isn't to trip you up I m interested in hearing how your group handled these situations. We found the more we looked the more of a rabbit hole we went down. It didn't help that Gygax himself sort of made stuff up as he went while DMing.

The situation with a spell caster is dependent on what spell he's casting.

Spellcasters have to deal with spell casting times. Spells in 1E were measures in Segments (six seconds long, 10 to a round), Rounds (1 minute long), Turns (10 minutes long) and sometimes even longer. But spells taking longer than a round to cast generally aren't combat spells.

When a caster begins a spell, whatever his side rolled on the d6 is his starting point. If his spell takes 4 segments to cast, and his side started on a 5, then his spell goes off on 2 (5-4-3-2).

There are two problems a 1E spellcaster has to face (and these really shouldn't have been dropped in later editions - they help to deal with the power creep of spellcasters very well).

First, the spellcaster has to declare what spell he is casting before the initiative die is rolled each round. So he won't know when he'll be able to start casting.

Second, he has to follow the combat casting rules. That means he cannot move (not even at a walk), he cannot use his Dexterity Armor class adjustment, and any successful attack interrupts his spell (no Concentration checks allowed).

So if the caster wants to cast a 4 segment spell, and his side wins the initiative, he has to begin casting on the initiative roll (no delaying allowed). Once the spell casting has begun, the spell slot is lost, even if the spell is interrupted. If his side rolld a 1 initiative, then his spell begins on 1, and goes off next round on 8 (1-10-9-8).

For many spells, this is a good thing, because the enemy won't be able to interrupt him (they've already gone before he beings to cast, because they can't delay, either, and they won't be able to act next round until segment 6 at the earliest - unless they have missile weapons and high dexterity).

As far as the fighter with multiple attacks is concerned, if a caster begins a spell after his first attack, he wouldn't be able to interrupt unless the casting time lasts past the end of the round, because iterative attacks occur at the end of everything (even if he has more than one extra attack in a round due to haste).

We objected strongly to the rigidly structured round in the old days ("It isn't realistic!"). But looking back on it, it lends a lot of texture to the game that modern editions sorely miss, IMHO.

[Jerry Wright 307]

It has been brought to my attention (by a kibbutzing over-the-shoulder reader whom I tolerate because she smells wonderful), that I haven't mentioned how I know that a round is 10 segments long.

This is an unfortunate aspect of Gygax's style, which in some ways hasn't been corrected in later editions; you have to read the whole rulesset to get all the information you need.

The number of segments in a round can be inferred from the comment in the Surprise section of the combat rules on pg 61, where it notes that a segment is six seconds long. But the real note comes from the PHB, pg 43, under the section on Spell Explanations. In the discussion of Castine Time, it notes that there are 10 segements in a round, and 10 melee rounds in a turn.

[Stefan Hill]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

So if the caster wants to cast a 4 segment spell, and his side wins the initiative, he has to begin casting on the initiative roll (no delaying allowed). Once the spell casting has begun, the spell slot is lost, even if the spell is interrupted. If his side rolld a 1 initiative, then his spell begins on 1, and goes off next round on 8 (1-10-9-8).

How about the cryptic paragraph in "which ever is appropriate". Sorry I don't have my DMG here - but it's the bottom paragraph on the right hand column under the paragraph on speed factor and tied initiatives (from memory)? It would seem that casting starts either on your side OR the other sides initiative.

I'll need to get out the DMG. BUT, this aside I think that AD&D had layers of rules that were glossed over in many games (due to Gyaxian phrases). If you can fathom them the game is quite unique, yet devoid of a lot of rule-bloat found in newer games that serve to add very little to the role-playing experience.

I really do hope that sales are HUGE and that WotC thinks that retro is in and they OWN the originals. Bringing out 1e is a great idea.

WotC even without the memorial attached (which is great) I think you are doing the RPG world a favor. I think 'newer' players have had drummed into them that somehow 1e is worse than 3.5e/PF/4e because those later games are newer. It'll be great for the next generation to think that 1e is contemporary rather than a museum piece. 1e IS NOT better or worse then 3.5e/PF/4e, it is just a different way to play. Now I will say depending on the game type wanted 1e can either be better (by lots) or worse (by lots) than 3.5e/PF/4e.

Still them young'ns all over my lawn may finally get to experience the books that made RPGing a life long hobby of mine.

Hats off to you WotC,
S.

[Jerry Wright 307]

You have editied, Stefan. I almost didn't see what you'd added.

Stefan Hill wrote:

I personally say no, the fighter just strikes, as technically the spell hasn't begun to be cast because we aren't in the first segment of the round yet. Others say the round starts at declaration so the spell is in the process of being cast. Under my thinking the caster can not loose their spell from a 'before initiative' attack, where as under the other spell can be lost. Which is correct?

"4. The only real exception is when there is a true tie in the initiative roll."

In which case speed factors of the weapons were compared with a dagger stabbing a 2H-sword guy multiple times before they got to strike.

In the question of the fighter versus the spell caster, my previous post addressed this. The fighter's first attack can't come before his party's initiative, and the spellcaster can't begin casting his spell before his party's initiative. So it's a matter of when the fighter's attack falls, whether during the casting time or not. Later attacks aren't a consideration because they come at the end of the round (unless the casting time overlaps the end of the round).

Weapon speed factors are problematic, because they tend to mess with the structure of the round. They ignore normal initiative rolls, and use the following to determine when attacks take place:

They also tend to very severely punish the slower-speed weapons. I have to note this is an optional aspect of the rules very few DMs used.

Just having a faster weapon means you go first. A dagger (speed factor 2) versus pretty much any other weapon can go first. Against a weapon with a speed factor of 4 or better (twice the dagger's SF), the dagger can be used twice before the other weapon can be deployed. A fist, on the other hand, has a speed factor of 1, and is the fastest weapon in the game. Monks in 1E need to remember that.

But there is an aspect of the rules little understood. That is the rule of five. Against any weapon with a SF twice that of your own weapon, you get two attacks before your opponent. But a weapon three times as slow doesn't grant you three attacks. Not even for a fist.

What the rule of five states is that, as long as the slower speed factor is twice that of the faster, or five points greater, then the faster weapon gets two attacks before the slower can be used. If the difference is ten points, the weapon can have three attacks to the slower weapon's one, but the third attack has to come simultaneously with the slower weapon's attack.

Theoretically, the rule of five would let you get three extra attacks against a weapon with a speed factor fifteen points greater, but such weapons are not described in the PHB. The slowest weapon is the Awl pike, with a SF of 13. Which means only the bo stick, dagger, fist, jo stick and short sword are fast enough to get two extra attacks against the pike.

But there's a theory that suggests that the fist, with a SF of 1, is a natural weapon. And therefore, natural weapons universally have a SF of 1. Which gives a lot of monsters a lot of extra attacks. Not something a lot of players would tolerate.

As far as Speed Factors versus spell casting is concerned, this is not my favorite Gygaxian abstraction. Spellcasting still requires the initiative roll, so Gygax tried to simulate the effect of speed factors by subtracting the losing die roll from the speed factor of the weapon, and taking the absolute value of the result.

For example, if a weapon has a speed factor of 3 and a 5 was rolled, the result is a 2. (3-5=-2, absolute value is 2.) If the initiative roll was a 1, the result would still be a 2 (3-1=2). So for the range of 1-5, with a speed factor 3 weapon, the result is no greater than 2 (3-4=-1, abs.=1; 3-3=0; 3-2=1, etc.).

The result is compared to the casting time of the spell. If it is equal to or less than the spell's casting time, the spell is interrupted, assuming a successful attack. If it is greater than the spell's casting time, the attack took place before the casting began (which could theoretically prevent the spell, if the spellcaster is killed or otherwise incapacitated).

This seems to be a little complicated and certainly counter-intuitive. Why Gygax chose to do this is not within my understanding. It is possible he wanted a randomness to the fighter-vs.-spellcaster conflict. Simply consdidering the spell's casting time to be a speed factor would have made things simpler, but there are a lot of 1- and 2-segment spells out there, and he might have wanted the spellcasters to worry.

[Stefan Hill]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

The fighter's first attack can't come before his party's initiative

Yes it can. If the Fighter has multiple attacks (3/2, 2/1, or 5/2) - see a couple of pages back from where you are looking regards speed factors.

Again apologies for being vague on page numbers my DMG is at home.

Also you need remember that reach counts for weapons and that speed factors count only on ties after closing. Which makes it make a lot of sense!

See, this is what I mean - the rules are a little spread and sometimes not the clearest. However, in part, this makes 1e AD&D such a great game.

S.

[Jerry Wright 307]

You're referring to Simultaneous Initiative, perhaps? That's just a matter of breaking ties. The speed factors only come into play when the opponents are both using weapons, and they have the same initiative.

As for charging into melee or closing, the longer weapon balances out the faster weapon, and the Speed Factors are ignored. They only are used after the initial round when melee is engaged. The longer weapon attacks first. In addition, the charging attacker gains a +2 to hit.

Under "melee At End of Charge", there is a note about Weapon length and first strike being detailed under the "Strike Blows" section, but that is a misreference. The only mention of first strike and weapon length in in the paragraph that note is found in, which says what I noted above. Under Strike Blows, it merely says that weapon length affacts who goes first when closing or charging.

And the way that Multiple attacks affects initiative is detailed in the paragraph titles "Initiative For Creatures with Multiple Attack Routines" in the Initiative section.

Like you said, the rules are spread out. One of the great problems with 1E is that Gygax was in dire need of a proofreader who was a gamer. I suspect that whoever did it for him was a great spell-checker, though. Don't find too many typos.

I can just imagine what 1E would have been like if Gygax had a computer to put it all together...

[Jerry Wright 307]

I realized what you meant about multiple attacks. Yes, if a fighter has multiple attacks, and the other party does not, it is assumed that fighter's party goes first in the round.

And if one side has a fighter with three attacks to the other party's one attack, then the fighter's attacks first, an initiative roll determines the middle attack versus the opponents, and then the fighter attacks last.

Keep in mind you can substitute any creature with multiple attacks (even monsters) for the word "fighter" above.

These posts I'm making are extraordinarily long. I'm having trouble figuring out what I've mentioned and what I haven't.

I guess I need a proofreader.

My beautiful kibbitzer, alas, has left for book club. She wouldn't do it anyway. She's 3E all the way.

EDIT: I just realized I didn't address something else. Weapon Speed Factors, and those extra attacks you get... they only come into play when SFs are used to break an initiative tie. If a character with a slow weapon gets the initiative on a character with a fast weapon, the SF comparison does not occur.

[Snorter]

Snorter wrote:

+ The very idea that anyone would even consider the possibility of 'group initiative' makes my head spin. If I'm playing a Dex 19 elf, I fail to see why I should go last in the round, simply because I chose to befriend Fatty McPieFace(Dex 3), prior to travelling into the dungeon.

Or, conversely, why Fatty and his friends should ignore their rotundness and lack of agility, due to having made friends with me.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I do want to point out that you can roll a 1 on the d20 in the same round Fatty rolls a 20... :)

True, but that reflects that individual failing, at that one moment, to be aware of their surroundings, rather than being forever slowed down by association with Fatty (who, if he rolled a 20 for initiative, probably just happened to be looking in the right direction, thinking he could smell a pie...).

[Pual]

Snorter wrote:

Snorter wrote:

+ The very idea that anyone would even consider the possibility of 'group initiative' makes my head spin. If I'm playing a Dex 19 elf, I fail to see why I should go last in the round, simply because I chose to befriend Fatty McPieFace(Dex 3), prior to travelling into the dungeon.

Or, conversely, why Fatty and his friends should ignore their rotundness and lack of agility, due to having made friends with me.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I do want to point out that you can roll a 1 on the d20 in the same round Fatty rolls a 20... :)

True, but that reflects that individual failing, at that one moment, to be aware of their surroundings, rather than being forever slowed down by association with Fatty (who, if he rolled a 20 for initiative, probably just happened to be looking in the right direction, thinking he could smell a pie...).

You have to remember that in 1st edition each round lasted 1 minute and was meant to include lots of ripostes, parries etc. and 1 (or however many multiple attacks) actual chance of hitting so going before Fatty because you're quicker doesn't really make a lot of sense..

[Pual]

not that any initiative rules ever make much sense - if you're so much quicker than fatty why don't you get more attacks?

[Stefan Hill]

Snorter wrote:

Snorter wrote:

+ The very idea that anyone would even consider the possibility of 'group initiative' makes my head spin. If I'm playing a Dex 19 elf, I fail to see why I should go last in the round, simply because I chose to befriend Fatty McPieFace(Dex 3), prior to travelling into the dungeon.

Or, conversely, why Fatty and his friends should ignore their rotundness and lack of agility, due to having made friends with me.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I do want to point out that you can roll a 1 on the d20 in the same round Fatty rolls a 20... :)

True, but that reflects that individual failing, at that one moment, to be aware of their surroundings, rather than being forever slowed down by association with Fatty (who, if he rolled a 20 for initiative, probably just happened to be looking in the right direction, thinking he could smell a pie...).

What if your DEX 19 Elf rolls lower than Fatty as you stated. Once the round starts you are always 'slower' than Fatty. That makes little sense? I would say perhaps on round one Fatty may have been slightly more prepared but after that your natural Elfy DEX 19 reactions should kick in a leave Fatty for dead (mostly). Rolling 'per round', like say the individual initiative system of 2e AD&D, makes a lot more sense - although I think the initiative system in 2e was the high point of such systems in AD&D/D&D.

Then again I think the Weapon vs Armor in 1e AD&D was the high point of AD&D/D&D. All weapons since then are only different by 'blah' and 'meh'.

S.

[Jerry Wright 307]

At the risk of sounding like a purist, there are very few things that came up in 2E that didn't exist in at least an optional form in 1E, in one book or another.

Rolling individual Initiative was merely discouraged in 1E. The possibility was suggested.

[Stefan Hill]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

At the risk of sounding like a purist, there are very few things that came up in 2E that didn't exist in at least an optional form in 1E, in one book or another.

Rolling individual Initiative was merely discouraged in 1E. The possibility was suggested.

The speed factor of weapons and spells however in 2e made each round a tactical choice / risk. When facing a Wizard faster weapons were the better option, but when facing a dragon a 2H was better. Also being a caster meant not using your biggest and best spell as the higher the level the spell the longer the casting. I think 2e had a great system that for me reflected more the pressure of combat round to round. I didn't just mean rolling initiatives individually.

I still don't hold with this 'roll once at the start' system - seems like I'm playing chess from the first roll on => You Go, I Go, You Go, I Go, You Go... repeat (ok I have glossed over some complexities - wait/ready actions and what not).

Still I think 2e missed the mark removing (ok simplifying greatly) those wonderful Weapon type vs Armor type 'to hit' adjustments. In 2e why on earth would you ever use a Crossbow? In 1e take a quick look at Plate vs Quarrel and it became obvious.

Not sure we needed 316 different types of polearm, then again some would say that Unearthed Arcane was an act of a disparate Gygax in an increasingly hostile TSR environment. I think it's great they are going with only Gygax at his best; PHB/DMG/MM.

S.

[Terquem]

And the absolute beauty of all of this detailed description is this

You didn't even have to do it that way, if you didn't want to.

I don't remember ever having a RAW vs RAP argument before 1988. We played the way our group wanted to play. Initiative, d6 for the monsters, d6 for the players, high roll goes first, ties all happen at the same time, you got multiple attacks, make them all when it it your turn. Did it work out to everyone's satisfation? Not always. Did we kill a lot of Orcs? Oh, hells yes. We had fun. AND, if I'm not mistaken, it still can be played this way (or so I hear tell).

Terquem - first picked up the torch and sword, 1976 - first adventure, Palace of the Vampire Queen, started as a dwarf (yeah that was my race AND class HA!)took over as Dungeon Master for level 2. May all your adventures bring you home, safe, sound, and wealthy, and alwasy remember to "Play like you don't need to win."

[Sissyl]

Reading that this is in the works... what happens when people see the slovenly trull, the common street walker and the rest of the random prostitute table, in a book published today? *sighs*

[Stefan Hill]

In a world with instant access to hard core porn 24/7 and movie series such as Saw, I think very little thought of the 'shocking' game that is AD&D.

[Jerry Wright 307]

I was far less shocked by the open way 1E dealt with the existence of prostituion and slavery in the medieval world than I was by the way 2E knuckled under to anti-gaming religious groups and began calling demons and devils tanar'ri and baatezu.

I have no problem with the idea of making the gaming world "better" than history portrays medieval and ancient societies by removing elements that might offend people (such as racial and sexual discrimination). But calling a demon a tanar'ri does not make it less demonic. It simply exposes the market-driven nature of the company printing the game (trying to please both sides and making a joke of itself in the process).

[Stefan Hill]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

might offend people (such as racial and sexual discrimination)

Racial discrimination DOES exist in the PF/D&D of today - check out the racial abilities and stats adjustments of the differing races. Are they the same? No. So we do discriminate on race, even in this enlightened 21st century gaming environment.

Sexism is gone, however, I never had any issue with the STR maximums in 1e. It's called biology, woman carry less muscular (on average) and cannot obtain the muscle mass capable in males. True of all species not just humans. Other than that I can't remember the game banning certain classes from being female - meaning not sure what was so sexism about 1e.

Which brings us back to Gygax was attempting to make a quasi-medieval fantasy setting with a degree of believability in the 'mundane bits' while later versions of the game wanted to recreate movies and manga.

Warning some of what has been said above is subjective,
S.

[SuperSlayer]

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition, sometimes referred to "Second Edition", was published in 1989, again as three core rulebooks; the primary designer was David "Zeb" Cook. The Monster Manual was replaced by the Monstrous Compendium, a loose-leaf binder that was subsequently replaced by the hardcover Monstrous Manual in 1993. I hated those loose leaf binders, I just wanted a book for my monster compendium. In 1995, the core rulebooks were slightly revised, although still referred to by TSR as the 2nd Edition, and a series of Player’s Option manuals were released as optional rulebooks.

Some other changes I did not like for 2nd edition AD&D was The release of AD&D 2nd edition deliberately excluded some aspects of the game that had attracted negative publicity. References to demons and devils, sexually suggestive artwork, and playable, evil-aligned character types – such as assassins and half-orcs – were removed. The edition moved away from a theme of 1960s and 1970s "sword and sorcery" fantasy fiction to a mixture of medieval history and mythology. The rules underwent minor changes, including the addition of non-weapon proficiencies – skill-like abilities that originally appeared in 1st Edition supplements. The game's magic spells were divided into schools and spheres. Basically they watered down AD&D from 1st to 2nd, I say bring back the everything that was missing. Another major difference was the promotion of various game settings beyond that of traditional fantasy. This included blending fantasy with other genres, such as horror (Ravenloft), science fiction (Spelljammer), and apocalyptic (Dark Sun), as well as alternative historical and non-European mythological settings. 2nd edition had some great campaign worlds, they were so great some people want to see them come back for 5th edition.

[Snorter]

Sissyl wrote:

Reading that this is in the works... what happens when people see the slovenly trull, the common street walker and the rest of the random prostitute table, in a book published today? *sighs*

I knew a guy who misread that entry as 'slovenly troll', which led us to remark that the 'soiled doves' of his home campaign left much to be desired, and the menfolk must have been really hard up.

[Jerry Wright 307]

Stefan Hill wrote:

Racial discrimination DOES exist in the PF/D&D of today - check out the racial abilities and stats adjustments of the differing races. Are they the same? No. So we do discriminate on race, even in this enlightened 21st century gaming environment.

Apllying a modifier to a female character's strength because the women of her race tend to be smaller or to a half-orc's charisma because half-orcs tend to be unrefined and short-tempered isn't discrimination.

Discrimination is an NPC trainer telling a female character she's not allowed to be a fighter because "they need to stay home with the children", or an innkeeper telling a half-orc character he has to leave the establishment because "we don't serve your kind here".

Discrimination is a societal thing, not a game mechanics thing.

[Robert Hawkshaw]

Fuzzy picture of what the reprint covers will look like:

https://twitter.com/#!/chattydm/status/163314026477133824/photo/1/large

There should be a better one up later, they were trying to get the image into the chatroom and it didn't work.

[Jerry Wright 307]

The covers look depressingly un-nostalgic. :(

[Robert Hawkshaw]

I'd like a less blurry shot before I pass judgment. Could be a cut out cover. Might not be able to alter the cover art to remove the tsr logo so they have to use the ugly beige bottom etc... Could have only licensed the rights from Trampier not bought the artwork out right?

[SuperSlayer]

I like those new covers better than 3.o, and 3.5 D&D covers.

[baron arem heshvaun]

Link to the latest updates.

[SuperSlayer]

WOW! Not only are we getting the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's guide, and Monster Manuel, we're getting a Menzoberranzan campaign book and Elminster's Forgotten Realms by Ed Greenwood. With future support for Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, and possibly Dark Sun. They state the core books are exactly how they were originally besides the adds in the back! 5th edition is still far away so these should keep true D&D fans happy in the meantime.

[Snorter]

SuperSlayer wrote:

WOW! Not only are we getting the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's guide, and Monster Manuel, we're getting a Menzoberranzan campaign book and Elminster's Forgotten Realms by Ed Greenwood. With future support for Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, and possibly Dark Sun. They state the core books are exactly how they were originally besides the adds in the back! 5th edition is still far away so these should keep true D&D fans happy in the meantime.

Actually, that's not the impression I got.

The blog was previewing all their upcoming releases.
First Edition reprints were one product, the Dungeon Survival Guide, Menzoberranzan, Realms book, etc, were other products. They go on to describe several of the items in that list as being board games or minis.

[SuperSlayer]

Ahh thanks for the correction. I knew it was too good to be true.

[Crimson Jester]

I have old copies in good condition. Now if they reprinted the original covers and/or maybe a redacted copy with rules from the other 1E books combined into them. Maybe.

Reprints of the original modules would be nice too.

[deinol]

SuperSlayer wrote:

Ahh thanks for the correction. I knew it was too good to be true.

The Realms book will be mostly edition neutral, with a few references to whichever system Ed happened to be using in his campaign at that time. Which is likely to be 1E/2E.

[Snorter]

SuperSlayer wrote:

WOW! Not only are we getting the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's guide, and Monster Manuel...

I think that last one will be for the Hispanic market.