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

Any time someone told me that 3d6 was the "intended" way to generate characters, I'd just grab any 1e module with pre-generated characters. They pretty much always had at least one 16-18 in the array, though granted, sometimes they were in odd places (Bone Hill has a Cleric with a 17 Charisma as his high stat...).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Any time someone told me that 3d6 was the "intended" way to generate characters, I'd just grab any 1e module with pre-generated characters. They pretty much always had at least one 16-18 in the array, though granted, sometimes they were in odd places (Bone Hill has a Cleric with a 17 Charisma as his high stat...).
Idk why you'd need to even do that. You can just show them the PHB and the DMG and tell them to read two pages where it says not to!
 

Idk why you'd need to even do that. You can just show them the PHB and the DMG and tell them to read two pages where it says not to!
Don't forget that 1) you're not supposed to be reading the DMG, and if you are, you're deserving of a less than honorable death (lol). And 2) nothing tops the human brain's ability to deny facts that don't fit their preferred version of reality.
 


I was very excited when I got it, as it was a rules expansion. However, many of the new classes and races were overpowered. I really tried the Cavalier and the Barbarian in my game but I quickly dropped them. I allowed most of the spells, though.
 

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.
Ditto. Everyone loved UA in our games a lot. Cavalier, Barbarian, Thief-Acrobat all awesome. Weapon specialization was fantastic!

The only complaint was 90% of the UA's fell apart due to a poor binding process. I think I only ever saw one which didn't fall apart to one degree or another.
 

Remove ads

Top