Flying Toaster's latest activity

When I started playing 1E c. 1986-87, UA was “the new shiny” and everyone was excited to own and read the book, simply because it was...

This is exactly the conclusion that our group came to as well. The Barbarian only worked in a 1-1 game and it's slow advancement made...

I remember quite liking it when it came back. Revisiting it, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Barbarian and Cavalier classes were...

I think as a group we never used any of the new classes but I liked some of the other stuff. I don't remember any widespread rejection...

It sounds like a lot of folk here have fond memories of it, and my table never used it, so the best I can do is try to answer your...

The comment about UA feeling like a collection of Dragon articles is dead on. I know probably most of you know it was but for the...

Same for my groups. The parts we used were the Nonhuman Deities, rarely the polearms, rarely the birth and class tables, and some of the...

I do like how unearthed arcana became the title of new rules and variants, even used in 5e for the playtest documents of new content.

I never thought it was that big of a deal because it wasn't just 3d6 for each, since the DMG had 4 of them and strongly recommended...

Unearthed Arcana was a mixed bag for us. The new weapons, armor, magic items, and spells were largely well-received, but the new races...

I'd forgotten that comeliness was a thing in UA, I think I saw that and opted against porting it into my 2e games. Back when we played...

I loved the book (in theory). It was full of some really new, experimental things. In practice, not all of them were good- if used as...

Well my book fell apart with little usage, so it was bad in that sense. :censored:

The bad off the top of my head The cavalier is way overpowered and designed differently from all other classes. Comeliness is a...

I was .... 16 when it came out, and it made a big splash with some of the groups in my neck of the woods. My group never really used...