Knights & Knaves Alehouse

genghisdon wrote:How the hell does a short bow relate to Thievery?

How does a sling relate to thievary? There's a lot of classic fantasy that I haven't read, so I'm not ruling out that there are sling references in Ali Baba's 40 thieves or something. Outside of that, a bow and arrow seem just as much or more for thieves as slings. As you note, a sling is a weapon that takes a lot of practice.

I do admit that using the UA errata for determining what each race can play, you see a lot less half-elves. But eh, I'm also an RC player, and half-elves don't seem to be an important race to me anyway.

Eye of the Beholder wrote:

genghisdon wrote:How the hell does a short bow relate to Thievery?

How does a sling relate to thievary? There's a lot of classic fantasy that I haven't read, so I'm not ruling out that there are sling references in Ali Baba's 40 thieves or something. Outside of that, a bow and arrow seem just as much or more for thieves as slings. As you note, a sling is a weapon that takes a lot of practice.

Slings are easily concealed in a city.

Eye of the Beholder wrote: How does a sling relate to thievary? There's a lot of classic fantasy that I haven't read, so I'm not ruling out that there are sling references in Ali Baba's 40 thieves or something. Outside of that, a bow and arrow seem just as much or more for thieves as slings. As you note, a sling is a weapon that takes a lot of practice.

The Thieves' Guild in Lankhmar uses slings in its pursuit of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser at one point, indeed the weapons available to the thief seem to be largely based on what is depicted in those stories.

To me UA is a table of hors d'oeuvres: fit for an occasional taste to stimulate the palate -- not as a staple food to be eaten at every meal. In the end I crave the more substantive fare of the original core rules which is diverse enough to provide years of gustatory satisfaction.

Ken do min nailed it; you can put a sling in a pocket.

The ROF for a skilled archer vs a skilled slinger IRL is a problem, they are actually about the same.

multi-class = munchkin? bullshit. It's just a way to create non standard archetypes. They should never have limited the idea to demi humans. What to play "Subotai, thief & archer"? human fighter/thief. Gandalf or Elric style mu that can fight? fighter/magic user. A Poacher probably wouldn't be a Thief at all in AD&D (PP, OL backstab, ect?), the NPC (as PC) bandit class from dragon would suit better, or a Hunter class or even a Fighter with a secondary skill, and perhaps a few bennies & an XP penalty or armor restriction to "balance" it. Besides, if you have played multiclass to VHLs or just make them up VHL, the XP system inheirantly corrects the power of multiclass. Level 21 thief, L19 cleric, L16 mu, L18 fighter VS L13 ftr/13 MU & L14 cleric/L16 thf, ect, ect.

The UA armor penalties indeed just fueled even more desire for the bracers, ring & cloak combo that is nearly always superior to armor in HL AD&D with more bonuses.

genghisdon wrote: The ROF for a skilled archer versus a skilled slinger IRL is a problem, they are actually about the same.

That seems unlikely to me, if we are talking about maximum shooting rates. Bows can be reloaded and shot every 2-3 seconds, I am pretty sure even a skilled slinger would have difficulty equalling that rate.

genghisdon wrote: multi-class = munchkin? bullshit. It's just a way to create non standard archetypes. They should never have limited the idea to demi humans. What to play "Subotai, thief & archer"? human fighter/thief. Gandalf or Elric style mu that can fight? fighter/magic user.

Cool your jets. No need to call bullshit on the opinion of teenagers ten to twenty years ago. That said it is pretty obvious that multi-class combinations are more powerful than single classed characters, so it is not exactly unjustified. All that really keeps it in line are level limits and those rarely come into play. Personally, I do prefer new classes to multi-classes, but Subotai is fine as a thief.

genghisdon wrote: A Poacher probably wouldn't be a Thief at all in AD&D (PP, OL backstab, ect?), the NPC (as PC) bandit class from dragon would suit better, or a Hunter class or even a Fighter with a secondary skill, and perhaps a few bennies & an XP penalty or armor restriction to "balance" it.

There is no reason to think that at all. Whether rural or urban, a thief is a thief. You might create a subclass to specifically differentiate, but the poacher easily falls into the thief archetype.

genghisdon wrote: The UA armor penalties indeed just fueled even more desire for the bracers, ring & cloak combo that is nearly always superior to armor in HL AD&D with more bonuses.

I would not say they fuelled it, but they certainly did nothing to alleviate that desire.

So, this thread has gotten me thinking about my experience with UA, as a function of my overall experience with D&D.

Recapping my early history of the game (1981-1986):
I owned: Moldvay Basic, core AD&D + DDG,MM2,FF+GH boxed set, and a fist full of adventures.
I rarely read The Dragon, usually in the store or borrowed over the weekend.
My group had one copy of UA when it came, and that may have been borrowed. I know I borrowed it over the weekend once.

So, my recollection of the book back in 85/86 was that some of my friends that it was "the shit" and others thought it "was shit". It didn't matter much, as we decided since we didn't readily have access to it, we were going to largely ignore it. I do recall reading about the barbarian and thinking "WTF is this?"

So, I quit D&D in 86/87, and pick it up again in 1997. In 2000, I sign up for ebay with the express purpose of getting a copy of UA. I bid, I win, I get it.

I open the book and start reading. My immediate impression is just how different it is from core D&D. Its much more jarring a difference than reading the Fiend Folio to me, as it's clearly Gygax, but doesn't have the same, I dunno, personality that the core AD&D books have. In retrospect, I sensed immediately how much his take on the game had changed.

While I think of UA as a nice toolkit to pluck bits and pieces from, I still can't quite get passed the "foreignness" of it, so to speak. I'm sure this is because of my narrow focus on the products noted at the front of the post, but there it is.

francisca wrote:My immediate impression is just how different it is from core D&D. Its much more jarring a difference than reading the Fiend Folio to me, as it's clearly Gygax, but doesn't have the same, I dunno, personality that the core AD&D books have. In retrospect, I sensed immediately how much his take on the game had changed.

Yep and I think that's the thing that needs to be borne in mind: it was Gygax who had changed and he had been changing for a long time. I mean, if you read all the columns he'd been writing since at least 1981, you can see the shift in his thinking. But it was only when all those columns were sewn together in a cohesive whole that I really saw, for the first time, how much his conception of both gaming and AD&D had changed -- and it wasn't something I liked.

Over the last couple of years, I've mellowed somewhat on the topic of UA. I like to think I have a better understanding of what it was and why it was the way it was. I still don't like it very much and consider it the weakest of Gary's D&D output, but I don't loathe it the way I used to. There's still some good stuff to be mined from its pages if you're willing to take the time to separate the diamonds from the carbon.

James Maliszewski wrote:

francisca wrote:My immediate impression is just how different it is from core D&D. Its much more jarring a difference than reading the Fiend Folio to me, as it's clearly Gygax, but doesn't have the same, I dunno, personality that the core AD&D books have. In retrospect, I sensed immediately how much his take on the game had changed.

Yep and I think that's the thing that needs to be borne in mind: it was Gygax who had changed and he had been changing for a long time. I mean, if you read all the columns he'd been writing since at least 1981, you can see the shift in his thinking. But it was only when all those columns were sewn together in a cohesive whole that I really saw, for the first time, how much his conception of both gaming and AD&D had changed -- and it wasn't something I liked.

Over the last couple of years, I've mellowed somewhat on the topic of UA. I like to think I have a better understanding of what it was and why it was the way it was. I still don't like it very much and consider it the weakest of Gary's D&D output, but I don't loathe it the way I used to. There's still some good stuff to be mined from its pages if you're willing to take the time to separate the diamonds from the carbon.

Well said!

Gary was definitely 'evolving' his game design/theory - look where he ended up!

UA was 'forced out the door', more or less, due to financial necessity.

Having said that, there is a lot of good stuff in there, but it is definitely a 'pick and choose' book, not a '100% in, no doubt!' book...

Matthew wrote: The Thieves' Guild in Lankhmar uses slings in its pursuit of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser at one point, indeed the weapons available to the thief seem to be largely based on what is depicted in those stories.

That's pretty much what came to my mind as well. As a thief aficionado(suck it haters!) I don't really mind the armor and weapon restrictions in the PHB though.

Alpharius wrote: Gary was definitely 'evolving' his game design/theory - look where he ended up!

I suspect that if Gygax had not been forced out of TSR he would have taken AD&D in a direction I might not have liked, but that he would have carried the majority of the fan base with him. The Dungeons & Dragons brand exercised an amazing power and authority over the imagination, which coupled with Gygax's own status as the originator and principle designer would likely have brought at least as much success as TSR enjoyed in the post Gygax period.

Well said - and it is odd to think that, as you noted, IF Gary had stayed at TSR and been in charge of the next version of AD&D we might not have liked the results.

Or, as you also noted, we might have not 'known any better' and loved it and 1E might have died, been buried and never been resurrected!

JM: "Over the last couple of years, I've mellowed somewhat on the topic of UA. I like to think I have a better understanding of what it was and why it was the way it was. I still don't like it very much and consider it the weakest of Gary's D&D output, but I don't loathe it the way I used to. There's still some good stuff to be mined from its pages if you're willing to take the time to separate the diamonds from the carbon."


I think when it was released (or within the first 2 or 3 months of using it) many came to see it as a direct attack on the basic 1E system that existed before its arrival, which we 90% "normal" (vs. munchkin 10%) players thought was fine (the old adage: "If its not broken don't fix it" was never more true with 1E).


The new rules and classes ripped many a table apart (munchkins found there voice and proof of importance), and us "regular" players felt the game just didn't feel the same any more (like someone sticking pee in your soup). The DM also noted problems which didn't always seem so obvious on the surface.

Thus (after heavy play testing at the table) the entire UA book was often tossed out (as was in our case) or entirely adopted -which often forced the normal sorts to give up the hobby, or at least that group (This UA split was the first solidification of what was to become the 2E market and then later 3E).

Yep, Allowing inferior options was a huge mistake because it gave ammunition to inferior players (Gilbert Godfrey squinting at the DM: "you have to include x its part of the official Gary Gygax approved rules"). Even when it was tossed after a couple years, the damage had been done. The "Golden Age" of 1E AD&D was over. The cat was out of the bag and bad feelings spilt like blood upon the table stained into the wood so deep not even bleach could remove it.



Over time (reading many of Foster's posts in particular) I've come to realize that perhaps that evolutionary change (which did exist at almost every table that used UA) wasn't meant to be so dramatic or toxic as it turned out. It was the result of a rush job and probably little play testing. Classes like the Barbarian and Cavilier (according to guys like Foster) were not intended to be "common" or -members of every dungeon delving party- (like a fighter or MU), but instead used only rarely (perhaps campaign specific) in less mixed company (hense their inability to realy function in a cohesive way). As subclasses they were far less usable then a paladin or druid or even a bard (who didn't have the strict behavioral shtiks).

One can only wonder if UA had been presented and recieved as totaly optional (presented as: -only to be used by experianced players wanting something new for one shot games) and 95% of players ignored its new classes and rules, then perhaps the negative against it wouldn't have been so strong (nor its corosive effects).

But people hate UA not because of its corny classes and ill designed rules, but rather because it suggested there was something lacking in 1E pre-UA (which few if any felt). They also hate it because these 1st changes brought about more changes (at that point anything was meldable). UA = Pandora's Box. When the silent majority stays silent to the noise of the loud minority, the silent majority usually looses, especially when it comes to product sales.

AxeMental wrote:But people hate UA not because of its corny classes and ill designed rules, but rather because it suggested there was something lacking in 1E pre-UA (which few if any felt).

Not that it matters to anyone else's opinions, but Gary clearly thought pre-UA AD&D was lacking in some ways. I don't for a minute think that all or even most of the material in UA was put in there contrary to his belief that it was good for the game.

When the silent majority stays silent to the noise of the loud minority, the silent majority usually looses, especially when it comes to product sales.

The funny thing is that UA was a stillborn supplement. I can't think of a single one of its major rules additions/revisions that saw much play in later 1e products. I think Gary's own Isle of the Ape is unique in even acknowledging the existence of UA and, even there, the presence of UA material is fairly paltry. And of course 2e pretty much rejected UA completely, with the exception of a few spells and magic items.

However much "regular" players may have hated it, Unearthed Arcana's immediate influence over AD&D was negligible. Zeb Cook's Oriental Adventures had a far greater impact on the subsequent development of the game than did UA and yet, surprisingly, I see comparatively little moaning about it, even though its publication was just as game-changing as was UA.

JM: "However much "regular" players may have hated it, Unearthed Arcana's immediate influence over AD&D was negligible. Zeb Cook's Oriental Adventures had a far greater impact on the subsequent development of the game than did UA and yet, surprisingly, I see comparatively little moaning about it, even though its publication was just as game-changing as was UA."

In terms of published product your probably correct, but SO WHAT, the majority of DMs at home were drawing up their own dungeons and worlds (published didn't mean squat back then, -we all thought we could do better then TSR. For instance, we would play 20 or so home made dungeons before pulling out a TSR module, and many of those kinda sucked by comparison).

James, it was at the table (actually playing out 1E AD&D) that UA had its negative effects
-character generation shift: Define yourself by customizing rather then threw action
-Munchkin powers (kick ass by selecting powers) rather then playing smart.
-Shift in paradigm (from dungeon hack in slash to story driven above ground plots)
-unbalancing things (there are many, like cantrips) that redefined some of the PCs traditional roles.
-New classes not suited for pre-UA style of play (yet everyone wanted to try them out).

There are others but you get the jist.

UA can be somed up as: "WTF -something smells like shit in your living room" factor, where everyone checks their shoes, and finally someone realizes: "oh, no its not that we stepped in dog shit on the way in, its our new 1E game with caviliers, WSpecialization, thief acrobats, and brute magic destroying barbarians"). Of course, one person's shit is anothers aftershave...and hence the rift.

Pre-UA sessions were about EXPLORATION (the city/town stuff was minor), Post-UA was about STORY above ground terrestrial plot heavy activities (underground dungeons became "a drag" and "too long" to many who wanted to get to the real action "what mission does King Fizbo want to send my cavilier on next" -including just one of these new classes to the group was often toxic to everyone else wanting to play traditional dungeon crawl). Hence the baby was thrown out with the bath water. The GOOD of UA (magic items, alot of spells etc.) got tossed by association...which is too bad.

Note James, UA was the first "must have" product after the three core books (fast cash inflow as I believe Gary admitted himself), and opened the door to those that followed (more fast cash). Post UA Rifts in those 6 to 8 player tables didn't matter to the publisher, but sadly they were not easily mended. Groups split over it.

UA became the first deviding point. Hence it was the PRIMARY CHANGING ELEMENT IN TSR PRODUCTS and thats why there are countless threads about it (note we have no threads related to the horrors of OA and its effects -nobody gives a shit about it).

To your second point, The fact that 2E didn't use UA isn't at issue, whats at issue is that 1. UA gave the publisher the idea that rules changes can generate alot of profit and 2. that variation can be gotten threw rules rather then play (that was a biggy).

It would be like rewriting the rules for Monopoly (for some short term profit -wow factor- that is infact a worse product). JM, how stupid and short sighted would that be? Yet thats exactly what TSR did (to their ultimate demise -the proof is the ever shrinking marginalized market segment of ultra super geeks, (those very same idiots that loved UA Caviliers -apologies to those on this board who sleep with their first cavilier character sheet under their pillow every night ).