What should have been included in 1E's UA that wasn't in there?

[Mark Hope]

I’m going to state my opinion and observations, here. They may be wrong, and I invite anyone to prove them wrong (that’s not a challenge, just a statement of willingness to see contrary evidence and change my mind).

What material in Unearthed Arcana was not created personally by Gygax? I think the demi-human gods were created by Roger Moore (was he credited?; I don’t remember right now), but was anything else in the book created by someone other than Gygax? Gygax’s name was the only one on the cover of the book.

Gygax' is the only name on the cover, but in his foreword, he does state that the book is not his work alone, and goes on to credit Roger Moore, amongst others.

Was the material by EGG updated, tweaked, revised in any way from the first appearance in Dragon magazine?

I am sure that a couple of the classes were modified from their initial appearance in Dragon. Don't recall hard details here, but that's my unsupported recollection ...

“Only stuff *I* personally write will be considered officially official...

I recall this sentiment from most of the early 1e material - it was very much EGG's baby. At various times I found this both perfectly acceptable and wholly irritating (with all the wisdom that adolescence brings, heh heh).

 

[WayneLigon]

Well, I don't know any modern-day barbarians, and I'm not at all familiar with REH's Conan, but I don't think it's surprising that a character who is supposed to come from a primitive culture might distrust "civilized" magic.

Conan had a healthy respect for sorcery and a primitive man's fear of it as well, because he didn't understand it and because in Conan's world virtually all spellcasters are either evil, inhuman, or both. Using magic pulls a person away from humanity, and spellcasters are known to be tricky, untrustworthy and likely to put deathtraps and death curses on items they make. He did work with a few magic-using people: most notably the druid/witch and the priest Hadrathus in Hour of the Dragon but I'm not sure he totally trusted them either (and by then he's high level, so he's able to work with a limited number of casters, if I remember correctly).

 

[tx7321]

Well, I don't know any modern-day barbarians, and I'm not at all familiar with REH's Conan, but I don't think it's surprising that a character who is supposed to come from a primitive culture might distrust "civilized" magic. As the barbarian advances in levels, he becomes more "civilized." Till then, he relies on his own healing capabilities and perhaps a shaman (alluded to in the barbarian description IIRC).


A player can still choose what to do, but he would then be a fighter instead of a cavalier. If one can't abide by the restrictions of the class, then I would suggest not playing that class.

UA is awesome.

dcas, if the magic item in question glows suddenly or gives off sparks sure, the barbarian might back away. However, if it doesn't do anything "scary" why would he put it down. Thats illogical to the EXTREME! Gruff discovers the pretty sword he found is a sword of sharpness and he throws it down frightened by it...give me a fregin' break! Gruff the 2nd level barbarian goes on a wild killing spree is more like it. It would have been enough to say, barbarians are fearful of showy magic spells and items, but if they trust their group magic user, or have time to examine the magic item in question they no longer fear it.

As for the cavilier, they should have the same honor code as the paladin (but let the player choose whats the best course). When rules start dictating actions (DM to player..."Sorry, you have to stay and fight, yeah, I know its stupid, but thats the characters code"), whats the point. Role playing games are supposed to be about players making choices (good or bad), not taking the back seat to some hum drum arbitrary scripted role included only to create some kind of balance to a bloated class. Behavior restrictions that severe have no place in an FRPG IMHO.

I agree with the above poster, a Gygax 2E might have sucked big time if it ended up being an expansion of UA-isms.

 

[T. Foster]

The barbarian's not using magic is no more (or less) stupid and illogical than the cleric's not using edged weapons or the magic-user's only using daggers and not wearing armor. It's an archetypal restriction. Want to fight and use magic items? Fine, play a fighter (but then you lose the barbarian's other non-fighting abilities, so it's a trade-off). The notion that "Conan would've used magic" holds no more water with me than "Gandalf used a sword."

FWIW I prefer the Dragon 63 incarnation of the barbarian that makes the ban on using magic absolute (with the addition/clarification from a few issues later that allows high-level barbarians to hit creatures normally only hurt by magic weapons -- otherwise they're too badly gimped at high levels), rather than the UA version which softens the restriction as level increases, until a barbarian of 10th+ level can use all the same items as a fighter.

 

[Quasqueton]

My comments here are going from memory only (I have UA on my book shelf, but haven't read it recently).

Some of the things that cracked me up about the barbarian:

He hates magic so much he can detect it 10% of the time. A magic-user, who works 24/7 with magic, can't do that.

And then as the barbarian gains levels, he starts to become "ok" with magic, such that he can start using magic items and hanging around magic-users.

And barbarians can strike monsters that require magic weapons to hurt -- doesn't that kind of make him sort of magical?

When a character class is so overpowering that the designer has to balance it with xp requirements ~3 times higher than the comparible class (fighter), something is wrong.

Barbarians in my campaign were fighters who acted barbaric.

Quasqueton

 

[dcas]

As for the cavilier, they should have the same honor code as the paladin (but let the player choose whats the best course). When rules start dictating actions (DM to player..."Sorry, you have to stay and fight, yeah, I know its stupid, but thats the characters code"), whats the point. Role playing games are supposed to be about players making choices (good or bad), not taking the back seat to some hum drum arbitrary scripted role included only to create some kind of balance to a bloated class. Behavior restrictions that severe have no place in an FRPG IMHO.

I think you missed my point . . . if the PC can't adhere to the cavalier's code of honor, then the character should become a fighter, similar to a paladin who willingly commits an evil act. No one is being forced to "stay and fight," the PC only has to stay and fight if he wants to stay a cavalier. It is a penalty offsetting the many benefits cavaliers already have. If a player doesn't like the penalty, then his character shouldn't receive the benefits IMO. The player does have a choice -- he can cut and run, and become a fighter instead of a cavalier; or he can stay and fight and keep his cavalier status. That kind of choice -- a real dilemma -- is what role-playing is all about.

 

[T. Foster]

I eventually considered UA an example of an egotistical and close-minded game designer. “Only stuff *I* personally write will be considered officially official, and my first draft is perfect, as is.”

AD&D was Gary Gygax's baby by design, and his was the sole name on the books' covers. UA in this regard is no different than the PH, DMG, MM, and MM2 -- other authors contributed ideas and material (classes, spells, magic items, monsters, etc.) but Gygax reworked and edited all of it into a (theoretically) seamless whole, listed himself as author, and credited the original contributor with a (presumably non-royalty-generating) "special thanks" credit.

As for the original creators of the UA material, Roger Moore definitely created the non-human deities, and is specifically credited in that section of the book. I believe both the weapon specialization rules and most/all of the new cleric spells were created by Len Lakofka (or at least co-created by Lakofka and Gygax). Some of the new magic items originally come from modules (IIRC) and Rob Kuntz claims to be the originator of at least one of them (the Iron Bands of Bilarro -- Bilarro being an anagram of Robilar, Rob's main PC). There was an article in Dragon presenting stats for a bunch of new weapons for AD&D, and Gygax's own new weapons article (i.e. the new weapons chapter in UA) presents different stats for some of the same weapons and was billed as a "response" to that article.

A lot of the material in UA is changed from its original appearances in Dragon -- some of the changes are minor, others (like making the cavalier an entirely separate class rather than a fighter sub-class, allowing the barbarian to use magic items as he levels up, etc.) are pretty significant. So, while your perception that "only stuff *I* write will be considered officially official" is pretty much correct (for better or worse), the perception of "and my first draft is perfect, as is" is less so.

 

[Quasqueton]

Like I said, I was open to changing my mind. It is changed. The book was apparently not conceived as I thought it was. I won't think of it so harshly in that regard anymore.

Quasqueton

 

[JVisgaitis]

Gygax's hunter this class was completed by EGG, I think copies are floating around, worth checking out if you can find it.

Anyone have a link to this? I'm very interested and my Google Fu is not working.

 

[T. Foster]

Anyone have a link to this? I'm very interested and my Google Fu is not working.

Look here