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

[dcas]

Well, UA was rushed as has been pointed out above. But even for that it is still a very good game supplement. I like it much better than Deities & Demigods, Fiend Folio, and Monster Manual II.

 

[grodog]

That's pretty cool stuff, grodog!

Thanks Geoffrey.

It's quite different from what I'm envisioning, though. Your necromancer (appropriately enough) is focused on the undead. I'm instead thinking of a magic-user focused on demons, devils, demodands, etc.

I've got a lot of summoning powers there, but you're right, undead remain its bread and butter; my Timelord variants (based on Lew Pulsipher's article from Draogn 65) deal with gates and planar travel a lot, but that definitely not still the "patron demon"/soul-sacrificing conjurer that you're seeking.

Have you looked at the Stormbringer/Elric rpgs for inspiration, by chance?

 

[Hussar]

Well, UA was rushed as has been pointed out above. But even for that it is still a very good game supplement. I like it much better than Deities & Demigods, Fiend Folio, and Monster Manual II.

DDG and MMII I can see, but Fiend Folio? I gotta disagree with that. FF was one of the most inspiring books for AD&D. Just so much goodness in there. Fantastic artwork, truly monstrous monsters.

 

[tx7321]

The class abilities all came from the Mythus Sorcery and Demonology K/S Areas and rules for Infernal Vows. My intention was to adapt the Sorcery spell list from Mythus Magick (50 or so new spells, IIRC), but in all honesty I never got around to actually doing so. This class wouldn't have been suitable for publication, but it might have made a fun house-rule.

It's still a back-of-my-mind intention to someday reverse-engineer a bunch of new AD&D classes out of the professions and K/S Areas in Mythus -- sorcerer, witch, mystic, jester, mountebank, heka forger (which would need a different name in AD&D -- "runesmith" or something), etc. The "guts" of the classes are all there, I'd just need to convert them to AD&D conventions (levels & xp, spell slots instead of heka points, class abilities instead of skills, etc.).

I think you should Foster. For some reason I think you could pull it off.

 

[XO]

Slight Parallel / Magic & Ba-Ba-Barb-barians

W/o being on an all-out quest to destroy magic, I once played a dwarf who loved nothing but riches, and so, was none too interested in magic items.

His approach was "Whatever we find, I want my equitable share in money".

You would think that all others would be extatic right? No!

"What do you mean Fifteen-Thousand Sovereigns (gp)?"
"Well, gnarf gnarf, I reckon that armor yonder is worth 50,000, and I fully agree you should have it, but my fair share is the stated amount... A little more in fact, but I kind of like you in spite of your being pointy-eared"

So I can imagine with the destruction rule in effect.

As to Conan, he is content with flashy items he doesn't know are magical.

 

[tx7321]

dcas: "Well, UA was rushed as has been pointed out above. But even for that it is still a very good game supplement. I like it much better than Deities & Demigods, Fiend Folio, and Monster Manual II."

Well, its hard to argue with that dcas (though I think both monster manuals were more useful then UA...I mean monsters...come on! ).

 

[ephemeron]

DDG and MMII I can see, but Fiend Folio? I gotta disagree with that. FF was one of the most inspiring books for AD&D. Just so much goodness in there. Fantastic artwork, truly monstrous monsters.

When some people think of the FF, they think of flumphs and flail snails. Others think of gith and slaadi. It's kind of like the half-full/half-empty cup.

 

[dcas]

When some people think of the FF, they think of flumphs and flail snails. Others think of gith and slaadi. It's kind of like the half-full/half-empty cup.

I like FF (I like MM2 as well); I just don't like it as much as I like UA.

 

[RFisher]

I like it much better than Deities & Demigods, Fiend Folio, and Monster Manual II.

Interesting.

D&DG introduced me to HPL, Lieber, & Moorcock. Plus it was just generally inspirational, even if I never used anything from it. FF was hit or miss, but I expect to be picky & choosy from a monster book. There were some very useful creatures therein. MM2 was not particularly exciting, but the master monster index & building encounter tables bits got a lot of use by me.

Despite a few gems in the UA, if I had to sacrifice my oAD&D books, the first three victims (in order) would be WSG, DSG, & UA.

 

[T. Foster]

Despite a few gems in the UA, if I had to sacrifice my oAD&D books, the first three victims (in order) would be WSG, DSG, & UA.

But that's presumably only because you've already sacrificed Greyhawk Adventures, Dragonlance Adventures, Oriental Adventures, and Manual of the Planes, right? Surely you don't consider any, much less all, of those books more valuable/useful than UA?!

Personally, I put UA on the second tier of AD&D books, below the PH, DMG, and MM1, about equal with the MM2, slightly above FF and D&Dg, and far above all the others (which I don't even keep copies of anymore -- they're all in storage in my mom's basement, waiting to be either sold or thrown away).