Did you use UA in your 1E games?

[Aaron L]

Neither did we ... at first. Then we began to exprerience the ridiculously overpowered barbarian. When you have a class that's so much better than one of the core four (the fighter) that it makes it redudant, you've got balance problems--even for a game as tottering as AD&D 1e.

The drow was equally as silly (a race that can't get along with anyone else in the party? Great), as was the cavalier (this dude can train up his stats, but my fighter, who devotes his life to martial training and skill at arms, can't? Okay).

I'm glad you had fun with the book, though, and it's not my intent to rain on your parade, but I think most who used it would agree it had some serious flaws.

The classes weren't balanced with each other, thus the differing (sometimes amazingly so) experience tables.


How much XP did a Barbarian need to get to 3rd level, again?

 

[replicant2]

The classes weren't balanced with each other, thus the differing (sometimes amazingly so) experience tables.


How much XP did a Barbarian need to get to 3rd level, again?

I never bought into the argument that you can balance lopsided classes simply by changing their XP requirements, and thus their advancement rate. Given that the majority of parties are comprised of characters +/- a level of each other, that isn't enough to make up for the disparity in power, anyway.

Besides, is a player of an 8th level fighter going to be happy with the fact that he's barely keeping pace with a 5th level barbarian?

 

[grodog]

I never bought into the argument that you can balance lopsided classes simply by changing their XP requirements, and thus their advancement rate. Given that the majority of parties are comprised of characters +/- a level of each other, that isn't enough to make up for the disparity in power, anyway.

I'm not sure that I follow you, replicant2: in most AD&D games I played, PCs were from 0-4 levels apart from one another, although after attrition higher-level groups were sometimes much more homogenous (although they would often have lower-level henchmen and hirelings in the party, too...). Starting campaigns were always much closer in power-level, too, of course, whether PCs would start at level 1 or 4 or whatever. However, once level advancement by XP acquisition kicked in, PCs would definitely start to differentiate based on their XP advancement charts, and whether they were multiclassed or not.

Players in AD&D running thieves and druids (using the experience tables from the PHB) would advance much more quickly than most other players (especially paladins and rangers). Roger E. Moore wrote a good article analyzing the experience progressions for the core classes, in Dragon 69 called "Charting the Classes"---it's well-worth looking up if you have that issue or the CD archive.

Besides, is a player of an 8th level fighter going to be happy with the fact that he's barely keeping pace with a 5th level barbarian?

Sure, given the increased saving throwing, to hit score, more hit dice (and corresponding CON bonuses), etc. Or, am I missing your point?

 

[T. Foster]

The barbarian class in UA really is grossly overpowered compared to all the other classes (except, possibly, the cavalier). To refresh everybody's memory, here's their abilities:

*Double AC bonus for high Dex when wearing non-bulky armor (or no armor)
*Double hp bonus for high Con
*12-sided hit dice up to 8th level and 4 hp/level thereafter
*Base move 15"
*6 weapons of proficiency at 1st level (and 1 every 2 levels thereafter)
*-1 non-proficiency penalty
*Receive XP for destroying magic items as if item were kept
*At 4th+ level can hit creatures only struck by magical weapons
*+4 on saving throws vs. poison
*+3 on saving throws vs. paralyzation, death magic, petrification & polymorph
*+2 on saving throws vs. wands, staves, rods & breath weapon
*+1 on saving throws vs. spells per 4 levels (starting at 4th)
*Climb cliffs and trees (and walls, once they've had an opportunity to practice) as thief of same level
*Hide in familiar natural surroundings as a thief 3 levels higher hides in shadows
*Hide in unfamiliar natural surroundings as a thief of same level hides in shadows
*Surprise 3 in 6 (4 in 6 in familiar terrain)
*Only surprised 10% (5% in familiar terrain)
*5% chance/level to detect back attacks (negates attacker's bonus and allows barbarian free return attack even if he's already used his full actions for the round)
*Leap up to 10' forward, 3' backward, or 3' up from standing; 16-21' feet forward or 4.5-6' up from running; spring upward 4-7'
*Detect illusion: 5%/level (up to max. 75%)
*Detect magic: 25% at 1st level + 5% per additional level (up to max. 90%)
*Add level to charisma to determine effective charisma score when dealing with other barbarians
*Can perform "first aid" on self and others to immediately regain 1 hp and heal at twice normal rate (2 hp/day resting, 1 hp/day adventuring) thereafter
*10%/level chance to cure natural poison and disease (50%+victim's Con if poison or disease is known)
*plant and animal identification as 3rd level druid
*Predict weather as per druid spell (3rd level casting ability)
*Tracking as ranger of same level (outdoors only)
*Summon Barbarian Horde at 8th+ level (XP/1000 members + leader-types, will serve for [level] weeks)

And their drawbacks/restrictions:

*Must be human
*Cannot dual-class
*Min Str 15, Dex 14, Con 15 (though note that Method V char-gen allows the character the minimum required stats for the class if he fails to roll them)
*Max Wis 16
*No XP bonus for high stats
*Must have non-lawful alignment
*Does not automatically know alignment language
*Illiterate at start of play
*Initial weapon proficiencies must include knife, hand axe, spear
*Steepest XP chart of any single-classed character in the game (6000 XP for 2nd level) -- barbarians will tend to be 2 levels below thieves and 1 level below other classes with the same XP total
*First aid, plant & animal idenfication, predict weather & tracking abilities can only be used in familiar terrain (1 month of exposure required to familiarize)
*Must come from "some out-of-the-way barbaric state or area within the campaign"
*Cannot associate with clerics until 2nd level
*Cannot use potions until 3rd level
*Cannot use magic weapons until 4th level
*Cannot use magic armor until 5th level
*Cannot associate with magic-users until 6th level
*Cannot use weapon-like miscellaneous magic items until 7th level
*Cannot use protection scrolls until 9th level
*Cannot use other magic items available to fighters (rings, wands/staves/rods, non weapon-like misc. magic) until 10th level

IMO they're totally unsuited to standard group-based play -- they totally overshadow fighters and rangers, partially overshadow thieves and druids, and can't even be in the same party as a magic-user or illusionist until 6th level (which is 7th-8th level for everybody else). The barbarian is really only suited to a sub-campaign where it's the only PC (with perhaps one or two other fighrer or thief PCs or NPCs as "sidekicks") and in that case his overwhelming resilience and versatility make up for lack of numbers -- a barbarian and 1 or 2 other characters probably have about the same versatility and effectiveness as a full group of 6 "normal" PCs, at least at low levels.

We had a game like this back in the 80s -- one player with a barbarian PC, me as DM (and running a sidekick NPC/DMPC -- a halfling ftr/thief) -- and it was great fun as a change of pace from our concurrent standard/group-based campaign. We played through several adventures with just these 2 characters and the feel was much closer to the Conan, Fafhrd/Grey Mouser, and John Carter stories than any of our large-group play ever was. Plus, because there were only 2 of us involved, it didn't require a lot of advance planning and scheduling -- if we found ourselves with a couple free hours we could pull out these characters and play on the spur of the moment.

A sub-campaign like this can be a lot of fun, either as an adjunct to group-based play or for people who can't manage standard play (either from lack of free time or lack of other players), and the barbarian (as well as perhaps the monk) is the class best suited to it, because of their combination of toughness and versatility (combining features of the fighter, ranger, druid, thief, acrobat, and even a bit of m-u -- innate ability to detect magic and illusions). With a barbarian you can run modules that were intended for 6 players as-written wth 1-2 players and not have to worry about adjusting encounter strengths.

 

[replicant2]

I'm not sure that I follow you, replicant2: in most AD&D games I played, PCs were from 0-4 levels apart from one another, although after attrition higher-level groups were sometimes much more homogenous (although they would often have lower-level henchmen and hirelings in the party, too...). Starting campaigns were always much closer in power-level, too, of course, whether PCs would start at level 1 or 4 or whatever. However, once level advancement by XP acquisition kicked in, PCs would definitely start to differentiate based on their XP advancement charts, and whether they were multiclassed or not.

Players in AD&D running thieves and druids (using the experience tables from the PHB) would advance much more quickly than most other players (especially paladins and rangers). Roger E. Moore wrote a good article analyzing the experience progressions for the core classes, in Dragon 69 called "Charting the Classes"---it's well-worth looking up if you have that issue or the CD archive.



Sure, given the increased saving throwing, to hit score, more hit dice (and corresponding CON bonuses), etc. Or, am I missing your point?

Take a look at T. Foster's post, just below yours. This is the point I'm making--from my experience, the owner of a higher-level PC is never happy when a dramatically unbalanced lower-level PC comes along that's every bit as good. And the problem only gets worse if and when the levels are even--e.g., when a 7th level Barbarian is in the same party as the 7th level fighter, the latter is completely outclassed.

I agree that, back in my AD&D days, PCs' levels were often greater than 1 apart. But once a class like the fighter reaches "name" level, his power progression slows quite a bit, and a lower level barbarian or cavalier closes the gap far quicker at that stage of his progression.

 

[Crothian]

This is the point I'm making--from my experience

Which is the same point we are making; in our experience it was never a problem. Obviously that wasn't true for everyone. And now I can see looking back that it could have been aproblem but for my group, for whatever reason, it never was. I had people play fighters over the barbarian and cavilier. Though we never had anyone play a Drow. In fact I have yet to encounter a player in one of may games in any edition of D&D that wanted to play one.

 

[replicant2]

Which is the same point we are making; in our experience it was never a problem. Obviously that wasn't true for everyone. And now I can see looking back that it could have been aproblem but for my group, for whatever reason, it never was. I had people play fighters over the barbarian and cavilier. Though we never had anyone play a Drow. In fact I have yet to encounter a player in one of may games in any edition of D&D that wanted to play one.

It sounds like you had a pretty good group. I was an early teen back when UA came out, and it fed the power-gamers' appetites in my group. If someone truly role-played the barbarian's natural fear and distrust of magic, it may have gone a long ways towards balancing that particular class. But, truth be told, we were too immature and power-hungry to do that.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

My old group used it, and used the previews that ran in Dragon Magazine.

The first time we tried out a party with an elven cavalier, and two paladin cavaliers at 1st level with full plate armor. Our characters ended up killing an ogre and frustrating the DM.

Later, we saw a barbarian and a cavalier constantly arguing with each other. They did not mix well.

We used Unearthed Arcana and generally liked the book. We generally ignored the demihuman level limits, and used weapon specialization extensively.

This thread is bringing back a lot of old memories. Thanks.

Used it all of the time - it worked great. Cavaliers, barbarians, spells, whatever weren't a problem.

 

[pemerton]

We used it. The spells were good (Chromatic Orb maybe a little too good). Weapon specialisation reduced the overshadowing of fighters by magic-users. The new tracking rules for rangers struck us as an improvement. The new unarmed combat rules were a lot easier to use in play. Demi-human level boosts were approved of in our all-demi-human campaign!

The Cavalier was clearly too good, but we only saw NPC ones. Barbarians didn't seem so broken, because their XP chart guaranteed that a fighter (particulalry after specialisation and magic) would always have better to-hit, and with specialisation and magic better damage as well. (We always balanced characters by XP, not by level.)

Btw, those who think that UA introduced broken-ness into the game: how do you justify the Druid XP and spell chart, which gives HD and spells at low-to-mid levels way ahead of any other character; or the Illusionist XP-chart, which makes them far-and-away the first class to get access to Astral Spell and Alter Reality?

 

[grodog]

Take a look at T. Foster's post, just below yours. This is the point I'm making--from my experience, the owner of a higher-level PC is never happy when a dramatically unbalanced lower-level PC comes along that's every bit as good. And the problem only gets worse if and when the levels are even--e.g., when a 7th level Barbarian is in the same party as the 7th level fighter, the latter is completely outclassed.

That makes sense, especially in light of the UA version's capabilities; I'll have to go back and do a more-thorough look at Dragon 63's version now, since I didn't use the UA version, preferring the earlier one. I also didn't have folks play barbarians with any regularity, since they liked their MUs and magic items

I agree that, back in my AD&D days, PCs' levels were often greater than 1 apart. But once a class like the fighter reaches "name" level, his power progression slows quite a bit, and a lower level barbarian or cavalier closes the gap far quicker at that stage of his progression.

Definitely noted.