Knights & Knaves Alehouse

There's alot of good in the UA. The new spells and magic items are well thought out for the most part, and help revive some of the classes that might be getting stale (the druid and illusionist as was pointed out above).

What people object to are those new rules and concepts introduced that were somehow corrosive to the rules that already existed in 1E (most damaging was probably weapons specialization for a half dozen reasons). Remember, this book was presented as official new rules, a "fix" to something that wasn't broken (just the opposite 1E was perfect).

I completely disagree with Foster's statement suggesting that this is an old guy thing, it has nothing to do with when you started to play (or at least it shouldn't)

Foster: People will make lots of "fact-based" arguments about how terrible UA is and how its additions wrecked the game (see, for instance, this thread), but I suspect that, much as the detractors might deny it, a lot of the objection at the end of the day really comes down to old guy being old and not wanting to make any changes from the way he played the game c. 1979-84 (assuming he wasn't reading Dragon magazine and incorporating the new rules as Gygax presented them there c. 1981-83).


1E pre-UA is a game (an objective thing) with predictable results when played out following those rules (even for a brand new players today, despite a change in our collective knowledge of fantasy if they follow the rules they will get close to identical results). The setting (suggested in the three books) and rules if followed create replication between tables and over time (granted 1E is a game of the imagination and should have variety related to the DMs particulars).


1E Post-UA is a slightly different game. When played out, and lets assumed fully embraced by the players and DM it is inferior to what existed before it.

If UA had improved the game, I would be the first person to embrace it. Instead, its new rules and concepts (found in the new classes) were corrosive and damaging (never mind lame, unimaginative, and uninteresting).

And don't buy into the argument this has anything to do with nostalgia. You can say it has to do with taste and personal preference (like preferring Chess to Backgammon) but its got nothing to do with what game we started with...and I'm surprised any of the members here would make that argument (suggesting we don't have the ability to see past rose colored glasses). Of course, I'm most likely miss-reading Foster's statement.

I had a long thread where I tried to read UA even-handedly. I made it to the beginning of the DM section. You can read it here.

When I began to actively read D&D related newsgroups in the mid 90s, and then web forums by around 99 or 00, I was surprised to find that 1e enthusiasts did not like UA. The distaste for it seems to have taken a life of its own, almost to a degree of peer pressure conformity: I'm not supposed to like this! Personally, I had one major issue with UA, and hence one house rule: no % raises for cavalier attributes, because I never thought it was fair. Now, I must admit, I never ran 1e two-attack routines correctly, so that may have caused me to house rule that (i.e. two routine fighters are supposed to go first and last on the round, regardless of initiative; coupled with double specialization, this is quite deadly IMO). As far as the "poor orcs" were concerned, I began to provide their officers with specialization, and chieftains with double specialization. I loved the spells and magic items, thought the cantrips were fun, and loved all the new sub classes. Before the concept of "game balance" reared its ugly head, we knew nothing about it, and our games were never the less for it. Sure the barbarian was powerful at 1st level, but the fighter was 3rd level when the barbarian was still 1st. Anyway, my answer to the OP is yes, I accept it for what it is and consider it a fine component to AD&D.

I prefer weaponless combat in UA (especially the simpler version) to the weaponless combat system in the DMG.

Geoffrey wrote:I prefer weaponless combat in UA (especially the simpler version) to the weaponless combat system in the DMG.

Is there anyone who doesn't?

My acceptance of sections of the UA fluctuates over time, and I expect it to always do so.

James Maliszewski wrote:

Geoffrey wrote:I prefer weaponless combat in UA (especially the simpler version) to the weaponless combat system in the DMG.

Is there anyone who doesn't?

Well, there's always the Arms Law rules.

TRP wrote:My acceptance of sections of the UA fluctuates over time, and I expect it to always do so.

James Maliszewski wrote:

Geoffrey wrote:I prefer weaponless combat in UA (especially the simpler version) to the weaponless combat system in the DMG.

Is there anyone who doesn't?

Well, there's always the Arms Law rules.

Player: I swing my fist into his solar plexus!
DM: (rolls dice... scratches head) Shit. You shattered his pelvis.

Q: The distaste for it seems to have taken a life of its own, almost to a degree of peer pressure conformity: I'm not supposed to like this!

No its because we are oldsters.

AxeMental wrote:I completely disagree with Foster's statement suggesting that this is an old guy thing, it has nothing to do with when you started to play (or at least it shouldn't)

AxeMental wrote:Q: The distaste for it seems to have taken a life of its own, almost to a degree of peer pressure conformity: I'm not supposed to like this!

No its because we are oldsters.

You do realize that was irony, right?

AxeMental wrote:You do realize that was irony, right?

Didn't know you were capable.

Chello!

Ghul wrote: The distaste for it seems to have taken a life of its own, almost to a degree of peer pressure conformity: I'm not supposed to like this!

That's been my experience as well.

I never had anyone play a cavalier, so the ATT increases were never looked at. My house rule was to limit specialization to 4+ level. For those who planned n spec-ing in bow, I let them apply one of the slots at first level and gave them the +1 h/d at short range to compensate until they got full specialization post-4th level.

Alpharius wrote:But by and large the new Spells are well received?

Ultimately I know it doesn't matter, as my local group is OK with them - I'm just curious about how everything was (and is!) received out there in the world at large!

The new spells can be game changers...it may change the game too much for your taste. Sepia Snake Sigil (temporal stasis with monster THACO as L3 spell ), stoneskin (wreck my spell now warrior! ) and contingency: (stone skin, fireshield, minor globe of invuln or teleport ) are MU porn. Yes, the illusionist gets his share too; chromatic orb ( high AC/high HP creatures just became obsolete), phantom armor (extra 1HP/L per cast & more!) and the worst, tempus fugit (resource management factor of the game is now GONE). Yet clerics are not left out, implore (reversed abjure) lets clerics bring extra planar critters into play at L7, rather than L16 (gate), Golem adds more "pets" (fear evil clerics with hosts of undead, golems, & fiends!), even Hero's Feast, while HL, really negates/wussifies a host of monsters with 12 hour poison/fear immunity & forbiddance makes a party's entrance into temples a real pain. No real issues with druids though and most of the spells are fine, many are even weak. Overall ,the addition of UA spells (& WSP, items, ect) makes the MM & FF monsters considerably less challenging.

MY UA hate isn't an old guy olding thing...I moved on to 2e, 2.5e, 3e, then 3.5e before coming back to B/X & 1e (sans UA/1.5e). The UA was indeed corrosive to the game.

To be honest it is the flavor of UA I don't like. I don't see the need for barbarians, cavaliers, thief-acrobats, drow/deep gnome PCs, comeliness, and so on. It dilutes the game somewhat, much like MMII art. To be fair, if you read it and just take from it what you like and ignore other pieces you will be doing exactly what the authors of AD&D always wanted you to do.