AD&D 1E What was so bad about unearthed arcana 1e?

[cbwjm]

Just out of curiosity, something I see mentioned from time to time was that unearthed arcana was considered bad or unusable. I remember reading it back in the 90s and liking some stuff about it, but I never used it in 2e (which I was playing at the time). I probably didn't have as critical an eye back then either and, since I never used it, may not have seen all it's flaws. I do recall thinking that it was a little unfair the cavalier could slowly increase some ability scores and tha barbarian seemed to need ridiculous amounts of xp and couldn't adventure with spellcasters (or something like that).

So for those who did use it back in 1e days, why was it considered so bad?

 

[Marc Radle]

We used it a lot back in the 1E days and honestly everyone I knew loved the book.

We were teenagers of course, but I never heard complaints about it back in the day.

 

[cbwjm]

We used it a lot back in the 1E days and honestly everyone I knew loved the book.

We were teenagers of course, but I never heard complaints about it back in the day.

I wonder if that's the difference, I was reading it when I was a teenager and thought it brought in some cool ideas.

 

[bloodtide]

In general, the same things as always.

There was a lot of hate for the new classes. Many players did not want new classes, they liked the simple Players Handbook ones. Worse the classes all got lots of abilities per level or so compared to the Core Classes.

The Drow problem goes all the way back to 1E....even pre Drizzit. So many players would glance at Fiend Folio and then get all crazy obsessed with playing a drow character. You'd have a group of PH races, and sure enough one player would say "Iwant to be a drow!!!!".

The spells were mostly okay ish......but most of the cantrips were a waste of space......wow, a zero level spell that could make someone sneeze for no game effect.

And, er, yea, Gary just loved Pole Arms....

 

[Morrus]

It was pretty popular in my circles.

 

[mixmastashizz]

As someone learning and DMing a 1e game right now, I am regretting adding weapon specialization to my table. It has wildly imbalanced the game and the PCs are now way too strong compared to when they weren't specialized. I think that system works best when you stick with just 3-5 characters in a party, vs 4-6 PCs PLUS henchmen.

I didnt add the new classes but they seem either overtuned (barbarian/cavalier) or undertuned (acrobat).

We like the new spells and magic items and haven't run into issues yet with those. We dont use cantrips as they seem relatively pointless

We found the new level limits and class combos a bit too freeform for our tastes, though we utilize the single classed demihuman gains an extra 2 levels to their maximum rule.

Overall, neutral, leaning towards meh. I greatly enjoyed the polearm article though

 

[Nikosandros]

I got into AD&D in 1986, so UA was available, I got it even before the DMG and basically used almost all of it back then.

Currently, I pick some stuff and drop other. Here are some examples:

• No comeliness (bad idea, worse implementation)
• No new subraces
• Cavaliers and barbarians are used with modifications. I have a PHB paladin and a UA (modified) paladin called holy knight
• Hyerophant druids are used
• Thief-acrobats are in play, but I've seen only a couple of them in many years of play. Could use some power-up.
• Weapons, armors, spells and magic items are used.

 

[Koloth]

Don't remember it being bad. It was just another book of D&D stuff. Much like Wilderness Survival Guide and Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. Or for that matter, Dragon or other similar magazines. Pre Internet so alternative sources were very limited. Up to the GM as to what got used in which campaign. Sometimes the game was pretty much PHB only. Other games were play what you want. Sometimes the GM wanted someone to try something to see how it worked in a game.

 

[francisca]

I was .... 16 when it came out, and it made a big splash with some of the groups in my neck of the woods. My group never really used much of it. Later, when I started running AD&D again in the 2000s, I used the new treasure tables, some of the spells (found on scrolls and in found/looted spellbooks), the simplified unarmed combat rules, and the new tracking rules. I also used a modified weapons specialization system based on the UA. Never used any of the classes, however. Was it bad? No. Was it a mixed bag of stuff Gygax and others slapped together in a book to save the company. yes, that is exactly what it is, so in my opinion, it is a mixed bag.

 

[sevenbastard]

The bad off the top of my head

The cavalier is way overpowered and designed differently from all other classes.

Comeliness is a terrible idea.

The underdark species as playable races are also overpowered.

the good off the top of my head

Finally knew what each polearm looked like.

We used it back in the day, but we were 12 and game balance had no place at our table.