My local convention added a kind of RPG 'yard sale' component, and as a slave to impulse roleplaying buys I picked up a copy of AD&D 1e "Unearthed Arcana".

I've heard vague mumblings of criticism against "Unearthed Arcana", but reading through the spells I cannot imagine the beef coming from anything but balance. If I plan to allow Unearthed Arcana to be up for use in the game, is there anything wacky in the rules of which I should be aware?

Typically, if I'm going to run Dungeons & Dragons, which is something I do very infrequently, it's a cross between B/X and 1e.

So, how do we feel about the book? Is it buried treasure, do you dig it, or should it be buried?

//Panjumanju

It's really mostly stuff from Dragon magazine.

Maybe there are some original items (some of the magic items? the new ability generation methods?) but everything else was pretty much from Dragon.

Probably the biggest problem is the Cavalier. And weapon specialization can be overpowering at lower levels, you at least shouldn't allow double specialization until at least 4th level (probably more like 6-7th)

Unearthed Arcana is cool as a book of options, additional spells and magic items to include in the campaign, picking and choosing here and there with a critical eye. I use weapon specializations for instance, albeit not for 1st level characters.

As a wholesale revision of the AD&D game system, it blows.

In my powergaming teens, it seemed like the Coolest. Thing. Evar.

But sooner or later I tired of everyone playing demihumans (drow, svirfneblin) with free abilities and "better fighters with bad attitudes" (barbarians and cavaliers).

I did appreciate the demihuman deities.

It has some really cool stuff in it:

• New weapons
• New armor
• Expanded level limits for demi-humans
• New spells
• New guidelines for spell books
• New guidelines for casting spell underwater
• New spells
• Social status guidelines
• New Ability Score generation
• Minimum Hit Points at 1st level guidelines
• Expanded pantheons for demi-human deities
• New classes
• New races
• A polearmphile's wet dream
• Expanded Druid class levels
• Expanded weapon lists for some classes
• Weapon specialization

Personally, I am not really fond of the Cavalier class.  The Barbarian class is alright.  I like the Thief-Acrobat.  I like the expanded Druid class levels.  

I like the expanded level limits for demi-humans, and expanded available classes for demi-humans.

I really like the demi-human pantheon information.

I like new weapons and armor.

I like Weapon Specialization and I am alright with double-weapon specialization as per RAW.   If someone wants to be a one-trick pony, then fine with me.

I like the minimum hit point guidelines for 1st level characters.

The new ability score generation method is alright if you are determining class before rolling for ability scores.  That is its purpose and it works to guarantee that the character meets the minimum requirements for the class chosen.

I like the guidelines and information for spell books, and really like that it expanded information for the Illusionist class.

I have warmed to much of it over the years, to be honest.  I still don't like the cavalier, and I REALLY don't like the Paladin being put as a cavalier "subclass", it's way too fiddly.  I think if you were running a Greyhawk-specific game with Rhenee river-folk, the thief-acrobat is okay(ish), but not my favorite.

Down with Barbarians.

No Stoneskin, no way, no how.

I like the new spellbook rules, particularly the ability for low-level casters to make a spellbook to sort of use to cast spells out of (a book of Sleep spells, for example).

I like the codification of XP values for run-of-the-mill magic items; that's handy.

I don't think I'd want a player playing a drow but if they could do it and prove to me it wouldn't be a drizz't rip-off, yes, I'd tentatively permit it.  The leveling rules for demi-humans are nice and if (IF!) I played an all-demi-human-only game (as may well happen thru roll20 soon), it'd be nicer to have some mitigation to DH level limits...

I like a lot of the new magic items!  I really like the pummeling/grappling rules as written.

I'm not a fan of "Weapon specialization" and wouldn't use it with a larger group as it would be too open to abuse (I've seen it before).

UA is best approached with an Egg Chen attitude: take what you want and leave the rest, like a salad bar.

I almost completely ignore the "Players' Section" with the exception of new equipment and spells, which I cherry-pick.  I think there's a lot of useful material in the DM section, though: the unarmed combat rules, the section on warhorses and spell books, et cetera.

As others have indicated, the UA is a mixed bag.  Figure out what kind of campaign you want to run, and add those elements that you think support it.

I'm happy with most of the new spells and magic items.

Weapon specialization and double specialization is fine for single-class fighters.  I allow specialization only for single-class rangers, and neither for paladins.

Most of the new class stuff I ignore, except the expanded levels for druids (which never actually get used by PCs...)

Etc.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;741504UA is best approached with an Egg Chen attitude: take what you want and leave the rest, like a salad bar.

"Goat butts against the hedge, and its horns become...entangled!"

QuoteI almost completely ignore the "Players' Section" with the exception of new equipment and spells, which I cherry-pick.  I think there's a lot of useful material in the DM section, though: the unarmed combat rules, the section on warhorses and spell books, et cetera.

Agreed with much of that.

I thought it had alot of interesting bits in it. And as with all else AD&D. You can use ot not as desired.

My main minor irks with the book arent with the rules at all.

My copy was not up to the usual quality I expect from TSR books. The book smelled funny for over a decade and the binding was sufficiently poor that the book was trying to come apart right out the gate.

Maybee I just got a bad copy.

Quote from: Omega;741563Maybee I just got a bad copy.

You and a whole bunch of other people.  UA falling apart is a common problem.

(I bought the WotC reprint of UA primarily because my original copy came apart only months after I bought it, back in the 80s.)

Well that's one thing about the Premium Reprints - the Unearthed Arcana reissue is pretty well bound!

UA seemed very cool to me as a kid, now it seems like it badly damaged the game.  Plus, way too many pole arms.

Quote from: RPGPundit;742029UA seemed very cool to me as a kid, now it seems like it badly damaged the game.  Plus, way too many pole arms.

The pole arm section was awesome if only for the absurd number of them on display.

Someone at TSR way back explained why that section was in there but I cannot remember were. Possibly Dragon or at GenCon. I believe it essentially it came about because TSR kept getting letters asking them what these things looked like. So someone decided to present about all of them they could list.

Quote from: Omega;741563I thought it had alot of interesting bits in it. And as with all else AD&D. You can use ot not as desired.

My main minor irks with the book arent with the rules at all.

My copy was not up to the usual quality I expect from TSR books. The book smelled funny for over a decade and the binding was sufficiently poor that the book was trying to come apart right out the gate.

Maybee I just got a bad copy.

They'd actually switched to cheaper printings, most of the UA's I've encountered fell apart.

I didn't much care for UA, some of the magic items were good, I liked the Thief-Acrobat, but both the Barbarian and Cavalier felt overpowered for my games. (Mind you, I'd ditched the Eastern Style Monk, long before.)