Did you use UA in your 1E games?

[T. Foster]

We embraced it wholeheartedly when it came out in 1985, and it completely changed the shape of the game, IMO for the worse. Gradually we dropped more and more and eventually went wholly fundamentalist and declared the entire book off-limits and stuck solely with the PH & DMG rules. In later years I've relented a bit. There are a couple things I use in all my 1E games (alternate unarmed combat rules, barding rules, spellbook rules, some of the magic items), a few things that aren't "default" available but that I'd probably allow if a player requested it (wood & wild elves, new weapons, new spells, armor-based ability adjustments for thieves, thief-acrobat class), plus I've got a soft spot for the barbarian class (which is of course grossly overpowered and not really suitable for a traditional group-based party at all (since they overshadow fighters and thieves and hate clerics and magic-users) but can be really fun for a one or two player sub-campaign). Most of the stuff that actually changes the shape of the game, though -- Method V stat generation, "super-races" that are unambiguously better than the standard PH races, greatly increasing class options and level limits for demi-humans, allowing thieves to use bows and m-us to use slings, weapon specialization, making the paladin into a subclass of the cavalier, "super-armor" that absorbs damage, etc. -- I don't allow at all. If I were to allow all this stuff I think I'd rather just go all the way and play Mythus instead (IMO UA is better seen as transitional between AD&D and Mythus moreso than straight AD&D).

 

[Crothian]

HELLS NO.

i still believe UA was written by Gary for his powergaming scions.

As a powergaming Scion, we loved the book and used it all the time!!

 

[Raven Crowking]

When I got the book, I made it available for characters in the campaign world. As DM, I did enforce the drawbacks in the book (sunlight problems for drow, magic problems for barbarians) and had no problems with it. At first, of course, everyone wanted to be a drow cavalier, but that phase didn't last long.

Of course, I never had a problem with the 2e "Complete X" books either.

I think that, if the DM is good, he or she can deal with most balance issues.


RC

 

[Voadam]

Oh yeah! Human rolls for stat generation! We were all over those as well as the dragon issue that did the same for demi humans.

 

[dagger]

Yes we did.

We ignore the Paladin sub class stuff and the ability score generation.

We are still to this day allowed to roll on the social standing chart if we want too.


Lower Lower Class....SWEET!.


Only ever saw one barbarian and cavalier played. Saw maybe 2 dark elves...

We really liked the weapon rules and the ranger changes.

 

[Psion]

After panning it, let me say:

We ran an Arthur-esque game with just Cavaliers.

It rocked.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

I used it....in fact I used the Dragon Magazine articles before UA came out.

Same here. However I didn't (and still don't today) allow Evil PCs. I think if you enforce all the restrictions and disadvantages, Drow, Barbarians, and Cavaliers are not unbalancing at all.

 

[Roadkill101]

We used it, but no one actually bothered using the new classes or races as anything other than NPC's except for an occoasional Thief-Acrobat. I don't remember any issues in using any of the new material.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yes, it was used, back then.

After a short while, balance issues necessitated some house rulings.

 

[Xyanthon]

No, I never used it in any of the games I played. It came along pretty late in the game so to speak . However, back then when UA came out and all of the other books such as Manual of the Planes, Dungoneer's Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival Guide and all of the rest, I was pretty thrilled. I never used any of them in any of my games, but I did like to read them.