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

[tx7321]

Foster: "Don't forget that if a barbarian destroys a magic item he gets XP as if he'd kept it -- just be sure not to let him anywhere near that Staff of the Magi! "

So, whats the rational here. :\ Are there gods rewarding them for destroying magic? Man, I totally forgot about this rule, this pretty much makes UA barbarians unusable as PCs in most groups, and the conflict will either de-masculate the barbarian to "idol threat-mister" ("you better destroy that magic or or or or or....or or or...or or else...") constantly, or create unresolvable group conflict which essentially breaks up the party. I honestly don't see how this ever made it past playtesting. Again, what the HECK was Gygax and company thinking. This has to be the worst UA-ism of them all, and I doubt few ever used this rule....destroying magic for eaps....as if. You know, the UA being "official AD&D1 really made it more damaging to the game then later editions. I remember the schism this book created in our own group, and seemed to bring out those who eventually came to prefer 2E over 1E.

 

[T. Foster]

I've seen it used in a game -- with Gygax as the DM!

Scene: We've just killed a mummy and are all admiring his golden funerary mask which we've been able to estimate the value of @ 500,000 BUCs (~25,000 g.p.).

Barbarian player: "so, is it magic?"
Gygax: <rolls dice> "why yes, you do seem to detect a faint dweomer..."
BP: "smash!"
rest of the party in unison: "NO!"
Gygax (smiling): "well, the magic aura seems to be gone now, and the straight metal value is still about 5,000 BUCs"
everybody: <mixed groans and congratulations to the barbarian player>

I guess I can see how some players might get upset by something like that, but for all of us we accepted it as part of the game and a memorable moment. YMMV, I guess...

 

[Gentlegamer]

Gentle Gamer: "The barbarian has an innate detect magic ability . . . the short hairs on his neck go prickly and and he realizes the sword is enchanted. "Witch-crafted blade, begone!"

OK where is this coming from? What mythology from history creates this impression.

The history of the Hyborean age as chronicled by the great scribe, R. E. Howard.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Originally Posted by Gentlegamer
"The barbarian has an innate detect magic ability . . . the short hairs on his neck go prickly and and he realizes the sword is enchanted. "Witch-crafted blade, begone!"

Oh yeah, the real reason to have a barbarian in your group, instant detect magic ability for everyone else. Grumm "dammit-all-to-hell, another magic ring, here you take it, I can't carry it, only girly men carry magic rings that make you hard to hit).

It isn't guaranteed, sixth senses being rather fickle. The party is better off relying on the M-U's Detect Magic spell.

 

[Geoffrey]

I would have liked to have seen a Gygaxian sub-class of the magic-user whose spell repertoire consisted solely of spells for the conjuration, binding, and banishing of entities from the lower planes. I envision a class open only to humans of evil alignment (and, possibly, humans of neutral alignment, but with a level limit for neutrals). I further imagine that the use of poison would definitely be allowed them (sharing this characteristic with assassins), and that they could use any melee weapon, but no non-thrown missile weapons, shields, or armor. Uses the M-U to hit and saving throw tables, and rolls a 4-sider for hit points.

Now I just need nine levels of cool spells, as evocative as the cacodemon spell.

 

[grodog]

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?

Many of the new spells from Dragon were developed by Len Lakofka (see Dragon 58 for the clerical spells, for example), and I think that some of the new magic items were imported from modules that Gygax didn't author (but I'd have to check to confirm that, it's just my gut talking there).

Was the material by EGG updated, tweaked, revised in any way from the first appearance in Dragon magazine? [snip] Did he ignore the feedback – surely someone pointed out the problems of some of the rules?

Actually, yes. The barbarian's a good example of how it was tweaked (alas, IMO, for the worse): see the thread @ http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=182840&page=3 for the a/b comparison between the barbarian from Dragon 63 and UA.

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.” I then dismissed UA from my AD&D game. I still loved the game and respected the designer, despite the feeling I got from this book.

Knowing more about the quasi-dire straits that TSR was in at the time, I think that the book really does reflect a more rushed job than anything else. I didn't particularly get any more game-designer ego from UA than I did from the PHB, MM, or DMG, which bear Gary's name on the cover, but which also include content written by others (see the long lists of acknowledgements).

What should have been included in UA? Truly updated rules and improved rules for the game – not just more rules for the game. I had all the Dragon magazine articles; I didn’t need them just wrapped up in a hardback book.

I wish UA had been Gygax's 2e PHB, with now-lost PC classes already mentioned. As it was, my main interest in UA was the new magic items, since there were the largest swath of material new to the book (that hadn't been published in modules, although certainly some of them were).

edit: Sorry Quasqueton, not trying to belabor a point already made---I hadn't read your later posts yet.

 

[Melan]

1e was 3d6 in order

The DMG recommends 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste. OD&D and Basic D&D were 3d6 in order.

(I have players roll 4d6, drop lowest in order, choose from two series, but that's a house rule )

 

[Melan]

I would have liked to have seen a Gygaxian sub-class of the magic-user whose spell repertoire consisted solely of spells for the conjuration, binding, and banishing of entities from the lower planes. <snip> Now I just need nine levels of cool spells, as evocative as the cacodemon spell.

That should have been in an OD&D supplement.

 

[RFisher]

You're looking at it wrong to say that the AD&D barbarian doesn't use magic because he's "afraid" of it -- he doesn't use it because he hates it, it's unnatural, and unmanly, and ultimately destroys all those who rely on it too heavily. And unlike weak city-dwellers the barbarian doesn't need magic to succeed, because he gets naturally what other characters need to use magic to get (extra hp, better AC, better saves, faster move rate, faster healing rate, ability to jump, climb, and hide, ability to detect ambushes and sneak attacks, ability to damage "enchanted" creatures, ability to see through illusions, etc.).

Darn it! Now you're making me want to try playing this class!

Although it's hard to see how he fits in with a party. Even if you don't have a mage in the party, the barbarian can't associate with clerics until 2nd level. (If I'm remembering right. I skimmed the class last night, but it was pretty late...) Sure you could do the "don't tell BA that we're flying" thing, but that gets old real quick.

 

[tx7321]

TFoster: "I guess I can see how some players might get upset by something like that, but for all of us we accepted it as part of the game and a memorable moment. YMMV, I guess..".

Again, it makes the barbarian seem less like some bad a$$ fighter, and more like some guy on a quest to destroy magic. The only thing memorable about the above scenario if I had been playing is the decapitation of the barbarian....though this wouldn't make up for the stupidity of the brute.

Like I said, this is a completely unusable PC class, when you consider often 3/4ths of the value of treasures consist of magic items (not to mention the most interesting stuff). Not only does it ruin the fun for the player wanting to play a Conan style character, it ruins the fun for everyone at the table.

Gentle Gamer, my question to you was, where in Nordic/Scandinavian etc. legend do we see this hatred for anything magic? And also, where in the Howards stories do we see Conan destroying valuable and powerful magic swords, rings etc. It doesn't as I remember they never present this sort of thing, magic is extremely rare.

Infact, the kind of magic that exists in AD&D 1E (elf and dwarf, Good, and nuetral) didn't exist, there was only evil tainted magic. And anyone from that book (that wasn't evil themselves) would be turned off to it. Once again, picture if Conan had been along with the dwarves in "The Hobbit" and had found with them the Troll Treasure. Would he have picked up one of the magical swords and said "check me out" and started posing with it. Or would he pick up a rock and start smashing them saying "bam bam...sword bad...". If it had been swords made by the evil powers of Mordor then sure (so would Gandalf), but if they were "good magic" designed to kill orcs then no. He'd likely detect they were somehow magical, but would have gotten a positive feeling from them. Thats were Gygax screwed up IMO.


Anyhow, Conan wasn't ever described as a "magic detector" he was described as super acutely sensitive to all sorts of things (from his animalistic survival skills growing up in a brutal environment)...so a hidden guard, a trap going off, and magic...and it was always evil tainted. If anyone (city dweller or not) in the Howard books had his superior senses, they'd have been turned off too.

Even if Conan did detect something as magical (say Fosters mummy mask) why on earth would he destroy it, Conan in the Howard books wouldn't have. He'd have done what everyone else would do. Poke it a bit to make sure it didn't do anything wierd, put it in a sack and sell it (whats he care if he can get big bucks for it...thats the barbarian attitude). It is only Gygax's barbarian that takes on this "quest" to destroy all magic encountered (which is what it essentially amounts to). And why? Because it was a quick and easy way to balance this power bloated class. :\ What a waist. And the sad thing is you guys are all jumping in to defend it, not because its cool, but because its Gygax's creation.

Anyhow, as I recall, Conan did work with magicians (for instance in both movies). Also in the movie, we see Conan take the sword (most likely magical, thats what we all thought watching it back then) from some old dead king of great. And lets face it, he loved it. The sort of magic we see Conan hating (in the movie) has to do with arrows that turn into venomous snakes, hypnosis, nasty stuff that he can't control. But never do we get the impression this was magic that wouldn't turn anyone normal off. In other words, the kind of magic that turns off Barbarians (in Howards books) is the same kind of magic that would turn off anyone that wasn't already evil. Like I said Magic presented in Conan is not the same as the magic presented in AD&D. So, they shouldn't be compared.

Before Gygax was desperate to save TSR and introduce something new to bring in 2E, he had a barbarian class...the Beserker. It shunned armor (it says so in the text) but it didn't shun magic. That is the proper template to use. In a Magic filled world with elves gnomes and dwarves being as common as humans, there is zero reason to think Barbarians would fear magic weapons...infact they'd go on raids to get it, and they'd horde magical swords and rings they could use. And they'd shun magic that was negative (and the evidence for this is with the Druid class (similarly close to nature as barbarians), who hate the undead but have zero problem with elf magic).