Unearthed Arcana For AD&D By TSR

[@andygluehere8266]

Very nice. I been asking someone who knew this book well to review it. The new magic items and spells were fun, also some more class options, made us create different campaigns to explore what they could do. Of course we had to tweak things a bit. The good old sneeze cantrip came in handy quite a bit. But playing an all Cavalier group divided by houses was amazing. Miss those old 1st edition days as a teen.

[@danielkearney3295]

loved unearthed,, i still read it even though i don't play anymore

[@8moebius8]

I was laughing at the "there I said it" bit. Oh the arguments this book caused.

[@page121tabletoproleplaying4]

Yes, it did.

[@sebbonxxsebbon6824]

I went with UA when it was released and loved it. Game balance was fine as far as I was concerned and Fighters with weapon specialization were finally decent. Barbarians are always several levels behind everyone else so class balance was fine and we found fighters were better.

[@MichaelS-pr9qn]

Thanks fro this,

[@danilanglois6785]

Errata and Clarification of Unearthed Arcana can be found in Dragon Magazine. Dragon # 100, page 9 - All About the Druid/Ranger by Frank Mentzer Dragon # 103, page 12 - Arcana Update, part 1 by Kim Mohan Dragon # 113, page 3 - Letters: Roger's reasoning by Roger Moore Dragon # 117, page 32 - Sage Advice by Penny Petticord I hope this helps those of you with the original 1st Edition copy. I have heard that the "Premium Edition" printed in 2013 has some, if not all, of the Errata. I cannot confirm that information though.

[@retrodmray]

Bow specialist was fine if you very strictly enforced firing into melee and on any miss you had to roll against your party member, and if you also strictly enforced missiles tracking (amount, weight, container capacity, etc...). But that is just how I run it to help. And do not get me started on the Complete Book of Elves bow additions....crazy stuff. 😏

[@namelessjedi2242]

I got into AD&D late, so my initial books were the three main ones and UA. That said, I never used it much, and now I can see problems with it, but I still have a soft spot for the book and find some useful things inside. Also, the spine on mine is intact!

[@ardwulfslair]

So as a book on its own terms, I think UA had tons of problems, and you've nailed why - it was rushed. But as long as the GM is willing to make changes, there's very little in the book that's flatly unusable. And even if you don't want to bother doing a lot of balance tweaks there's plenty usable straight out of the book.

[@Elkantar_Rostorgh231]

Funny how the ambidextrous characteristic that drow had would be instead given to Ranger in 2e... I wonder why Hmm...

[@RobertWF42]

Was there a section on optional Defense Bonus rules? Or is that in the 3.5 version of UA? In hindsight it is a little strange that AC doesn't incorporate a character's combat skill. An oversight on Gygax's part?

[@page121tabletoproleplaying4]

I'm not sure what you mean by a Defense Bonus rule. Do you mean an AC adjustment for high Dex?

[@RobertWF42]

@@page121tabletoproleplaying4 @Page121 Tabletop Roleplaying Games No, it's an AC bonus characters receive as they level up, to more realistically reflect improved parry, block, and dodging skills. The idea being even if your character has very little armor (think Conan the Barbarian) he can still defend with his combat skills alone. I suppose, in an abstract sense, increased hit points already represent improved defensive skills as PCs gain levels. So hp bonuses would have to be dialed back if DBs are used.

[@retrodmray]

Yes, binding was absolute junk. I have one in good shape, and one with pages that have fallen out and are now missing.

[@retrodmray]

Forgot to ask, what did you think about the adjusted racial class and level limits listed in UA? Did you even use those anyway? If not, why not? Thanks for these!

[@page121tabletoproleplaying4]

We never used race limits. I was aware they changed a little in UA, but it didn't matter to me. I felt that the DM could balance whatever "imbalance" might happen if the race limits were removed and it's worked so far for us.

[@retrodmray]

@@page121tabletoproleplaying4 That is how I ran it too, although it was abused quite a bit by players, who then eventually did not game with us anymore due to revealing through that that they were really power gamer rules lawyers anyway. Thnx!

[@Elkantar_Rostorgh231]

just make Orcs monks by default. Problem solved :)

[@kentonkilgore20]

I loved, loved, LOVED this book when it came out, but coming back to the game after many years, I have considerably soured on it. IMHO: 1) The new races are unnecessary and/or unbalanced; 2) The cavalier and the barbarian overshadow the fighter; 3) Weapon specialization was overpowered. I use a revised system from Dragon 140; 4) The thief-acrobat was lame; 5) Cantrips weren't interesting or useful; 6) Comeliness was unnecessary; 7) Most of the new magic-user spells were "meh." I did like the new spells for clerics, druids, and especially illusionists, which gave those classes some much-needed resources. The DM section was great. In my current campaign, we just use UA for the spells.

[@sebbonxxsebbon6824]

Spell Casters were grossly overpowered in AD&D 1st and you gave them extra spells and the weakling melee got very little?

[@mikedeck8381]

Always felt it, UA, was a cash grab, that it wasn't needed. I stopped playing table top in the late 80's. The 2e rulebooks we're done much better. Didn't care for some of the changes made in 2e or what was left out and cut but it was much better overall than UA.