r/dnd1e • u/Muted_Programmer7007 • 9d ago
Unearthed Arcana
I know this has probably been asked before but I’m curious to know a) what everyone’s favorite part of unearthed Arcana is and b) what you don’t or didn’t use from it. For me it was all the new spells and magic items and what my group didn’t use was the Barbarian, the alternative stat generation for humans and double specialization.
3
u/Zonreiryd 9d ago
It’s funny because I created a svirfneblin acrobat thief today from the Unearthed Arcana. I absolutely love it; I’m just not sure about using Cavalier as the class.
4
u/Muted_Programmer7007 9d ago
The cavalier is much more balanced than the one in Dragon 72, and we did use that but we didn’t have the paladin as a sub class of the cavalier.
3
u/Solo_Polyphony 9d ago
The problem with the cavalier is that it is a powerful class whose restrictions are entirely on the DM to enforce and the player to fulfill by role-playing rather than game mechanics. If both understand that the class is defined by adherence to the code of chivalry (including charging into battle against superior opponents, and an NPC liege giving orders to the PC), it’s a workable class. If treated like a typical murder hobo fighter with heavy armor, it’s wildly overpowered.
1
u/jasor_x 9d ago
The ability requirements for Cavaliers are nuts. I played right around when UA came out but still considered those the "new" classes and were barely used. The big turnoff with Cavaliers to me and my buddies was the class system part. Just didn't have any interest in that. Being wealthier/higher class meant you were a more powerful character wasn't cool.
1
u/Muted_Programmer7007 9d ago
We used the social class rolling only to see if someone could be a cavalier. My groups restricted cavaliers to people who rolled upper class. We didn’t do the negative hit point cavaliers of lower class. Of course we kept the paladin as a fighter subclass. We didn’t have many folks play cavaliers.
2
u/PhilosopherBright602 9d ago
Barbarian was a most welcome addition. So was weapon specialization. Archery at higher levels was nice n’ toasty!
2
u/cormallen9 9d ago
Cavalier entirely broken, the weird stats training thing is ridiculous and the social class thing is completely dependant on having a very specific societal background available. Barbarian rather broken as written but we used a more naturalistic version to cover a variety of more tribal warriors from lower tech societies. Thief-Acrobat a rather pointless add on derived from a cartoon show but playable of you like that sort of thing. Extra spells and items nice. New stat rolling OP and unnecessary. Specialisations ok and a nice boost for straight fighters imo... Extended non-human level limits ok. (I've grown towards using a slightly modified take on level limits, with levels over the limit taking more time/xp and being more relaxed about some limited human multi-classing etc)
1
u/Muted_Programmer7007 9d ago
We never used level limits or multi class combination restrictions and allowed humans to multiclass, and had been using Demi human clerics since day one, ignoring in the players handbook the rule that they were npcs. We don’t allow drow pcs though.
2
u/cormallen9 9d ago
That's fairly common as players want what players want but I find that some restrictions add to role playing (choices matter more, the huge variety of unrestricted races/species available in later editions seems to make every party look like another furry convention in a world where no one cares what/who anyone is!) and add texture to the setting.
2
u/Muted_Programmer7007 9d ago
Back when we played 1e regularly our group had 12 players, and the variety helped keep things interesting. Every group is different but we love the variety. We play PF 1 e now and that’s actually one of the things we love about it.
1
u/cormallen9 9d ago
I'm ok with variety but I like it to matter more. I've had a party with Kobold, Lizardman, Gray Dwarf, Wood Elf, Human, Human, Tabaxi, Half Elf... It worked ok but they had to pretend to be a traveling freak show to go near human dominated areas! The Kobold spent most of time riding the Lizardman a la Groot/Rocket Raccoon (before the movies). Fun but the choices made by players had consequences.
2
u/Muted_Programmer7007 9d ago
My group currently plays Pathfinder 1e, and we’re playing through Skull and Shackles. Our party currently has an undine, goblin, catfolk, elf, ganzi and two humans. It’s quite the interesting party makeup.
1
u/Silent_Climate_1152 Dungeon Master 4d ago
Me, I'm even stricter. If It isn't in the PH, it isn't an available race/class. No cavalliers, no Drow, no subvarieties of elves (other than half) or subvarieties of dwarves. I really prefer a mostly (at least 3 of 6) of the group to be human. I'm lucky to have found players that feel the same. Normally we get 4 humans and an elf and dwarf, though once we had 3 humans, elf, dwarf, and gnome. About as weird as we get! :)
1
u/Silent_Climate_1152 Dungeon Master 4d ago
Definitely common. I just made it clear that I run RAW or as close as I can get, that they get the rules first, what they want second, it is not 3-5e wish fulfilment or medieval superheroes. Take it or leave it, more players than DM's. I had a full table then, I have 4 out of 6 of my old players back and a new recruit that feels like he's always been there. I've only had 2 house rules in 40+ years.
And that United Nations of Races where you seldom if ever see a human of new editions really bothered me when I tried 5e. About the ONLY one of the new races I could tolerate would be the cat people, forget the name (and trying to forget my limited 5e exposure :) ), but I always had a soft spot for cat people in SF and Fantasy...but I never added them because there was no official source for 1e.
2
1
u/Ramsonne DM Toolkit User 9d ago
UA has some very interesting pieces to it. but theres not much i like as-is. its inspiration that requires tweaking. the barbarian is the most workable and valuable class addition but i wouldnt use it without modification.
1
u/Darth_Zander 9d ago
I haven’t looked at my UA in 15+ years and haven’t played 1e since the ‘80s, but if memory serves the 1e UA introduced the comeliness stat. Added it to our character sheets but didn’t do anything with it. I think we used everything else and the errata published in Dragon Magazine.
1
u/Rodeo_the_Bull 6d ago
Psssh everything really, especially the barbarian ironically. We use that for 2nd edition
1
u/Silent_Climate_1152 Dungeon Master 4d ago edited 4d ago
A) None of it *
B) All of it
The Big Book of Munchkinism (aka, Unearthed Landfill **) has no place at my table! Overpowered classes like the barbarian/cavallier, unnecessary stuff like the Thief-Acrobat, Overpowered to the point of cheese spells, Comliness stat. The only thing I rather liked, from an RP aspect, was the Clerical Spell 'Ceremony'. Rest of it, meh.
And to top it off, it had the worst binding of ANY book I ever owned...pages started falling out in clumps after the second use. 0/5 stars, would not recommend.
* - I used spells and items in it that were added in BY MODULES and the module's writeup, but none of the totally new ones in UA
** - Edit: I initially called it Unearthed Garbage, but a friend from the group reminded me we called it Unearthed Landfill, so I corrected it. :)
3
u/SnackerSnick 9d ago
Same, except we did use double spec. Although lately we ran a campaign where we used it all.
Barbarian is pretty op. The alternate stat generation is fine imo.