Talk:Unearthed Arcana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Unearthed Arcana has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 17, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
April 6, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Books (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Send Money?[edit]

Anybody have the first edition handy? I remember a great half page piece of art in the UA that had cryptic, or "greek" wording on the pages of a book. If you bothered to "read" the text of the pages shown, the words "Send Money" or "Send Me Money" could be found, among several other messages.

Who was the artist?

What pages was it on? Page 83.

Many thanks, "a grognard," Javafueled

Fair use rationale for Image:UnearthedOld.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:UnearthedOld.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Hey there. As I've mentioned in other places, I think this one is barely good enough for a GAN attempt. So let's give it a go! :) One thing I would think of to make it look better (and less, "hey, the more recent 3E book is more important!" would be to have one infobox for each book, like at Player's Handbook. Also, I know Drilnoth is revising the {{D&D Books}} template, which should make it more useful than the "uber-3e" books template we currently have. :)

Another thing we should probably explore is which material was taken from Dragon. I think that, otherwise, the 1E book portion is well-sourced, even if we are talking mostly primary sources. The 3E book portion, if possible, needs to be expanded using whatever sources are available. BOZ (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Regarding the infoboxes, I actually think that the general consensus is to describe the first edition only (something which I hadn't known when I added them to Player's Handbook). Otherwise, it sounds good. I'm going to put some more work into this once I have the aforementioned template done. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think in this case, "first edition" means the first printing of a book. Since 1E UA and 3E UA are totally different books, that concept doesn't apply here. But I'm ambivalent whether we have two infoboxes or one, just that I think the 1E book shouldn't get short shrift. :) BOZ (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point; I'll agree with that. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

3rd edition book[edit]

Since the review is over, I'm posting this here. The 3rd edition book has the same name largely the same role. In addition much of the criticism (beyond the errors from the 1st edition version) lies on the same faults; too unbalancing and largely uninteresting. However, I admit, the phrase "update" might not be appropriated, however something like "ramake" "rewrite" might be since those elements it modifies and the role it plays is the same in both.じんない 16:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

impact on "core" rules[edit]

There is some discussion on how the first book affected rules for 2nd edition (or lack thereof), but nothing about the impact of 3rd edition one on the rules, including, that many of the ideas were taken and adopted into what WotC would later reclassify as their broader class of "core" books.じんない 00:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


The fact that the only comment in the "Reception" section for the later book is a profoundly negative (and subjective) one makes it seem as though the book is not well-respected. This seems unlikely, as some of its contents were incorporated into Wotco's official System Resource document ( Can someone find something good to say about the book? (For the original edition, I'm not expecting there to be much good worth saying.) (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It just takes some looking around, I bet. (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Official rules?[edit]

I looked up Dragon #88 to see what else the editorial said about how TSR felt the material needed to be printed in book form - and was disappointed to find that the source said nothing of the sort, and was only talking about trademarking issues related to the names of works and such. I think the below statements, which I have removed from the article, would be worthy of inclusion if we can find a source that actually supports them. BOZ (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

TSR (and the RPGA) considered publication in a rulebook format necessary before the material could be used in tournament standard play. Unearthed Arcana, therefore, is the publication that made this material an official part of the AD&D game system.

Mohan, Kim (1984). "One Little Word". Dragon. TSR (88): 2.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Additional reading[edit]

These items were in the "additional reading" section, and I have removed them here after reading them myself. Just because I have judged them unworthy doesn't mean someone else may not see a reason to use them! :)

  • "The transition starts now", Dragon #99 - this is just a breif editorial about UA material was going to begin to be incorporated into Dragon mag articles. BOZ (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "What Are the Odds?", Dragon #117 - this is a probablity chart for rolling on the new "Method 5" for character creation. BOZ (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Development history[edit]

In this section, the first five sentences all contain "Gygax" (yikes). However, I am a little stumped how to reduce. I am tired and about to hit the sack here and nothing is jumping out at me, but some alternative is needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How'zat? BOZ (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional reading / review[edit]

  • Review: The V.I.P. of Gaming Magazine #3 (1986) -- Taken from the article. Hekerui (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If anyone ever somehow finds a copy of this obscure magazine, please see what you can do to get some info from the review posted into the article. :) BOZ (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It was also reviewed in Different Worlds #42. (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)