Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana on the horizon... recollections and suggestions?

[Neonchameleon]

All of which show rather less thought than any class since the 1E Monk.

The 1e monk had quite a lot of thought put into it - but almost no explanation. If you look at the 1e monk as a thief variant it's not too bad - it's better at falling off walls, running away, and playing dead than the thief and isn't quite as out of the running as the thief at high levels. It's still absurdly weak - but the thief was little better.

Any thoughts on the upcoming release? Anything I should absolutely ban or allow?

Weapon Specialisation is needed - even at low levels without it the cleric is simply better than the fighter (same armour, weapons about as good against medium targets, and they get to cast spells). The Barbarian is a simple trap - hideously underpowered due to the horrible XP chart and loss of magic, and messes up the party dynamics. The Cavalier played as indicated is a Darwin Award waiting to happen while played smartly is like a more powerful fighter.

Method V has one excuse. If you want to give people a reason to play humans.

 

[Nagol]

I would avoid the 9d6, 8d6, 7d6, 6d6, 5d6, 4d6 alternate ability score generation system. Unless you're already using the 3d6x6x6 ability score generation system from the DMG.

UA hit just before I started a campaign and one of the players convinced me to try the (4-9)d6 system. He wanted a Magic-User and ordered his rolls in Int, Dex, Con, Wis, Cha, Str.

His highest stat was Str 18. His Int was 14. His Con was higher than his Dex. He ended up bulding a Ranger.

That was the last time we bothered with that system.

 

[MerricB]

The 1e monk had quite a lot of thought put into it - but almost no explanation. If you look at the 1e monk as a thief variant it's not too bad - it's better at falling off walls, running away, and playing dead than the thief and isn't quite as out of the running as the thief at high levels. It's still absurdly weak - but the thief was little better.

AC 10 with no Dex adjustment at level one for a melee fighter (which the monk is) indicates my main problem with the monk.

Weapon Specialisation is needed - even at low levels without it the cleric is simply better than the fighter (same armour, weapons about as good against medium targets, and they get to cast spells).

My recent experiences are that standard fighters are superior to the cleric in terms of melee combat (and they have the option of missile combat). This is to level 6-7 or so - the cleric spells are not of the offensive sort until the higher levels, and limited in terms of casting time and number as well. Access to better magical weapons has a lot to do with it, but "to hit" progression and strength bonus are also a factor. At 6th level, a Fighter with a 17 strength vs a Cleric with a 14 strength ends up with the fighter at +6 to hit compared to the cleric's +2, without magic being involved. (I use the Fighter progressing every level, as suggested).

Cheers!

 

[TerraDave]

I would avoid the 9d6, 8d6, 7d6, 6d6, 5d6, 4d6 alternate ability score generation system. Unless you're already using the 3d6x6x6 ability score generation system from the DMG.

I did my own non-human version of this...and ended up with a high dex elf cavalier in plate armor that just could not be hit.
Lets see, also had a human bow specialist...that was actually quite good and a gray elf (or half elf?) ranger that ended up with a high int, so was a ranger/wizard.

Through time, my favorite part of that book was the pole-arm bit at the end, as I did not have the original dragon in which it appeared.

 

[Obryn]

I didn't use most of the stuff from UA when I ran AD&D a few years back. It systematically dismantles a lot of the balance in the game... The new subraces are horribly broken, the new classes are kinda iffy, and... well, Chromatic Orb.

The only bits I used were weapon specialization and the unarmed combat rules. I loved the book as a kid, but...

-O

 

[D'karr]

I liked the Thief Acrobat, everything else in the book I could take or leave.

 

[Neonchameleon]

AC 10 with no Dex adjustment at level one for a melee fighter (which the monk is) indicates my main problem with the monk.

Treating the monk as a melee front liner rather than as a quadratic version of a rogue (AC8 with leather armour although they do get a dex bonus would be the rogue's equivalent) is a problem. The rogue is a bit more survivable than the rogue at low levels but melee fighters they are not.

My recent experiences are that standard fighters are superior to the cleric in terms of melee combat (and they have the option of missile combat). This is to level 6-7 or so - the cleric spells are not of the offensive sort until the higher levels, and limited in terms of casting time and number as well. Access to better magical weapons has a lot to do with it, but "to hit" progression and strength bonus are also a factor. At 6th level, a Fighter with a 17 strength vs a Cleric with a 14 strength ends up with the fighter at +6 to hit compared to the cleric's +2, without magic being involved. (I use the Fighter progressing every level, as suggested).

Spot the strength difference! But seriously fighters bring the hitting, clerics the resilience. Clerics are about a third of a level ahead of fighters (the cleric levels up to 7th at 55,000 and the fighter only gets there at 70,000 XP). This cancels out the fighter's 1hp per level bonus unless the fighter has a con of 17 or 18 (unlikely). And even at first level the cleric gets Cure Light Wounds meaning he brings far more hit points to the party.

The fighter on the other hand without exceptional stats just gets +1/2 per level to hit and better weapons - at low levels this doesn't cut it (+0 at level 1, and +1 at levels 2 and 4 aren't much - +2 at levels 3, 5, and 7 is ... just about noticeable and it's +3 at 6 and 8 when the cleric offence gets underway) and higher level cleric spells are pretty good. So it's +1 to hit (averaged between levels 1-4) vs however many cure light wounds the cleric is carrying. Easy win for the cleric with any sort of death spiral.

On the other hand "The cleric is nearly twice as tough as the fighter - but the fighter does nearly twice the damage of the cleric" evens things up a lot.

 

[Moorcrys]

I'd allow it. The power level will bump - but everything I've ever seen from your postings tells me it won't be an issue for you. The new classes will be fine if you follow btb (I'd actually loosen the barbarian restrictions on associating with mages and destroying the party's items for exp) and allow specialization for fighters and rangers. Take it in stride and it will be fine. Why not?

I think the spells are great and useful (never understood the chromatic orb hate btw - it requires the illusionist to be so close he's probably in deep trouble to begin with, to make a to hit roll with his woeful attack bonus, then it allows saving throws and the nasty effects of the spell don't come into effect until he's high level - the magic user has better tricks up his sleeve by then - never had an issue with it in the games I ran. Ymmv).

 

[GreyLord]

From what they told me, the UA will have errata in there. At least that's what I was understanding...maybe I heard wrong?

 

[Greg K]

I would replace the Barbarian and Cavalier with David Howery's revised versions from Dragon Magazine #148.