Did you use UA in your 1E games?

Everybody used it and played with at least some of it. Of coruse, like all of AD&D, what was and wasn't used or allowed was up to the individual DM and that varied from game to game. Comeliness expanded characters and made another dump stat if nothing else. Never saw more than one or two calvaliers and maybe twice that many barbarians. Saw some dark elves. Spells were used but were typically only available via finding them, learning from rare NPC, or researching them (since they were printed, the PC researching them knew it was possible). Soem magic items got used, but once again they were under the control the individual DM. I don't remember multiple DMs not allowing any particular part of the book except for "Anything" magic items which most just thought were stupid. The bit on pole arms was indispencilbe for making sence of them all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

replicant2 said:
Because some of the classes, taken straight from the book, are horribly unbalanced.

This is the reason that I think balance in 3E is ridiculously over-emphasized. We used UA. Straight from the book. It was fun. No one had any problems with it. If it was horribly unbalanced, then balance is pretty unimportant.
 

The greatest flaws with the Barbarian class IMO involved their restrictions on associating with Magic Users and clerics, and of course using magical devices. This was really the first attempt to force a role onto a PC (of acting the idiot barbarian). Or at least thats how it got played. Even the Paladin had the freedom to determine what was "good" or "bad".

As for being too powerful, and slow progression, yeah both were major drags (which was actually a good thing since I hated it instinctively...it just wasn't anything close to Conan (who if you remember used his force of personality, animal-like cunning and greed as much as his strength to get into and out of trouble).

If you want to play a Barbarian, I'd suggest just going with a straight fighter, and give them a high dex. maybe 30% tracking skills, and for God's sake, use the MM template (THE BESERKER +2 or 2 Attacks per round, zero armor, AC 7...though I'd allow dex to apply). I'd let them use magic as well. There's no way in hell a barbarian wouldn't take a ring or protection for instance from some whimp PC. These cunning bulleys survive because they take the best. As long as the magic doesn't spark unpredictably, or do some other wierd thing, what would they care. Hell, they'd love magic swords...even at first. They'd always want the best and that would mean magic (remember, in Conan novels magic is rare, unlike 1E where it is very common). The novelty would ware off quickly.


Hey Foster, what John Carpenter movie(s) are you talking about:

Foster: "We played through several adventures .... was much closer to the Conan, Fafhrd/Grey Mouser, and John Carter stories than any of our large-group play ever was."

Did your little halfling F/T have a patch over 1 eye?
 
Last edited:

We used it. I loved the cavalier and another player was always a barbarian after that. As far as balanced goes, much like the Bladesinger in 2e, we didn't really care about that because it was the DM's job to maintain balance and to make the game fun for everyone.
 

teitan said:
We used it. I loved the cavalier and another player was always a barbarian after that. As far as balanced goes, much like the Bladesinger in 2e, we didn't really care about that because it was the DM's job to maintain balance and to make the game fun for everyone.

That does seem to be a bit of a tall order for the DM, game-in and game-out.

A good DM can maintain balance and make the game fun for everyone, of course, but I'd rather he or she put all their focus into preparing and running great adventures, and not have to take into account widely disparate power levels of PCs that are at or around the same level.

It seems as though a core piece of 3E's design philosophy was cutting down on the DM's workload. With more balanced classes and the same experience requirements for all classes, I feel the new version has succeeded in that regard. Whether or not 3E has simplified the game across the board is another matter (many feel that 3E is more complicated than ever, and in some ways, I'm inclined to agree).
 


Yep, but modified the new classes according to the changes suggested for them in in issue of Dragon magazine (dropping the cavalier's stat increases, barbarian weapon proficiencies per tribal type/region, etc.).

Due to UA, I've always had an interest in a Barbarian class & a type of Knight or Cavalier class. Liked it when 2nd ed. introduced the Barbarian class (in a Complete handbook), and when 3+ ed. made the Barbarian a core class (as well as bringing in the Cavalier as a PrC, and the Knight as a core class in PHBII).

Really have grown to dislike demihuman subraces, though--prefer to have one core race, then just reflect the differences of demihumans from different regions along the lines of Reegional Feats, gear, etc.
 

Oh yes, our players went ravenous for the UA.

Dark elven everything, thanks to R.A. Salvatore. Especially rangers. Then assassins. Then Multi-classed Fighter/Anything (which was a blast - played a bum house that tried to claw its way to the top). A friend of mine ran a Drow Cavalier that is still one of my favourite characters of his. And we had a Drow Thief-Acrobat too.

Of course, then you had players like our cheating powergamer who enjoyed things like Minotaur Barbarians (thanks to the evil that is Dragonlance) who would insist on having 18/00 STR, 20 CON, and an 18 DEX... then double-specializing in the two-handed sword. Yup. Every one of them. And yup, there was more than one.

Cantrips were a riot. Magic items r0xx0r'd our b0xx0rz. And I think there were some kind of DM rules in there for mining and such...? Don't EVER let your PC's give up adventuring for mining...

And I LOVED the DSG and the WSG. These are the kinds of supplements we should be seening in 3e CORE (much like the old Rules Cyclopedia).
 
Last edited:

OK, here's a comparison between the UA barbarian class and the version originally published in Dragon #63:

T. Foster said:
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
*+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)

All the same or close enough not to quibble (Dragon version doesn't specify "as 3rd druid" for secondary skills).

T. Foster said:
*Receive XP for destroying magic items as if item were kept
*Summon Barbarian Horde at 8th+ level (XP/1000 members + leader-types, will serve for [level] weeks)

These advantages are not present in the original article.

T. Foster said:
*At 4th+ level can hit creatures only struck by magical weapons

In Dragon 65 (page 10), Gygax mentioned that barbarians---because they would not use magic---gain the same progression in ability to hit creatures requiring magical weapons as do standard monsters: +1 at 4th, +2 at 6th, +3 at 8th, +4 at 10th, +5 at 12th. No bonuses are conferred to hit or to damage, just the ability to strike successfully.

T. Foster said:
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
*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"
*Initial weapon proficiencies must include knife, hand axe, spear

All the same, although there were no ability score minimums (and the barbarian's generation method did pave the way for Method V, although the article numbers of dice rolled doesn't match exactly what appears in UA).

T. Foster said:
*Cannot associate with clerics until 2nd level

Restriction not present in Dragon 63.

T. Foster said:
*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

Restrictions not present in Dragon 63 version because barbarians cannot/will not use magic items at all, and will "shun" MUs (and likely higher-level clerics, too).

In addition, they are not able to be psionic (in the event that you used psionics), and were not eligible for weapon specialization.

FWIW, Gygax wrote a long discussion about the feedback that he had received on the barbarian in Dragon 67 (starting on page 64), which may be worth revisiting to gain some additional insight into his intentions when designing the class (in particular that for the PC to be viable at high level play, it would require 18 Str, 16 Dex, 17 Con, at minimums; and that Dex bonuses to AC are denied in many situations). He also made note in the original article that the secondary and tertiary abilities were only most effective/useful when in familiar/native terrain.

One of the reasons that I personally preferred the Dragon 63 version of the class was that it completely restricted PC barbarians from using magical weapons, which remains truer to my sense of what the barbarian was intended to represent (Conan, Kothar, Niall, Thongor, Fafhrd, etc. vs. Elric, the Grey Mouser, Cudgel, etc.). That key restriction has kept any player from using the barbarian as a long-term PC in any game I've ever run: players like the magic goodies and aren't willing to give them, up, and, per Trent's other comments, the barbarian demands a certain style and setting of play that doesn't mesh with what many players consider the default/traditional D&D setting.

Unrelatedly, a correction to my earlier post: weapon specialization first appeared in Dragon 66 (page 27), as well, not in UA as I stated.
 

After seeing Allan's comparison, I too prefer the Dragon 63 Barbarian. The prospect of using it for a one or two player game like T. Foster describes is very attractive. It would take a special setting, one that is related closer to Hybornia than Greyhawk.

I was never a fan of UA. I like to stick to PHB, DMG, and MM, just as if I was playing in 1979-1980. :)
 

Remove ads

Top