Player's Section	-	-	-	DM's Section
-	-	AD&D	-	-

Introductions +
Preface +

PLAYER'S SECTION
Character Abilities (Comeliness) +
Character Races +
    Dwarves +
    Elves +
    Gnomes +
    Half-elves +
    Halflings +
    Half-orcs +
    Humans +
Character Classes +
    Cavalier +
       Paladin +
    Druid +
    Fighter +
       Barbarian +
       Ranger +
    Thief +
       Thief-Acrobat +
Money (for cavaliers) +
Equipping The Character +
Armor +
Weapons +
Character Spells +
    Spell Tables +
    Cleric Spells +
    Druid Spells +
    Magic-User Spells (Cantrips) +
    Magic-User Spells +
    Illusionist Spells (Cantrips) +
    Illusionist Spells +

DUNGEON MASTER'S SECTION
Creating the Player Character +
    Generation of Ability Scores, Method V +
    Starting Hit Points for Player Characters +
Character Abilities (Comeliness) +
Character Classes +
    Followers for Cavaliers +
    Henchmen (Retainers) for Cavaliers +
Armor, Armor Class & Weapons +
    Types of Armor & Encumbrance Table +
    Descriptions of New Armor Types +
    Warhorses and Barding +
    Descriptions of New Weapon Types +
Character Spells +
    Acquisition of Cantrips, Magic-Users +
The Adventure (Underwater Spell Use) +
Combat (Effects of Darkness) +
The Campaign +
    Social Class and Rank +
    Circumstances of Birth +
Treasure +
    Random Treasure Determination Tables +
    Potions +
    Scrolls +
    Rings +
    Rods +
    Staves +
    Wands +
    Miscellaneous Magic +
    Armor and Shield +
    Swords +
    Miscellaneous Weapons +

APPENDICES
    Q: Weaponless Combat +
    R: Non-lethal Combat +
    S: Non-human Deities +
    T: The Nomenclature of Pole Arms +

Afterword & Credits +

Q: I've been applying all of Gary's
new classes, spells etc. (from DRAGON
Magazine) in my campaign. It's getting
pretty confused. What can I do?
A: The official material in DRAGON
Magazine is in rough form, offered for
your consideration. It is not in final form
-- and many details will be modified (or
perhaps missing entirely!) when they are
finally "polished." We need your input
before these rules appear in the new
game supplements (tentatively planned
for 1984 release). So try them in a year,
and tell us what happens.
    For now, tell your players quite firmly
that you are testing these rules. They are
all subject to change. And if you discover
through testing that an unforeseen problem
occurs, tell us! You'll help millions of
gamers in the long run.
(Polyhedron #11)
 
 

-
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschooler
Or:
When you play AD&D, how much of say, UA do you actually tend to use?
Are the paladins in your games a subclass of fighters or cavaliers?
That's the kind of stuff I've been wondering about in your old school gaming sessions
 

When we play AD&D i use all the core rules, including the material in the UA book, or not.
If the group is really old school, then we do not use the UA changes.
I can enjoy DMing either way, so the players decide what they prefer.

Cheers,
Gary


 

DMPrata wrote:
Gary, I noticed something in one of my books yesterday that I'd apparently overlooked.
The title page of UA cites, "© E. Gary Gygax," whereas the earlier AD&D® books were all, "© TSR."
Is there a story behind this (and, if so, is it one you're willing & able to share)?
 

Sure!

It was me finally getting tired of being the goat for ungrateful partners at TSR.
thus I insisted that if they wanted my work theu would have to treat it as if they were real publishers, give me copyright up frint, rather than in a contract allowing them to claim the right.

Of course I eventually gave up that copyright in settling matters with TSR.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Richard wrote:
Wow!
TSR, inc. had many persons working for it.
An artist who can do pictures and a font for lettering or|and a single person for the way all of the printed text looks.

Gary, can the UA book and any rulebooks for later ADandD 1st edition be applied in reverse time to earlier ADandD 1st edition?
 

And Dave dis cartoons of me and many of the others there at TSR back then too...as well as help to carry in big shipments of product from the printers as we all did 

Indeed, the UA book was meant to augment the previously published core rules books, it being an "Official" offering.
So whatever is in it can be applied to the PHB, LML, and/or MMs as the DM determines desirable for the campaign. <LML?>

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally posted by ColonelHardisson
As I recall, Gary, you had left TSR just prior to the release of OA (or was it just after?), which was 1985-86, and 2e was released in 1989.

I have the math skills, and the brains to use 'em... 
 

Heh, Colonel, and you have it.

Actually, I was effectively out of any TSR direction by fall of 1985, and I signed the agreement ending my association on New Years Eve of 1985, so officially I severed things at that time.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mistere29
How much of the changes between the original dragon articals and the final print version of UA was your doing. A couple changes in noticed.
Happy New Year!
 

What you are asking is that I recall relative minutia from about 20 years ago.
Add to that the fact that I was back from running D&D Entertainment because TSR was in grave financial trouble.
At the same time that I instructed thet my Dragon magazine articles be compiled into a work I named Unearthed Arcana, I was dealing with a bank that was ready to shut the company down.
Meantime I was fending off idiotic ideas.
For example:

The head of sales and marketing was ready to kill the RPGA to save a few thousand dollars.
I saw to it that he was dismissed.
The three outside members of the board of directors were considering selling Dragon magazine, at that time the only part of the company that was showing a profit.
Meanwhile, I was working with an outside investment group willing to acquire TSR--the only answer that the foolish outside directors thougtht possible in regards saving TSR from bankruptcy. Their audit was uncovering gross mismanagement, and I had to work through that, cleaning up the mess with a pro tem CEO the board put in place, a fellow who knew nothing about hobby gaming, let alone TSR.

So the points you raise: I recall editing the compiled ms. for the UA book, but what changes I put in and which were done by others i can not say.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melkor
How many of the rules in the original UA, WSG, and DSG made their way into your campaigns
(Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that only a limited amount of material found in UA was actually written by you) ?
 

All of the material in UA was mainly of my creation, gathered from articles I wrote in Dragon magazine.
virtually oll of that material was used in my campaign, much of it before the book was published.
I never used anything from the other two books, though, the survival guides.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
Gary, I never came to a conclusion either I liked or hated UA.
Despite there were lots of great additions to my game, I couldn't like some parts, such as the Barbarian, and, specially, the Cavalier and his ability to upgrade his stats.

Do you saw this book as an expansion to AD&D or a compilation of optional rules?
Would you allow any of the new rules in an AD&D game you would run now?
As it appears that many AD&D players find it quite unbalancing, would you made any revision if you could?
 

If I would have been at TSR to manage the revision of the AD&D game, most of the UA material would be in that new edition without many changes.
I DMed many a game with barbarian PCs, and only the mages in the group were uneasy.
As for Cavaliers bettering their stats, as if any player wouldn't do that for any other character class by use of wishes and magic items enabling same.
Perhaps i was a tad too generous, but at least the effort to improve the status of fighter-types was open and forthright.
The method offered is like a lock on a dor, something to keep honest players honest.
(How many low-lever PCS have you seen with stats that average around 16 and have one of two 18s?)

Anyway, all this is absolutely meaningless now, eh?
Water under the bridge <stick out tongue>

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuStel
I was playing D&D and AD&D before the cartoon was made, but I didn't keep up with the gaming community or industry back then. Therefore, when the UA appeared in Toys-R-Us one holiday shopping season, I was taken by surprise. I looked inside and saw barbarians, cavaliers, and acrobats. "Hey!" I thought. "It's just like the cartoon!" I made my father buy it for me right away.

Thanks

Your reaction to the UA book based on viewing the cartoon is another good example of "pull" from promotion.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta
Gary, I'm wondering what real-life era you think most closely corresponds to the AD&D worldview (esp., technology-wise).

For example, in the 1E DMG you mention that full plate armor is "a late development and is not considered (c. 1500)", although you did include it in UA.

In the Waterborne Adventures section, you wrote that "Cogs, carracks, and caravels of the 13th and 14th centuries are considered to be excellent merchant ships".
However, my reading of history is that carracks & caravels weren't invented until the mid-1400's, i.e., the 15th century.

I guess I'm most interested in the ships aspect. In your AD&D campaign, were carracks, caravels & naos (a) the majority of sailing ships (as in 1500's), (b) an elite minority (as in 1400's), or (c) only an exotic hypothetical prospect (as in 1300's or earlier)?
 

The short answer to all that is: You are the DM, suit technology in the campaign to what you plan to do therein.

Full plate armor was a development of the 15th century, and when I was writing the pieces that comprised the bulk of the UA book my concept of developing technology in a fantasy milieu had altered. It then seemed illogical to to me to have the level of advancement stuck in the early middle ages. Thus I had fragatas and sambuks and prahus and galleasses and galleons on the seas as well as junks, cogs, caravels, and carracks. <find: fragata>

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xyxox
Hello Mr. Gygax,

I feel like I'm corresponding with an old friend, having started my gaming hobby about thirty years ago.

My question is related to the original UA book. I'd like to know how much creative input you had with that product?

Howdy,

Only about 99% od the UA book was my work... Much of it apeared as articles in Dragon magazine before I collected the material and put it into a ms. form for publication.

Cheers,
Gary

<correction: nope. Roger Moore wrote all of Appendix S. many of the new cleric spells were written by Lenard Lakofka. neither were properly credited for their work>
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xyxox
That's what I thought! To me, AD&D was all about four books, the MM, PHB, DMG, and UA!

UA was absolutely the best supplement for any game I ever saw!
 

Heh...

Thanks for the good words.

The contents of the US work were pointing the AD&D game participants towards my vision for a revised version of the game.
(No, I do not discuss what the whole of that would have beemn that being a useless excercise and time-waster  )

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erekose
Hi Gary!

I have this vague memory from the mid-1980s when there was word of a new supplement, a 2nd Unearthed Arcana?, for AD&D which would include new classes like the Mountbank (and others which I'm afraid my aging brain can't remember). Presumably this changed and the second edition was developed instead (which to be honest is when I lost interest in RPGs - I've only returned relatively recently).

Any way, I wondered if (a) this was true and (b) if it was how far did you get in the development of the new classes as I'd love to see some new (?) material from you for AD&D.

Sorry for being so vague but we are expecting our 2nd baby any day now and we aren't getting much sleep ! 

Also, apologies if this has been asked before!!!

Howdy Erekose,

No problem, and I'll answer as best as I can 

I was indeed planning a revised edition of the AD&D game with several new classes included. that never came to fruition, of course, as I parted ways with TSR at the end of 1985. As my settlement agreement forbad me to so anything pertaining to D&D or AD&D, I scrapped whatever notes I had for the revsion. Under the circumstances I have no further comment on what I planned.

The 2nd Edition of AD&D was done after I left the company, and I had nothing to do with it.

Children are marvelous, even if they do disrupt most everything and demand a lot of time.
Enjoy the blessing

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Drake
...

Did this also apply to then to UA, (one of my favourites, iirc, it came out in close proximity to OA) in that it was put out quickly in order to generate much needed revenue? I'm only going by things I have read /said by others, so if I'm out of line, I apologise wholeheartedly. Again, sorry if this has been asked of you ad nauseum!  Thanks and glad you're feeling better.
 

Howdy,

It does indeed apply to the UA book.
I was writing essays for Dragon magazine to both preview my new ideas and prerpare for a revised edition of the AD&D game.
I was alerted to a problem, Kevin Blume shopping TSR on the street in NYC, flew back from the West Coast, and discovered:

The corporation was in debt to the bank the tune of c. $1,5 million.

There seemed to be no way to repay the money based on current inventory and sales.

The bank was preparing to perfect its security interests/

So, I had a big fight, and then a Herculean task, before me.
To cut to the chase, when I got matters in hand, I saw to the compilation of my magazine material with other work I had that had not been published, so that UA came into being.
Of course during that time I was working on company business matters most of the time, so U had a number of very long days before things began to show that the rurn-around I planned was working.

At that point I was stabbed in the back by Lorraine Williams :\

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFisher
I know these days you prefer to play LA or C&C. & I know you can get tired of AD&D questions, since you get so many of them. But I don't think I've asked one in a good while, & I don't remember seeing this one before.

If you were to run an oAD&D game today, would you use Unearthed Arcana? In whole or part? I believe you've said you regret including armor v. weapon adjustments & psionics in the PHB.
Do you regret anything you included in UA?

If you were to play in an oAD&D game today, would you ask the DM to allow you to use anything from the UA?
 

Here I expect to get questions regarding OA/D&D 

I believe I would use most of the UA work in my theoretical OAD&Dcampaign--and not use weapon speed, adjustments vs. armor.
I did use most of the components of that work in my actual campaign.

I know some grognards dislike the direction of changes included in the UA work, but IMO thay made the campaing more varied and interesting.
That includes the raise in the level limits of some demi-human types, for I remain firmly behind the restriction on such races as the game assumes a human-dominated world.

Cheers,
Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFisher
How do you respond to the charge that UA significantly increased PC "power" without a matching increase in the challenges arrayed against them, & thus encouraged munchkins?
 

First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game.
Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
SO that established as a truusm, let us move on.

I say that as barbarians get d12 for HPs, then clearlly extrapolation of the same principle must apply to large and vigorous creatures.
This mitigates the potential increase in PC prowess.
As a matter of fact, adult critters were assigned 7-12 HPs per HD in my AD&D campaigm--have been given the same in what I have designed for the C&C game system.
Also, with increase in damage due to Strength, all large and powerful monsters, including ogres and giants, gain a damage bonus equal to their number of HD.

Admittedly, this is not in the UA work, but it logically follows, and would have been included in the revised edition of AD&D that I was planning.

Cheers,
Gary

(Source: Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum)
 

I know some grognards dislike the direction of changes included in the UA work, but IMO thay made the campaing more varied and interesting.
That includes the raise in the level limits of some demi-human types, for I remain firmly behind the restriction on such races as the game assumes a human-dominated world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesM
Gary,

I honestly can't recall if you had any plans for a revision of AD&D or a new edition of it.
I have the dim recollection that what became UA was in fact but what one part -- and a modified one at that -- of what was originally a much larger "expansion" of AD&D.
Am I remembering this correctly or were you generally happy with AD&D and saw no need for anything more than a new book here or there every so many years?

Thanks.

In truth, I had begun planning for a revised edition of the AD&D game beginning around 1983.
I made notes for what I planned, and those remained with TSR when I left the company at the end of 1985.

The UA compilation contained the initial pass at some to the revisions and expansions I envisioned for the game,
but I had not had time to sit down and concentrate on exactly how I would complete a revision and what it would entail.

No matter, as that is now all water under the bridge for more than two decades now, eh?

Cheerio,
Gary