Did you use UA in your 1E games?

[teitan]

3e cut down on the DM's workload? I must be doing something wrong because I spend a HECK of a lot more time designing adventures now than I do running them. NPC creation as your PCs get higher and higher in levels in a pain in the rump unlike previous editions where you could just ad hoc everything (not that you can't in 3e, but the paperwork is STILL more complicated than previous eds).

By the DM keeping things balanced, and I think the DMG for both editions says this, it is the DM's job to hand out treasure and magic and to tailor the adventure to suit the players. This is game balance to me, not handing out too much or too little treasure and if you do, back off on it until it seems like a good time to start doing it again. If a player is playing a Bladesinger, the DM should be careful in the magic he gives that character to keep him from outshining the other pcs and should make sure the others get enough magic etc to keep up. That is a dm's job, not the systems.

 

[Delta]

Please list your experiance with using the book, and if you think it was a net positive or negative on the game.

I'm late to the party, and probably reiterating the most common school of thought, but...

I did use the book fully; it was clearly presented as another core rulebook and I made a dedicated effort to incorporate it fully in my game. Yes, there was a sudden influx of super-races and classes. (The moment I saw someone pick a Grugach elf I instantly said "you won't be able to pick that all the time".)

I actually think that the best thing to come out of 3E is the identification of specific "Variant" rules, and the eye-opener that you have a right to tailor or massage your game to what feels best to you. Call me naive, if you want... or maybe I just swing towards the Aspergers/autistic side of personality and am really hard-wired for a "right way" to do things. If Gary/TSR said this book is official, then I was compelled to use it; not until 3E and online chats did I realize that was possibly not the case.

Here's some other painful stuff in UA maybe few have mentioned yet:
- The fact that Paladin became a sub-class of Cavalier, and had to meet all the requirements for both classes. (a) It broke the four-part core class structure of Clr, Ftr, MU, Thf in a way that pained me. (b) The requirements for Paladin were then utterly insane, statistically (I also would turn to the Dragon article which avoided that structure).

- The influx of new spells, which then looked available to all spell casters (esp. clerics & druids), totally changed the shape of campaign magic. In particular, every class suddenly had scrying ability! Before that, the only option was to find a crystal ball or use one of the 20-questions type spells. I had to totally rethink the campaign once every high-level character could see anywhere at any time. A generation of DMs has been grappling with the scrying issue ever since UA.

- The price valuation put on spellbooks. Suddenly, the biggest inflow of cash to starting adventurers was to get their magic-user killed (if unintentionally), sell his spellbook, and then roll up a new magic-user. Ugh.

I do consider playing 1E again, using just PH for core character development, and drips of UA stuff for NPCs or spells/magic item treasure. My absolute favorite 3E UA Variant is for fully spontaneous divine casters, and I think about whether it would be too much to back-pedal that into 1E.

 

[haakon1]

When the book first came out we did. But after a year, we dropped it (only mining it for magical items and spells). I thought it had a negative impact on the game.

Same experience here. I kept the humanoid gods and the polearms, though, and used the magic items occassionally.

 

[pemerton]

Another comment: Aid and Death's Door (we felt) finally gave clerics some good 2nd and 3rd level spells (other than Silence). Death's Door in particular was very popular with my players.

 

[Yeoman99]

As a teenager I used the book extensively, playing Cavaliers and Barbarians. I didn't ever feel that it affected my enjoyment of the game, so my experience was overall positive. That said none of the group I played with experimented with the racial classes as my DM insisted in enforcing drawbacks (drow light aversion etc.).

It also coincided with the release of the Gord books which influenced our group, and fitted with our Greyhawk campaign. Power gaming, strangely, never seemed an issue with my friends. I played many classic modules with these characters (GDQ1-7 etc) and still found them challenging. Whilst I never analysed the book at the time to pick out serious problems, I remember 1ed + UA with much more fondness than 2ed.