Arcana Unearthed, worth it?

[virgil]

I'm considering obtaining Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed system, as a friend of mine has accolades on its improved spellcasting and overall quality compared to normal 3.5.

He admitted there were a couple issues with certain spells/feats, but the number of problems could be counted on your hand; compared to the pile of issues from just the PHB alone.

Is he right? Is the system worth looking into, as compared to regular 3.5 D&D?

[Neeek]

My understanding is AU is basically like a campaign setting, with uniquely different rules and whatnot. Otherwise, I have no idea.

[Modesitt]

It's an improvement on base D&D.

That's exactly as back-handed a compliment as it seems.

Fighters still suck, casters still own, designers still think there's anything at all you can offer someone that's better than new caster levels. Monte 'fixed' most problematic spells and abilities by simply deleting them. Others, such as Planar Binding, were fixed by making you choose from an arbitrary list of outsiders. The class section is worth reading for inspiration. People rave a lot about the magic system. The basic idea is that each spell level is further divided up into three levels: Basic, Complex, and Exotic. It's an interesting solution that just amounts to creating 33 levels of spells(AU has 10th level spell) to further differentiate the power of spells. He also uses the idea of raising or lowering the level of a particular spell to create new effects, or using two slots instead of one for metamagic.

It's an above average internally consistent campaign setting. That's all.

If you're interesting in sustained and specific criticism of one aspect, ask and ye shall receive.

[virgil]

I'm planning on running a homebrew setting that's pretty much D&D in style with a twist (dwarven necromancers, gnomish paladins, etc). I've been having misgivings with the base system for some time, which this board has done little to fix (not a bad thing).

Ordinarily, I would probably run something like Iron Heroes, but my homebrew is more magic oriented and PCs aren't supposed to be as special and unique as the IH system is designed to have them.

Basically, I'm concerned about the inherent imbalance with normal 3e, and am hoping AU can at least get closer to fixing this before I start the houserules. Heck, if the casters aren't as godly as they are in normal, then upgrading fighters will be much easier (and won't need to go as far as Races of War encourages).

Therefore, tell me any problems or other elements you'd critcize (sp?), I'm all ears.

[Judging__Eagle]

No, trust me Virgileso.

Try out the D, ToN, ToF and RoW stuff first.

Almost every player benefits form these books.

Melee players get characters that are really strong at specific roles; and that's really the point; creating classes that excell at specific tasks.

Thus making even melee classes look and act differently from each other.

Casters get some optional combat feats that they might take.

Druids/Clerics will pick up insightful strike, while wizzies are a bit boned, since they don't have good BaB and well, who cares, they can learn or make themselves any spell that they want via secret page.


My own group has been using it and we're around level 5-6 and really, any lack of power that I've seen has been in a player making a sub-par choice. Fortunately, even stuff like 'weapon focus' (aka Combat School) is actually useful now.

[Brobdingnagian]

Oh, Arcana Unearthed. See, at first I was lost, because I thought we were talking about Unearthed Arcana, also known as the Big Book of Wizards of the Coast House Rules.

Yeah, what JE said. K and Frank's stuff is what'll really balance a campaign out properly.

[MrWaeseL]

I'm planning on running a homebrew setting that's pretty much D&D in style with a twist (dwarven necromancers, gnomish paladins, etc).

Running a campaign in which core races can take certain core classes which they aren't prohibited from taking anyway isn't much of a twist, unless you still cling to that 2e/tolkien worldview in which dwarves can't be mages.

[Modesitt]

Therefore, tell me any problems or other elements you'd critcize (sp?), I'm all ears.

First, AU is based on D&D 3.0, not 3.5. Second, Monte's already released Arcanum Unearthed 3.5. It's called Arcanum Evolved. Make sure you get that version and not the old version. It patches some old content(e.g. notes what DR would be under 3.5) and adds some new stuff.

Third, this is a 434 page book. I'm just not capable of whipping out a complete criticism of the entire thing, it's just too big.

Incidentally, fighters STILL suck so horribly it's not even funny. Let's take the Champion.

Ah, The Champion. The Champion gets a champion ability at first and every fifth level after that. He can also summon a magical sword and shield, give himself buffs(+2 str/+2 con at 4th, +4 str/con/cha+DR 10/+1 + SR 11+Champion level at 16th), buff allies(+1 morale bonus to attacks, saves, and checks), and later on he can, uh, summon a fire elemental. Every champion also has a sub-class like 'champion of light', 'champion of magic', etc. They range from Suck to Whoa. For example, Champion of Magic gets UMD as a class skill and can cast one spell a day at first level.

Let's just quickly compare the 15th level of a Champion who chose the first sub-class in the book to the 15th level of the main spellcaster class, Magister, shall we?

Champion: +4 competence bonus to Search, Sense Motive, and Spot checks. He also adds +1 to the enhancement bonus of his sword and shield, both of which are now +4 weapons.

Magister: Gets an 8th, 5th, and 3rd level slot a day, plus two readied spells and a feat. He could use that 3rd level slot plus the feat Modify Spell to cast the Heightened 1st level spell Eagle Eyes and give himself +10 to Search and Spot for 300 minutes. Then he could use that 5th level slot to cast Conjure Weapon(Greater) as a Heightened spell and have a +4 weapon with +1d6 energy for 150 minutes. 150 minutes happens to be 10 times as long as a Champion can use HIS sword. He could use it himself(bad), or he could give it to his favorite Warmain(Fighter in AU). Finally, he can use that 8th level slot to summon a T-Rex and have it EAT THE CHAMPION.

I can probably do this with every single other class in the game, if you would like a demonstration.

Monte also adds a bunch of half-casters, all of which suck. Witches are weak Warlocks, Greenbonds are weak clerics, mage blades are better than you expect but worse than you want, and runethanes are way worse than you can possibly imagine.

But honestly, if I was going to run D&D and getting everyone on board RoW wasn't possible, I'd probably go with AU. We rip on Monte a lot, but it's clear that he personally has just as much creativity as the rest of WotC put together. For example, the Ritual Warrior is a fighter class that gets daily abilities that function like Immediate Actions. The races in the book are more interesting than most of what WotC shits out.

[Endovior]

1173617938[/unixtime]]

I'm planning on running a homebrew setting that's pretty much D&D in style with a twist (dwarven necromancers, gnomish paladins, etc).

Running a campaign in which core races can take certain core classes which they aren't prohibited from taking anyway isn't much of a twist, unless you still cling to that 2e/tolkien worldview in which dwarves can't be mages.

Incidentally, that's not even a Tolkien worldview, either. That's pure 2ed.

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells,
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

[virgil]

I didn't mean the twist was that dwarves are allowed to be necromancers, I meant that necromancy was a major aspect of their culture. One doesn't think of dwarf when you hear the clang of the smithing hammer, you think of dwarves when you see a skeleton walking down the road with a letter in its hands.

One comment I do have towards K&Frank's whole design, while cool in general, is it really necessary to buff all of the non-wizards to be on par with the cheesiest wizard tactics? In almost every game I've been a part of, the wizard never did these kinds of tricks such that the non-casters were overshadowed.

I agree that D&D wizards can be silly, but I don't think they need to be the baseline.

Basically, it's sounding like I would want to use AU's (or Arcanum Evolved's) magic system along with the ToN/ToF/D material. I'm still wary of messing with too much of RoW (mainly the feats, the Fighter, & some of the Barbarian), and don't think all of it is necessary if I can tone down casters.

[User3]

I'm not really sure what "cheesy tactics" a Wizard is supposed to not do. I mean, if you are using "tactics" at all then you are tossing Webs or Glitterdusts with your second level spells and not tossing more Burning Hands in your 2nd level slots. Thats just good sense. A Wizard player with any sense of basic strategy is not throwing Fireballs...ever.

That was the balance point we strove for.

But hey, I just read about the lunchtime game down at the Dev pool at WotC, and so I now have documented proof that they think that a single Sorcerer tossing Lightning Bolts and Fireballs is their idea of a balance point for combat magery, so I understand that other people might be of the same opinion.

All I have to say is "don't play in my game," or else I'll take just the Core rules (PHB, MM, and DMG) and sodomize your campaigm. In its campaign holes.

--------

That being said, Arcana Unearthed has a lot of interesting ideas. As a setting, its not better or worse than any other, and as a supplement it corrects a few problems (different spells make better items) while ignoring others (a mid-level fighter can't beat anything CRed near his level unless the DM hands him an artifact sword).

[User3]

1173636537[/unixtime]]and so I now have documented proof that they think that a single Sorcerer tossing Lightning Bolts and Fireballs is their idea of a balance point for combat magery, so I understand that other people might be of the same opinion.

You'd think if that was their ideal for a spellcaster, wouldn't they have buffed up evocation by now?

I mean, a Sorcerer that does nothing but cast lightning bolt and fireball is even weaker than a damn stock fighter.

Sigh... sorry, I've been on a wierd 'direct damage spells need to actually not suck anymore' kick.

I blame Neverwinter Nights 2, playing that game is great example of would happen to DnD mages if you just outright removed every single insane, overpowered ability they have but then leave the worthless spells no one bothers to cast untouched.

There's no flight, teleport, wall of force, scry, fabricate, baleful polymorph, wish, sequencer, or contingency spells. There's a Quicken metamagic feat, but it doesn't actually work since the game still forces the casting animations and allows an interupt chance.

And the crown princes of broken, Polymorph/Shapchange and Gate are reduced to 'Tensor's Furry Tranformation' and 'Summon Balor'.

But all the damage spells, fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold, etc are exactly the same despite the fact that most creatures actually have even more hitpoints than their pnp counterparts. Hell, some spells do even less damage than the book versions, and many of the root/snare effects had their effects reduced as well.

The fact that every melee character ends up with Max hp, freedom of movement, immunty to death effects, immunity to mind affecting spells, true seeing, AND still has their str, dex, saves, and spell resistance jacked out to epic levels doesn't help either.

[MrWaeseL]

Ugh, neverwinter nights 2, where "has a 25% chance to force a DC 14 will save or be dazed" is an appropriate weapon ability.

[User3]

The bigger problem here is that you people think that A) You know better than the DESIGNERS OF THE FREAKING GAME and B) Anyone who doesn't see the game as you do is an idiot.

I mean... if the majority of folks don't care about having all these "awesome powers" at every level, and the average gamer wants to take Fireball and Lightning Bolt because they think they're cool spells.. what exactly is the problem?? It seems to me that it's only a problem when number-crunchers/optimizers like yourselves are in a game with "Joe Average" who doesn't care for any of that stuff.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1173656356[/unixtime]]
I mean... if the majority of folks don't care about having all these "awesome powers" at every level, and the average gamer wants to take Fireball and Lightning Bolt because they think they're cool spells.. what exactly is the problem??

What if you don't want to suck? What if you want to be a warrior archetype, except not suck?

Do you honestly think you should deny people the right to not have a set of class abilities that's the rough equivalent of a bag of soggy dicks?

Personally, I don't think you should kick someone in the nuts because they want to be something that doesn't have 9 levels of caster, Mr. anonymous flamer.

[User3]

Only time I've seen the figther do poorly in this game is when someone plays a evoker and ruins the fun for everyone else.

If the game is unbalanced becauses a few classes are overpowered the solution should be to remove or edit those classes that unbalance the system. If you try to use something you say is overpowered as the model of balance that all classes should be equal to doesn't that mean your talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Thou if you do want balance I suggest you try at the Superman RPG where everyone gets to be god-like in everything they do and your only weakness is a rare piece of metal that you can somehow find ways around anyhow

[Maj]

Only time I've seen the figther do poorly in this game is when someone plays a evoker and ruins the fun for everyone else.

Not to be rude, but your personal experience is indicative of nothing. While your games may have been just fine with a fighter, others' games may not have been. Regardless of who shares what experience, the problem is that there is inequity built directly into the game.

If the game is unbalanced becauses a few classes are overpowered the solution should be to remove or edit those classes that unbalance the system.

This is entirely a patter of perspective - just like looking at the proverbial glass. Is it half-full, or half-empty?

Does the imbalance come because the fighter's underpowered or because the casters are overpowered?

Pick the style of game you want to run, find your benchmark, and adjust the game accordingly. Personally, I despise the toilet-paperless model of D&D, and so imbalance comes from the fighter being underpowered. But some people like that kind of game, and so nerfing casters is the way the DM attempts to bring balance into the game.

Psychologically speaking, I've also had more luck trying to raise the standard than lower it; players tend to prefer knowing what they can do, rather than knowing what they can't.

Obviously, your experience has been very different from that of a large portion of people who post here.

[Iaimeki]

1173658497[/unixtime]]If the game is unbalanced becauses a few classes are overpowered the solution should be to remove or edit those classes that unbalance the system. If you try to use something you say is overpowered as the model of balance that all classes should be equal to doesn't that mean your talking out of both sides of your mouth?

The game's official system for measuring balance, Challenge Rating, tells us that fighters are underpowered. If you take a group of core meleers, without well-played rogue or caster support, against the monsters the CRs tell you they're supposed to be fighting, the result is often a slaughter, as the monsters are either meleers who just have bigger numbers than the PCs, or they have crazy abilities that you need spells to counter. The same is not true of the reverse situation. It's possible to build meleers more capable of holding their own against the monsters the CRs say they should be fighting, but they're complicated multiclassed noncore builds, and there are still things they just die to.

[shau]

Only time I've seen the figther do poorly in this game is when someone plays a evoker and ruins the fun for everyone else.

I think we are really playing a different game. If your game is breaking any time someone rolls up an evoker I have to assume your power level is very low indeed.

[Endovior]

To: Anonymous Troll: Considering your posts, I'd suspect that your "games" to point have been low-level affairs with a generous DM catering to players who don't understand the rules, much like yourself. The game "breaks" the moment a semi-competent player joins, because he knows how not to completely suck.

Regardless, when presented with an imbalance, two options are presented. One is to remove the strong options, balancing the game to a lower level (the D20 Modern route). The second is to improve the weak options, balancing the game to a higher level (the Frank & K route). Neither is objectively superior, but the second is more fun; we'd all rather play cool characters with powerful abilities rather then weak characters with bland abilities. If, given the choice, you'd rather have the weak, bland characters, you have no business playing this game.

[User3]

No.. as a matter of fact I play with average gamers who play the game for fun, not number-crunchers. The people I play with think the Fighter is a good class because it works for them; they take Fireball because they think it's cool. We don't sit and crunch the numbers to determine the most effective character type.

[Cielingcat]

You don't need to crunch numbers. It's blindingly obvious that removing someone from the fight completely (Stinking Cloud) is better than doing 17.5 (8.75 on a successful save) damage.

[User3]

As an addendum: The persons I play with play the game for fun and to have interesting, flavorful characters (without a care about their relative power. Power levels mean fvck all to us), not to show off their "l33t p0wers".

[Leress]

Why is it when someone has things that are not the stereotypical wizard spells they are some kind of powergamer?

Also why is it powergaming when you do something besides damage? Wouldn't dealing damage be more suited for the meleers?

[Cielingcat]

So why do you need a rule set at all then?