Unearthed Arcana: Cheer or Jeer?

[@ianoag]

Well, as a 61 year old Humanoid who's been playing D&D in its various forms since 1978, I can safely say that the majority of my friends/players/DMs think this book is 100% necessary. Okay, there are a few sections that "ruffle some feathers" but at the end of the day, it's just another set of guidelines/suggestions and not Rules. Personally, I love most of the content of this book and if that doesn't please you well, you've just got yourself another subscriber based mostly on the fact you appear to have a great taste in beverages! Nice Video, I can see where you're coming from and Cheers my friend! 🍻🍻🍻🍻

[@daddyrolleda1]

Cheers to you! I'm so glad you found my channel! And, I think I misrepresented my views when making this video. I was trying to give time to the viewpoints of folks who don't like it, and why, but back in the day, I loved this book. While I've mellowed on it over the past ~20 years, I don't hate it as much as many old-time gamers. I LOVED the Cavalier, personally, as a player! I welcome your subscription and I hope you find other videos here that you like. Thank you so much for watching, commenting, and subscribing! If you're into beer, feel free to connect with me here: untappd.com/user/tartinm

[@dallassukerkin6878]

Exactly so - use the bits you like and don't include those parts that will wreck your campaign ... I'm looking at you Barbarian and Cavalier :)

[@johnreynolds2512]

@@dallassukerkin6878 I loved the cavalier. The video game, Wrath of the Righteous, finally got mounted charges right for its various cavalier classes, which I'm not sure PF would have were it not for Unearthed Arcana.

[@pelinoregeryon6593]

Yep, wasn't 'controversial' in the least, the big difference between then and now is it was just a supplement with a bunch of suggestions, they didn't discontinue any of the previous rule books and were still printing them .. if you didn't like one of the new classes you jut didn't use it .. the barbarian was one I just ignored and didn't use while the thief acrobat was one I thought had some good ideas I did use.

[@bocconom]

I'm 66 and have been playing since October of 1979 and I could not agree with you more. As others have already said choose what you want and leave the rest to the side. I can never understand the uproar concerning RAW when nothing in any of the books, not just UA, aren't chiseled in stone.

[@Jay-ql4gp]

Love it. Warts and all. It was, is, and will always be, my favortie book. And it was the only book I ever got as a present because my mom believed all the panic bs back in the day. But, curiously, when asked what I wanted for Christmas or my birthday, she never told me no. She just acted like she didn't know what words meant. And after several years one day, I actually nailed jello to a wall. Once again she'd asked what I wanted for Christmas one day when Grandma was over. I said it didn't matter because I never got what I asked for anyway. She got miffed. I said D&D books. Then she engaged confusion mode. She didn't know what to look for. I gave her a list of titles. She didn't know where to go. I gave her a map to Waldenbooks measured in paces. Her paces, not mine. She came up with another excuse. I gave her a list of three people who worked the computer there who's job it was to not only look it up, but walk you to it's location on the shelf, and told her I chose those three people so that someone would be there on every day and every shift. Feeling the noose tighten she glanced at grandma who just shrugged. She came up with another. I lost it and said, "Are you stupid?!?" And had to quickly add, "No. You're not. But you're treating me like I am. What you're saying is that after years of ruining my weekends dragging me to garage sales for eight hours on Saturday, and six hours on Sunday and not just that, but you'd go to the first one, to the second one, back to the first, to the third, back to the second, to the fourth, etc for _eight_ hours all over twenty five cents... Now you've got the names of the books, the store that has them, the names of three people who can _walk_ you to it, and a _map_ you're telling me you don't know how ....to shop?!? That year I got Unearthed Arcana for my birthday from grandma. Mom was livid. But Grandma pointed out that I was right. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[@paavohirn3728]

What a story 😂

[@Redlurk3]

That struggle is real💯

[@scottmarsh2991]

Playing D&D with Monty Haul, my friend and I played brothers, one a Thief and the other a Barbarian. The routine was that my Thief would get XP for acquiring the magic items, and the Barbarian would get XP for smashing them.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Brilliant! Very clever! I also appreciate your use of the term "Monty Haul"! I remember all the articles in Dragon magazine that talked about making sure to avoid that!

[@kinjunranger140]

I bought this book and have never opened it. One of the other players bought it and we all despised most of it. And when it fell apart after using it a few times, I just put it on the shelf and it's been there ever since.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Oh wow! Thanks for sharing *that* story! That's crazy! I've had a lot of people say they never heard it was "controversial" (although I'd suspect you'd disagree with that!). Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@carlosvillanueva8530]

When we got UA in Arkansas we all started a new game and because we were on college campus, we ended up with a couple of valley elves, that were in game brother and sister, and in real life boyfriend and girlfriend, and things in their lives leaked into the game. So, one day our bard decides to tell everything we knew about their love life in a song, called "Valley Elves" to the tune of "Valley Girls" by Moon Unit Zappa. It was the most savage deep dive I have ever heard in my life, and we all knew that everything in the song was true, which made it worse. They never returned to our game. I as DM taxed him 1,000XP for disrupting the game, Then I gave him a level up for doing in character and with style. Hadn't thought about that in years. Thanks for the memory.

[@markstinson4434]

I don't recall Unearthed Arcana as being particularly controversial at the time. The group I was playing with used some parts, and took a "that's interesting, but we're not doing that" on the others. Maybe controversial for people who came to the game later, but our group was mostly in the "whatever" camp.

[@kingofmayband]

this channel is such a vibe love the drink & music flavour mixed in with classic dnd book discussion

[@daddyrolleda1]

I really appreciate your support! Thank you so much for watching and commenting!

[@jonathannelson103]

I actually loved this when it came out. before, it was exactly like he said, carrying pages photocopied from articles in a magazine in a notebook. Having it all together was great.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I still have all the photocopies I made (well, my dad made for me) of articles from Dragon magazines and modules that my friends owned and let me borrow!

[@darktimesatrockymountainhi4046]

I started playing in 1985 - right after my college graduation, as I began my first professional job. Of course, the 1st edition AD&D Player’s Handbook was my main resource, but I really liked this new book - Unearthed Arcana. It was ALWAYS understood (I believe the forward actually says it directly…) that it was ALL optional, and that one’s DM was always the arbiter of whether some variant was allowed or not. Sure - there’s some goofy stuff in there, but we understood that we would only use what we liked, disregarding the rest, and filling in gaps with our own creations. I appreciate your explanation about magazine materials being published in some of these books - totally makes sense now. I was for awhile an avid Dungeon mag & Dragon mag customer, and selected what I wanted in my game - and what to leave out. That is how we did it, and our campaigns became effectively customized patchworks of found & original material. The campaigns today appear preplanned & prescribed from the corporate level.

[@michaelradzichovsky9366]

This was the greatest thing for AD&D! Introduction of negative levels with Cavalier class! Polearm nomenclature with illustration! New ability score generation that let you pick your class before randomly rolling your stats! Cantrip spells! New spell book rules! New spell explanations! Demi-human gods and pantheon! New magic items! New weapons and armor! It was a gold mine for players and dungeon masters!

[@Radiotomb]

That beer sounds amazing. Id say shout out the current drink/music quickly at the very beginning before even jumping in to the topic.

[@Radiotomb]

Another great spot would be at the end while thanking any channel members, Patreon supporters, etc. If/when that becomes appropriate. Along with maybe your final thoughts on the video's topic, any anecdotes, and funny or interesting comments from a previous video that you'd like to highlight. Thanks for the content. 🙂

[@daddyrolleda1]

I really like these ideas - thank you so much for sharing them, and for watching and commenting! I got enough feedback from folks who aren't interested in that content (drinking/listening) but they were cool about it, that I just moved it to the very end as "Bonus Content." That way, it doesn't affect anybody's watching of the content they want, it doesn't trigger anybody who is sober or a teetotaler, but it's still here for the folks who want it. I hope you will like it when you see how I handled it in videos posted after this one. I like your idea of adding my "final thoughts" as well as addressing comments from previous videos! That's fun! Thank you again. I appreciate it.

[@almitrahopkins1873]

My OA had a warped cover. The binding is still in excellent shape, but if you laid it on the table, it would rock like a rocking horse. The more I tried to press it flat, the worse it got. That was the only orange spine book I had that had any issues.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Oh no! Was it always like that? That sucks. I wonder why that happened? In any event, though, thank you so much for watching and commenting!

[@redwyrmofficial]

I just remember looking at the Barbarian and thinking how I would stay at 1st level while the rogue had made it to 4th level.

[@daddyrolleda1]

So true! Another part of Gary's balancing efforts - different XP for different classes. I'm kind of okay with it, honestly, as I think trying to flatten them necessitated needing to create new powers by level for every class, leading to an overall power creep. In my daughter's game, the Thief is currently higher level than the Cleric, who is higher than the two Elves.

[@damianarvizu1095]

Yeah. That completely shut down my interest in the class. It was technically better than the Dragon magazine version that could not use magic items.

[@whitleypedia]

You can understand why by the late 80s and all through the 90s people started playing other games

[@tsunodaishi]

@@damianarvizu1095 the OA eased up on the xp for the barbarian

[@docsavage8640]

Conversely, the barbarian and cavalier classes were so overpowered we had to ban them because even at first level they were so much better than a thief at 4th.

[@sirfishslayer5100]

Thinking you could make another channel for your drinks/music. Came for the D&D info....which I really like what you do. 🙂

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you for that feedback. Based on what the majority of folks said after I dropped this video, I have just moved that section to the very end of the video as "Bonus Content" so it doesn't interfere with anything if all you want/need is the gaming content and you don't miss anything by stopping/skipping when you get to "Bonus Content" but for the folks who thought it was a cool idea, it's there for them. Hope that works for you. And thank you for watching and commenting!

[@sirfishslayer5100]

@@daddyrolleda1 Keep up the vids. VERY well researched and outstanding delivery. Appreciate what you do.

[@wizardsofthetower3802]

I LOVED that book. It was a perfect add on book back in the day. So i'd disagree whole heartedly that it was polarizing. And for the record, I am a few months short of 60 and started playing in 1979.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for watching, commenting, and sharing about your games and use of this book. It's been fun to read the comments - most folks are either pro or "we used the bits we wanted and ignored the rest." Others are quite negative in their views on the book, and while I haven't counted, I've say "pro-UA" is a bit ahead.

[@andygluehere8266]

Gotta admit, we loved it back in the day, new classes, spells, items. Of course we had to change a few things... but the whole crew enjoyed the new campaign we ran.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I was very excited when it came out. I recall being on vacation with my parents and my mom saying I could get one thing at the store worth ~$15. I went back and forth between this book or the new Companion Set. I chose UA for a few reasons, mainly that I wasn't playing BECMI (I was a Moldvay/Cook B/X player) but our group had "moved on" to AD&D so that seemed like the best choice. I also really wanted to read about the Barbarian class. I already had a Cavalier character I convinced my DM to let me have after photocopying the article from Dragon #72. Over the years, I've softened a bit in how much I liked the book at the time. Thanks for watching and for commenting! I really appreciate it!

[@DMTalesTTRPG]

AND, he tried to make Paladins a sub-class of Cavalier. Sigh.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I never understood why he changed the Cavalier from being a subclass of Fighter (Dragon #72) to being a "core" class, and moving the Paladin? Makes no sense!

[@ChristianLindke]

Very good readthrough and overview. I liked how you touched on its contribution to attribute inflation.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you very much! I'm glad you liked that - I thought it was an interesting way to look at this book. And thank you for watching and commenting! I'm really glad I saw your tweet about this book as well!

[@CaseyWilkesmusic]

Thank you for laying out why it was so controversial. All of these class concepts had to be designed for an experienced player group that were already creating their own homebrew classes. It required player buy-in (like with the cavalier who has a strict moral code). The book must have felt very mysterious and experimental.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I'm so glad you enjoyed it! Thank you very much for watching and commenting! My recollection from back in the day was that (as a kid) we didn't really understand how unbalanced some of these things were, so we were all onboard. After incorporating them into our games, we realized there were some faults.

[@kevinlamb2129]

I loved this book when it came out and still love it today. I've never agreed with the hate directed at this book which seems to be a newer thing since no one I gamed with back in the day ever had a problem with it. We did agree that the Cavalier and Barbarian were better suited for solo campaigns but neither were as powerful as the OA Ninja, lol. We didn't like that the Barbarian could somehow damage creatures requiring magic items to hit with his bare hands so we simply ditched that aspect of the class along the bit about him destroying magic items for XP. Lots of game systems have some version of physical attractiveness as a stat so we never had a problem with Comeliness either.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for watching and commenting! I'll admit, I also liked the book, especially when it came out (although I was never a fan of Comeliness for whatever reason... maybe because I was never part of the "good looking crowd"!!!!). I feel like I may have misrepresented some of the common complaints about this book as my *own* complaints, which is unfortunate. I have perhaps "mellowed" on the book since I was younger, and I do feel there's a sense across the AD&D line and leading from there into 3E and beyond, that high ability scores are "necessary," and that's not something I like. It's part of the reason I've gone back to playing B/X, where ability scores are less important. All that said, I do like a lot of the ideas in this book, even the appendices like the non-lethal combat! I use a version of that stuff in my B/X game.

[@josephperry3700]

I started playing in 1990 and everyone hated it. I think it was pretty well known that the book was broken at that point.

[@davidwright7193]

The damaging magic damage only creatures with bare hands is very Beowulf, who rips Grendel’s arm off and beats it to death with the soggy end… Never really used comeliness but we used the classes and most of the optional rules etc.

[@DMTalesTTRPG]

“Good luck with that.” So perfect.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Ah, Gary. "Players who read this section are not worthy of an honorable death..."

[@Thagomizer]

Many of the classes in this book were nerfed and worked into the kit system in 2e. Hence, they mostly found new life in rhe "Complete" series. The Acrobat doesn't really suffer from this treatment (since 2e improved the thief class with greater specialization), but the Barbarian and Cavalier are pretty lackluster. Curiously, the Fighter's Handbook also introduced the Berzerker as a playable kit, along with the Battlerager in the Dwarves book. Both of these were separate from the Barbarian, though 3e would combine Berzerker rage with some of the Barbarian's hit dice and movement abilities from UA.

[@carlk8308]

I loved this book. I think this was the book with the treasure tables that gave details about stuff you might find in a treasure horde. As a DM, I used that a lot. We ignored the Comliness attribute and level limitations since the beginning. Barbarians, Cavaliers, Thief Acrobats.... It was just a lot of fun to try new stuff. Did this one have the Warlock as well? I seem to remember somebody playing a Warlock once. Maybe that was just in Dragon Magazine.

[@cernunnos_lives]

This was the book that made me realize that all the classes should be kept simple. All the new classes should've been kept as subclasses and build types. So it made me realize that was what was coming. I always had the feeling that Barbarian or Caviler will be later put under fighter class.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I always struggle with this, as I do like classes in a class-and-level system, but sometimes they do seem to start getting really niche in terms of their role. Barbarians and Cavaliers are both "Fighters" to me and can be roleplayed appropriately without a lot of mechanical differences, or accomplished via a 2E "Kit" style mechanic, which more and more I've come to like versus a full-blown class. I recall when 3E came out, a lot of people argued that Paladins and perhaps even Rangers should have been Prestige Classes versus Core Classes! Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@nufumanchu]

Wasn't controversial at the tables I played at. We used it from the start. I still have my original copy. Although looking back, the quest for more "rules" was a "be careful what you wish for" scenario.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Oh, totally. We didn't think it was controversial back then, either. We just picked and chose what we wanted to use. Over time, I learned a pretty vocal contingent of the old school community has very strong words to say about it! Thank you for watching and commenting!

[@markkernow]

Yeah, I remember it being very controversial in student roleplaying clubs in the UK back in the mid to late 80s. In terms of the ability inflation, it contained the notorious Method V ability score generation method that was particularly disliked. Players picked the best from 8 or 9d6 in key scores rather than the usual 4d6, drop the lowest. (Page 74). Best bits were the new spells, classics like Aid, Spike Growth, Alarm, Flaming Sphere...

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for watching and commenting! I really appreciate it. I'm always fascinated by how players in other countries than the U.S. perceived and used content like this especially since you also had other options of games available that we didn't necessarily get here. I totally remember that Method V! In fact, your comment on that was partially responsible for the topic of my latest video on Ability Scores that I just dropped today (although I did leave out Method V again - just ran out of time). We definitely used many of the new spells!

[@bukharagunboat8466]

The two things that transformed our games were Weapon Specialization and the Stoneskin spell. The former contributed to the problem that many interesting monsters, especially in the Fiend Folio, have low Hit Points. As a result both PCs and Monsters are offensively powerful, but defensively weak. The latter became a must-take - it completely stopped damage from 1 hit and lasted indefinitely if the caster was not hit. It was frequently combined with Contingency (to go off when the first Stoneskin is taken down by a hit). Chromatic Orb was also unbalanced at higher levels, even if it did require a roll to hit and allowed a saving throw.

[@MarkMcMillen2112]

I certainly remember buying this book back in the 80's and at that time just about anything with the letters D&D on it seemed absolutely necessary! Nowadays I take it all with a grain of salt, but I still love reading this stuff and exploring those books even when they don't make sense.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I definitely enjoy reading it from a nostalgia standpoint but even though I'm currently running an old-school D&D game for my daughter and her friends, I don't really use anything from this book except maybe some of the spells.

[@jeffweskamp3685]

Another feature of the Barbarian class was that they got twice the usual number of bonus hit points for having a high Constitution score.

[@daddyrolleda1]

That's right! I'd completely forgotten! Thanks for reminding me, and for watching and commenting.

[@WaynesbooksNet]

Nice rundown. UA is, in essence, a hardcover Best of Dragon. We used it salad-bar-style back in the day. Never used comeliness or the cavalier. Easily the #1 AD&D book in terms of failed bindings. I occasionally see a failed binding on OA, but about half of the UAs I see have pages coming out.

[@KabukiKid]

Yeah my OA is fine, but my UA fell apart almost immediately. So annoying. Also... good description calling it a sort of "Best of Dragon" hardcover. heh I like that. :-)

[@GMRayJ36]

Totally agree! Great book, no Comliness was used more than three times at most, and binding was atrocious! But we used it from the moment it hit the shelf!!

[@daddyrolleda1]

So interesting that you and @KabukiKid didn't have problems with your OA bindings, but instead with UA! I checked earlier today and discovered I have a first printing of UA, so I wonder if that is the reason mine has held together better? Maybe the cheap binding didn't happen until later printings? In any way, thank you so much for watching and commenting! I really appreciate it!

[@KabukiKid]

@@daddyrolleda1 I must have a first printing of UA, as I bought it day 1. I think you just lucked out! heh :-) I had one friend who had a solid copy. I ended up getting a nicer copy later on, but I still have that crappy copy that I ended up trying to glue back together better. It sort of worked. lol

[@trioofone8911]

Hey, greybeard old schooler here, played DnD back in the early 80s. When Comeliness came out everyone I knew thought that was the silliest idea in existence, and we all completely ignored it. Lol

[@daddyrolleda1]

Glad to know my group and I weren't alone! Welcome to my channel! I hope you stick around!

[@searchforsecretdoors]

I am here for exactly this kind of content. Thank you! I bought all the core books back in the day, but it felt a little overwhelming for us. We played BECMI until 2e came out, so I missed this book entirely. I finally ordered my Print-on-Demand version a few months ago. So it took me almost 40 years to finally figure out why the D&D cartoon had characters with weird classes. I like the drink and music selection at the beginning, but please keep it short. "Hey, I'm coming to you from my study where I'm currently drinking X and listening to Y." And maybe a single follow-up sentence with more context if you have something important to say about one of them. I am here for the D&D content, so not too much. But I do like getting that little window into the life of the dad behind the video.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I really, REALLY appreciate this! Thank you for taking the time to write this comment to give me perspective on what you like/don't like. It helps so much to know what people are responding to. UA was HUGE when it came out... at least, to me. I remember I was on vacation with my family and that meant, at some point, my mom was probably going to be my sister and me a gift to read in the car. I had to pick between UA and the BECMI Companion Set. I chose UA partly because I didn't play BECMI; I was a B/X guy. And I was fascinated by wanting to see the Barbarian class (I'd already read the Cavalier & Thief-Acrobat in Dragon Magazine). I appreciate your comment on the drink & music. I'm toying with moving it to the end, so folks who aren't interested can watch the rest of the content undisturbed, but I'll do my best ot keep it shorter! I do have a tendency to be verbose on topics I'm passionate about. Thank you again for taking the time to comment. I really appreciate your support.

[@searchforsecretdoors]

@@daddyrolleda1 Thanks so much for the kind words! I am seriously enjoying your channel, so please keep it coming. 😀

[@shadomain7918]

thanks! The worst part was 1. the binding. I have 2 copies and they're both falling apart. This is due to the business issue you cited , 2, /comeliness, I think we rolled it but we never used it, everyone knew it was worthless> All the rest? Yeah, playtesting ust have been non existent the new classes were completely unbalanced, This was just a colleciton of Dragon mag articles. As you noted this only came out to generate some cash flow.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for watching and commenting! I remember being on vacation with my parents and my mom saying I could get one thing I wanted for ~$12-15 and I had to choose between this book and the new Companion Set for BECMI. I'd never even played BECMI (I played Moldvay/Cook B/X) but the Companion Set did look interesting. Ultimately I decided on getting UA as my group was mainly into playing 1E at that time. I recall reading it in the car and pretty much the only thing in there I hadn't seen yet was the Barbarian, as it came out before I began reading Dragon Magazine, but 90% of the rest of the stuff I felt like I'd already read, so it was a bit of a let-down.

[@Blazbaros]

Love these history videos, as someone whose only go into it within the last eight years, its really interesting to hear about it from someone who was actually there and experienced it first hand!

[@daddyrolleda1]

That is such a nice compliment. Thank you very much and thank you also for watching and commenting! I look forward to chatting with you in the comments, and please feel free to ask any questions or suggest any topics!

[@sststr]

My UA is falling apart, but my OA is still in really good shape. Of course, I didn't use my OA book near as much as my UA book, so there's that. UA was an easy book to pick and choose from - parts you didn't like, you just didn't use, while other parts you could integrate seamlessly into the core material. At least that was my experience, I was never bothered by not having the entirety of it fully incorporated in my game.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Oh, for sure - I never used 100% of any D&D book I bought, whether it was monsters, spells, whatever. There was some good stuff in UA but over time, I've softened on it a bit in terms of how much I like it. So interesting about the physical state of your books. I am very lucky to have each of the AD&D hardbacks, and the only one that's falling apart is OA!

[@TheAnticorporatist]

Yeah…I remember when this came out and I had to do multiple quests to get my dark elf’s intelligence high enough to get to arch mage. F/MU/T…eventually vampiric. Miss that dude.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Sounds like a fun character!

[@doug9964]

My brother and really like double weapon specialization, as it helps make fighters more powerful and more on par with magic users

[@daddyrolleda1]

It's so funny what people do and don't like. I never had a problem with it as I tended to play Fighter-type characters, but weapon specialization is one of those things a lot of people dislike about that book as they say it's unbalanced. Thank you for watching and commenting!

[@NoPatricioNo]

Great video, as usual! I'm not a fan of the drink/music section. Maybe it could be a graphic that pops up on screen, between sections or at the start of the video. For someone listening to the video whilst doing something else, it's not as easy to skip ahead.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for watching and commenting, and in general, for your support! I appreciate your insights and candor. I'm thinking, based on other comments, of moving this to the very end. That way, folks who want and/or okay with it can see it, while folks who don't can just stop listening at that point and it won't impact your listening of the content you want. Would that be an acceptable compromise for you? Once again, I really appreciate you taking the time to watch and commenting. It means a lot to me!

[@NoPatricioNo]

@@daddyrolleda1 Thanks for replying, and for making these videos! That does seem a lot better, especially if there's people for whom it adds to the experience.

[@shallendor]

I loved this book, especially the cantrips! I've never been in a group that had a Cavalier, and i played mostly AD&D from 1982-2009!

[@daddyrolleda1]

As soon as the Cavalier debuted in Dragon #72, I rolled one up and then had to have my dad photocopy the article at his work and give the copies to my DM so he could read the article and see if he'd allow me to play it. He did, but in general, he was pretty flexible about stuff. Some day I should show all my old character sheets... I still have them all! Thanks for commenting! What happened in 2009? Did you switch to another game, or stop gaming?

[@shallendor]

@@daddyrolleda1 I had to leave the group i had been in since 1990! : ( I also had played all the classes and Kits worth playing in AD&D!

[@daddyrolleda1]

@@shallendor Sorry you had to leave your group! I moved summer of 1986 and lost my group, then found a new one but they quickly switched to WFR. I'm lucky that, to this day, I still game with one of those guys, though!

[@andrewlustfield6079]

@@daddyrolleda1 In a lot of ways I actually like the old Unearthed Arcana--both the Barbarian and Cavalier were pretty overpowered at the time, when compared to fighters and Rangers, yet both were written in a way that also made them pretty unplayable. You either had to be so stupid brave that any sense of tactics just goes out the window (which is not at all how knights operated in general---William Marshal as one historical example, El Cid another--both know when to refuse battle and when to give it.) Or as a barbarian you hated and feared magic so much that there was no way to have a mage in the party---but looking at the history of the tribes these tropes were based upon, magic was an ingrained part of there daily existence. So the basic concepts were actually pretty good--the rule restrictions Gary Gygax imposed on them as a balance where pretty ham fisted. The way I see it, and yes I still use a version of the cavalier or knight---you have fighters, which represent the basic rank and file warrior, and then you have the warrior elite, knights and cavaliers. This is really cross cultural, if you want to explore something that goes beyond the 14th-16th century European model. (At least if your campaign world has full-plate harness as an available tech. Plate mail or more correctly a coat of plates first started to appear in the 1180s) In Japan, you had Samurai, and you had the common soldiery. Same in China or India or Arabia--they all had their version of the cavalier and the more common soldier. And Barbarians are also fantastic when you put more thought and nuance into them--actually crafting these tribal and clan cultures who live on the edges of more settled lands. They can be Norse inspired, or Irish, Native American inspired or Dervishes and desert Bedouins, or ferocious steppes horse archers like the mongols, or...and...or...and. It's a blueprint that can be applied to so many different kinds of tribal societies

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thanks so much for this - really good insights and fun to read! I do agree with the separation of the various social classes and roles of Knights/Fighters/Barbarians (whatever you want to call them), but I do also think that 90% of the differences can be roleplayed versus having an entire new class. For the other 10% of mechanical stuff, that can just be a "concept" for a base Fighter (e.g., nobility/leadership/horseback combat for knight; maybe formation fighting or something like that for fighter; maybe some survival skills and such for a barbarian). I haven't fully thought it out, but I think it would help with the proliferation of classes that start to get so much more niche that they lose the archetype on which they should be based.

[@gregh5665]

Thanks for this flashback to 1985! I dug out my copy of UA while watching this video, and took a little trip down memory lane. I certainly welcomed this book when it came out. It delivered plenty of great new ideas. The materiel in the DM section was almost uniformly helpful, and the bits that weren't very practical were still pretty interesting (five pages of polearms!) There were plenty of duds, too - like comeliness - which my group generally ignored, just like we ignored the things we thought were duds in the PHB, DMG and MM, like level titles and level limits for demi-humans. Besides the new spells, most of the player section in UA was nonsense. I hadn't realized it until you pointed it out: this is where the pernicious trend of racial overload, infinite subclassing and min/maxing implanted its terrible tendrils into the game. Personally, I always thought most of the AD&D subclasses were lame: either unnecessary, over-powered, weirdly defined or incongruous (so I used them sparingly). Cavalier really sealed that opinion. IMO, the four core classes, plus or minus multiclassing, are sufficient foundation to create any type of character you could want. As a DM running 1E games, I used assassins, barbarians, illusionists, driuds and rangers. The rest I flushed. Yes, even paladins. Too hokey. LOL. To me, the drow were best in their terrifying original incarnation - obscene, mysterious, and evil - no matter how many best-selling books you could produce with the subsequent watered-down down version. Suffice to say, not a player choice in my old campaigns, no matter that EGG allowed it to be so in Unearthed Aracana! But I digress. The point of my comment was that I treated Unearthed Arcana as a collection of optional resources and used a good many of them, feeling no obligation to indulge in some of the less appealing or (in my opinion at the time) less well-thought-out content. Player: I want to play an elf cavalier! Why not? It exists! DM (me): Yeah, and I want to date Elle Macpherson.

[@daddyrolleda1]

You seemed to have used the book much the same way we did back in the day - like a salad bar. As the wise Egg Shen said, "We take what we want and leave the rest..." These days, I'm liking the idea of some of the original 2E Kits (before they got out of control). Take a base class, like Fighter, add a couple of things to make it unique, and take away a few things (maybe some armor or weapon proficiencies, or charge it a tax on XP), and you've got a "new" Fighter without needing to create an entirely new class or subclass. Ranger = Fighter; can track and has a few woodland skills; can't wear heavy armor. Done. (I haven't thought this through exactly - this is just off the top of my head but hopefully you get the idea). Thank you for watching and commenting!

[@kurtoogle4576]

I played the HELL out of Unearthed Arcana, to the point that mine eventually fell apart. A lifetime of editions of D&D have given me an insatiable thirst for homebrew & rules hacks!

[@daddyrolleda1]

Oh, totally! Back in the day, I tended to try to play only "official" stuff because I thought that's the way you played the game "properly," but these days, especially in the B/X game I run for my daughter and her friends, I use a lot of stuff I've made up or things I've grabbed from blogs, social media, 3rd party supplements, and more! Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@a8fine1youngSchapT]

Have played 5e and and currently playing a lot of Baldur’s Gate 3, and your videos on the history and details of previous editions have been really interesting. Definitely making me want to play some AD&D. Love 80s Miles too!

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much! I really appreciate your support, and it's nice to meet another Miles fan! Chers!

[@jonothanthrace1530]

"The Cavalier is playing a different game" about sums it up, what with the massive suite of additional rules Gary wrote up for them, some of which feel like the system plays the character for you instead of you playing them. I sort of wonder now if the Cavalier and Barbarian might have been intended for solo play.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you for watching and commenting! I really appreciate it! It's hard to know where Gary was going with those classes. Both are so much more packed with level-based abilities than pretty much any other class he'd created prior, and they both play very differently. Either one could have just been a Fighter, role-played in a certain way (at least, to me). Thanks again! I really hope you enjoy some of the other videos on my channel!

[@anthonybird546]

IIRC Gary did state that the Barbarian was indeed conceived for a solo player

[@christopherdecator9742]

I had a player in the 90s that migrated between our group and others, and I remember him bringing up "Comelyness." Having access to 2e books, I'm thinking, "where the heck is that at?" Another thing that made me sit up and point at the screen was the seperate wild elf and wood elf races. There were vestiges of these terms in setting books (especially in Forgotten Realms lore) but wood elves only got acknowledgement in the PHB and treatment in the Complete Elves book. The Barbarian aversion to magic makes sense as the Uthgart tribes in the Forgotten Realms have the same shtick. I can better understand where the three orders of Solamnic Knights of Dragon Lance come from as the Cavalier fits along with the Paladin and Fighter for the Crown, Rose, and Sword orders respectively. More pieces of the puzzle! 😂 Much appreciated!

[@daddyrolleda1]

I am so glad you found my video! I love hearing stories like this! Yes, Wild Elves, aka "Grugach" first appeared in Dragon #67, then later in the Monster Manual II. Since you're familiar with Dragonlance, the Kagonesti are Wild Elves and they are, interestingly, very different from Wood Elves (aka Sylvan Elves). Valley Elves first appeared in module S4: The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, then were reprinted in the Monster Manual Ii as well. Gary liked his elf subraces! 2E and later editions cleaned things up and consolidated the elf subraces. The Cavalier thing was interesting... when first introduced in Dragon Magazine #72, it was a sub-class of Fighter, along with the Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian (debuted in Dragon #63). But when Unearthed Arcana came out, they made the Cavalier a "core" class, and shifted the Paladin over to be a sub-class of Cavalier instead of Fighter, and then changed the requirements to be a Paladin. I just got the Dragonlance Adventures 1E book a year or so ago... I never had it back in the day! Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@jeremiahsafford1389]

What was the difference between Wild Elves and Wood Elves?

[@christopherdecator9742]

@@jeremiahsafford1389 by the time I started playing they were both "sylvan" or "wood" elves. So I can't say with absolute certainty, but I guess wild elves are more reclusive and use less sophisticated dwellings and technology?

[@daddyrolleda1]

@@jeremiahsafford1389 Things changed over the course of 1E Advanced D&D, especially for Wood Elves, but in general, Wood Elves are more akin to High Elves and Gray Elves (and the three used the same stats interchangeably in the 1E PHB and MM, with only minor modifications. Wood Elves in the MM add +1 to STR but reduce their INT (the wording is clumsy; it says "Treat INT 18 as a 17" so that implies you just subtract 1 from the INT score). They are also noted as being "more neutral" than other elves. In the MM2, Grugach (Wild Elves) are described as being "akin to sylvan ones" but that they are Xenophobic, Neutral (Chaotic) in alignment, and add +2 to STR. They also are not magic-users, but multi-class Grugach can be Fighter/Druids. Those are the main differences. In Unearthed Arcana, they can both be Clerics, Druids (although oddly Wild elves had a level cap, whereas Wood elves are unlimited), Fighters (Wild elves have a very slight level advancement increase), Thieves, and Assassins. Wood Elves can be magic-users; Wild Elves cannot. That's it, as far as 1st Edition D&D is concerned!

[@jonothanthrace1530]

When I was about 13 in the early 90s, my parents found a copy of this book at a garage sale and bought it for me, and I was fascinated. It was my first d&d book and I read it over and over again, and colored some of the illustrations in (which the previous owner had also done, but my contributions were much more amateurish). Sadly I never found a group to play with.

[@jonothanthrace1530]

My absolute favorite part of UA, apart from some of the wilder new spells, was the Khopesh, largely because of how ridiculously elaborate the description for it was. Seeing as the book was littered with little bits of decorative illustration, you would think that they would have put a picture of a khopesh in it, but I guess the time crunch and budget concerns meant they didn't use much new art. (Was any of the art in UA new, or was it all recycled from Dragon magazine and other TSR publications?)

[@jonothanthrace1530]

The spells also felt as if Gary had known about the Satanic Panic around the game and decided to lean into it, considering how many of them involved contacting or summoning demons and devils.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for sharing this story! I love hearing how people got into the hobby and their first encounter with the game. I'd already been playing for about ~4 years when this book came out. I remember being on vacation and my mom gave my sister and me a little spending money, and I used mine to buy this at a bookstore in Denver, then read it every night in the hotel room and in the car on the way home. I have quite a few modules from the early days that I acquired from friends who no longer wanted them, and who had colored in the drawings!

[@daddyrolleda1]

@@jonothanthrace1530 I think it was a mixture of old and new. 2E was notorious for recycling art, and it was less common in the 1E era. The polearm illustrations, for example,. were new in UA and different from the ones in Dragon (at least, as far as I remember)! But YES! Early D&D was also bad for describing something awkwardly when a picture would've done the job so much better!

[@daddyrolleda1]

@@jonothanthrace1530 Great observation! I've also wondered about that myself! The Satanic Panic had the exact opposite effect that folks hoped it would, in that it created more attention to the game and made more people curious, so it's very possible that Gary leaned into that.

[@michaelradzichovsky9366]

You are absolutely right about Ability Score inflation from this book. Rolling 9d6 for your primary score virtually guarantees a 18 in that stat.

[@RuiSaltao]

Another great video. About you talking about drinks and music: just do whatever the heck you like. It's your channel. But please, keep adding the chapters so that it's easy to skip.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much! As always, I really appreciate your support (I know I've said that before, but I really do mean it). I've been a bit overwhelmed, in a good way, with folks who found my channel and continue to watch and comment on almost every video. It means a lot to me! And YES - I will add chapters for that next time, and probably stick it at the end so people can watch the D&D/gaming content uninterrupted. We'll see. Thanks again!

[@RuiSaltao]

@@daddyrolleda1 Rock on. Glad to support you and feed the algorithm.

[@kyleroat1259]

I always watch and enjoy your wrap ups at the end of your videos. I prefer the info being given at the end. It is a nice wind down from the information given throughout the video. Plus, when you click on a video, you primarily are looking for the information it promises from the title/description rather than what you were drinking and listening to. The info being added at the end makes it easier for those who may not want to watch that, to opt out. Just my thoughts.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I really appreciate you letting me know. This is all good advice, and it's basically what I started doing after having made this particular video, based on comments and suggestions from people. I'm glad you like that format, and I also really appreciate you watching that content - it's a nice wind-down for me as well! Cheers, and thanks again!

[@bearthegenxgm]

This was always my favourite AD&D book :) Thanks for this :)

[@daddyrolleda1]

You're welcome! Thank you for watching and commenting! Email reply coming back to you soon!

[@retu3510]

I would argue that the barbarian, along with amazonian and beautyful witch, where actually present in OD&D (titles pictures) and were intended as player characters, even though no explicit class was giving.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Very true! That's kind of the beauty of a four-class system: they can be used to model pretty much anything! The "Fighting Man" (ugh - it's call it a "Fighter") can be used to emulate the Barbarian and the Amazon, and the Magic-User can be used for the Witch. And then the rest is all role-play! I remember back in the 80's making a table of various Fighter types for different cultures like Roman Legionnaires, Ancient Egyptian soldiers, Spartans, and various others, and all of them were just Fighters with different equipment and armor. It's a very versatile class!

[@shenanitims4006]

Blast from the past! Throwing out a MySpacian NP reference right at the beginning. I’m now playing Janelle Monae’s “Dance Apocalyptic.”

[@harmonicaman79]

I really, really, really appreciate your citations in your videos.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for saying that! I really appreciate it. And thank you also for watching and commenting. Cheers!

[@stevengentry9396]

The biggest complaint among my playing group was that the book was 1/2 new player's handbook material and 1/2 dungeon master's. So, you're buying a hardback that, by design, you're not supposed to use in its entirety (of course, everyone read the whole thing). Like most of the hardcovers after the core books, we pulled bits and pieces out for use, but it was never a major addition to anything we did. Cantrips was probably the most functional addition. An interesting springboard for ideas (like Deities and Demigods; sparks ideas but not greatly useful), but not a really great resource book in the way the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II were.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for watching and commenting! I mentioned that exact issue you had with the split of the Player & DM sections (as though players were really only going to read half of a book they paid for!). We used it like you, as well, kind of like a salad bar. Take what you like, and leave the rest. Thanks again!

[@thejackbull210]

I love this style of video; they remind me of Matt Colville's History of D&D One Fighter series. The longer, the better!

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you very much! That's an honor to receive a comparison like that! I appreciate it! And thank you for watching and commenting!

[@BX-advocate]

Just discovered your channel. As for knowing what you're drinking/listening too I feel it should be at the start. RPGpundit says what he is smoking at the end of his videos so it would differentiate your content from his. Also I think it adds ambience.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Glad you found the channel - thanks for watching and commenting. After a lot of feedback, I've moved that section to the end, as a lot of folks just weren't interested and I don't want to force folks to sit through stuff they don't want just to get to the content they want to see. Also, from an algorithm standpoint, it would probably lower my numbers!

[@BX-advocate]

@@daddyrolleda1 Fair enough, I just wanted to give me two cents. You do whatever is best for you.

[@MemphiStig]

From what I remember, you're spot on with everything you said. The books were notoriously fragile. Several of mine fell apart in various stages over the years. UA was never considered official content by most people I knew, and while I liked a lot of what was in it, I hardly ever got to use it. And I feel like in some ways, it was merely a prelude to the hot mess that would be known as 2e.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for watching and commenting! Interestingly, 2E gets a lot of love from folks on this channel! I actually never played that edition, although I had the core books (not the DMG, though), most of the Complete Handbooks, and a few of the green Historical Guides, plus the Dark Sun and Arabrian Adventures settings. But, I never got a chance to play the system, as I moved states in the late 80's and lost my group, and by the time I found a new one, they were playing Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. I spent a ton of time *reading* 2E and basically just picked the bits I liked and tacked them onto the 1E campaign setting I was creating at the time in preparation for a future game I planned to run. Thanks again!

[@SapphireRidge900]

I'm loving all your content so far. Especially your well researched + context historical videos. I look forward to watching all your uploads! On Drinks and Music, You should do what makes you enjoy making these, that's why they are so great. I can personally do without it if my vote counts. Or at the end so I can write notes while it's background noise.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for watching and commenting, and for the very nice compliments. I really appreciate it! After this video, based on the comments, I have moved the "drinking and listening" to the end of the video in a section of "Bonus Content" so you can watch all the D&D-related content and then stop listening/watching if you want and it won't impact you either way! Thanks again for your support!

[@sylvarogre5469]

I beat the hell out of my UA. My gaming groups always took things from the books as optuons, so we homebrewed them. We had spiral notebooks full of our own houserules labeled for different campaigns with references and explanations. We loved and hated the orange spines. All the new ideas were awesome, but the shoddy production ment tape and eventually hot glue and learning how to rebind books ourselves. As Mako might say, "A time undreamed of... let me tell you of the days of high adventure" ... the 80's.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for sharing this, and for watching and commenting! I love hearing about people's early days in the hobby and how they did things! I also had a spiral notebook with notes and house rules and new classes and monsters. Of all my orange spine books, the only one that's falling apart is Oriental Adventures. Not sure why only that one, but I guess I got lucky!

[@lorigulfnoldor2162]

What a coincidence that both Cavalier, Barbarian and Acrobat featured (not both, trith of them) featured in Dungeons and Dragons animation series! I always wondered what kind of classes those were, because there were no Cavaliers, Barbarians or Acrobats in Baldur's Gate 1 (my first info source on DnD). Also, Barbarion boy did not roleplay properly because he never attacked Wizard (Magic-User) boy =) Although Cavalier boy was pretty In-Character, with him being proud and haughty and all of that =)

[@daddyrolleda1]

I got this book right when it came out, and I also watched the cartoon although by that time, I was a bit older than the core demographic so it never really resonated with me. I wanted a more "serious" D&D series or movie. But it was only *years* later when I finally connected the marketing between the show and the book!

[@trioofone8911]

My DnD group back in the day regularly ignored the strictures about Barbarians and magic. When the barb player tried to destroy one of the magic user's magic items (wand of fireballs i think?...), the magic user threatened to use it on him. It was an intervention, lol, we all decided that Barbarians just need to chill out. Lol

[@daddyrolleda1]

So funny! And when you think about it, Bobby the Barbarian from the D&D cartoon was surrounded by magic items AND a magic-user! So, yeah, the UA rules on that seems a little misplaced. Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@pdubb9754]

I was really excited when this boo came out, but we never really played with it as my campaign was heading into the homestretch and characters were pretty set.. One of the players borrowed my book and used it to make a barbarian to use in another game, and I sat in on a session and I thought the barbarian was pretty powerful. I don't recall how the magic restriction played out for him. Possibly ignored. What I remember about the cantrips is there wasn't much in the way of damage causing cantrips. I remember a bee sting and that's about it. The whole thing was a hodge podge of miscellany from Dragon Magazine and the cutting room floor. I forgot about pole arms. No one ever used pole arms back then. The feat in 5e makes these much more prevalent. I'd like to think it makes Gygax smile.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I found it funny that a huge portion of the book was dedicated to polearms, especially later when I found that the article had been published nearly a decade earlier in Dragon magazine. As far as I remember from playing in those days, nobody was really clamoring for more polearms, let alone a multi-page article about them! As far as the magic reaction and the barbarians, I think it's true that most players and DMs ignored them, and also the other restrictions place on barbarians and cavaliers, many of which are roleplaying hindrances that players like to ignore. Thank you so much for watching and commenting!

[@garryeckert5929]

Watching you videos got me digging up my old books.

[@daddyrolleda1]

That's great to hear! I hope you found it a fun activity! Which ones were your favorites back in the day? Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@wbbartlett]

I like the little details about the drink & music etc. Personalises it a little more & reminds us you're more than just a voice on a screen :)

[@daddyrolleda1]

I appreciate you saying that so much! Thank you so much for watching and for taking a minute to comment. It helps to know what people like/don't like. Based on some of the comments here, I think I'm going to move that section to the end of the video, but I'm glad you like it!

[@Darthleo1121]

I liked the video. Love hearing what you have to drink, helps me find new stuff to try if it sounds good enough! Keep the D&D and table top stuff coming Sir!

[@daddyrolleda1]

I really appreciate that! Thank you so much for watching and commenting! More D&D content to come! If you're a beer guy and want to follow me, I'm at: untappd.com/user/tartinm

[@davewilson13]

We loved this book our group, starting in 86, never heard it as controversial until today. Thanks for the take. We didn’t play with comliness. It was really just a magic item tome.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for watching and commenting! I think back in the day, it wasn't as controversial as it is seen now. Perhaps I spend too much time chatting with a certain sub-set of old-school gamers, but around 2009 I discovered the Old School Blogosphere and was surprised how many people in that group really didn't like this book. I've mellowed on it since it came out, but I definitely don't hate it like some folks! Thanks again!

[@mrc8308]

Yeah this book was seen as hot garbage back in the day. We cherry picked some items and spells but the classes.. no thanks

[@daddyrolleda1]

@@mrc8308 I think it probably depended on the group and the age of the players. I remember being quite excited for it when it came out, but then being slightly disappointed as I'd already read much of the content in Gary's articles in Dragon Magazine. Over time, my enthusiasm for it has diminished but I do remember having a lot of fun after convincing a DM to let me play a Cavalier, as I was also more partial to the martial classes. Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@queenannsrevenge100]

Same here; at the time, I was between groups, and it was super-hard to find groups in my area (height of the satanic panic) so any new D&D material was amazing to see; later when I found a group, all of us had the same opinion, we loved the new classes, options, magic items, etc. it wasn’t until later that I could objectively see the power inflation present in it, running these classes alongside others anyone who wasn’t a cavalier, or a fighter, or a drow (or a drow cavalier) was highly underpowered. 😄

[@queenannsrevenge100]

Two other thoughts hit me just now, one is a vivid memory - in one campaign way back in the 90s, our DM used to give us magic items specifically for the Barbarian in the party to destroy. I was very upset at the time because we did not have many magic items, and once we came upon a short sword +1 that my character wanted, but the entire party and the DM shouted me down because the Barbarian needed XP to level. 😄 The other thought was a realization that a first level Barbarian “will not knowingly associate with Clerics” nor magic-users, according to the UA. Since he needs 6,000 xp to get to level one, and even the party Cleric and wizard will be 3rd level by then, the Barbarian probably won’t make it to level 2 🤨

[@SightedPencil21]

Another great overview. Thanks for covering this fascinating bit of D&D history.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you very much! I'm really glad you enjoyed the video, and thanks for watching and commenting!

[@Tysto]

I liked UA at the time, even tho i didn’t use much of it (so mine is still in great shape). We mostly used it for additional spells and magic items. I was baffled by the cantrips, which were ridiculously specific & yet still required you to memorize them. Who is going to say “Let's see, shall i trade a 1st level spell for sneeze, dampen, spice, & creak or for gnats, whistle, clean, & firefinger?” They were very flavorful, but the rules for them were idiotic. They should have just been cast at will.

[@davidmoseley1082]

I love the new intro of what you are drinking and stuff but it should be at the end

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you for that! I did move it to the very end, and included a "chapter stop" and a header to alert folks who might not want to watch this part. Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@gcvrsa]

I've been playing D&D since about 1981, and I don't recall UA being considered "controversial" at all.

[@daddyrolleda1]

It's a pretty controversial, or at least polarizing, book among the old-school renaissance community, as I discovered (a bit to my surprise) when I encountered that community around 2010 or so. I also started in 1981 playing Moldvay Basic, which I'm currently running for my daughter and her friends.

[@wulfbak]

I loved this when it came out. It was just the AD&D expansion I'd been looking for. New classes, new spells. We had a great time with it.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I was super excited when it came out as well, and I remember being on vacation and choosing to get this over the new Companion Boxed Set (my mom said I could choose one). Over time, my interest in it waned a bit, but at the time we liked it. Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@Giantstomp]

Your videos are top -notch, I don't think you need the what you are drinking and what your are listening to part. That said if you like doing it then keep doing it.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for saying that, and for watching and commenting! I really appreciate it! At this point, I'm considering perhaps adding it at the end, based on people's comments, but also making sure to make it a "Chapter" so folks can skip it if they want. And being at the end, it won't impact anyone's viewing if they don't want to see that part. Someone said it helped to "humanize" the channel, and that struck a chord with me. My daughter is *very* sensitive about me showing my face on camera, as she's afraid her friends might see it and make fun of her (she'll grow out of it!) so doing this was a way to add a bit of personality so it's not just videos of my hands holdings books. Thanks again!

[@carlosdeleon1052]

I only got this book about ten years ago in a resale shop somewhere, just because I was curious and the price was right. Only then did it dawn on me that the D&D cartoon from the 80s must've been, basically, a half hour ad for this book (as was the case for many 80s cartoons being ads for various toy product lines). I remember watching that cartoon and being slightly confused about there being a Cavalier and a Barbarian.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I think a lot of folks had that same realization at one point! I'd seen the Thief-Acrobat and Cavalier in articles in Dragon magazine, so I wasn't too surprised, but I was a little miffed that the Cavalier was such a jerk AND that he didn't even have a weapon, and also that the Barbarian was a kid with a pet unicorn. Nothing like the classes I'd read about! I remember buying my copy of this book on vacation with my parents. They gave my sister and me a little spending money and at a bookstore, I had a choice of either this or the Companion Boxed Set. Since I was mostly playing AD&D at that point and had ever actually played BECMI (only Moldvay), I chose UA. Thanks for commenting!

[@RobertWF42]

Did this edition of Unearthed Arcana introduce the Defense Bonus & Armor as damage reduction or was that only 3.5 UA? I like the drinking & music recommendations. I also watch Beer & Boardgames & enjoy seeing what they're drinking.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for watching and commenting! The Defense Bonus/Damage Reduction stuff was in the 3E Unearthed Arcana (which is also a fun book!). I'm glad you like the "Drinking/Listening to" stuff. I've been doing that on my blog for more than a decade and thought it might add a bit more of a personal touch to my channel that just features my hands (or, as one kind commenter called them, "fat sausage fingers") and old books. I'm going to have to check out Beer & Board Games now! Thanks for the recommendation! I hope you stick around and find other videos you like. Cheers!

[@RobertWF42]

@@daddyrolleda1 Don't know why the Defense Bonus mechanic from the 3rd ed UA didn't catch on. Shouldn't your skill at attacking equal your skill at defending?

[@daddyrolleda1]

@@RobertWF42 I do think other games that have this mechanic make sense and folks seem to like it. For D&D, I think it's partly just "tradition" as that would be a huge change to the way the rules work (I think changing it for 4E would've made the most sense, since that edition is so "un-D&D like" than any other). D&D combat is intended to be very abstract, but the terminology doesn't support the abstract nature, unfortunately.

[@yourseatatthetable]

I've found a lot of useful into within this book, as well as a few mysteries that took a long time to sort out, like why it was written so haphazardly seeming. Then years later, I read the fine print and listened to what others had been saying for years that this was a collection of stuff that Gygax had thrown together. And in spite of that, it's still got a lot of useful stuff within it's covers.

[@Penfold497]

10:51 Limits on demi-men is an implied worldbuilding element more than a game balance element (but it’s partly both.) You get demi-men, who have lots of abilities and can also progress in more than one class, with inherently more power than men. However, single-classed men will level faster than multiclassed demi-men by one or two levels’ worth fairly quickly. Not only are man way head on special abilities, but they face milder level-up restrictions in terms of class fidelity penalties and the time and money necessary to train up. Recall that RAW, a figure must get enough XP to attain level X, but it also must spend X weeks and X hundred GP each time. That means multiclassers are going to spend more resources at the critical early levels while their specialized colleagues are off in the dungeon. Recall further that RAW, the DM is instructed to impose XP penalties for characters who act outside their class role (or alignment.) Well, a character with two classes will have to walk a fine line to fulfill both roles cromulently. A character with three classes? The penalty is all but assured. Level caps, again, shape the world more than the party. Elfs can only get to 11th level in magic user. That means they never get 6th column spells. No Enchant an Item or Permanence. Hobbits can be Druids but not clerics. Why? Above Name level, what we will see across the game world is powerful high-level Men with many lower-level, but versatile, demi-man allies. Which models Gary’s favorite pulp fiction worlds quite well.

[@skidnsf]

I recently learned that M.A.R Barkers Empire of the Pedal Throne contained the comeliness ability score. Not sure weather he got it from Arneson or vice versa but I guess that is possibly where Gygax adopted it from? I like and still occasionally use the Cantrips in the UA in my AD&D campaign and the description of the spell book size vs traveling, etc was also useful. I felt the Barbarian was way overpowered and the Cavalier was impossible to play correctly with my 15yo friends back in the early 80s. Everyone wanted to play the Acrobat but it sucked you had to be a high level thief to play one. The added weapon proficiencies helped the fighters shine a bit, but every fighter took the same ones. Same with the added races. Suddenly everyone wanted to play a dark elf or deep gnome. The power creep in the game became more solidified and evolved I feel in the UA ( Dragon Magazine article options aside). Also, UA seemed so far removed from Gygax's Greyhawk Setting and how the DMG really reflected the setting.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for watching and for this great, detailed comment! I really love hearing about people's actual experience with these different books, settings, etc. I mention Blackmoor's Comeliness Score in my videos on "The History of Early TTRPG Settings" and in a recent video on "Ability Scores" - I think you might enjoy those two. Totally agreed with the Power Creep comment! As a kid I really liked the Cavalier especially, but over the years, I've mellowed quite a bit on the book. I do think there are some interesting ideas, but it feels a bit rushed and with less of a focus than some of the other books. Thanks again!

[@oldmanfunky4909]

I loved this book. This was a step in the evolution of D&D and informed my 12 year old self at the time this book came out that it was okay and fun to modify the original rules. This is the book that opened the door to home brewing. Oriental Adventures was another big one. Back at the time martial arts movies were big. Chuck Norris and the Octegon, Bruce Lee and Enter the Dragon. Edit: The errors to me and my friends were hidden blessings. It forced us to make executive decisions on how to interpret the rules. Of course our local hobby shop/Game Store would hand out photo copies of the errata but that didn't stop us from keeping rules we made at our table.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you for watching and commenting, and sharing your thoughts! I always love hearing stories about how others approached the game back in the day. I really liked this book back in the day as well, but overtime I've grown to temper my love of it a bit. It's still a fun one to have in my collection and I enjoy re-reading parts of it from time to time.

[@philotomybaar]

The content also came from mods like Tsojcanth and GDQ that had supplemental spells and magic items. We used the rules for the most part, but thought method V was OP. Comeliness was okay but didn’t come up very often.

[@wightrat1207]

I'm surprised you didn't touch on the alternate ability generation option in the DM's section, where a player would take the best 3 rolls from 9d, 8d, 7d, 6d, 5d, 4d, & 3d, and which abilities got which amount of dice was determined by class

[@daddyrolleda1]

Yeah, that's one main section of the book I didn't get to. I sometimes worry my videos are too long, and as a consequence of that or from just plain forgetting, there's always going to be something that people are "surprised" I didn't include. I'm sorry I didn't include that part! But yes, it was a main part of that DM section, although my DM never let us use those methods, which could be why I inadvertently didn't include it.

[@MrCarp69]

Back in the day when it came out it was revolutionary for us. It changed everything and we loved it. I still reference it today conversations and utilized it in recent past.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I feel much the same! I loved it when it came out! Over time, however, I've had some more conflicted thoughts about it. Thank you so much for watching and commenting!

[@TheJarlOfJyttland]

A very good video! As someone born in 92 and who first started playing Pathfinder in 2012 it is very interesting to hear the history of DND and it's publications. I am gonna be honest, I would not want the part of what and where you're drinking, hanging and listening to. It just feels off-topic and it bloats the video run time. In a blog post I can totally see it working to set the mood.

[@daddyrolleda1]

No worries, and thank you for letting me know! I only did it one other time since then, but I put it all the way at the end of the video and adding a chapter-stop so people could skip past it. I was just trying to add a bit more personality to my channel other than just showing my hands and a bunch of old books! (My teenage daughter has requested I know show my face, at least for now, as she is concerned that somehow her schoolmates will encounter my videos and make fun of her for it, for whatever reason). Other than that, I am really glad you found and liked the video. I actually hadn't intended to focus on making history of D&D & early TTRPG videos all the time, but those are the videos that get the most attention, so here we are! And, to be honest, they are fun to put together! I hope you stick around and that the drinking/listening stuff at the very end of the videos in the future doesn't bother you too much!

[@jacobhope6164]

My group and I LOVED Unearthed Arcana! It was likely one of the most influential books in my young D&D life. It's easily still on my top 5 most nostalgia inducing books.

[@daddyrolleda1]

I loved it at the time, too! And I also agree it would make my Top 5 "Nostalgia-Inducing" Books, even if these days I wouldn't necessarily use as many ideas from it. But I still like it for what it was and how excited I was to buy it on vacation as a kid! Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@royjaskowski905]

When ever we wish to break the game, we go to “Unearthed Arcana.”

[@daddyrolleda1]

It can excel at doing that! I hope you enjoyed the video, and thank you for watching and commenting!

[@gideonpepys]

My vote: Save the drinks reports for the blog. I clicked to hear about D&D.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Fair enough. Based on comments from most of the folks here, I moved it to the very end of the video in a section called "Bonus Content" that's clearly labeled so the folks who don't want to listen to that part don't have to, and it won't affect them hearing any of the rest of the D&D content. I hope that will work for you. Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@drnoone3596]

After all these years... now I know. Niwnit makes sense. BTW nice opening and music selection. Enjoy. Better look at the label next time? 😊😊

[@daddyrolleda1]

I'm very glad you enjoyed the video. Thank you very much for watching and commenting! I'll do my best on the label! This was the first time I'd done this, and I realized as I was holding it up to the camera that if I titled it too much, the beer was going to spill out!

[@philotomybaar]

The content also came from mods like Tsojcanth and GDQ that had supplemental spells and magic items. We used the rules for the most part, but thought method V was OP. Comeliness was okay but didn’t come up very often. The most broken game mechanic: the ranseur and spetum polearms had the ability to disarm an opponent on a score required to hit AC 8! You’d be insane not to have a hireling or two armed with these polearms, just disarming every opponent you fight.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Yes, exactly about the ranseur and spetum! So many of those alternate methods were OP, I thought! And yes, I had forgotten that many of the monsters and magic items, especially, came from S4. Thanks for that!

[@gregtaylor9806]

Very cool, thanks for walking us through this

[@christopherhunt1957]

Great video. We were pretty thrilled to get this book when it first came out. New stuff! But yeah, it was wonky and really messed with our game. Later, when I realized I didn't care much for 2E and moved back to 1E, I didn't pick this book back up.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you for watching and commenting! I tended to mix-and-match things from 1E and 2E (for example, using 2E kits and NWPs for 1E classes like Cavaliers, Barbarians, and Assassins, etc.). Then my group switched to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and so I never really played 2E "as is." Are you still gaming currently?

[@christopherhunt1957]

@@daddyrolleda1 That's funny because my college group went through a 2E/1E hybrid period too, never playing 2E "as is" as you said. I am still playing. I've gone through long periods of off and on with RPGs, but as they say, "once a gamer, always a gamer." Just last night I ran Shadowdark, a new fantasy RPG I cannot recommend enough. Thanks for making your videos. I've been reading the Jon Peterson and Ben Riggs histories of D&D and RPGs and have found it fascinating. It's amazing how much I've learned considering I lived most of that history, starting with D&D in the early 80s.

[@beezyonbass3906]

I have to say, loved the intro section, but I’m also a shameless Miles Davis fan. Cheers! Great video as always! I have two physical copies. One has the infamous spine issue, other is flawless. I really should triple check which printing the clean copy is from. As a kid, this was one of my favorite books. As an adult, that understands the history behind the book, and has a respect for balance…I think some bits are a little problematic. New classes as written are a bit much. I prefer the toned down variants of the Barbarian and Cavalier from Dragon 148. I’m torn about Method V. It feels like unnecessary power creep. But 1E can be brutal, and I think factual table sizes by then were generally smaller than what 1E was designed for (6+ players.) With those facts in mind, it makes sense. Weapon specialization, much like Method V, is a bit power creep-y, but in actual play really helps Fighters stay competitive at higher levels. It’s not perfect, but even if we solely evaluate it on the basis of what it contributed to the core 2E books, I think it’s worthy of merit.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you for watching, and for this great, detailed comment! I love it! I'm glad you liked the new bits in the intro! I'm thinking of moving them to the end so as not to interrupt the viewing experience of folks who are less enthusiastic about that part. Nice to meet a fellow Miles fan! I often feel I'm the only one my age who listens to him! A few days ago on Twitter, there was a meme challenge going around of "Name a great instrumental song longer than 3 minutes" or something like that, and folks were struggling but kept posting pictures or videos of these long guitar solos and such. And I said, "The challenge is just to name a great instrumental song longer than 3 minutes? EVERY SONG ON THIS ALBUM!" and I posted a pic of the cover to "Kind of Blue." I really liked this book when it came out, and as usual, we just picked and chose the parts we wanted to use (new classes, demi-human options, some spells, weapons) and ignored the parts we didn't (Comeliness, for one). I just looked up the printing differences on Acaeum and Noble Knight and... I have a first printing! So that might explain why it's in better shape. Who knows? Thanks again for such an insightful comment! I really appreciate you taking the time to write this!

[@ontaka5997]

I used Unearthed Arcana back in the 1980s and still have the copy I purchased then, and I remember loving this book bringing back fond memories. I mainly used the parts about new races, character classes, spells, and weapons, but ignored the smaller details. I didn't read from front to back so I didn't realize that there was a new ability score "Comeliness" until it was mentioned in this video. We also "improvised" and were flexible with the rules such as barbarians hating magic items they would destroy on sight etc. The best bit that me and my friends liked, was the cavalier class because it was more flexible with race and alignment compared to the Paladin. When I did DM, I also created evil cavalier NPCs to be fought.

[@crallsfickle2994]

Polarizing, so what are some of the reasons why some people love(d) it? Love the channel! I like the drink/music thing at the start

[@sverr0r]

Always a cheer or Unearthed! Although "flawed" in its contents, it was very instrumental as the first "core" book to not really be core, but suggesting a wider branching out from the 3 must-have DM rulebooks, and try your hand at expanding... whatever, which was always a core concept for D&D. Regular readers of Drgaon Magazine might already have been on that vibe, but Unearthed really drove the point home, that the imagination is the limit as a DM, not the text of any book.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Thank you so much for watching and commenting! I really appreciate it. I was very enamored with Unearthed Arcana when it first came out, and I do think there are a lot of fun ideas in it, but over time, I've gone back to it less and less when looking to be inspired for my current games, whereas I'm much more likely to grab the 1E DMG, Fiend Folio, or Oriental Adventures for inspiration these days!

[@sverr0r]

@@daddyrolleda1 The green books from 2nd edition are great too, but at least for me Unearthed "opened the doors" on additional contents. A bit of a fourth wall breach here, but I also have a theory that the dude on the cover is Easley's rendition of Gygax as a DM. From what I understand, Gygax was still very active around TSR when Easley joined the artist team, closely after Caldwell and Parkinson. Dunno if you already heard the story, but apparently Easley (my fave D&D artist) apparently played a mage who miscalculated the confines of a fireball and destroyed the entire party as a result - ouch. Always wondered who the DM & the other players were... maybe the other artists? Not to rub my genie here, but Easley would make a GREAT interview object if you can get him! ;) Thanks again for great contents!

[@JestaKilla]

I always feel nitpicky when I offer corrections, buuuuut the 1e DMG actually had rules for weaponless combat- remember the infamous "how much does that monster weigh?" pummeling, grappling, and overbearing system? The Unearthed Arcana ones were simplified and improved versions; I'm pretty sure everyone immediately switched, making it one of the few pieces of UA that was pretty universally acclaimed.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Don't feel nitpicky! You're being respectful and reminded me of something, which is totally fine. As I mentioned in my video review of the 1E Dungeon Master's Guide, due to the layout of that book and the writing style, I pretty much discover something new (or something that I'd forgotten) every time I open that book! I had forgotten about the Weaponless Combat in there! Thanks for being cool and not, as some people do, trying to pull a "gotcha," or worse, an "...actually..."! And thanks for commenting and watching!

[@daviddcain]

Love the beer and music disclosure

[@daddyrolleda1]

I'm so glad to hear that! I thought it added a little more personality to my channel rather than just my hands showing a bunch of old books. I've moved that section to the end of the video marked "bonus content" so it doesn't interfere with the content of the actual subject of the video. Folks seem to like that part better. Thank you for watching and commenting.

[@RoninCatholic]

My take on both the Cavalier and the Barbarian was that the roleplaying restrictions made them strictly _inferior_ to plain Fighters, and the benefits they got were largely negligible. I do notice that these two Fighter variants are what we got in the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon, rather than ordinary Fighters, but neither character particularly _acts_ in accord with his stated class.

[@daddyrolleda1]

As a kid, I was always annoyed that Eric the Cavalier acted like a coward and was also a stuck-up jerk, and that Bobby the Barbarian was a kid with a pet unicorn! I wanted a cool depiction of each class!

[@davidpaul1970]

While I'm writing this comment I'm drinking Gatorade Orange. It has a slight tangy aftertaste, but not as strong as Original Gatorade. The beverage was first developed in 1965 by a team of researchers led by Robert Cade. It was originally made for the Gators at the University of Florida to replenish the carbohydrates that the school's student-athletes burned and the combination of water and electrolytes that they lost in sweat during vigorous sports activities.

[@daddyrolleda1]

This gave me a chuckle! Thanks for sharing. I've not had Gatorade Orange, but I do recall having the original as a kid. I didn't realize it wasn't invented until the 1960's! Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@geofftottenperthcoys9944]

My copy of the blue cover AD&D Players Handbook, fell apart less than a day after I bought it! Also had that happen with the 2nd ed PB as well!

[@daddyrolleda1]

There were definitely a lot of binding problems from around 1985 through the early 1990s. To this day, my only book in which the pages are pulling away from the spine is Oriental Adventures but I've heard so many stories like yours!

[@tinywarfare9109]

Liked: new spells, items, updated spells lists, level limits. Thief-Acrobats were ok, as were the Druid expanded levels. The polearm section was great boon for a bunch of kids who had no idea what a fauchard-fork or glaive-guisarme was, even though no Fighter would use them (see below). Liked the spell book rules too. Don't like: Comeliness (unnecessary), Underdark races (busted), the Cavalier (busted), Barbarian (unplayable), Method V (crazy op) and Specialization. Specialization in particular was a bad idea wrapped in good intentions. I get the idea of giving Fighters a boost, but this wasn't it. It took a class that could use any weapon and homogenized them into a class that used only one of a small selection of weapons, usually a longsword. This is all in hindsight however. At the time, UA was pretty awesome; A new hardcover full of new stuff!

[@daddyrolleda1]

Yes, HINDSIGHT is exactly right! Back in the day, I thought this book was awesome! I still don't hate it as much as a lot of old-timers, but I've definitely mellowed on it over the years. As far as the polearms, do you mean fauchard-fork, or fork-fauchard? Glaive-guisarme, or Guisame-glavie? Or glaive-guisame-fauchard-voulge? Or Voulge-glaive? Or Glaive-Voulge-Glaive? Or Glaive-Glaive-Glaive-Guisarme-Fauchard-Glaive? Or Glaive-Glaive-Glaive...

[@Team_Orchid]

As a Pathfinder player that stumbled onto this video, it's amazing to see a cavalier in the super old game that's pretty much the same as PF1's version of the class. You got the mount, you got the social rules you gotta follow, it's just missing the banner, tactition, and challenge abilities unless I'm missing something.

[@wbrennan2253]

It was one of my favorite books. Still have it, too.

[@daddyrolleda1]

Very cool! I was very excited with it when it came out. I've softened on it over the years but still refer to it for the game I run for my daughter and her friends.