I got to play Ticket to Ride Europe with Frank Mentzer, Stephen Sullivan and Luke Gygax at Gary Con and the conversation was quite enlightening. Frank said that one of the reasons Unearthed Arcana turned out like it did was that Gary was really behind on it so Zeb Cook and others had to jump in and actually write and finish the book in a very short time.

Frank also said internal 'politics' meant that UA and many other books never listed the true authors. He dropped lots of other trivia too. It was fascinating.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on hearing Gene Weigel's side of the story...

Quote from: Planet Algol;638793I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on hearing Gene Weigel's side of the story...

He was there, man. He was there.

While all that (i.e., about who finished UA) might be accurate, isn't most of the important stuff in UA sourced from previously written Dragon magazine articles, anyway?  Seems like finishing UA would be more like editing it all together than creating a bunch of new content.

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;638792Frank said that one of the reasons Unearthed Arcana turned out like it did was that Gary was really behind on it so Zeb Cook and others had to jump in and actually write and finish the book in a very short time.

Sounds similar to the story on OA, although in that case I think Zeb actually ended up writing the thing. But, like Philotomy mentioned, a chunk of the UA stuff had already appeared elsewhere. Intersting, nevertheless. Thanks for sharing.

Quote from: Planet Algol;638793I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on hearing Gene Weigel's side of the story...

Quote from: Kyussopeth;638794He was there, man. He was there.

Stop! Stop! My sides hurt!

The only things I use from Unearthed Arcana are the subdual, vanquishing and disarming rules.  I find the unarmed combat variant by Roger E Moore in Dragon to be better (Finish Fights Faster, Best of Dragon IV, p. 42 and Finish Fights Faster, Dragon Magazine #83, March 1984, p. 55.). So, I combine it with these three rulings.  There is always the option of one's own ruling for these things, of course, which is also a good thing to consider.  I have a house rule for spell interruption that I use that weds well with these rulings, and I'm relatively pleased with the result.  The Best of Dragon volumes are a better long term resource for alternative rules than Unearthed Arcana in my experience.

The three rules from Unearthed Arcana:

"SUBDUAL


Subdual is an effective form of non-lethal combat that can be used against creatures of at least low intelligence but no greater than genius intelligence. It can be used against dragons and similar types of creatures, including basilisks, wyverns, and dragonnes, as well as against giants, ettins, bugbears, and other humanoid non-magical creatures of size L. Whether other creatures are affected by subdual is subject to the decision of the Dungeon Master, but note that creatures native to planes other than the Prime Material cannot be subdued except on those planes, and player characters can never be subdued.

In striking to subdue, all attackers must use the flat, butt, haft, pommel, or other non-lethal part of the weapon in attacking. Any attacker striking for full damage or using damage-inflicting spells will negate any subdual effects recorded up to that point.

Subdual damage is noted separately from real damage, and is 75% temporary, 25% real. If 40 points of subdual damage is inflicted on a stone giant, only 10 of those points are real. When subdual damage exceeds the total hit points of the creature, it is subdued, and a victim will not attack after being subdued except in self-defense.

The requirements and effects of subdual under this section supersedes previously published material, in particular with regard to the subdual of dragons.

Subduing a monster is just that: The monster will not further attack the group that subdued it. If captured, the monster will submit, but seek the first chance to escape and, if the party that captured it is weaker than itself, turn on its captors. This subdual will last as long as the party has a clear upper hand.


VANQUISHING


Vanquishing is a form of combat used by cavaliers, paladins, monks, and other lawful creatures to settle disputes without excessive bloodshed, involving a "duel of honor." One combatant issues the challenge and the opponent must take it up. For this reason, vanquishing combat may take place only between two intelligent beings capable of understanding each other's language, and who choose to communicate and agree to the combat.

Combat proceeds as normal, but, as with subdual, only one quarter of the damage inflicted is real between honor-bound opponents. Each combatant is "holding back" blows that would otherwise kill outright, proving his or her mastery by superior weapon-handling. Either side may resort to real combat at the start of any round, and any full real damage inflicted (either by an opponent or a third party) upon a com¬batant negates the vanquishing. Any temporary points lost are ignored, and both parties may attack normally. Poisoned blades, vorpal swords, and similar weapons with automatic effects perform as if In real combat.

Vanquishing damage is noted separately from real damage. Should one of the combatants be reduced to 0 hit points, he or she is the loser and must honorably surrender immediately. If both combatants are reduced to 0 hit points in the same round, the combat is a draw.

The winner of a vanquishing combat may demand a single service or item from the loser. The service may include banishment from the area for a time, to carry a message, do a small favor, or merely sing the praises of the victor's prowess in combat. An item may include any one weapon, armor, or shield of the loser (including magical items), or a treasure of a value not more than 1,000 gp times the loser's hit dice or level. Attempts to enslave or stay a vanquished opponent will free the opponent from any duty to the victor, though a vanquished opponent may be imprisoned if the victor had stated that fact in the initial challenge.

Lawful creatures who are defeated in this manner are honor-bound to the terms of the victor, unless to do so would be morally opposed to their alignments. Good creatures cannot be made to perform evil acts, for example. Neutrally aligned creatures have the choice of honoring such an agreement, based upon factors such as strength of the opposition and size of the defeat. Chaotic creatures are under no constraints whatsoever, and those of chaotic evil alignment will see no problem with causing an opponent to lower his or her defenses and then striking.

In general, vanquishing combat takes place between only two combatants. Multiple combat is possible, but in this case the hit points of all members of one side must be brought to 0 for the other side to claim victory. Individuals who are reduced to 0 points of "vanquishing damage" may continue to fight, but all damage taken past that point is the full, normal amount. A character reduced to 0 hit points in a multiple vanquishing combat is usually allowed to retire with no loss of honor (except from being on the losing side, if such is the case).

Vanquishing is used in tournaments and duels where a sudden loss of life would spoil the festivities. It is also used by monks and druids seeking to advance to the next level by combat. It is also used in lawful communities to apprehend felons for trial.


DISARMING


Disarming is a form of non-lethal combat that may only be used by fighters, cavaliers, and members of their sub-classes. Only the weapons below, listed in order of length, may be used to disarm:

Knife
Dagger
Horseman's Mace
Short Sword,
Footman's Mace
Sword (broad, long, falchion, or khopesh*)
*The khopesh sword has a chance of disarming an opponent in its normal mode of use. If the weapon is used intentionally for an attempt to disarm, use the rules given here.

Disarming may only be used by a fighter or cavalier wielding a weapon in which he or she has proficiency against an opponent that is likewise using one of the above weapons. Any weapon that requires two hands to use can never be affected by this form of attack.

Disarming inflicts no damage, but if a successful hit is made, the defender must make a saving throw versus petrification or lose the weapon being used (superior swordplay has torn the weapon from the opponent's grasp) Disarming can only be used against weapons of the same length or shorter; a dagger may disarm someone holding a knife and a scimitar may disarm someone with a mace, but a dagger cannot disarm someone with a short sword.

A weapon subjected to a disarming attack will fall at the owner's feet if the weapon is of the same size as the attacker's, or 1-10 feet away if of a smaller size than the weapon which did the disarming. The former wielder of the weapon must either take a round to recover the weapon, draw another, or engage in weaponless combat. It is recommended that this form of non-lethal combat only be used if the more extensive version of weaponless combat (System II) is being employed in the campaign."  E. Gary Gygax, Unearthed Arcana 109 (TSR 1985).

Edit: I wrote this knowing that everyone here is more than likely completely aware of these things.  It is just in case to save those that don't know AD&D 1 the bother.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;638795While all that (i.e., about who finished UA) might be accurate, isn't most of the important stuff in UA sourced from previously written Dragon magazine articles, anyway?  Seems like finishing UA would be more like editing it all together than creating a bunch of new content.

Yeah, I remember integrating a lot of stuff EGG published in Dragon into our AD&D games before Unearthed Arcana was published.  E.g., comeliness (a horrible idea), acrobat-thief, barbarians, etc.

Quote from: Planet Algol;638793I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on hearing Gene Weigel's side of the story...

I suspect that "Zeb" will not emerge looking too good...

Quote from: Planet Algol;638793I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to insist on hearing Gene Weigel's side of the story...

I imagine it will go something like, "BLAAAARGL-WAARRRGH-GARBL-BLAARGGH!"

Gonna have to treat this all as hearsay until Mean Gene weighs in.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;638841I imagine it will go something like, "BLAAAARGL-WAARRRGH-GARBL-BLAARGGH!"

More like "JFGJDKGNDMSLGHM NDSNFJGMS KETGM, SDMGMDM" imo.

I mean, "BLAAAARGL-WAARRRGH-GARBL-BLAARGGH!" has some kind of meaning, even if it's just "I have an acute throat problem!" or "I really like death metal, wanna hear my version of "Where the slime lives" by Morbid Angel?" or "Me so angry, me so angry, me flame you long time". It can be readily understood. It's not alien non-euclidian moon talk.

"JFGJDKGNDMSLGHM NDSNFJGMS KETGM, SDMGMDM" otoh is alien non-euclidian moon talk. I doubt it can be pronounced, as such, except possibly in parts, by humans. It was not meant to. Never was. It was intended as lingua franca for diplomatic endeavors between Yog-Sothoth, the Chaos Gods, and those anti-matter birds from the anti-matter universe in the Zeelee books.

See?

---

For something more relevant:

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;638792I got to play Ticket to Ride Europe with Frank Mentzer, Stephen Sullivan and Luke Gygax at Gary Con and the conversation was quite enlightening. Frank said that one of the reasons Unearthed Arcana turned out like it did was that Gary was really behind on it so Zeb Cook and others had to jump in and actually write and finish the book in a very short time.

Frank also said internal 'politics' meant that UA and many other books never listed the true authors. He dropped lots of other trivia too. It was fascinating.

Interesting to hear that! I bought UA recently (stupidly enough I bought the reprint, even! Could've saved 80% buying it used...stupid Ent, stupid...) and well, it's hardly up to the quality expected from its creators, to put it that way. I mean okay, the spells are decent enough and the polearms are kinda fun and I'm okay with demihumans being clerics, kinda, but...but...but...argh.

Also always liked Mentzer, the Norwegian translations of the BE parts of BECMI was my first encounter with D&D.

Quote from: The Ent;638925Interesting to hear that! I bought UA recently (stupidly enough I bought the reprint, even! Could've saved 80% buying it used...stupid Ent, stupid...) and well, it's hardly up to the quality expected from its creators, to put it that way. I mean okay, the spells are decent enough and the polearms are kinda fun and I'm okay with demihumans being clerics, kinda, but...but...but...argh.

You probably are better off with the reprint, as the binding on the original printing is famously awful.  The recent version should survive being opened more than three times.

I've always found UA to be a mixed bag.

Some of it is really annoying: comeliness (why was adding this ability score important/helpful?); allowing drow, grey dwarves, deep gnomes to be PCs (renders previously exotic NPCs prosaic); barbarians (an AD&D PC that can't use magic items, right); cavaliers (good idea, overly fiddly execution); social class (again, too fiddly); and a few other things.

Some of it was good (IMO): allowing demi-human clerics (why were they restricted to NPCs in 1e PHB? that made no sense); weapon specialization (helped boost fighters a bit); the new spells (though some were problematic, e.g., stoneskin); the stuff Kuroth identified; etc.

I've never understood the hostility UA provokes in some fans of 1e AD&D.  Perhaps it's that UA cranks up the overall power level of AD&D?

I didn't like that all of UA became part of 'official' AD&D.  It should have been a book of 'options'.

Quote from: Akrasia;639003I've never understood the hostility UA provokes in some fans of 1e AD&D.  Perhaps it's that UA cranks up the overall power level of AD&D?

There are lots of reasons, but the #1 is that weapon specialization is much more powerful - there is no reason to create a generalist fighter.

Also, it completely upends the early level play dynamic, because in 1st edition someone with multiple attacks in a round goes before the initiative die is rolled.  And, in 1st edition, if you have 3/2 attacks you get your round of 2 attacks on the 1st round of combat.

So, if you have a 1st level fighter specialized in long sword, you get to go in advance of any initiative die on the first round of pretty much any combat, unless you are facing another PC class that is eligible for specialization, and any hit on a 1+1HD (or less) creature is often a kill, with the damage bonuses.

Yes, there are ways to houserule it, but if played as written it upset the balance of low-level play.  It changed how the game worked at the table, if you were using the rules as written previously.

Quote from: EOTB;639010There are lots of reasons, but the #1 is that weapon specialization is much more powerful - there is no reason to create a generalist fighter.

Also, it completely upends the early level play dynamic, because in 1st edition someone with multiple attacks in a round goes before the initiative die is rolled.  And, in 1st edition, if you have 3/2 attacks you get your round of 2 attacks on the 1st round of combat.

So, if you have a 1st level fighter specialized in long sword, you get to go in advance of any initiative die on the first round of pretty much any combat, unless you are facing another PC class that is eligible for specialization, and any hit on a 1+1HD (or less) creature is often a kill, with the damage bonuses.

Yes, there are ways to houserule it, but if played as written it upset the balance of low-level play.  It changed how the game worked at the table, if you were using the rules as written previously.

Do you have a page reference for the whole multiple attacks automatically wins iniative rule?  That doesn't sound familiar.