Knights & Knaves Alehouse

What does it matter? You can be a demi-human with a few more levels, a Barbarian with more sides to hit dice than you have fingers, a Thief with nifty circus-skillz, or a Cavalier that proudly proclaims, "I'm sleepin' in your castle, bitch!", but when push comes to shove, that poison needle trap will end you.

Well, if you're a dwarf cleric of mid-high level the poison needle trap will only end you if you're really unlucky (level 7-9 cleric save vs. poison = 7, dwarf save bonus vs. poison at least +3 (Con 12-13) up to +5 (Con 18-19))

darnizhaan wrote: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.

I think alot (well, lets be honest, the vast majority) of 1E players shared this opinion once they gave it a try. It just wasn't Kosher to say it out loud (and still isn't in some circles, the "Gygax can do no wrong" crowd).

It was always those 1 or 2 guys (usually the disturbed ones) at the table that really pushed "this is official rules" to get the rest to use it, and who were we to say no, Gygax says its official new rules. Plus we didn't want to be jerks. Of course thats always the worst reason not to follow your gut.

UA always seemed to me to be something that was published because they needed to publish and not because of any real changes or new ideas for the game. IMO, AD&D had a lot of room for expansion at the time but TSR just opted to gild the lily.

Gary's been 'on record' with the fact that UA came out when it did because TSR's financial situation at the time necessitated it, and that he would have waited at least 1 more year before releasing it.

I guess to do more play-testing and balancing?

Though maybe that's a little bit of revisionist history too?

Gary has stated that the UA was rushed into production, but he's always stood behind the content.

ScottyG wrote:Gary has stated that the UA was rushed into production, but he's always stood behind the content.

Indeed. I'm no fan of UA myself, but I have never read anywhere that Gary ever disavowed it or indeed expressed any reservations about its content. The presentation and production quality, certainly, but, as Scotty says, he always stood behind the new rules in its pages.

True - but he comes close to admitting... something... sort of...!

When asked about the Cavalier class:

Gary Gygax wrote:As is said by attorneys, the document says what it says... Seriously, the class was "right" for the OAD&D game as I envisioned it, and once one got a cavalier class PC, they were very capable in adventuring. This is not to say that some change was not needed, but only some fair period of playing time could determine that. UA was published about a year before it was planned, as TSR was in financial trouble and needed a "seller".

From Cheers Gary, pg. 48.

Alpharius wrote:From Cheers Gary, pg. 48.

See here:

http://www.gygaxmemorialfund.com/index. ... heers-gary

Of course, you could just read it all online, but I think this is a better format, plus a 'good cause' too!

T. Foster wrote:Well, if you're a dwarf cleric of mid-high level the poison needle trap will only end you if you're really unlucky (level 7-9 cleric save vs. poison = 7, dwarf save bonus vs. poison at least +3 (Con 12-13) up to +5 (Con 18-19))

This is one reason I go with "saves as 4 levels higher" rather than con based plus for the runts. Of course I limit PC clerics to human & half humans anyway in 1e (but sometimes non humans get clerical henchmen of their own race).

Alpharius wrote:See here:

http://www.gygaxmemorialfund.com/index. ... heers-gary

Of course, you could just read it all online, but I think this is a better format, plus a 'good cause' too!

Is this good stuff, or just a subjective edit of Gary's responses on enworld? Not trying to knock your reference; I am genuinely curious.

foxroe wrote:

Alpharius wrote:See here:

http://www.gygaxmemorialfund.com/index. ... heers-gary

Of course, you could just read it all online, but I think this is a better format, plus a 'good cause' too!

Is this good stuff, or just a subjective edit of Gary's responses on enworld? Not trying to knock your reference; I am genuinely curious.

As far as I can tell it is.

I suppose it would be easy enough to double check everything in there, right?

Of course, as with anything else, it is from a very subjective viewpoint!

Let's see, off the top of my head, I/we use:

Weapon Specialization (modified)
Ranger Tracking (modified)
Expanded Weapons list
Armor mods to Thief abilities
Unarmed Combat
Some magic items (I use the UA tables, disregarding stuff I don't like and re-rolling)
Some spells (none are available to learn when leveling up, those that make it in are only found in spellbooks, holy scriptures, and on scrolls acquired as part of adventuring)
New level limits (waffled back/forth for years)
I think I've let in some of the new armor and weapons on occasion.

Always use:
High level druid additions (not that they've ever actually come up in play)
Barbarian class
Ranger additions
Expanded thief armor table
New weapons (except for hand crossbows)
Minimum h.p. at 1st level
Barding
Spellbooks
Effects of darkness
Unarmed & non-lethal combat
Pole arms essay

Waffle back & forth on:
Expanded races (wood elves, wild elves, gray elves, valley elves)
Expanded demi-human level limits
Expanded demi-human class eligibility (i.e. PC clerics, elven rangers & druids, etc.)
Expanded weapon eligibility (i.e. slings for mages & short bows for thieves)
Cavalier class
Paladin as cavalier subclass (even if it is allowed it's in addition to, not in place of, PH paladin class)
Weapon specialization
Acrobat class
New armor types
New spells
Method V char-gen
Social class & birth order tables
New magic items

Never use:
Comeliness stat
Expanded races (drow, gray dwarfs, deep gnomes)
Hand crossbows
Roger Moore's demi-human deities

The stuff in the first category I feel are solid additions to the AD&D game that fit solidly within the established framework of the PH-MM-DMG; the stuff in the second category I feel either changes the feel of the game or has mechanical issues - with all of this stuff allowed the game begins to feel like "AD&D 1.5;" the stuff in the third category is just dumb