FriendlyFiend
Explorer
This thread has reminded me about Comeliness which was ... I mean ... seriously, why??!!
D&D 1E Inquiry: How do fans of AD&D (aka 1E) feel about the Unearthed Arcana supplement?
Legatus Legionis
< BWAH HA Ha ha >
.
Last edited:
DarkCrisis
Reeks of Jedi
Love 1E, cut away the chaff and its a nice simple system. Don't need skills, just roll against your stat! etc. easy!
I'd play it today if I was able to find a group. Lucky Ive found a 2E group that plays online.
I'd play it today if I was able to find a group. Lucky Ive found a 2E group that plays online.
Blue Orange
Gone to Texas
Yeah, I agree 100%. It was definitely a dumb set of rules.
You might, if your players are cool with it, allow an NPC to roll for seduction. But that would really be the sort of thing you'd talk over with your table first.
Helldritch
Hero
The UA was a mixed bag for me. I embraved a lot of it but immediately ruled out the classes and the new races after an initial playtest that showed us how wonky the classes were and the implications that allowing them meant.
Player:" I jump and catch the chandelier on the ceiling, swinging my self on the balcony".
Me:" No can do now. These are the provinces of the thief acrobat now..."
Player:" Ho crap...".
Or
1st level group
Player," Ho that is an ogre, we are clearly outmatched. Let's walk away and think of a better strategic approach...."
Other player:" Too late, the Cavalier saw it too. He is already charging the foul thing..."
Other players:" Holy sh*t!"
We did have fun in testing it. But for "serious" gaming, we quickly abandoned the classes and kept to the new non human limits, the spells, magic items, non human gods and specialization. I do not remember if we used the new druid levels. My players rarely played druids in 1ed.
Hi, and comeliness was taken out immediately. Not our cup of tea. Too sexist for us and we had a girl in our group that showed us how comeliness could mess up a group I no time.
Player:" I jump and catch the chandelier on the ceiling, swinging my self on the balcony".
Me:" No can do now. These are the provinces of the thief acrobat now..."
Player:" Ho crap...".
Or
1st level group
Player," Ho that is an ogre, we are clearly outmatched. Let's walk away and think of a better strategic approach...."
Other player:" Too late, the Cavalier saw it too. He is already charging the foul thing..."
Other players:" Holy sh*t!"
We did have fun in testing it. But for "serious" gaming, we quickly abandoned the classes and kept to the new non human limits, the spells, magic items, non human gods and specialization. I do not remember if we used the new druid levels. My players rarely played druids in 1ed.
Hi, and comeliness was taken out immediately. Not our cup of tea. Too sexist for us and we had a girl in our group that showed us how comeliness could mess up a group I no time.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
In response to a few things... I think some aren't remembering (or don't know) that when you play in a game of 1e, rules don't happen "in a vacuum". What I mean is that a "rule" was MUCH more akin to the Pirates Code....more of a set of "guidelines than actual rules".
There were a few 1e groups going on that I knew about back when there was no 2e yet, and one thing I can, 100%, without a doubt, confirm with MY experience was this: Everyone did it differently.
Some groups completely ignored Comeliness. Some groups played it strictly by the book, period, regardless of circumstance or believability. Most groups were somewhere in between, with one group even having PC's "re-roll" their characters Comeliness when encountering a different race! (so your PC might have "COM: Elves, 12 // COM: Dwarves, 15 // COM: Orcs, 9 // COM: Gnomes, 18", etc). Some really interesting methods for using it...none of with were by the book except for those BTB guys.
For me, I use it but pretty much ignore the "Fascination" thing except if it would enhance the current encounter/situation. Then, after a couple of minutes of flirting or teasing...the PC's actual Charisma kicks in and from then on there is no 'Fascination'. I mean, if someone is a horrible person it doesn't matter HOW good looking they are. You know the saying "She/He's would be really good looking....if they weren't so ugly!".
As for the "hetrosexuality" of it all. Well, yeah. It's a rulebook dealing with a stat that every PC and NPC has; they kinda have to go with "most common denominator"...and, as 85% to 95%+ of the population is 'straight', that's what the rules should be based on. After that...well, as I said above, every DM's game was different and handled COM in a slightly different way.
Fighter Specialization: Loved it! Really made Single Class Fighters get back up on top of the whole "Fighting and dealing damage" side again to compete with the new Barbarian, Cavalier and Ranger (Giant Class damage...whoof! O_O ). The "Dart Specialist" was definitely the way to go if you were just looking at "White Room DPS" situations....but in practicality, it was impressive for a few rounds, then...not so much. Miss a few shots and can't find your darts or they get destroyed/blunt and you're a "non-specialized fighter" again. In longer battles, you'd run out of darts before the end. Also, you had to hang back with the MU and Thief...so less "meat shield and target" for the baddies to slow down on their way to kill you and the MU and Thief. Bottom line...we never had a problem with it because, in the end, the drawbacks/limitations evened out over the course of an adventure or campaign as a whole.
UA: Mixed bag, but lots of cool stuff to pick and choose from or adapt to suit your game.
PS: We tried the "Method V" at the back. Once. Didn't take. It just felt... "wrong". Not because of the end results...but because of the idea of "Choosing your Class FIRST, and THEN rolling". Just...weird to us. We all MUCH prefer the "Roll 3d6, in order" with our added in "Basic switch of two stats" and the "B/X 2-for-1 trade" (drop a stat by 2 points to up another one by 1). With our little method there, PC's typically ended up with a few scores around 9 to 12, one below that, and two above. Sometimes someone would get really lucky and be able to play a Monk, Ranger or Thief-Acrobat ("in training"; we always start PC's at 1st Level). But "choose your class first" seemed to absolutely destroy the "rarity" of the 'special' classes (Paladin, Barbarian, Illusionist, etc).
(NOTE: Yes, we did also use the 4d6-L as well; whatever the player wanted; with the 3d6, if you got a horrible set of stats, you could re-roll; if you got the same horrible stats on 4d6...too bad...you played him).
^_^
Paul L. Ming
In response to a few things... I think some aren't remembering (or don't know) that when you play in a game of 1e, rules don't happen "in a vacuum". What I mean is that a "rule" was MUCH more akin to the Pirates Code....more of a set of "guidelines than actual rules".
There were a few 1e groups going on that I knew about back when there was no 2e yet, and one thing I can, 100%, without a doubt, confirm with MY experience was this: Everyone did it differently.
Some groups completely ignored Comeliness. Some groups played it strictly by the book, period, regardless of circumstance or believability. Most groups were somewhere in between, with one group even having PC's "re-roll" their characters Comeliness when encountering a different race! (so your PC might have "COM: Elves, 12 // COM: Dwarves, 15 // COM: Orcs, 9 // COM: Gnomes, 18", etc). Some really interesting methods for using it...none of with were by the book except for those BTB guys.
For me, I use it but pretty much ignore the "Fascination" thing except if it would enhance the current encounter/situation. Then, after a couple of minutes of flirting or teasing...the PC's actual Charisma kicks in and from then on there is no 'Fascination'. I mean, if someone is a horrible person it doesn't matter HOW good looking they are. You know the saying "She/He's would be really good looking....if they weren't so ugly!".
As for the "hetrosexuality" of it all. Well, yeah. It's a rulebook dealing with a stat that every PC and NPC has; they kinda have to go with "most common denominator"...and, as 85% to 95%+ of the population is 'straight', that's what the rules should be based on. After that...well, as I said above, every DM's game was different and handled COM in a slightly different way.
Fighter Specialization: Loved it! Really made Single Class Fighters get back up on top of the whole "Fighting and dealing damage" side again to compete with the new Barbarian, Cavalier and Ranger (Giant Class damage...whoof! O_O ). The "Dart Specialist" was definitely the way to go if you were just looking at "White Room DPS" situations....but in practicality, it was impressive for a few rounds, then...not so much. Miss a few shots and can't find your darts or they get destroyed/blunt and you're a "non-specialized fighter" again. In longer battles, you'd run out of darts before the end. Also, you had to hang back with the MU and Thief...so less "meat shield and target" for the baddies to slow down on their way to kill you and the MU and Thief. Bottom line...we never had a problem with it because, in the end, the drawbacks/limitations evened out over the course of an adventure or campaign as a whole.
UA: Mixed bag, but lots of cool stuff to pick and choose from or adapt to suit your game.
PS: We tried the "Method V" at the back. Once. Didn't take. It just felt... "wrong". Not because of the end results...but because of the idea of "Choosing your Class FIRST, and THEN rolling". Just...weird to us. We all MUCH prefer the "Roll 3d6, in order" with our added in "Basic switch of two stats" and the "B/X 2-for-1 trade" (drop a stat by 2 points to up another one by 1). With our little method there, PC's typically ended up with a few scores around 9 to 12, one below that, and two above. Sometimes someone would get really lucky and be able to play a Monk, Ranger or Thief-Acrobat ("in training"; we always start PC's at 1st Level). But "choose your class first" seemed to absolutely destroy the "rarity" of the 'special' classes (Paladin, Barbarian, Illusionist, etc).
(NOTE: Yes, we did also use the 4d6-L as well; whatever the player wanted; with the 3d6, if you got a horrible set of stats, you could re-roll; if you got the same horrible stats on 4d6...too bad...you played him).
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Greg Benage
Legend
I never used it, but that was really a matter of timing. It was published the summer after I graduated high school, and then I fell in with a more OG group in college that wouldn't have touched it with a henchman's ten-foot pole.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
The barbarians hating wizards aspect may have been dumb (on an even higher level than paladin companion alignment restrictions), but I will say that there’s nothing dumb about a wizard being stronger than he is intelligent. Rather, that’s awesome! Because it’s FUN! The stat generation rules may have been more than a bit over the top, but rolling each stat and sticking with them can get you characters that are really different compared to building an optimized array.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
I never played 1e so never saw this in play, but I borrowed a friend's UA book back when I played 2e to look through and thought it had some cool stuff, I really liked the cavalier and its ability to increase stats which I felt should have been an option for every class. Comeliness I thought was interesting but wasn't something that I added in. I thought it was interesting but not really needed.
I've no idea what I thought about the barbarian at the time but, having looked at UA again somewhat recently, I think I echo a lot of people here who thought it was largely unplayable due to not playing well with others and the amount of XP required was overly large. Can you imagine if a player decided to make a barbarian like that now? A character that is openly hostile to magic-users and then messing with the players who run wizards or sorcerers or even clerics, it just wouldn't work.
I wasn't against the stat generation method that let you qualify for the class you wanted to play, but in the end, I stuck with my method and let players bump up stats to meet the minimum requirements. I didn't really feel like you need to roll the required scores if you really wanted to play the class. Something I'd never considered until reading the "Play 2e like 3e" article in dragon magazine was removing the stat requirements completely.
I can somewhat imagine the excitement of players when it was released, new options for a game you love is always welcome and I can imagine that I'd have asked to play a cavalier had I been around at the time.
I've no idea what I thought about the barbarian at the time but, having looked at UA again somewhat recently, I think I echo a lot of people here who thought it was largely unplayable due to not playing well with others and the amount of XP required was overly large. Can you imagine if a player decided to make a barbarian like that now? A character that is openly hostile to magic-users and then messing with the players who run wizards or sorcerers or even clerics, it just wouldn't work.
I wasn't against the stat generation method that let you qualify for the class you wanted to play, but in the end, I stuck with my method and let players bump up stats to meet the minimum requirements. I didn't really feel like you need to roll the required scores if you really wanted to play the class. Something I'd never considered until reading the "Play 2e like 3e" article in dragon magazine was removing the stat requirements completely.
I can somewhat imagine the excitement of players when it was released, new options for a game you love is always welcome and I can imagine that I'd have asked to play a cavalier had I been around at the time.
