Happy Anniversary to Me (Lizard Logo content)

[jeffb]

Wife and I were away for the past couple days for our 11th year Wedding Anniversary. Stopped by a game store and found this for well below market value price. Good condition. I have not had one of these in my hands since 1978 (one of the group picked this up right when released)

Seems the errata sheet is a bit of a mystery according the The Acaeum. Unsure how they were provided to customers by TSR.

I'm guessing I could make about 4-5 times what I paid for it, but I gave up collecting/rolling long ago. I'm keeping this one for the time being.

EDIT_ can't seem to get the images to post in-thread from Google Photos

photos.app.goo.gl/nNq8iVKgJK31heR88

photos.app.goo.gl/vmjHsM2az8X4W6CW7

[hamurai]

Great find, happy anniversary!

[jeffb]

Thank you hamurai



Some general commentary-

I was aware of the physical differences in the printings, but I was not aware of how many pieces of art were missing from the 1st print.

But the coolest bit is the 3 pieces of original DCS art that were only in the 1st print and he re-did for the later prints. I think I may like one or two better than the "corrections".

I'll try and get some pictures of those up if anyone is interested.

[geoffrey]

Very cool.

The first two printings of the Monster Manual have the lizard logo, and you can tell from the cover that yours is a first print. Congratulations!

[jeffb]

Apr 26, 2021 10:12:53 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Very cool.

The first two printings of the Monster Manual have the lizard logo, and you can tell from the cover that yours is a first print. Congratulations!

Thank you Brother!

When I saw the "TM reg. applied for", I couldn't believe it!

One of the guys in my group had the original 1st print (of course it was just "the monster manual" then) and I don't ever recall the errata sheet- so I started to second guess myself until I got outside and hit up The Acaeum.

This is a real blast from the past for me. I just wish I had not needed to sell off my White box and supplements years ago, otherwise I'd have everything we started play with way back when.

[geoffrey]

I think of the Monster Manual as existing in a nebulous universe of its own:

"Is the Monster Manual for OD&D?" Yes, if you use it with OD&D.

"Is the Monster Manual for AD&D?" Yes, if you use it with AD&D.

It's really both and neither.

[jeffb]

Apr 26, 2021 11:46:15 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I think of the Monster Manual as existing in a nebulous universe of its own:

"Is the Monster Manual for OD&D?" Yes, if you use it with OD&D.

"Is the Monster Manual for AD&D?" Yes, if you use it with AD&D.

It's really both and neither.

I agree and I will add a third to your list.

"Is the Monster Manual for C&C?" Yes, if you use it with C&C.

When the C&C PHB came out, I used the Monster Manual and later the Monstrous Manual (2E) until I picked up C&C 's Monsters & Treasures a fair amount of time after it was published. Picking up M&T really is not needed if you have a MM and List of treasure/items from whatever TSR era book.

[tkdco2]

IIRC the Monster Manual was published before the PHB or the DMG. That allowed people to use the monsters in their OD&D games. Considering there's a slight difference between the way XP is calculated in OD&D and AD&D, it may explain why the monsters' XP values weren't included in the book. But that's just speculation on my part.

[geoffrey]

Apr 26, 2021 13:11:55 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

IIRC the Monster Manual was published before the PHB or the DMG.

You are correct:

MM was published in 1977.
PHB was published in 1978.
DMG was published in 1979.

Of all the hardbacks, only the Monster Manual ever had the lizard logo.

[Finarvyn]

And the Monster Manual uses OD&D-scale AC, if I recall correctly. (E.g. no armor was AC 9, whereas AD&D established that no armor was AC 10.)

Now I need to go check my MM to see which printing I own...

[jeffb]

Yep we used this with our Little brown books and Holmes book long before the trilogy was completed.

As far as we were concerned it was a just a really cool hardcover full size book with ALL the monsters in it.

[grodog]

Happy anniversary, Jeff!

Zenopus has compiled the various additional/missing pieces of artwork in his blog at various points; see zenopusarchives.blogspot.com/search?q=slithering+tracker (although Zach can probably point to a better tag!).

Allan.

[jeffb]

Apr 26, 2021 16:51:54 GMT -6 grodog said:

Happy anniversary, Jeff!

Zenopus has compiled the various additional/missing pieces of artwork in his blog at various points; see zenopusarchives.blogspot.com/search?q=slithering+tracker (although Zach can probably point to a better tag!).

Allan.

Thanks Allan!

And thank you for the link- The Acaeum just goes over the changes, but Paul's account of DCS and DAT is excellent stuff- I'm a big fan of Sutherland (rushed, or not). It looks like Zenopus 's pic links are not working, unfortunately (LMK if you want some images to update your site, Zach)

[rsdean]

I didn’t know that there was an errata sheet, but now that I check The Acaeum, I see that there was errata printed in Dragon #35. That’s probably the source of various pencilled in corrections in my copy (a first printing which I’ve had since it was first released, so no collecting coups involved. )

[simrion]

Those early prints had Giant Strengths rated up to 30. Is that mentioned in the errata?

[Zenopus]

simrion

The Acaeum has the MM errata from Dragon #35 listed here:

www.acaeum.com/library/errata_mm.html

For Giant, it says:

Correction 44A: Corrected in Fourth print

Giant: The sentence about giant strength found in the introduction should read, "All giants are very strong, with strengths ranging from 19 to 25 as compared to humans."

Did this originally read "19 to 30"?

[Zenopus]

jeffb

The Errata states that part about Orcus' tail should read:

Demon, Orcus: The information about his tail should read, “Additionally his tail has a virulent poison sting (-4 on all saving throws against poison), and his tail strikes with an 18 dexterity which does 2-8 hit points each time it hits.

Can you tell me what was said here originally in the 1st printing?

[geoffrey]

Apr 28, 2021 15:56:17 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

simrion

The Acaeum has the MM errata from Dragon #35 listed here:

www.acaeum.com/library/errata_mm.html

For Giant, it says:

Correction 44A: Corrected in Fourth print

Giant: The sentence about giant strength found in the introduction should read, "All giants are very strong, with strengths ranging from 19 to 25 as compared to humans."

Did this originally read "19 to 30"?

In the AD&D Fiend Folio it reads "21 to 30".

[jeffb]

Apr 28, 2021 16:09:33 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

jeffb

The Errata states that part about Orcus' tail should read:

Demon, Orcus: The information about his tail should read, “Additionally his tail has a virulent poison sting (-4 on all saving throws against poison), and his tail strikes with an 18 dexterity which does 2-8 hit points each time it hits.

Can you tell me what was said here originally in the 1st printing?

Zenopus Yes Sir- 1st print is missing the very last bit "...which does 2-8 hit points each time it hits."

[jeffb]

And actually, 1st print on Giants states "ranging from 21 to 30 as compared to humans."

[jeffb]

So I took a few quick shots of the three pieces of art that were re-done for later prints. My phone did not want to focus super tight unfortunately, but hopefully folks get the gist.

photos.app.goo.gl/zzhkjniywJJ9pfGi8

SECOND EDIT- Nevermind- now I see how the two are different. He blacked out the wonky extra leg in the later picture of the Nightmare
photos.app.goo.gl/CkZsFSfwo4iGyMxt6


photos.app.goo.gl/vhYEW4zYVGW4hhRZ7


Personally, I kind of like the Type III better. The Chimera I don't find worse or better- missing wings doesn't bother me.

[Zenopus]

Apr 28, 2021 17:48:21 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Apr 28, 2021 16:09:33 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

jeffb

The Errata states that part about Orcus' tail should read:
Can you tell me what was said here originally in the 1st printing?

Zenopus Yes Sir- 1st print is missing the very last bit "...which does 2-8 hit points each time it hits."

Thanks! That means the bit about striking with 18 Dexterity was in there from the beginning. I've added a note about this to my post here.

Apr 28, 2021 17:51:13 GMT -6 jeffb said:

And actually, 1st print on Giants states "ranging from 21 to 30 as compared to humans."

That's actually what it says in my copy of the Fiend Folio, so I think Turnbull just copied over the intro information from an early printing of the Monster Manual. I've also confirmed that this language was still present in the 3rd printing of the Monster Manual, which per the Acaeum is from around Dec 1978.

I wonder how the 21 to 30 was intended to correspond to the various Giants?

Perhaps....

21: Hill Giant (HD 8 + 1-2)
22: Stone Giant (HD 9 + 1-3)
23-24: Frost Giant (HD 10 + 1-4)
25-26: Fire Giant (HD 11 + 2-5)
27-28: Cloud Giant (HD 12 + 2-7)
29-30: Storm Giant (HD 15 + 2-7)

[jeffb]

Zenopus No problem, and thanks for the link to your original MM post from 2012. I'm sure I read it BITD, but it's good to re-visit.

Your bit about Giant Strength seems reasonable.

[geoffrey]

Apr 28, 2021 20:40:57 GMT -6 jeffb said:

So I took a few quick shots of the three pieces of art that were re-done for later prints. My phone did not want to focus super tight unfortunately, but hopefully folks get the gist.

photos.app.goo.gl/zzhkjniywJJ9pfGi8

SECOND EDIT- Nevermind- now I see how the two are different. He blacked out the wonky extra leg in the later picture of the Nightmare
photos.app.goo.gl/CkZsFSfwo4iGyMxt6


photos.app.goo.gl/vhYEW4zYVGW4hhRZ7


Personally, I kind of like the Type III better. The Chimera I don't find worse or better- missing wings doesn't bother me.

I think that is the drawing of the chimera that was originally in Supplement II: BLACKMOOR.

Dare I say it: The type III demon illustration in the 1st printing of the MM looks more OD&D, and the replacement drawing in later printings looks more AD&D.

[jeffb]

Apr 29, 2021 8:35:58 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Apr 28, 2021 20:40:57 GMT -6 jeffb said:

So I took a few quick shots of the three pieces of art that were re-done for later prints. My phone did not want to focus super tight unfortunately, but hopefully folks get the gist.

photos.app.goo.gl/zzhkjniywJJ9pfGi8

SECOND EDIT- Nevermind- now I see how the two are different. He blacked out the wonky extra leg in the later picture of the Nightmare
photos.app.goo.gl/CkZsFSfwo4iGyMxt6


photos.app.goo.gl/vhYEW4zYVGW4hhRZ7


Personally, I kind of like the Type III better. The Chimera I don't find worse or better- missing wings doesn't bother me.

I think that is the drawing of the chimera that was originally in Supplement II: BLACKMOOR.

Dare I say it: The type III demon illustration in the 1st printing of the MM looks more OD&D, and the replacement drawing in later printings looks more AD&D.

Bingo on both counts. Th 1st print Type III piece looks like it could be straight out of EW or Swords & Spells.