# Unearthed Arcana Variant Rules - Previews and Questions



## Poster Bard (Feb 7, 2004)

*Variant Rules Checklist* - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20040206a

(Note in the OGL section fifteen the use of Green Ronin and The Game Mechanics material)

And from in this month - http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881560000

*Monk Fighting Styles variant*

Can they breathe life into an underplayed class?

*Class Feature variants*

Will these be balanced?  Does it matter?

*Character Traits variant*

Must these provide benefits?  Could they add something to the system if it didn''t?

*Reserve Points variant*

Do charatcers recover from injury fast enough already?


----------



## Dark Jezter (Feb 7, 2004)

I am so looking forward to this book.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Feb 7, 2004)

Here's the checklist of all the variant rules for those who don't want to download the .PDF

*Chapter 1: Races*

Aquatic Races
Arctic Races
Desert Races
Jungle Races
Races of Air
Races of Earth
Races of Fire
Races of Water
Reducing Level Adjustments
Bloodlines
Racial Paragon Classes

*Chapter 2: Classes*

Totem Barbarian
Bardic Sage
Divine Bard
Savage Bard
Cloistered Cleric
Druidic Avenger
Thug
Monk Fighting Styles
Paladin Variants
Planar Ranger
Urban Ranger
Wilderness Rogue
Battle Sorcerer
Domain Wizard
Specialist Wizard Variants
Spontaneous Divine Casters
Favored Environment
Whirling Frenzy
Level Check Turning
Planar Banishment
Aspect of Nature
Prestige Bard
Prestige Paladin
Prestige Ranger
Gestalt Characters
Generic Classes

*Chapter 3: Building Characters*

Alternative Skill System
Complex Skill Checks
Character Traits
Character Flaws
Spelltouched Feats
Weapon Group Feats
Craft Points
Character Background

*Chapter 4: Adventuring*

Defense Bonus
Armor as Damage
Reduction
Armor Damage Conversion
Injury System
Vitality and Wound Points
Reserve Points
Massive Damage
Death and Dying
Action Points
Combat Facing
Hex Grid
Variable Modifi ers
Bell Curve Rolls
Players Roll All the Dice

*Chapter 5: Magic*

Magic Rating
Summon Monster Variants
Metamagic Components
Spontaneous Metamagic
Spell Points
Recharge Magic
Legendary Weapons
Item Familiars
Incantations

*Chapter 6: Campaigns*

Contacts
Reputation
Honor
Taint
Tainted Prestige Classes
Sanity
Test-Based Prerequisites
Level-Independent XP Awards

*Dungeon Master's Guide Variants*

Roll Initiative Each Round
Sapient Mounts
Striking the Cover
Automatic Hits and Misses
Defense Roll
Clobbered
Massive Damage Based on Size
Damage to Specifi c Areas
Weapon Equivalencies
Instant Kill
Softer Critical Hits
Critical Misses (Fumbles)
Skills with Different Abilities
Critical Success or Failure
Saves with Different Abilities
Spell Roll
Power Components
Summoning Individual Monsters
Free-Form Experience
Faster or Slower Experience
What Disabling a Device
Means
Upkeep
New Magic Items
Separate Ability Loss
Nonmagical Psionics
Less Lethal Falls


----------



## Acid_crash (Feb 7, 2004)

This book is going to be worth it.


----------



## Dalamar (Feb 7, 2004)

Let's see...







			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Racial Paragon Classes



For some reason, I think of Arcana Unearthed's racial classes whan I see this. Wonder why... 


> Cloistered Cleric



 I'd guess this is the non-combat cleric...







> Thug



...and the non-spiritual monk people have been asking for


> Wilderness Rogue



 Now this one made me chuckle.


> Magic Rating



 I really wonder what this one is


> Recharge Magic



 This one worries me a bit, but we'll see.


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2004)

I like what I see. Some of it looks familiar, like the Honor and Taint options that were featured in _Dragon_ some months ago. 

I think the Thug is an NPC class, possibly the one featured in S&S's _Traps & Treachery_. Essentially, an NPC that has Hide and Move Silently as class skills.


----------



## Mordane76 (Feb 7, 2004)

If memory serves, Thug was also an NPC class in _Star Wars d20_, so this might lend some more credence to this idea.  Taint, Honor, and the Tainted Prestige Classes are part of _Oriental Adventures_, so unless these mechanics have seen significant change from that printing, then this is simply a reprinting of an already existent mechanic in a different book.  I half-expect that the Incantations mechanics are more or less straight out of d20 Modern (in _Urban Arcana_.

A lot of the material presented in the racial area sounds like material we've seen in _Dragon_ magazine.  A good portion of the DMG variants were in the 3.0 printing of the DMG, but I assume they've been partially rethought for 3.5.


From the list... it looks like there might be about 50% completely new topics, and about 50% topics that have seen print in other d20 sourcebooks at some time or another.  I'm still very interested in this book... but not as much as I was before I saw this list.


----------



## Dalamar (Feb 7, 2004)

But if it is an NPC class, and thus a new one, it should be between the Sorcerer and Wizard variant classes. But as it is, it's there where the Monk variant class should be.

Edit - The DMG variants are all in the 3.5 DMG. They're just all listed in there, I doubt they'll be in UA.


----------



## MEG Hal (Feb 7, 2004)

When is it released?


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2004)

Mordane76 said:
			
		

> Taint, Honor, and the Tainted Prestige Classes are part of _Oriental Adventures_, so unless these mechanics have seen significant change from that printing, then this is simply a reprinting of an already existent mechanic in a different book.




I don't remember an Honor system in Oriental Adventures, and in OA taint is more of a setting-specific mechanic than a rules variant. Dollars to doughnuts, this is the honor and taint system presented a year or so ago in Dragon. There were also Tainted prestige classes.


----------



## thalmin (Feb 7, 2004)

MEG Hal said:
			
		

> When is it released?



WotC street date is Feb 13.


----------



## MEG Hal (Feb 7, 2004)

thalmin said:
			
		

> WotC street date is Feb 13.



*bows*

Thanks Curt.


----------



## dcollins (Feb 7, 2004)

I've got to say this -- the OGL is listed at the end of this PDF document, but I really think that they have used it incorrectly.

(a) There is no added copyright notice for this document itself, the "Unearthed Arcana Variant Checklist". That's required by Section 6.
(b) They reference _Unearthed Arcana_ itself, which is not currently Open Game Content. That's also a requirement of Section 6.

WOTC has been getting sloppier and sloppier with the legal treatment of the OGL since Ryan Dancey left. I strongly suspect the whole project is going to collapse if WOTC keeps contradicting their own legal language.


----------



## Dalamar (Feb 7, 2004)

I'd guess both cases can be attributed to the check list being the same thing that will be in the UA, just made available so you don't have to cut your book to photocopy it.


----------



## MadBlue (Feb 7, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> (b) They reference _Unearthed Arcana_ itself, which is not currently Open Game Content. That's also a requirement of Section 6.



Jeez Louise. Unearthed Arcana isn't currently _anything_ since it hasn't even been published yet. Andy Collins himself has already said that UA will be Open Game Content. Unless you know of some third party publisher with access to a time machine that's going to use material from UA before it's been printed, I don't see what the problem is.   

I think it's like Dalamar said - this is stuff taken from the book - _because posters on the WotC message boards requested it_ no less.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Feb 7, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Chapter 1: Races*
> 
> Aquatic Races
> Arctic Races
> ...




All nifty ideas, though I'm mainly curious about the 2nd & 3rd to last items: Reducing Level Adjustments & Bloodlines.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Chapter 2: Classes*
> 
> Totem Barbarian
> Bardic Sage
> ...




The 3 I was most lookng forward to were the PrC versions of the Paladin, Ranger, & Bard (I was at least intending on using the PrC Paladin).  The other ideas seem interesting, but I wonder if it'll be just cut & paste notes (sort of like the non-spellcasting variants of paladins & rangers in _Complete Warrior_, or the slightly-modified PHB core classes in _Oriental Adventures_), or in some cases, they'll be full core-class treatments.  I'm curious about the generic classes, & I'm not quite sure what to make of the gestalt characters.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Chapter 3: Building Characters*
> 
> Alternative Skill System
> Complex Skill Checks
> ...




Not too sure what to make of some of these ideas.  The skill system seems easy enough as is--I wonder if the alternate system proposed is?  Some sort of skill tree/chain?  An expanded/specified skill list (instead of catch-all skill categories such as Perform & Craft)?

Now, I did like using the Traits/Flaws system back in Skills & Powers 2nd ed., but since then, I'm not so sure now.  I mean, it looks interesting, & I may wind up using it, but I'm not too sure how exactly these will work.  I mean, some feats seem to work in this way (a bonus to a certain skill or skills, or a bonus somewhere else).  And, how exactly does it work out?  Do the traits & flaws need to be balanced out?  Do they give/use up feat slots, skill points, XP %, what?  I kinda wonder if the traits/flaws could have been combined somehow (sorta like the Traits from _Fallout_), where a trait provides both a bonus & a penalty, automatically balancing itself out.  Just have to see when the book hits the streets.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Chapter 4: Adventuring*
> 
> Defense Bonus
> Armor as Damage
> ...




The Defense Bonus (& possibly the VP/WP) will crop up in the Lankhmar conversion I'm working on.  May consider Action Points (haven't had an opportunity to actually play a game that uses them).  However, I'm not sure at all about the players rolling all the dice--I've already got 1 player who has suspiciously good/beneficial/high rolls every gaming session.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Chapter 5: Magic*
> 
> Magic Rating
> Summon Monster Variants
> ...




I'm really curious about this section.  Some of it does sound familiar (from d20 Modern sourcebooks & Dragon articles).

As for spell points, I'm really leaning against using them IMC.  It's another number-pool to manage/account for during the game.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Chapter 6: Campaigns*
> 
> Contacts
> Reputation
> ...




Contacts & Reputation sound the most interesting so far.  Honor/Taint, I'm not too sure of, really (I'm trying to consider what gets affected by removing Honor/Taint from _Oriental Adventures_).



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Dungeon Master's Guide Variants*
> 
> Roll Initiative Each Round
> Sapient Mounts
> ...




The Critical Fumbles sound interesting; I won't use the nonmagical psionics option (I might it there was an arcane vs. divine magic option); I'll pretty much have a wait & see attitude on the rest.

Y'know, I'm quite curious to see what will happen to a lot of games & campaigns after this book comes out.  Heck, I'd be curious to see what kinds of games take shape at the hands of different DMs for the same gaming group.


----------



## Hecatæus (Feb 7, 2004)

I hope the binding doesn't suck...I had to buy 2 Unearthed Arcanas ('member them?) within a short time period, the first started to slowly fall apart just after getting it home.  I took better care with the second, but many other older books held together better than second purchase.


----------



## Felon (Feb 7, 2004)

Dalamar said:
			
		

> But if it is an NPC class, and thus a new one, it should be between the Sorcerer and Wizard variant classes. But as it is, it's there where the Monk variant class should be.




...or where the Fighter variant would be.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Feb 7, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> I've got to say this -- the OGL is listed at the end of this PDF document, but I really think that they have used it incorrectly.
> 
> (a) There is no added copyright notice for this document itself, the "Unearthed Arcana Variant Checklist". That's required by Section 6.
> (b) They reference _Unearthed Arcana_ itself, which is not currently Open Game Content. That's also a requirement of Section 6.
> ...




Feh.  It's very common, and quite defensible -- the material from the preview is from UA, so it doesn't need a seperate copyright.  (You don't think they registered the preview seperate from the book with the US gov't, so you?)

I've seen dozens of previews from many publishers use this same method -- they list the sec. 15 from their book in the preview, since any material they have in the preview is already copyrighted under the product itself.


----------



## TheRaven (Feb 7, 2004)

The Aspects of Nature sound very interesting so far. A few german people who have received their books today told me about. They are replacements for the druidic wildshape ability. Aspect of Plant, Aspect of Elemental Earth, Aspect of Elemental Fire, ...

The abilities are combat related. On Level 5 you can choose one aspect, then at level 8 a second one and so forth. Aspect of Elemental Earth grants a slam attack with 1d8 damage and a +8 to ac. You need to be level 16 for that. 

Aspect of Plant grants a +10 on hide in natural enviroment, immunity to sleep effects, paralysis and stunning. A slam attack is in as well as a AC bonus of 4. Can be taken at 12th level.


----------



## Wombat (Feb 7, 2004)

Hmm, okay I am seeing A Bunch Of Stuff from the table of contents, but I think I will have to wait to see if I actually _want_ any of it.  I'll check it out in a store, rather than buying it blind.


----------



## Gundark (Feb 7, 2004)

I remember that they were saying that there would be a variant hit point rule....looks like its going to be VP/WP....which is kinda dissapointing


----------



## psionotic (Feb 7, 2004)

Gundark said:
			
		

> I remember that they were saying that there would be a variant hit point rule....looks like its going to be VP/WP....which is kinda dissapointing




Word on the street is that they are also including Mutants & Masterminds' damage save mechanic, which is itself a kind of hit point variant.  Its perfect for a superhero game, but I think it could translate to fantasy, as well.


----------



## Silveras (Feb 7, 2004)

Thanks for posting the listing, Dark Jezter



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Chapter 1: Races*
> 
> Aquatic Races
> Arctic Races
> ...




I am going to guess that Racial Paragon Classes are an expansion of the Paragon template in the ELH. 

Bloodlines looks very interesting. 



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Chapter 2: Classes*
> 
> Totem Barbarian
> Bardic Sage
> ...




Favored Environment sounds like a new Ranger or Druid feature. I'm curious to see that. 

Spontaneous Divine Casters ... I have been thinking of making all Divine Casters spontaneous in my world and all Arcane Casters use preparation, to create more of a difference between the two types of magic. If this goes along that line, I will be very interested. 

Since I am a believer in the theory that class differences promote player co-operation, I am not thrilled with the idea of a Generic class. But I'll look and see what it is. 

Ahhh.. the Cloistered Cleric. I hope Len Lakofka gets credit. 



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Chapter 3: Building Characters*
> 
> Alternative Skill System
> Complex Skill Checks
> ...




I mostly like the skill system as-is. I'm curious to see what the Alternative and Complex versions look like, though. 



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Chapter 4: Adventuring*
> 
> Defense Bonus
> Armor as Damage
> ...




Not too many of these grab my attention, but maybe they'll look more interesting in the book. 



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Chapter 5: Magic*
> 
> Magic Rating
> Summon Monster Variants
> ...




Guess: Magic Rating will be a stat that each class contributes to at different rates, like BAB and Saves. This is to replace Caster Level, and makes multi-classed spellcasters more competitive with single-classed casters in terms of their spell punch. 

Spell points are of interest to me, depending on how they are presented. I am also curious to see the Summon Monster Variants, Metamagic Components, and Item Familiars. 



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> *Chapter 6: Campaigns*
> 
> Contacts
> Reputation
> ...




Hmm.. the Taint material, as previously noted, may be the more generic version already seen in the Dragon. 

Reputation, Honor, and Contacts will be interesting to see. 

Re: Reprinting the variants from the DMG. This is unlikely. This list is taken from a checklist document, which appears to be for DMs to indicate which variant rules are in use in their own campaigns. It lists all of the UA variants (with page numbers), then separately the DMG variants (with their page numbers), and has spaces for DMs to write in notes and additional variants (from other sources or their own). 

Re: AFGNCAAP. There are a couple samples of some elements on the WotC web site, linked to the "In the Works" column. From what it says there, Traits offer both a bonus and a penalty in one selection, like a +1 to Search and -1 to Spot for the Nearsighted trait. The pairs are chosen to avoid giving benefits and penalties in different areas, so that different styles of play don't make them unbalanced.


----------



## Trainz (Feb 7, 2004)

Argh. It doesn't look like they're bringing back the alternate abilities generation system of the original Unearthed Arcana, an Unearthed Arcana sacred cow if there ever was one...

Yeah yeah I know... munchkin and all that. Sue me.


----------



## Poster Bard (Feb 7, 2004)

TheRaven said:
			
		

> A few german people who have received their books today told me about.




I hope we hear from more of them here!


----------



## CRGreathouse (Feb 7, 2004)

"Our sneak peek offers a look at the prestige paladin class, the totem barbarian variant, and vitality and wound points":
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040206a


----------



## Michael Tree (Feb 7, 2004)

psionotic said:
			
		

> Word on the street is that they are also including Mutants & Masterminds' damage save mechanic, which is itself a kind of hit point variant.  Its perfect for a superhero game, but I think it could translate to fantasy, as well.



If you look carefully at the License page of the web enhancement, you'll notice that Mutants and Masterminds is given credit for... something.


----------



## Kai Lord (Feb 7, 2004)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> "Our sneak peek offers a look at the prestige paladin class, the totem barbarian variant, and vitality and wound points":
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040206a



Ooooh.  I like those Totem Barbarians....


----------



## Snapdragyn (Feb 7, 2004)

> WotC street date is Feb 13.




Hmm. Amazon street date is Feb. 25. I hope WotC is right.

*trembles in antici...*


----------



## Kai Lord (Feb 7, 2004)

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> Hmm. Amazon street date is Feb. 25. I hope WotC is right.



Yeah but Amazon probably means Feb. 25, 2005, which would be about a standard release for them if everyone else gets it now.


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 7, 2004)

Oh goody goody I LOVE these kinds of books!!!  I want it now!!


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 7, 2004)

Wilderness Rogue?

Bah.  They already have one of these in the 3.5 player's handbook, only the blasphemers called it a ranger.


----------



## Olive (Feb 7, 2004)

I was thinking this would be good, but now I'm starting to think that I need to reset my campaign! Well, it will depend on how it works, but some really cool looking ideas in here!


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Feb 7, 2004)

Silveras said:
			
		

> I am going to guess that Racial Paragon Classes are an expansion of the Paragon template in the ELH.




Perhaps they're "High" races?  Like, say, Numenoreans were High Humans?

I very much doubt they'll look like the Paragon template from ELH, as that'd be more powerful than most campaigns could usefully use.

I'm also intrigued by the "Reducing Level Adjustments" section.

Brad


----------



## Olive (Feb 7, 2004)

Hmmm... that PrC paladin is a bit wierd. First up, I like to try to get the paladin away from the knight in shining armour stereotype, so I don't like the mounted combat feat req much. The cleric spell casting is also strange, or at least would remove all of those interesting paladin only spells!


----------



## Kanegrundar (Feb 7, 2004)

I've been looking forward to this book for a while now.  I'm most interested in the class options (totem barbarians will likely become standard IMC's), reducing level adjustments, and a couple of the combat options.  If nothing else, it should make for some interesting conversation.

Kane


----------



## dcollins (Feb 7, 2004)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Feh.  It's very common, and quite defensible -- the material from the preview is from UA, so it doesn't need a seperate copyright.  (You don't think they registered the preview seperate from the book with the US gov't, so you?)




Okay, if this is actually an _excerpt_ from UA, then I concede that it looks correct. Perhaps you've got an advance copy that allows you to know that -- but the WOTC web page communicated something different, calling it a "web enhancement", and implying it had been created separately from the book.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 7, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Hmmm... that PrC paladin is a bit wierd. First up, I like to try to get the paladin away from the knight in shining armour stereotype, so I don't like the mounted combat feat req much. The cleric spell casting is also strange, or at least would remove all of those interesting paladin only spells!



The archetypal paladin have always been the mounted knight in shining armor. IIRC, the original _Unearthed Arcana_ designated the paladin as a cavalier sub-class.

The divine spellcasting is interesting, and may make up for the lack of combat prowess compared to a single-classed paladin character, unless one picks up more levels in the fighter class and just one level of cleric prior to Prestige Paladin.

Nevertheless, it still follows the 3e Paladin core class. [For Advanced Users Only] If you want Paladin variants, by all means modify the class.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 7, 2004)

Poster Bard said:
			
		

> I hope we hear from more of them here!



I'm one of them... You may post your questions and I'll try to answer some in about 9 hours from now (because I need some sleep first). Good Night!


----------



## Kai Lord (Feb 8, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> I'm one of them... You may post your questions and I'll try to answer some in about 9 hours from now (because I need some sleep first). Good Night!



Can you give us as many details about the "Bloodlines" as possible, such as which ancestors are available and the effects they bestow?  Thanks.


----------



## JoeBlank (Feb 8, 2004)

I wonder if the action points will be the same as they will be in Eberon.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Feb 8, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Okay, if this is actually an _excerpt_ from UA, then I concede that it looks correct. Perhaps you've got an advance copy that allows you to know that -- but the WOTC web page communicated something different, calling it a "web enhancement", and implying it had been created separately from the book.




As I'm in the Eastern US, not Germany, I don't have a copy -- but maybe Tarril can clear this up for us?  In any case the license itself is formatted to look like it's from the book...


----------



## Olive (Feb 8, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> The archetypal paladin have always been the mounted knight in shining armor. IIRC, the original _Unearthed Arcana_ designated the paladin as a cavalier sub-class.




I know that. I just don't like it.


----------



## Swack-Iron (Feb 8, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> I'm one of them... You may post your questions and I'll try to answer some in about 9 hours from now (because I need some sleep first). Good Night!




Could you tell us what material was used from Green Ronin's Mutants & Masterminds? Our best guess is that it's the Damage Save mechanic. If so its most likely located in chapter 3 or 4. Thanks!


----------



## buzz (Feb 8, 2004)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> "...the totem barbarian variant..."



This pic on this page looks like David Roach's work.

So far, that's the only disappointing thing I've seen in relation to UA.  I can't fathom why WotC keeps using him; I guess his rates must be, uh, "reasonable."

Sorry... back to the thread.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 8, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> I don't remember an Honor system in Oriental Adventures, and in OA taint is more of a setting-specific mechanic than a rules variant.




The honor system was in _Oriental Adventures_, just not the one you're thinking of. The original OA, the one for 1E, had an honor points rule. That's what was being referenced.

Likewise, taint was referenced only on the 3E OA, but while it was only used for that setting (Rokugan), it's not so setting-specific that you can't just lift it and drop it into another campaign with virtually no work.



> _Dollars to doughnuts, this is the honor and taint system presented a year or so ago in Dragon. There were also Tainted prestige classes._




Which issue was that?


----------



## storyguide3 (Feb 8, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Okay, if this is actually an _excerpt_ from UA, then I concede that it looks correct. Perhaps you've got an advance copy that allows you to know that -- but the WOTC web page communicated something different, calling it a "web enhancement", and implying it had been created separately from the book.



The website does give that impression, however the page numbers on the bottom of the checklist would be a giveaway that it is an excerpt from the book itself.


----------



## buzz (Feb 8, 2004)

Strangely enough, these are the variants I'm most intrigued by:

Level Check Turning
Generic Classes
Hex Grid
Bell Curve Rolls
Damage to Specific Areas
Number of times counting diagonal squares has made me wish D&D used a hex grid: Lots.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 8, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> The archetypal paladin have always been the mounted knight in shining armor. IIRC, the original _Unearthed Arcana_ designated the paladin as a cavalier sub-class.




More than a few fans weren't exactly thrilled with UA's change to the Paladin at the time either.


----------



## Gundark (Feb 8, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> I'm one of them... You may post your questions and I'll try to answer some in about 9 hours from now (because I need some sleep first). Good Night!





What are the variant hit point systems, also what are the defense bonus (like sw d20?)


----------



## Trainz (Feb 8, 2004)

I have a few questions for the playtesters...

1- Are there new ability scores generation methods ?

2- What are the Paladin variant specs ?

3- I really like how that _Players roll all the dice _thing sound. Can you give us an idea how this works ?

4- What are _Level independant_ XP awards ?

Thanks in advance for the feedback !


*drool*


_edit: point 2_


----------



## MadBlue (Feb 8, 2004)

Trainz said:
			
		

> Argh. It doesn't look like they're bringing back the alternate abilities generation system of the original Unearthed Arcana, an Unearthed Arcana sacred cow if there ever was one...
> 
> Yeah yeah I know... munchkin and all that. Sue me.



No _true_ munchkin would use an ability score generation system from any _official_ source.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 8, 2004)

Trainz said:
			
		

> 2- Is there a non-prestige class Paladin variant with no spells ?




That's in Complete Warrior.


----------



## Trainz (Feb 8, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> That's in Complete Warrior.



I know, but the one in complete warrior really blows. It's just more of a little footnote really than a complete alternative.

I changed my question number 2 for a better generic question...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 8, 2004)

Trainz said:
			
		

> I know, but the one in complete warrior really blows. It's just more of a little footnote really than a complete alternative.
> 
> I changed my question number 2 for a better generic question...



 *shrugs* I don't mind it. Its a non-spellcasting Paladin, a good Holy Warrior. It didn't need a whole table of abilities.

But since its already done in CW, I wouldn't expect to see that in UA...

EDIT: You can see the Paladin PrC over on the WotC site. Its definatly interesting.


----------



## Trainz (Feb 8, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *shrugs* I don't mind it. Its a non-spellcasting Paladin, a good Holy Warrior. It didn't need a whole table of abilities.
> 
> But since its already done in CW, I wouldn't expect to see that in UA...
> 
> EDIT: You can see the Paladin PrC over on the WotC site. Its definatly interesting.



I don't like it. Not my stuff.

In the Unearthed Arcana checklist, there's this:

-Paladin variant*s*

An somewhere else on that checklist

-Prestige Paladin

So yes, there's at least a Paladin variant base class, maybe more. I want to know about those.

Please ?


----------



## buzz (Feb 8, 2004)

Trainz said:
			
		

> So yes, there's at least a Paladin variant base class, maybe more. I want to know about those.



I'm betting it's paladins of other alignments. At least, I hope it is.


----------



## Olive (Feb 8, 2004)

Trainz said:
			
		

> I know, but the one in complete warrior really blows. It's just more of a little footnote really than a complete alternative.




Not that it really matters, but I think it's awesome. I'll almost certainly use it in my next game.


----------



## Trainz (Feb 8, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Not that it really matters, but I think it's awesome. I'll almost certainly use it in my next game.



Well, you're a BoVD fangirl so... 

Seriously, I'm glad the CW version suits your needs. Maybe UA has something even closer to your needs.

I hope so for my sake (Paladin fanboy...)


----------



## qstor (Feb 8, 2004)

I'd like to see the rules for the instant kill and the hex map, could be pretty interesting. I see some stuff that just _isn't_ a rehash of Dragon articles.

Mike


----------



## Omega Minus (Feb 8, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> I'm betting it's paladins of other alignments. At least, I hope it is.



Yes, it is. The standard paladin is designated as paladin of honor (LG), the new variants are paladin of freedom (CG), paladin of slaughter (CE), and paladin of tyranny (LE).


----------



## Felon (Feb 8, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Hmmm... that PrC paladin is a bit wierd. First up, I like to try to get the paladin away from the knight in shining armour stereotype, so I don't like the mounted combat feat req much.




Well, the paladin gets that special mount, so the inclusion of a mounted combat feat is pretty logical--and more to the point, the absence of that prereq probably doesn't do a lot to deviate it from the cavalier stereotype since he'll still have the pokemount.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> The honor system was in _Oriental Adventures_, just not the one you're thinking of. The original OA, the one for 1E, had an honor points rule. That's what was being referenced.




Ah, OK.



> Likewise, taint was referenced only on the 3E OA, but while it was only used for that setting (Rokugan), it's not so setting-specific that you can't just lift it and drop it into another campaign with virtually no work.




It's pretty much just a type of Con. damage without much of a system to it, but OK I guess you could use it that way. IIRC, the honor rules were in issue #304 or 305 of _Dragon_ (it was an issue dedicated to knights & chivalry). I believe the articles about taint, temptation, & redemption were in #306, which is also the issue that presented those variant (aquatic, arctic, etc).


----------



## Omega Minus (Feb 8, 2004)

Trainz said:
			
		

> 3- I really like how that _Players roll all the dice _thing sound. Can you give us an idea how this works ?




Each time an enemy attacks a PC, the player rolls a defense check (1d20+character's AC modifiers) against the opponent's attack score (11+enemy's attack bonus). Any time a player casts a spell or uses a special attack that forces the enemy to make a saving throw, he rolls a magic check (1d20+ spell level + ability modifier + other modifiers) against the enemy's fortidude/reflex/will score (11 + enemy's save modifier). 



			
				Trainz said:
			
		

> 4- What are _Level independant_ XP awards ?



An alternative experience point progression with fixed experience awards for monsters irrespective of character or party level.


----------



## Michael Tree (Feb 8, 2004)

How does the spontaneous divine casting work?  Can it be used for any divine caster, or is it a class of its own?  Does it basically give the caster a limited "spells known" list like a sorcerer, which they cast using the same spells/day as in the PH?


----------



## Omega Minus (Feb 8, 2004)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> How does the spontaneous divine casting work?  Can it be used for any divine caster, or is it a class of its own?  Does it basically give the caster a limited "spells known" list like a sorcerer, which they cast using the same spells/day as in the PH?



Spontanous divine casting is a variant system for the cleric and the druid. The character's daily spell allotment is the same as a normal cleric's number (not including the domain spells), plus one spell per day of each spell level he can cast. The caster's selection of spells is limited just like a sorcerer's, but a cleric may additionally add his domain spells to the list of spells known, while a druid may additionally add the appropriate summon nature's ally spells.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Feb 8, 2004)

qstor said:
			
		

> I'd like to see the rules for the instant kill and the hex map, could be pretty interesting. I see some stuff that just _isn't_ a rehash of Dragon articles.
> 
> Mike




The Instant Kill variant is in the DMG. Just roll 3 20s in a row and you kill anything.

Geoff.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 8, 2004)

I'm ill. I will answer later.

The Checklist is taken verbatim from UA.


----------



## Particle_Man (Feb 8, 2004)

Omega Minus said:
			
		

> Spontanous divine casting is a variant system for the cleric and the druid. The character's daily spell allotment is the same as a normal cleric's number (not including the domain spells), plus one spell per day of each spell level he can cast. The caster's selection of spells is limited just like a sorcerer's, but a cleric may additionally add his domain spells to the list of spells known, while a druid may additionally add the appropriate summon nature's ally spells.




Huh?  I thought the 3.5 druid could drop any spell for the appropriate level summon nature's ally spell anyhow?  Or is that different in the spontaneous druid version?


----------



## shilsen (Feb 8, 2004)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Huh?  I thought the 3.5 druid could drop any spell for the appropriate level summon nature's ally spell anyhow?  Or is that different in the spontaneous druid version?




Looks like that's what Omega Minus is saying. Makes sense, since the druid is casting all spells spontaneously anyway under this system.


----------



## Michael Tree (Feb 8, 2004)

Omega Minus said:
			
		

> Spontanous divine casting is a variant system for the cleric and the druid. The character's daily spell allotment is the same as a normal cleric's number (not including the domain spells), plus one spell per day of each spell level he can cast. The caster's selection of spells is limited just like a sorcerer's, but a cleric may additionally add his domain spells to the list of spells known, while a druid may additionally add the appropriate summon nature's ally spells.



Daddy likes.  Do they have the same number of spells known as a sorcerer?


----------



## dcollins (Feb 8, 2004)

storyguide3 said:
			
		

> The website does give that impression, however the page numbers on the bottom of the checklist would be a giveaway that it is an excerpt from the book itself.




An excellent point.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Feb 8, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> An excellent point.




Terril answered our question -- fortunate, considering he's not feeling well.



			
				Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> The Checklist is taken verbatim from UA.


----------



## Omega Minus (Feb 8, 2004)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> Daddy likes.  Do they have the same number of spells known as a sorcerer?



The spontaneous divine casters may choose the same number of spells as the sorcerer. But the spontaneous casting cleric has TWO more spells known per spell level, because he automatically adds his domain spells to his list of spells know, and the spontaneous casting druid has ONE more spell known per spell level, because he automatically adds the appropriate _summon nature's ally_ spell to his list of spells known. Both cleric and druid lose the ability to spontaneously cast _cure_, _inflict_, or _summon nature's ally_ in place of other spells.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Feb 8, 2004)

Hmm...

Some interesting stuff in the table of contents.

Unfortunately for me, I don't really like the Paladin PrC or the Totem Barbarian that are put up as samples.


The paladin PrC is too tied to both a specific theme and a very specific archetype required for entry. I was hoping to see something which was mechanically flavoured to represent the idea of "everyman made good". Instead, it strikes me as a class designed for characters who, in campaign, train specifically for the calling.

The Totem Barbarian, on the other hand, strikes me as a good idea made really wimpy. A couple of the totem power lists are alright, but for the most part I wouldn't use them, since most of them don't give a good enough return for the mechanics sacrificed.

Patrick Y.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Feb 8, 2004)

Omega Minus said:
			
		

> Each time an enemy attacks a PC, the player rolls a defense check (1d20+character's AC modifiers) against the opponent's attack score (11+enemy's attack bonus). Any time a player casts a spell or uses a special attack that forces the enemy to make a saving throw, he rolls a magic check (1d20+ spell level + ability modifier + other modifiers) against the enemy's fortidude/reflex/will score (11 + enemy's save modifier).




I've been using the Defense Roll for a year or more now, funny.


----------



## buzz (Feb 8, 2004)

Omega Minus said:
			
		

> Each time an enemy attacks a PC, the player rolls a defense check (1d20+character's AC modifiers) against the opponent's attack score (11+enemy's attack bonus). Any time a player casts a spell or uses a special attack that forces the enemy to make a saving throw, he rolls a magic check (1d20+ spell level + ability modifier + other modifiers) against the enemy's fortidude/reflex/will score (11 + enemy's save modifier).



Man, I can't wait to get this book!


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 8, 2004)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> Hmm...
> 
> Some interesting stuff in the table of contents.
> 
> ...





The totem barbarian will be useful ONLY for min-maxers who need a specefic feat for prestige class entry.  Otherwise, there is no way improved trip is worth uncanny dodge to a straight barbarian.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Feb 8, 2004)

Oh Domain Wizard... That'll get the juices flowing. Please, pretty please tell me about the domain wizard.


----------



## evildm (Feb 8, 2004)

Just to reiterate (maybe I missed it): what elements did they use from Mutants & Masterminds? Please say it's the Damage Save mechanic.


----------



## Aaron2 (Feb 8, 2004)

Omega Minus said:
			
		

> Each time an enemy attacks a PC, the player rolls a defense check (1d20+character's AC modifiers) against the opponent's attack score (11+enemy's attack bonus). Any time a player casts a spell or uses a special attack that forces the enemy to make a saving throw, he rolls a magic check (1d20+ spell level + ability modifier + other modifiers) against the enemy's fortidude/reflex/will score (11 + enemy's save modifier).




Shouldn't that be 12+attack bonus and 12+save modifier? 

An attacker with +0 will hit a defender with an AC of 10 on a 10-20. That is 11 out of the possible 20 rolls or 11/20 or 55%. When we reverse the rolls, the defender now wins the ties, but he should still only hit 45% (100%-55%) of the time. 45% is 9/20 or 12-20. So, the defender needs a 12 or better to avoid being hit.

That is, if your concerned about the probability being the same in the two methods.


Aaron


----------



## Creamsteak (Feb 8, 2004)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> "the defender now wins the ties"




I'd assume the person above didn't add that clause when they reversed the rolls. Then 11+modifier would be right.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 8, 2004)

*RE: Prestige Paladin*



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> I know that. I just don't like it.



Then feel free to modify it. Even though the most common gamers associate paladin with knights, some uncommon gamers think it can exist in other time periods or cultures, even among the barbarian tribes.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 8, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> More than a few fans weren't exactly thrilled with UA's change to the Paladin at the time either.



I know. It became an uber-paladin at the time. Looking back, it was overpowering. But somehow it fits Gygax's vision.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 8, 2004)

Feeling better. Now working down (page 1)

Dalamar:

Racial Paragon Classes - racial classes, "how to be more dwarf than any other dwarf"

Cloistered Cleric - the non-combat cleric: d6 HD, poor Base Attack, only light armor, more class skills, more skill points, knowledge as bonus domain, bardic knowledge, some more spells from other spell lists.

Thug - Fighter variant, more skills, only light armor

Wilderness Rogue - some other skills, some other class abilities

Magic Rating - taken instead of caster level, add together

Recharge Magic - your spell slots recharge over time and you can then use the same spell again


Felon/Mordane76:

Honor - there is mechanical honor, free-form honor (from OA), family honor, and some sample codes of honor.

Taint - Could be from Rokugan, it's much more elaborate than OA.

Mordane76:

Incantations - looks almost like d20 Modern / Epic rules

The racial variants seem to be taken from dragon


AFGNCAAP:

Reducing Level Adjustments - Per Three class levels you attain you may buy a reduction to your LA with XP

Bloodlines - lots of pages, seems to be some kind of multiclassing with bloodline traits.

PrC versions of the Paladin, Ranger, & Bard - these are 15-level Prestige classes.

gestalt characters - effectively taking two classes at once: just use all class features and the better of all variable features (for example Base Attack, Base Saves, # of skill points...)

...


Hecatæus:

the binding - seems ok to me, standard binding for 3e hardcover


(page 2)

Kai Lord:

Bloodlines (take 2) - Ancestors available: Celestial, Demon, Devil, Doppelganger, Black Dragon, Blue Dragon, Brass Dragon, Bronze Dragon, Copper Dragon, Gold Dragon, Green Dragon, Red Dragon, Silver Dragon, White Dragon, Air Elemental, Earth Elemental, Fire Elemental, Water Elemental, Fey, Djinni, Efreeti, Janni, Cloud Giant, Fire Giant, Frost Giant, Hill Giant, Stone Giant, Storm Giant, Githyanki, Githzerai, Hag, Lycanthrope, Minotaur, Ogre, Slaad, Titan, Troll, Vampire, Yuan-ti.
There are three bloodline strength - minor, intermediate, and major, giving 5, 10, or 20 special abilities.
All of that uses up 13 pages.


Swack-Iron:

I couldn't find anything called Damage Save. As I don't know about M&M, I can't correlate. Sorry.


buzz:

the pic is from D. Roach

Level Check Turning - allows you to affect Undead with more HD

Generic Classes - Just 3: The Expert, the Spellcaster, and the Warrior. (Expert and Warrior are NOT the NPC classes from DMG)

Hex Grid - looks goog, but the facing variant in hex scares me!

Bell Curve Rolls - 3d6 instead of 1d20 and what it entails.

Damage to Specific Areas - that's in the DMG


(page 3)

Gundark:

variant hit point systems - 
-Injury System: No hp, just 6 conditions: hit, disabled, dying, nonlethal hit, staggered, unconscious.
-Vitality Points: Just like SW
Also: Reserve points, massive damage threshold, death and dying

defense bonus - a class defense bonus like SW or d20 Modern


Trainz: (I'm not a playtester, but I will try)

new ability scores generation methods - No

Paladin variant specs - There's a 15-level prestige class; P. o. Freedom: Chaotic Good variant; P. o. Slaughter: Chaotic Evil variant; P. o. Tyranny: Lawful Evil variant.

Players roll all the dice - It's mathematically the same as always, NPCs and monsters get an attack score, a Fortitude, Reflex, and Will score, and a Caster level score, PCs get a defense check, a magic check, and a spell resistance check.

Level independant XP awards - a flat XP award for a specific challenge rating, combined with another experience point progression for characters (more like 2e)


(page 4)

Frostmarrow:

Domain Wizard - domains as cleric domains, granted power: +1 caster level for domain spells.


That's all. Did I miss something?


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 8, 2004)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> Unfortunately for me, I don't really like the Paladin PrC or the Totem Barbarian that are put up as samples.
> 
> The paladin PrC is too tied to both a specific theme and a very specific archetype required for entry. I was hoping to see something which was mechanically flavoured to represent the idea of "everyman made good". Instead, it strikes me as a class designed for characters who, in campaign, train specifically for the calling.



As I stated earlier, the prestige paladin class is nothing more than an adaptation of the core paladin class without one of the silly multiclassing restrictions. That is what posters here and on Wizards' messageboards have been asking for a long while, now it is a reality in the new _Unearthed Arcana._

If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. In fact, _Unearthed Arcana_ is just a big book of alternative rules OPTIONS. Feel free to use (as-is or modified) any of the options: all, some, or not (in this case, don't buy it).




			
				Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> The Totem Barbarian, on the other hand, strikes me as a good idea made really wimpy. A couple of the totem power lists are alright, but for the most part I wouldn't use them, since most of them don't give a good enough return for the mechanics sacrificed.



Again, feel free to modify it ... or wait for third-party publishers to use (and modify) the OGCs for their own flavored game products. An idea, even when poorly executed, is still an idea that can be useful ... unless it is a bad idea in the first place.


----------



## buzz (Feb 8, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> -Injury System: No hp, just 6 conditions: hit, disabled, dying, nonlethal hit, staggered, unconscious.



Man, I'm loving this book already. Danke, TW!


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 8, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> -Injury System: No hp, just 6 conditions: hit, disabled, dying, nonlethal hit, staggered, unconscious.



This has better be -- or inspired by -- the _Mutants & Masterminds_ Damage Saving Throw.

In fact, why didn't they just call it that?


----------



## A'koss (Feb 8, 2004)

Tarril, could you give me a quick breakdown as to what _Armor Damage Conversion_ entails? I just want to know whether it's similar to what I'm doing - converting real damage to subdual...

Thanks!

A'koss.


----------



## Swack-Iron (Feb 8, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Feeling better.
> 
> Swack-Iron:
> 
> ...




Glad to hear you're feeling better!

The first variant hp system you mention could be it. Could you tell us how characters become hit, disabled, dying, etc.? Thanks!


----------



## Kichwas (Feb 8, 2004)

How does the six stage injury system work?

If you hit you with a sword, do you make a saving throw to determine where you are, or something else?

Is it different if you're level 15 or level 2?

Does it say how to convert a monster over to it? A 5d8+5 hit dice monster vs. say, a 5d8+8 or a 20d8?

Is there a difference between a 5d4 hit die and a 5d12 hit die creature? How about a 3d4 and a 1d12 hit die creature?

Can it work together with the Armor as damage system, or was no thought put into using them together?


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Feb 8, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Reducing Level Adjustments - Per Three class levels you attain you may buy a reduction to your LA with XP




What does this accomplish?



> gestalt characters - effectively taking two classes at once: just use all class features and the better of all variable features (for example Base Attack, Base Saves, # of skill points...)




Does this include half-levels? If it doesn't I can't see this as a viable choice for beginning characters.



> Bloodlines (take 2) - Ancestors available: Celestial, Demon, Devil, Doppelganger, Black Dragon, Blue Dragon, Brass Dragon, Bronze Dragon, Copper Dragon, Gold Dragon, Green Dragon, Red Dragon, Silver Dragon, White Dragon, Air Elemental, Earth Elemental, Fire Elemental, Water Elemental, Fey, Djinni, Efreeti, Janni, Cloud Giant, Fire Giant, Frost Giant, Hill Giant, Stone Giant, Storm Giant, Githyanki, Githzerai, Hag, Lycanthrope, Minotaur, Ogre, Slaad, Titan, Troll, Vampire, Yuan-ti.
> There are three bloodline strength - minor, intermediate, and major, giving 5, 10, or 20 special abilities.
> All of that uses up 13 pages.




Interesting, I can see the Birthright comparison.



> I couldn't find anything called Damage Save. As I don't know about M&M, I can't correlate. Sorry.




then...



> variant hit point systems -
> -Injury System: No hp, just 6 conditions: hit, disabled, dying, nonlethal hit, staggered, unconscious.




I think that's it.



> Paladin variant specs - There's a 15-level prestige class; P. o. Freedom: Chaotic Good variant; P. o. Slaughter: Chaotic Evil variant; P. o. Tyranny: Lawful Evil variant.




Wish they had given them individualized names, but at least their not as silly as Anti-Paladin.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 8, 2004)

Are you kidding? I love the name: Anti-Paladin. Wasn't silly to me back then, it's not silly now.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 8, 2004)

Armor Damage Conversion :
Each time you're struck, convert lethal damage equal to your armor bonus to nonlethal damage. You also get Damage reduction against nonlethal attacks equal to your armor bonus. 

That means in a tavern brawl fists will not really hurt you and against most armored opponents you probably will not kill but just put someone unconscious.


Injury:

Divide damage by 5 (round up) -> damage value
Make a Fortitude Save (DC 15 + damage value)
Success: No effect
Failed by 1 to 9: Hit (if lethal damage) or nonlethal hit (if nonlethal damage)
Failed by 10 or more: Disabled (lethal dmg) or Staggered (nonlethal dmg)

Hit: some minor injury; each gives a cumulative -1 to later Fortitude Saves vs. Injury
Disabled: Almost like 0 hp; if a disabled gets a hit or another disabled he's dying
Dying: Each round a Fortitude Save (DC 10+1 per turn after the first)
  -fails: dead
  -succeed by less than 5: still dying
  -succeed by 5-9: stable, but unconscious
  -succeed by 10 or more: conscious and disabled
  if a dying gets a hit or a disabled he's dead
It's almost the same with nonlethal hit, staggered, and unconscious, but you can't die of course.
There's some more on Healing, special damage defenses and effects and how this all works together.

Oh, and buzz: Gern geschehen.


----------



## Kichwas (Feb 8, 2004)

That system looks like the Mutants and Masterminds damage save.

Unfortunately in DnD it fails to take account for high hit die monsters and abilities that boost fort saves become disportionately powerful.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 8, 2004)

Twiggly the Gnome said:
			
		

> What does this accomplish?
> 
> Does this include half-levels? If it doesn't I can't see this as a viable choice for beginning characters.
> 
> ...




Reducing LA: As you will lose a level you get more XP and in effect will get to highr levels with less XP in total.

Gestalt: It's actually some kind of melding two classes into one and getting it all. The characters are very high-powered and of course more powerful than any of the standard classes. It's really a strange option, I think.

Well, If you don't want the Anti-Paladin back, you shouldn't look into Dragon #312.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 8, 2004)

Quote:  gestalt characters - effectively taking two classes at once: just use all class features and the better of all variable features (for example Base Attack, Base Saves, # of skill points...)  Endquote


How does this work?  Do you level up half as often?  Or what?


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 8, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> That system looks like the Mutants and Masterminds damage save.
> 
> Unfortunately in DnD it fails to take account for high hit die monsters and abilities that boost fort saves become disportionately powerful.




Yes


----------



## buzz (Feb 8, 2004)

IIUC, a gestalt is a combination of two classes. I.e., you take the best bits from both and combine them into one (best save from one with best saves of the otehr, best hit die, etc.). That's what it sounds like, at least.


----------



## Kai Lord (Feb 8, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Kai Lord:
> 
> Bloodlines (take 2) - Ancestors available: Celestial, Demon, Devil, Doppelganger, Black Dragon, Blue Dragon, Brass Dragon, Bronze Dragon, Copper Dragon, Gold Dragon, Green Dragon, Red Dragon, Silver Dragon, White Dragon, Air Elemental, Earth Elemental, Fire Elemental, Water Elemental, Fey, Djinni, Efreeti, Janni, Cloud Giant, Fire Giant, Frost Giant, Hill Giant, Stone Giant, Storm Giant, Githyanki, Githzerai, Hag, Lycanthrope, Minotaur, Ogre, Slaad, Titan, Troll, Vampire, Yuan-ti.
> There are three bloodline strength - minor, intermediate, and major, giving 5, 10, or 20 special abilities.
> All of that uses up 13 pages.



Awesome!  Thanks for the info.  Would you mind posting a few of the abilities given by celestial, doppleganger, fey, and githzerai ancestry?  Thanks again.


----------



## Kichwas (Feb 8, 2004)

What's unfortunate about that is that in play the damage save is just simply a superior option.

There's nothing like the tension of having no way on either side of knowing when someone will go down. Like reality, it's unpredictable. In my MnM game I never hear "Ack! I'm down by 23 hit points, toss me the cleric!", but in my DnD game the players track their hit points with desperate attention and uncanny precision.

In MnM you never know which hit will take you down. By contrast in DnD I can predict to the round when a NPC will go down and I can often take the mini off the mat before the player even adds up the damage...

But converting it over to DnD has been problematic at best...


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Feb 8, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Are you kidding? I love the name: Anti-Paladin. Wasn't silly to me back then, it's not silly now.




Nope, I like class names that are something that characer or it's allies might refer to it as, in game. A character refering to its self as a Anti-Paladin would, to me, smack of Austin Powers style camp. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's still silly.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Feb 8, 2004)

Well, thank ya kindly, Tarril!     Glad to hear you're feelin' better.

The Paladin PrC actually wasn't was I was expecting at all (well, I kinda suspected something like it, _but_ I was expecting the paladin PrC to be a 10-level PrC that granted 1st through 4th level paladin spells, much like the assassin PrC, and the blackguard PrC).

I originally was going to have paladins be a PrC only IMC, but I may not do that after all.  However, I _am_ considering going with the 4-variety versions of paladins (LG/CG/LE/CE); I'll probably rename the LE paladin variant a "blackguard," & ditch the blackguard PrC.

However, I'm _extremely_ psyched now about the Generic Classes.  At first, I thought it was going to be more or less along the lines of the generic class from the _Omega World_ mini-game from _Polyheadron/Dungeon_; but now, oh, it just seems to be much more than that.  It sounds like the perfect system for a few projects I'm working on.  I was considering using the Wilderness Rogue, Thug, CW's Swashbuckler, & other variant core classes for a Lankhmar d20 game I was fiddling around with, but honestly, the 3 generic classes ultimately seem ideal.

Man oh man!  I can't wait for this book to hit the shelves & lighten my wallet!


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 8, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Quote:  gestalt characters - effectively taking two classes at once: just use all class features and the better of all variable features (for example Base Attack, Base Saves, # of skill points...)  Endquote
> 
> 
> How does this work?  Do you level up half as often?  Or what?




No, it seems you don't use standard classes anymore when using gestalt. There's even 1 full page about adjusting CR of monsters and balancing gestalt characters. It's a totally different world - everyone takes two classes at once.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 8, 2004)

AFGNCAAP said:
			
		

> Well, thank ya kindly, Tarril!     Glad to hear you're feelin' better.



Well, there was some lactose somewhere I didn't expect, which ruined most of my sunday, but it's all out of my system now.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 8, 2004)

Thanks for Armor Conversion rules Tarril! Very interesting indeed... I just saw the post about the generic classes, any chance of getting a few tidbits and your impressions of those?

Cheers,

A'koss.


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 8, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> What's unfortunate about that is that in play the damage save is just simply a superior option.
> 
> There's nothing like the tension of having no way on either side of knowing when someone will go down. Like reality, it's unpredictable. In my MnM game I never hear "Ack! I'm down by 23 hit points, toss me the cleric!", but in my DnD game the players track their hit points with desperate attention and uncanny precision.
> 
> ...




Yeah, it looks difficult to do this with any sort of precision given the possibility of multiclassing.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 8, 2004)

The Generic Classes: (almost everything)

When choosing a class you may choose which saves are good and which are poor. The # of good/poor saves is stated by the class. You may also choose your class skills. All classes get bonus feats, you may choose some class features of the standard classes as bonus feats.

Expert: d6; medium base attack; two good saves, one poor save; class skills: any twelve plus Craft and Profession; skill points: 6+Int mod; All simple weapons, one martial weapon, light armor; bonus feats:Lvl 1,2,4,8,12,16,20

Spellcaster: d4; poor base attack; one good save, two poor saves; class skills: any four plus Craft, Knowledge (all), and Profession; skill points: 2+Int mod; One simple weapon, no armor; bonus feats:Lvl 1,5,10,15,20; spellcasting as Sorcerer, fewer spells per day, select spells from cleric, druid, and sor/wiz lists; choose if you are arcane or divine spellcaster - arcane uses Int or Cha, divine uses Wis; you may multiclass between arcane spellcaster and divine spellcaster

Warrior: d10, good base attack; one good save, two poor saves; class skills: any six plus Craft; skill points: 2+Int mod; All simple and martial weapons, light and medium armor, shields (not tower shield); bonus feats:Lvl 1,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20

The DM probably shouldn't apply multiclassing penalties.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 8, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Yeah, it looks difficult to do this with any sort of precision given the possibility of multiclassing.



They are giving you the advice (in a sidebar) that no one should get the +2 bonus on Fortitude for the first level in a class more than once.


----------



## RangerWickett (Feb 8, 2004)

Ach, the generic classes went from "Oh goodness, they're actually going to do something I'm interested in" to "Oh, . . . um, that's boring."

The Expert class could be kinda nice, I guess.  But the Warrior is still given armor proficiency, and the Spellcaster has to choose between arcane and divine?  Please, for once, can we get some official D&D stuff that doesn't use that silliness.  I mean, there's nothing really wrong with it, but _I_ don't want to use it.

I'll just keep my current house rules.  I dunno, I guess I was hoping to get some vindication from WotC, to have them say my type of gaming is cool too.

Anyway, I like the alternative ragers.  Kinda nifty.


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 8, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> They are giving you the advice (in a sidebar) that no one should get the +2 bonus on Fortitude for the first level in a class more than once.




It wasn't the fort save thing I was referring to, but rather differences in hit die, though, on second thought, that might only be a minor factor.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 8, 2004)

Thanks again Tarril! Well... when they said "Generic Classes" they really meant it. Just one question - which spell list(s) do the arcane and divine spellcasters draw from? Can a divine spellcaster choose spells from both the cleric _and_ druid lists or do you choose just one?

I just noticed that AU has an alternative skill system (and something called "Craft Points") - any tidbits or thoughts on that?

Cheers!

A'koss.


----------



## buzz (Feb 8, 2004)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Just one question - which spell list(s) do the arcane and divine spellcasters draw from? Can a divine spellcaster choose spells from both the cleric _and_ druid lists or do you choose just one?



From the original post: "...select spells from cleric, druid, and sor/wiz lists..." I gather that means you choose any existing spells, and then declare yourself to be either arcane or divine.



			
				A'koss said:
			
		

> I just noticed that AU has an alternative skill system...



It's "UA," btw. AU is Monte's Diamond Throne RPG.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Feb 8, 2004)

Twiggly the Gnome said:
			
		

> _question regarding reducing level adjustments by buying off with XP_
> What does this accomplish?



Here's a totally made-up example.

You're a LA=1 race.  The level adjustment provides no hit points, no save bonuses, etc.

Your equivalent character level is 5 (4 levels +1 LA).  To get to level 6, you need 5000 XP.

However, you can spend (let's say) 500 XP to buy off one level of LA.

Result:

Your equivalent character level is now 4.  To get to level 5, you need 4000 XP.

The main benefit of buying off Level Adjustments, in my opinion, is that as you go up in level, those nifty racial bonuses don't matter as much.  (Barring some, like half-celestial and half-fiend, which actually have 20 levels of benefits.)

Anyway, anyone know where I can find the sliding-scale level adjustments?  I think it's on Sean Reynold's website (http://www.seankreynolds.com).  Basically, a template and/or race varies depending on your level.  That half-dragon template might be worth 3 levels at the start, but by the time you become 12th level (w/o the template), it's not that impressive.  (Again, making up numbers...)


----------



## A'koss (Feb 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by buzz:_
> From the original post: "...select spells from cleric, druid, and sor/wiz lists..." I gather that means you choose any existing spells, and then declare yourself to be either arcane or divine.



If that's true then why would you ever bother muticlassing between an arcane caster and a divine one?


> It's "UA," btw. AU is Monte's Diamond Throne RPG.





Cheers,

A'koss!


----------



## JPL (Feb 8, 2004)

So...the racial paragon classes are a new spin on a very old idea.

Think original D&D.  You didn't play a elf fighter or an elf wizard...you played an elf.  You cast some spells, you shot some arrows, you were woodsy...

The racial paragons classes will give a range of abilities that are iconic for that race.  The Gnome will have some illusions and trickery, the Elf will probably be a sort of ranger/wizard, the Dwarf will likely be a fighter/craftsman...

My question...will there also be a human racial paragon class?  If so, I guess the emphasis will be on versatility and adaptability.  Plenty of skill points and bonus feats.

Oh, this would be cool.
 ----------------------------

Scholarly bard?  I'm all over that, too.  Someday before I die I'm going to play a sage as a PC...


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 8, 2004)

The generic spellcaster can choose spells from the cleric, druid, and sorcerer/wizard spell lists. It doesn't matter if he's arcane or divine. You can even choose a Wizard spell as a divine spellcaster or a cleric spell as an arcane spellcaster.


Alternative Skill Systems:

Maximum Ranks, Limited Choices - you choose a number of skills equal to the number of skill points you would get each level. You're assumed to have max ranks (multiclassing is complicated)

Level-based Skills - all your class skills: 1d20 + character level + modifiers;
  all your cross-class skills; 1d20 + modifiers

Both of these systems simplify skills.

Complex Skill checks - You need more than one successful skill check to get some things done

This makes skills more complicated.


Craft Points - a way to craft something when there's no campaign downtime. You just spend craft points and money (and XP when crafting magic items) and it's all done in the next morning. you may combine time and craft points.
You get new craft points each level and with each item creation feat. There are even some non-magical masterwork item creation feats.

Enough for now. I'm going to bed. I'll be back tomorrow.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 8, 2004)

JPL said:
			
		

> My question...will there also be a human racial paragon class?  If so, I guess the emphasis will be on versatility and adaptability.  Plenty of skill points and bonus feats.
> 
> Oh, this would be cool.




There is.


----------



## JPL (Feb 8, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> There is.




Oh, and you're not gonna tell me about it?

Ah, I suppose you've done your part for the nerd community for one day.

Go now, and sleep the sleep of the just.


----------



## buzz (Feb 9, 2004)

A'koss said:
			
		

> If that's true then why would you ever bother muticlassing between an arcane caster and a divine one?



It sounds like this class gets spells like a sorcerer, i.e., the number of spells per level you actually know is limited. Multiclassing, I imagine, would let you pick a new batch of spells. There's also Arcane Spell Failure, and some other subtle differences that I'm probably forgetting.


----------



## DonAdam (Feb 9, 2004)

JPL said:
			
		

> Oh, and you're not gonna tell me about it?
> 
> Ah, I suppose you've done your part for the nerd community for one day.
> 
> Go now, and sleep the sleep of the just.




I bet they're the racial classes that were posted on Monte's site a few months ago...


----------



## Woas (Feb 9, 2004)

Wow, Tarril is such a great person... I feel your pain with the lactose

I have a few questions if ya don't mind:

Could you explain/describe any more of the variant classes? Such as the Urban ranger, Bardic Sage, Divine Bard and Savage Bard.

What are spell points and how do they work? I don't think I read about them in the previous pages... just the recharge magic. I you already explained this, don't waste your time answering it again for me...

Item Familiars. From the sounds of it this just seems like animated objects that can be used as familiars...

Sanity. I am most curious as to how this works.

And finally, Summon Monster variants. From the sound of this it seems like it could either be lists of alternate creatures a spell caster could summon instead of the normal ones in the PHB, or some variant rules to summoned monsters... being the skeptical that I am, I assume the former.

Thanks a bunch. Your number 1 in my book!


----------



## evildm (Feb 9, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Injury:
> 
> Divide damage by 5 (round up) -> damage value
> Make a Fortitude Save (DC 15 + damage value)




Hope you're having a good sleep. I also don't mean to pester you, but is this total damage AFTER modifiers (str, etc), or before? Just curious.  Thanks again for all the info, BTW.


----------



## Katowice (Feb 9, 2004)

How does *Defense bonus* work?  I know that d20 Modern and Star Wars both use this.  Does the book outline how Defense bonus is derived for each class?

ditto for *Armor Damage Reduction*.


----------



## Michael Tree (Feb 9, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Magic Rating - taken instead of caster level, add together
> 
> gestalt characters - effectively taking two classes at once: just use all class features and the better of all variable features (for example Base Attack, Base Saves, # of skill points...)



Does the magic rating affect spells/day and the like, or does it basically allow caster levels to stack for determining spell effects and SR penetration?

How does the gestalt character variant work with multiclassing and prestige classes.  I could see it becoming very confusing if every level has different combinations of two classes.

Finally, I'm surprised that no one has asked about the spell point system.  How does that work?


----------



## AeroDm (Feb 9, 2004)

I've been rather skeptical about a lot of what I've seen.  I love house rules and plan to purchase UA asap, but some of it looks a little underdeveloped.  Granted these are... possibly... excerpts.

I am really interested in combining the generic classes with bloodlines.  Hopefully the underpowered generic classes combined with the empowering bloodlines form to make powerful characters suited to whatever niche people want.  Here's to hoping.


----------



## Olive (Feb 9, 2004)

AeroDm said:
			
		

> I've been rather skeptical about a lot of what I've seen.  I love house rules and plan to purchase UA asap, but some of it looks a little underdeveloped.  Granted these are... possibly... excerpts.




Like what?


----------



## AeroDm (Feb 9, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Like what?




Well, the Vita/Wounds didn't look very well done at all.  I've toyed with it several times and was happy to see many of our additions present, but then I felt it personally fell short.

A lot of the other material seems underpowered which makes me quite happy because the previous track record of splat-books was to create more powerful versions of everything to make it 'mad-cool.'  The fact that this book doesn't do that is a breath of fresh air.  Unfortunately, I can't imagine too many players using many of the character flaws and the totem barbarians all seem to be lacking over the core barb... again, all in my opinino.  YMMV.  I still plan to buy it.


----------



## Stormborn (Feb 9, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Bloodlines - lots of pages, seems to be some kind of multiclassing with bloodline traits.
> 
> 
> Kai Lord:
> ...


----------



## Felon (Feb 9, 2004)

AeroDm said:
			
		

> A lot of the other material seems underpowered....Unfortunately, I can't imagine too many players using many of the character flaws and the totem barbarians all seem to be lacking over the core barb... again, all in my opinino.  YMMV.  I still plan to buy it.




When evaluating the totem barbarian variants, they're only going to look balanced when taking the total package into account, rather than saying, for instance, "there's no way that a +2 on a skill check is worth giving up Uncanny Dodge". If a person falls into the habit of looking at the most meager benefit they're gaining in exchange for the best core feature they're giving up, then naturally it's going to look like a poor exchange. 

From looking it over, I think this is what the designers' reasoning seems to be: 

Trap sense is the core barbarian's weakest benefit, and so gaining skill bonuses or conditional save bonuses in its stead is deemed a reasonable trade-off. 
Fast Movement is about worth a bonus feat.
Uncanny Dodge & Improved Uncanny Dodge are worth a couple of bonus feats, or worth an ability that's better than you can get through standard feats (e.g. frightful presence or extra damage reduction or a climb speed).

So, for instance, looking at the Horse Totem:

Give up Trap Sense = Gain Handle Animal & Ride bonuses.
Give up Uncanny Dodge/Improved Uncanncy Dodge = Gain Run & Endurance feats.

Dragon Totem:

Give up Trap Sense = Gain sleep/paralysis saves.
Give up Fast Movement = Gain Blind-fight feat.
Give up UD/IUD = Gain frightful presence.

Eagle Totem:

Give up Trap Sense = Gain Spot check bonus.
Give up Fast Movement = Gain Lightning Reflexes feat.

Having said that, they didn't do a perfect job by any means. For instance, their trade-off system doesn't pan out well in nstances where the totem gives a bonus to a skill that isn't on the barbarian's class skill list, like Spot (Eagle) or Hide (Lion) or Move Silently (Serpent). That seems pretty lame.

And, if you apply the formula above, there are a few totems that just plain fall short. The Wolf Totem gains a couple feats in exchange for giving up the dodge features, but effectively gets shafted for losing Trap Sense.


----------



## Omega Minus (Feb 9, 2004)

Woas said:
			
		

> Could you explain/describe any more of the variant classes? Such as the Urban ranger, Bardic Sage, Divine Bard and Savage Bard.



Urban Ranger: -knowledge (nature), - knowledge (dungeoneering), -knowledge (survival), +gather information, +knowledge (local), +sense motive, -animal companion, -track, +urban tracking(*1), only 1/2 wild empathy, may choose organization instead of a creature type as favored enemy, different spell selection, -woodland strife, -camouflage, hide in plain sight (any area).

(*1)Urban Tracking: You can track down the location of missing persons or wanted individuals within communities. To find the trail [...] requires a Gather Information check.

Bardic Sage: neutral good/neutral/neutral evil, good will, poor fortitude, poor reflex, additional divination spell known for each spell level, same number of spells per day, needs Intelligence score (not charisma score) equal to at least 10 + spell level (all other spellcasting factors still determined using Charisma), expanded spell list, bardic knowledge +2, bardic music lasts only 3 rounds after ally can no longer hear bardic sage sing

Divine Bard: spells are divine not arcane, needs Wisdom score (not charisma score) equal to at least 10 + spell level (all other spellcasting factors still determined using Charisma), cannot cast spells of other alignment, expanded spell list

Savage Bard: chaotic, good fortitude, good will, poor reflex, -decipher script, -speak language, +survival, iliterate, somewhat different spell list


----------



## Kichwas (Feb 9, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Like what?



Just to give my own opinion.

If we look at what's been said about the damage save mechanic's porting over to DnD, it looks incomplete.

Granted I can't say until I have the book, but on the assumption that Tarril didn't leave anything out there are two notable problems:

Varying hit die are not accounted for. Let's say I played the 'Generic Spellcaster' mentioned earlier where I can assign my own saves, if I give the Good save to Fort, I have the same damage soaking ability as a Barbarian...

This will get inordinately complicated with monster hit die...

The second problem is with damage itself. If I still need to roll damage to determine what I divide by 5 then we're only slowing down the game by using the save. On the fly division kills game speed. On the other hand, if we use either max damage or average damage this possible issue goes away.

In a save mechanic for injury, the random end is on the save, put it on both ends and you slow things down to much.



What all of this says, is that it looks unfinished. With a little work we can devise a way to account for each issue, but that should be done BEFORE we buy the book...


----------



## evildm (Feb 9, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> The second problem is with damage itself. If I still need to roll damage to determine what I divide by 5 then we're only slowing down the game by using the save. On the fly division kills game speed. On the other hand, if we use either max damage or average damage this possible issue goes away.




Damage save in M&M uses a fixed number for damage, which is added to a base of 15 to get the DC for the save. It's wonderful simply because it reduces rolling.  I wouldn't use anything that would force me to roll more unnecessarily. 

As for the division by 5, that's just like in the M&M FAQ where to port monster's natural attacks into M&M (along with the monster, of course), you take it's total damage and divide by 6 to get it's damage bonus. I gather they reduced the number to 5 to have Greatswords (+3 damage) be at least a bit better than Longswords (+2 damage).


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Feb 9, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> As I stated earlier, the prestige paladin class is nothing more than an adaptation of the core paladin class without one of the silly multiclassing restrictions. That is what posters here and on Wizards' messageboards have been asking for a long while, now it is a reality in the new _Unearthed Arcana._
> 
> If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. In fact, _Unearthed Arcana_ is just a big book of alternative rules OPTIONS. Feel free to use (as-is or modified) any of the options: all, some, or not (in this case, don't buy it).
> 
> Again, feel free to modify it ... or wait for third-party publishers to use (and modify) the OGCs for their own flavored game products. An idea, even when poorly executed, is still an idea that can be useful ... unless it is a bad idea in the first place.




I hate to put it this way, but no [censored] Sherlock.

I'm well aware of the doctrine of "don't like, don't use". I'm also equally aware of the fact that the existence DLDU doctrine doesn't preclude me pointing out those things which I think were not done up to snuff. If I can handle reading peoples criticisms of the books I've written without crying, I suspect that WotC authors can handle my slight dissappointment without losing any sleep.   

I've no doubt there will be some good things in UA, and I'll probably pick it up.

I'm also amused by your tone. It's equal parts advertising copy: "That is what posters here and on Wizards' messageboards have been asking for a long while, now it is a reality in the new _Unearthed Arcana._" and 50's era father/mentor: "if you don't like it, you don't have to use it.", "feel free to modify it...". A bit silly and out of place, really.

Patrick Y.


----------



## Omega Minus (Feb 9, 2004)

Woas said:
			
		

> What are spell points and how do they work?



Every spellcaster has a reserve of spell points based on class and level, and also gain bonus spell points from a high ability score. The caster spends a number of spell points appropriate to the spell's level to cast the spell.

- A spellcaster who normally prepares his spells is now setting his list of _spells known for the day_. He can cast any combination of his prepared spells each day.
- A spellcaster who cast all his spells spontaneously doesn't have to prepare spells. He can cast any spell he knows. 
- A spellcaster who can cast a limited number of spells spontaneously are always treated as having those spells prepared without spending any spell slots to do so.
- A spellcaster who normally receive bonus spells form a class feature can instead prepare extra spells of the appropriate level, domain, and/or schools. He doesn't get any extra spell points.

Metamagic: 
A spellcaster need not specially prepare metamagic versions of his spells, he can apply a metamagic effect at the time of spellcasting and must pay for the adjusted spell level(*).  This does not increase the casting time.  The normal limit for maximum spell level applies.

*) Variant: without any additional cost, 3/day. 

Spell points per day:

Bard: 0,0,1,5,6,9,14,17,22,29,34,41,50,57,67,81,95,113,133,144
Cleric, Druid, Wizard: 2,4,7,11,16,24,33,44,56,72,88,104,120,136,152,168,184,200,216,232
Paladin, Ranger: 0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,4,4,9,9,10,17,20,25,26,41,48
Sorcerer: 3,5,8,14,19,29,37,51,63,81,97,115,131,149,165,183,199,217,233,249

Bonus spell points: (same as bonus power points, PsiHB p.7)

Spell point costs: 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17 (a spellcaster capable of casting 0-level spells can cast a number of them each day equal to 3+spell points gained by class at 1st level)


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 9, 2004)

Finally a book with rules! I was getting sick of only crunchy bits...

So far these may find some use in my game:



> *UA*
> Cloistered Cleric
> Paladin Variants
> Domain Wizard
> ...




_edit: Magic Rating sounds to me like an attempt to let caster level stack... does every class have a MR even the non-spellcasters?_


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 9, 2004)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> I hate to put it this way, but no [censored] Sherlock.



It would have been more appropriate to use the "well, duh" phrase.  




			
				Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> I'm also amused by your tone. It's equal parts advertising copy: "That is what posters here and on Wizards' messageboards have been asking for a long while, now it is a reality in the new _Unearthed Arcana._"



Okay. So while it sounds cliche, it is what I have personally observed in the messageboards for quite some time. It's no marketing ploy, especially when I'm not getting paid by Wizards.




			
				Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> and 50's era father/mentor: "if you don't like it, you don't have to use it.", "feel free to modify it...". A bit silly and out of place, really.



Hmm. It's not really out of place. I too may like certain mechanics and dislike them or probably tweak them if they are fun to use and relevant to my game.

[But you are right. I sounded like a patronizing father. Dang, I'm old.]

I'm just amused by some of the earlier posts (not yours necessarily) that dislike one thing and come to conclusion that the entire product is not worth having because of that one or two things.

As for the Paladin prestige class, I'm sorry if it does not please you.


----------



## MadBlue (Feb 9, 2004)

I think a lot of the options in UA that don't work so well for D&D (WP/VP, M&M's Damage Save, etc.) aren't in there primarily for use with D&D, but so independent publishers can use them in their d20 products.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 9, 2004)

I'm back!

Human Paragon: 3 level-class, med base attack, good will save, d8 hp, any ten class skills, skill points: 4+Int mod, simple weapons, one martial weapon, light armor, spells/day +1 in lvl 2+3, lvl1:Adaptive Learning - choose one skill to be permanent class skill, lvl2:bonus feat, lvl3:Boost one ability by 2 points.

Item Familiars: a permanent magic item, that becomes bonded to you, and gains in power, almost like a familiar, it even becomes intelligent eventually.

Sanity: starts at Wis * 5, sometimes you make a sanity check - d% equal or less than your current sanity - on success you don't lose sanity or only a minimal amount, when losing some chunk of your sanity you may go temporary insane or indefinite insane, if you reach -10 you become permanently insane (0 Sanity lets you lose 1 point every round, the Heal skill can stabilize you), there's lot of info about when to make checks and how much you lose, how to get sanity back, and kinds of insanity. All in all it's 16 pages

Summon Monster variants: themed summoning lists, individualize summoning lists

evildm: it's total damage after modifiers 

Defense bonus: you get an AC bonus by class

Armor Damage Reduction: armor gives you damage reduction from 1/- upto 4/-, this stacks with the same DR from other sources (Bbn for example).

Magic Rating basically allow caster levels to stack for determining spell effects and SR penetration, even non-spellcasters have it.

gestalt with multiclassing and prestige classes: every level has different combinations of two classes. You could even construct an uber-prestige class which could use the place of two normal classes.

AeroDm: some of it IS underdeveloped, but I'm also glossing over some specifics.


----------



## Olive (Feb 9, 2004)

Thanks for all that.

What's the thug class like?


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 9, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Human Paragon: 3 level-class, med base attack, good will save, d8 hp, any ten class skills, skill points: 4+Int mod, simple weapons, one martial weapon, light armor, spells/day +1 in lvl 2+3, lvl1:Adaptive Learning - choose one skill to be permanent class skill, lvl2:bonus feat, lvl3:Boost one ability by 2 points.




Could be much better for a Wizard than everyone else... you lose 1 level of spellcasting and in exchange you get +1 BAB, more hp, 6 sp, one martial weapon, one more class skill, one bonus feat (but you delay your own bonus feats) and +2 Int


----------



## Vecna (Feb 9, 2004)

Omega Minus said:
			
		

> Every spellcaster has a reserve of spell points based on class and level, and also gain bonus spell points from a high ability score. The caster spends a number of spell points appropriate to the spell's level to cast the spell.
> 
> - A spellcaster who normally prepares his spells is now setting his list of _spells known for the day_. He can cast any combination of his prepared spells each day.
> - A spellcaster who cast all his spells spontaneously doesn't have to prepare spells. He can cast any spell he knows.
> ...





Interesting.
If the XPH doesn't update the PP for the psion, the Sorcerer now has 249 PP at 20th, and the Psion only 183...

No more reasons to play a Psion, especially reading the psionic focus previews...

I hope I'm wrong...


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 9, 2004)

Fighter variant:Thug

+class skills: Bluff, Gather Information, Knowledge(local), Sleight of Hand
skill points 4+Int mod
All simple and martial weapons, light armor
No fighter bonus feat at 1st level
May choose Urban Tracking as a fighter bonus feat

Urban Tracking is like Track using Gather Information checks instead of Survival.
The bigger the Community the longer it takes (1 check/hour) and the higher the DC (village or smaller 5, town 10, city 15, metropolis 20). There's even some conditional modifiers.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 9, 2004)

Vecna said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> If the XPH doesn't update the PP for the psion, the Sorcerer now has 249 PP at 20th, and the Psion only 183...
> 
> No more reasons to play a Psion, especially reading the psionic focus previews...
> ...



Well I wouldn't use it together with psionics, because in effect it already IS psionics.
One mitigating factor is that a spell's damage does not scale with level in this variant. You may spend more spell points go get more damage though...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 9, 2004)

I wonder if one of you kind people would be able to give me some information about any of the following elements?




> Planar Banishment
> Spelltouched Feats
> Action Points
> Spontaneous Metamagic
> ...




(and anyone wonder why we might want *less* lethal falls? I'm surprised there isn't a more lethal falls variant!)

Cheers


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Feb 9, 2004)

*Specialist Wizard variants*

Alright, what are the specialist wizard variants? Different specialties or enhancements to existing specialties?


----------



## rushlight (Feb 9, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> (and anyone wonder why we might want *less* lethal falls? I'm surprised there isn't a more lethal falls variant!)



IMC we use a "more lethal" variant for falling: in addition to the standard damage there is a Fort save or die (DC=2 per 10 feet fallen).  When you combine this with the option that forces you to keep rolling when you roll a 1 (or a 20) even 20th level barbarians (with some really REALLY bad luck) could die on a 10 ft drop...


----------



## JPL (Feb 9, 2004)

Omega Minus said:
			
		

> Bardic Sage: neutral good/neutral/neutral evil, good will, poor fortitude, poor reflex, additional divination spell known for each spell level, same number of spells per day, needs Intelligence score (not charisma score) equal to at least 10 + spell level (all other spellcasting factors still determined using Charisma), expanded spell list, bardic knowledge +2, bardic music lasts only 3 rounds after ally can no longer hear bardic sage sing




Oh, yeah.

It occurs to me that gestalt classes would be great for a martial arts campaign --- everybody picks up a level of monk abilities along with their regular abilities.  This is a terrific way to model kung fu movies, where eveybody who's anybody knows kung fu.  Fighters become Wudan Warriors, sorcerers wield mysterious ki powers...heck, bend the alignment requirements and you could play a pretty cool Bardic Sage / Monk, always quoting ancient wisdom and lecturing on the virtues of his Seven Scholars Boxing Technique as he fights the bad guys.


----------



## Woas (Feb 9, 2004)

Thanks Omega and Tarril.

::thumbs up::


----------



## JPL (Feb 9, 2004)

Stormborn said:
			
		

> Tarril Wolfeye said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 9, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Aquatic Races...Races of Water...






			
				Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Bloodlines (take 2) - Ancestors available:...Water Elemental...Hag..."




This book must be mine!


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Feb 9, 2004)

JPL said:
			
		

> Oh, yeah.
> 
> It occurs to me that gestalt classes would be great for a martial arts campaign --- everybody picks up a level of monk abilities along with their regular abilities. This is a terrific way to model kung fu movies, where eveybody who's anybody knows kung fu. Fighters become Wudan Warriors, sorcerers wield mysterious ki powers...heck, bend the alignment requirements and you could play a pretty cool Bardic Sage / Monk, always quoting ancient wisdom and lecturing on the virtues of his Seven Scholars Boxing Technique as he fights the bad guys.



That sounds pretty cool, right there.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 9, 2004)

More Answers...


Planar Banishment - Banish Outsider instead of Turning Undead

Spelltouched Feats - Feats that a simulate a spell you were exposed to or give you some protection against that spell

Action Points - just like d20 Modern, you get APs each level and you may spend them to add 1d6 to a d20 roll, this variant includes some special actions you can get with APs and some effects you can achieve with Feats

Spontaneous Metamagic - 2 variants: 
 -daily uses: you may use the metamagic feat 3x/day on the fly, not using a higher level, but still limited by the level modifier of your feat
 -extra spell slots: you must expend more spell slots to use metamagic feats, to be exact a number of additional slots equal to the feat's level modifier of a level not less than the spell you want to modify

Test-Based Prerequisites - instead of needing standard prerequisites for prestige classes and feats you take a test.

specialist wizard variants - 3 variants each for the 8 schools of magic


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 9, 2004)

Thanks very much for your help, Tarril.

The test-based prereqs is interesting, it is a house rule that I've had for a while because I felt it had more flavour and was less artificial. I'll be interested to see exactly what they've done with that.

Cheers


----------



## JPL (Feb 9, 2004)

MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> That sounds pretty cool, right there.




Thanks.

It also matches the genre assumption that the guy who's the mightiest X always also has the strongest kung fu.  

I think it's a much more satisfying alternative to simply having everybody multiclass.  A hybrid fighter-monk will still be the last guy you want to face hand-to-hand [and all those bonus feats means plenty of customization and unique fighting styles].

Hmm.  And next month's Dragon updates Oriental Adventures to 3.5...and last month's Dragon had Kara-Tur.  Hmm...


----------



## DonAdam (Feb 9, 2004)

http://www.montecook.com/arch_stuff48.html - racial paragon classes

And for the spell point system, even sorcs become worthless. They don't get enough extra spells to matter and lose their versatility advantage.


----------



## Michael Tree (Feb 9, 2004)

Vecna said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> If the XPH doesn't update the PP for the psion, the Sorcerer now has 249 PP at 20th, and the Psion only 183...



I'm sure they'll give Psions more PP in the revised version, because Bruce Cordell (the designer) has already given more PP in his Mindscapes psion variant.  Interestingly, all of the above classes have less PP than the mindscapes psion, who has 265 PP at 20th level.


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 9, 2004)

DonAdam said:
			
		

> http://www.montecook.com/arch_stuff48.html - racial paragon classes
> 
> And for the spell point system, even sorcs become worthless. They don't get enough extra spells to matter and lose their versatility advantage.




How so? From what I gather, the wizard still has to prepare their spells beforehand while the sorcerer cast spontaneously. If you are referring to the sorcerer's ability to cast low-level spells in a higher level slot, that wasn't much of an advantage to begin with, and even less so now that spells can be traded out as you go up in level. You are right when you say that the sorcerer my have lost out slightly in the quantity of spells though. On the other hand, I never really bought any of the assertions that they were underpowered to begin with.

What I'm more worried about is the ability of a high-level spellcasters to cast more 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells than they could under the slot system. Under the latter, a large number of low level spell slots had practically little utility at high-levels. If they did a straight slot to pp conversion, caster just got a huge boost because now they can funnel the equivilant of those low-level spells into more useful high-level spells. Its one of the things that lead to a lot of overstatements about how underpowered psions were originally. This is assuming of course that that they did a straight coversion, which might not be the case.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Feb 9, 2004)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but from what I can see, the Sorcerer did indeed get the shaft.

From what I can tell, the Wizard is treated very similar to the Magister from AU. You have a spellbook. Each day, you can prepare a number of spells. Then you can cast any of those prepared spells however you like.

How is that any different from a Sorcerer who could change his list of known spells every day?


BTW - I'm seeing a LOT of great options for a Midnight campaign in UA.


----------



## smetzger (Feb 9, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> I've got to say this -- the OGL is listed at the end of this PDF document, but I really think that they have used it incorrectly.
> 
> (a) There is no added copyright notice for this document itself, the "Unearthed Arcana Variant Checklist". That's required by Section 6.
> (b) They reference _Unearthed Arcana_ itself, which is not currently Open Game Content. That's also a requirement of Section 6.
> ...




That's bad but not as bad as not designating what is OGC.  I didn't see such a designation.

They really should not be making these mistakes.


----------



## DonAdam (Feb 9, 2004)

That's the impression I got, Ashrem.


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 9, 2004)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but from what I can see, the Sorcerer did indeed get the shaft.
> 
> From what I can tell, the Wizard is treated very similar to the Magister from AU. You have a spellbook. Each day, you can prepare a number of spells. Then you can cast any of those prepared spells however you like.
> 
> ...




Not my impression. I though it read like the wizard prepares spells as normal, but owing to the pp approach, had more flexibility in the distribution of spells he could prepare. He had to stick to those prepared spells once casting time came along. Basically just the system you have now but with pp. I could be wrong though.

EDIT: Just reread the description and you two are right. Won't be using that option.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 9, 2004)

smetzger said:
			
		

> That's bad but not as bad as not designating what is OGC.  I didn't see such a designation.
> 
> They really should not be making these mistakes.




Well it is taken from UA and on page 2 of UA it tells you what's Open Game Content (basically everything except PI and githyanki/githzerai, slaad and yuan-ti bloodlines).


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Feb 9, 2004)

So yea, Sorcerers get screwed. So ditch the Sorcerer class..

I actually like the option for Wizards, it makes them a bit more versatile and fluid. But it definatly eliminates the need for a Sorcerer type. Other than role-playing reasons, I can't think of why you would want to play one.

EDIT - I guess, depending on how powerful the bloodlines are, you could give the Dragon Bloodline to sorcerers for free even in a campaign that doesn't offer them to other classes. That might help. Anybody know what the Dragon Bloodline gives the PC?


----------



## Kichwas (Feb 9, 2004)

The more I read about this book, the less the ideas in it seem to have been playtested.

I've now reached a point where even at 40% off, the option I have for buying it, I'm not sure if it would be a good buy...


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 9, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> The more I read about this book, the less the ideas in it seem to have been playtested.
> 
> I've now reached a point where even at 40% off, the option I have for buying it, I'm not sure if it would be a good buy...




Eh, I wouldn't have expected that regardless. The balance would inherently change. I especially wouldn't use many of the extreme changes together. Nothing I've seen seems to radically unbalance the game though.

The new damage system for instance doesn't take into acount hit die, but given the general correlation in the core rules between fort save and size/number of hit die, I doubt it would make much of a difference, if any.

In other words, the convenience some of these options provide might outweigh the minor balance problems they introduce. There has always been a tradeoff between simplicity and balance in the game.


----------



## Count Arioch the 28t (Feb 9, 2004)

Hi, I have a question, please forgive me if it's been asked her before and I missed it.

Is there an unarmed combat-related base class in UA that doesn't require a lawful alignment?  In my world, I have real need for such a class, and I was hoping I could weasel out of making one myself.


----------



## Kai Lord (Feb 9, 2004)

Hi Tarril, would you mind posting the Elven Paragon class details?  Thanks.


----------



## orangefruitbat (Feb 9, 2004)

The sorcerer is just a 3.0 patch for people who didn't like spell memorization. If you "fix" how the wizard casts spells you obviate the need for a separate sorcerer class.




			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but from what I can see, the Sorcerer did indeed get the shaft.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 9, 2004)

There's no nonlawful unarmed combattant in UA.

Elf Paragon:

d8; med. base attack; good reflex save; spells/day: +1 lvl Wiz at lvl 2+3; skill points 2+Int mod; class skills: climb, craft, diplomacy, hide, jump, knowledge (all), listen, move silently, profession, spellcraft, spot, survival, swim; simple weapons, rapiers, longswords, shortbows, and longbows, light armor, no shields; at 1st lvl: racial bonus to spot/search increases to +4, low-light vision increases to x3, racial bonus vs. enchantment increases to +4; 2nd lvl: Weapon Focus on one weapon specifically mentioned above; 3rd lvl: +2 on Intelligence.

These paragons seem to be exactly the same as Monte's racial classes.


----------



## JPL (Feb 9, 2004)

Wolfeye, could you give a little more about the gestalt classes?  What does UA say about reasons to use them?  What sort of campaigns are they intended for? 

[The more I ponder this kung fu idea, the more it appeals to me...]


----------



## DonAdam (Feb 9, 2004)

Thanks to everyone answering questions.

Here's another: how much is written about using class defense, vitality/wounds, and armor as DR together? If I'm going to use them I want to use all of them.


----------



## Azlan (Feb 9, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> The more I read about this book, the less the ideas in it seem to have been playtested.




I get that impression too, especially when I consider the great number of optional rules presented in the table of contents.

For example, I see there is an entry for "Armor as Damage Reduction" under Chapter 4: Adventuring. Now, I would _love_ to see a comprehensive, playtested, and balanced set of rules for armor damage reduction; especially so, with those rules being handed down from the game-designer gods of WotC (if only because those rules would reach a broader audience and be more generally accepted); but that alone would take an entire chapter if not more! Because, really, "armor as damage reduction" does not sync well with the D&D system, as is; which still, at its core -- even with the greatly improved 3.0/3.5 -- is totally built around the antiquidated and convoluted (if not nonsensical) "to hit" roll vs. AC concept.

But, alas, I'm thinking the new Unearthed Arcana is going to toss us but a few brief paragraphs addressing "Armor as Damage Reduction", thrown in with maybe a table or two. And all that is going to do is introduce a leaky, ill-fitting rules variant that will end up causing lots of headache for DMs and players. Eventually, most of them may come to the conclusion that "armor as damage reduction" just doesn't work with D&D, because not even WotC could make it work, and that will be the end of that.

But only because the concept did not get the attention and the space that it needed.


----------



## Katowice (Feb 9, 2004)

Tarril, what are the level progressions for Defense Bonus for each class?  Does the book address figuring Defense Bonus for new/other classes not covered in Unearthed Arcana?


----------



## Davelozzi (Feb 9, 2004)

This book looks great, I'll definately be picking it up.



			
				arcady said:
			
		

> The more I read about this book, the less the ideas in it seem to have been playtested.




As much as I'd love to feel like everything was thoroughly playtested, with these many different options, it would be next to impossible to make sure that all the possible combinations of variants would be balanced.  As with any book outside the core, good DM judgement will be essential.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 9, 2004)

Gestalt: 
It's really simple: Choose two classes, take the better Hit Dice type, the better base attack bonus, the better base saving throw bonuses, the most skill points, all class skills, take all class features.
A few caveats: shared class features accrue at the rate of the faster class, spells/day of two classes are kept serarately, no combining two prestige classes and you shouldn't use prestige classes that already are class combos.
It's a high powered campaign and most NPC should also be gestalt characters.


There's nothing about using class defense, vitality/wounds, and armor as DR together.


Level progressions for Defense Bonus:
defense bonus is based on CHARACTER level (not class level), multiclass characters take the better one
classes with no armor proficiency  : level/3 +2 
classes with light armor proficiency  : level/3 +3
classes with light/medium armor proficiency  : level/3 +4
classes with light/med. and heavy armor prof. : level/3 +6

Contrary to Star Wars and D20 Modern you don't add the defense bonus when multiclassing.


----------



## Count Arioch the 28t (Feb 9, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> There's no nonlawful unarmed combattant in UA.




Bah.  Oh well, guess I gotta do it myself.

Thanks for replying though.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 9, 2004)

Count Arioch the 28t said:
			
		

> Bah.  Oh well, guess I gotta do it myself.
> 
> Thanks for replying though.




I think such a class doesn't fit in UA. It's either too similar to a standard class (just allow Monks with any alignment) or altogether another class.

Unearthed Arcana talks about variants in rules with some kind of global effects, it's the rules that change, not just additions (which a new class would be).
UA is all about BIG house rules IMHO.


----------



## Michael Tree (Feb 9, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Gestalt:
> It's a high powered campaign and most NPC should also be gestalt characters.



It would also work for settings where virtually all characters have multiple capabilities, such as in Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos books.  Vlad is simultaneously a great assassin, a very good fighter, and a decent sorcerer and witch, while Morrorlan and Aliera are fantastic fighters as well as master sorcerers.

Can you give us more information about Battle Sorcerers, Legendary Weapons, and the prestige bard and ranger?


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 9, 2004)

Battle Sorcerer:
d8; medium base attack; class skills: remove Bluff, add Intimidate; +prof. with any light or one-handed martial weapon of the character's choice, +light armor; no arcane spell failure in light armor; spells/day: -1 slot for each spell level; spells known: -1 for each spell level.


Legendary Weapons:
Special weapons that get better if you enter a specific prestige class: depending on the weapon - Battle Scion, Faith Scion, Spell Scion, and Swift Scion. The level you attain in this Scion class determines which abilities of your legendary weapon are active - each level gets you another special ability.


Prestige bard and ranger:
Just like the Prestige Paladin, they get 15 levels and +1 spellcasting in 11, or 7 of their levels. All of this means: get your class abilities later, but get better spellcasting than the base class.


----------



## NewbyDM (Feb 9, 2004)

i read through all the pages, but couldn't find anything about contacts.
Just curious here  and thanks for all the info up to now


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 9, 2004)

Contacts:

Your character has some unnamed contacts, that you may define at any time in the game, giving you access to a friendly NPC.

Characters get contacts by class. 
Bard - every 2nd level
Clr, Pal, and Rog - every 3rd level
Ftr and Sor - every 4th level
Bbn, Drd, Mnk, Rgr, and Wiz - every 5th level

There are three types of contacts:
Information Contacts - useful for what they know
Influence Contacts - useful for who the know
Skill Contacts - useful for what they do

when you get a contact from your class you must select the type of contact, but you don't need to define it further until it's needed.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Feb 9, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> And, if you apply the formula above, there are a few totems that just plain fall short. The Wolf Totem gains a couple feats in exchange for giving up the dodge features, but effectively gets shafted for losing Trap Sense.



OTOH, he gets a powerful feat without needing the prerequisite, which is a stat that is one of the least important to barbarians (ie - int), and is a feat that is certainly sub-par for a barbarian (because you can't use expertise when you rage).


----------



## Felon (Feb 9, 2004)

orangefruitbat said:
			
		

> The sorcerer is just a 3.0 patch for people who didn't like spell memorization.




I always figured it was just a way for the DM to give monsters spellcasting without all of the accoutrements (the requisite spell book, figuring out how many spells they know, assigning the daily preparation of spells, etc). Of course, a spell point system may not be as DM-friendly as vancian magic.



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> OTOH, he gets a powerful feat without needing the prerequisite, which is a stat that is one of the least important to barbarians (ie - int), and is a feat that is certainly sub-par for a barbarian (because you can't use expertise when you rage).




Excellent point. Quite true.

And glad to see somebody actually acknowledged the darn post after all the effort that went into it.


----------



## AeroDm (Feb 9, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> And glad to see somebody actually acknowledged the darn post after all the effor that went into it.



I acknowledged, just didn't want to post an 'agree.'

As for contacts- are they an optional rule that everyone gets, require a feat, or what?


----------



## Woas (Feb 9, 2004)

Battle Sorcerer sounds killer. The contacts sound fun too.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 10, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Gestalt:
> It's really simple: Choose two classes, take the better Hit Dice type, the better base attack bonus, the better base saving throw bonuses, the most skill points, all class skills, take all class features.
> A few caveats: shared class features accrue at the rate of the faster class, spells/day of two classes are kept serarately, no combining two prestige classes and you shouldn't use prestige classes that already are class combos.




interesting. When you say that the spell lists are kept seperate, I take it you mean that you can't use your "druid" slots to prepare a "sorcerer" spell...Are there any other spell casting restrictions?

It occurs to me that with double the "powers" and the same hit dice, your ability to deal damage would outstrip your ability to take it even moreso than now... It there a list of recomended or non recomended combos?

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Kichwas (Feb 10, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Contacts:
> 
> Your character has some unnamed contacts, that you may define at any time in the game, giving you access to a friendly NPC.
> 
> ...



I've always disliked aspects of roleplay given as benefits of experience / leveling in a roleplaying game.

"So Anagar, how did you meet the Baroness DuFarlia?"

"Well, I killed four orcs in the southlands."

"And...?"

"They where barbaric, so I noticed a sudden surge in power after killing them, and suddenly people I've never met or heard of before where hanging out at my pad, despite me doing the deed in complete secrecy."

Having rules for handling contacts is great, but getting them should be part of the roleplay, not just an arbitrary benefit of killing Orcs...


----------



## Kichwas (Feb 10, 2004)

There is no excuse for not playtesting.

None.


A well playtested and edited product versus one rushed out is the difference in the consumer between looking at it and saying *"I've got to have this to use in my game - and make all my players buy it"* versus *"Too much work to be usable in my game, I'll shelve my copy and tell my players they don't need to pick it up. Matter of fact, I'll sell my copy on eBay/local store's used section to some other sucker."*


It also impacts future sales, as the consumer loses faith in the company. I and my group no longer buy all but the most vital of WotC's products, and then only one of my players does so. In the past, I had several who kept current with all releases, even for settings we weren't using.

The financial solvency of my players today is about on par with what it has always been, I as the prime purchaser am one of the few who had a major drop in income (dot-com crash turned me from senior programmer to unemployed university student). So our drop in purchasing is not motivated by a drop in income.



I for one could stand to wait another year to buy a book done right. Especially given that it's all variant rules - nothing in it is 'needed' until the moment I see it and feel "I gotta use this". If it's all done as shoddily as the import of Mutants and Masterminds Damage Save appears to have been done, or as poor in balance as the Spell Points were done, then there won't be anything I can use anyway...

Both of those ideas can be done right, and they should be done right *before* people lay out money. Likewise for any other new or old idea in the book.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Feb 10, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> "So Anagar, how did you meet the Baroness DuFarlia?"
> 
> "Well, I killed four orcs in the southlands."
> 
> ...




This is funny. It made me laugh out loud.

Patrick Y.


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 10, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> I've always disliked aspects of roleplay given as benefits of experience / leveling in a roleplaying game.
> 
> "So Anagar, how did you meet the Baroness DuFarlia?"
> 
> ...




You know, while I'm not sure I would use these rules, your stance against them seems somewhat odd. Given that they are optional and by no means required, they can serve as a handy way for dms and players to pace their 'footprint' in the campaign. I might not want/need them, but others very well could.

And you are being far too literal with the above scenario. It shows an inability to distinguish ingame and metagame reality.


----------



## Olive (Feb 10, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> Having rules for handling contacts is great, but getting them should be part of the roleplay, not just an arbitrary benefit of killing Orcs...




totally agree.


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 10, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> There is no excuse for not playtesting.
> 
> None.
> 
> ...




Spell Points maybe. The damage save is pretty debatable. It's not as granular as hitpoints, but I'm dubious as to how much ingame effect it will actually have. It might skew things in a minor way, but again, it might very well trade in a little balance for a lot of simplicity. Doubt I'll use it though.

And actually the spell points thing isn't even a very big deal. I never bought into the notion that spell versatility was a problem, so a spell point sorcerer in most situations would be nothing more than a wizard with slightly more points.


----------



## Kichwas (Feb 10, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> And you are being far too literal with the above scenario. It shows an inability to distinguish ingame and metagame reality.



I don't think so on either charge.

if I get the benefit as a result of leveling, I get it.

If it's a part of ingame reality, it needs to be given as a result of ingame actions.

We've long managed to rationalize getting more hitpoints and skills from killing Orcs - a far stretch in many cases - but if we are to now have inroads with the Baroness, it should come from actually meeting her. And it should be available even if we don't level as a result of meeting her.

If you want to tie the aquisition of contacts to a mechanic, tie it to diplomacy checks.

A little bit of playtesting could have addressed that issue before people put money on it.


----------



## Grayhawk (Feb 10, 2004)

How does the level based turning checks work?

(I don't believe this has been mentioned, but if it has please point me to the page it's on, thanks...)


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 10, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> I don't think so on either charge.
> 
> if I get the benefit as a result of leveling, I get it.
> 
> ...




Of course the person who gets the contact would roleplay it out with the dm. Wow, you must have a lot of problems with the Leadership feat; you know, when the cohort just poofs into existence? The point of the rule is to allow the dm to pace the effects of reputation through actions. Its nothing more than a rule of thumb, and one that is much simpler than giving extreme circumstance bonuses to diplomacy for slaying the evil archdragon. It also saves a lot of time by putting contacts in the players hands as oppossed to forcing the dm to adjudicate how many rp oriented benefits a player can get in any given circumstance through their sucessful quests. What's wrong with this?

And you think this rule, which is probably little more than sketchy advice, is the type of thing that requires playtesting? There is no 'balance' point here. Its essentially fluff rule meant to relate level and class to ingame influence. How well it would work ingame would vary wildly from group to group just like any given adventure hook in the frcs would probably be interpretted differently by different groups. Its not like combat, which is the lowest common denominator of any given dnd game.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Feb 10, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> A little bit of playtesting could have addressed that issue before people put money on it.



What issue? That you don't like that particular rule?

Do you roleplay every single encounter a character ever has, from childhood onwards? Every one?

Gah - can you imagine the yawns as bob the bard meets yet another ordinary peasant and makes life-long friends with him?

No, I doubt you do.

Giving people a level-based number of 'people you know who'll help you out' is not a terrible mechanic by a long shot. And it's not like it totally removes the necessity of diplomacy to convert people who's help you need.

It provides a way to have a campaign rely on social elements without necessarily having a group negotiator.


----------



## Silveras (Feb 10, 2004)

What I find silly at the moment is that people are condemning the book based on assumptions fueled by brief descriptions of the content. We are reading three sentence blurbs about 13 page blocks of text, in some cases. Gee... that gives you a complete and thorough understanding of what's there. Before we start condemning it, could we at least wait for it to be released in the US ?

Regarding playtesting: The Sanity rules sound like they are from Call of Cthulhu d20. VP/WP have been in Star Wars d20 for several years. Damage Save has been in M&M for almost as long. Of course these don't sound playtested. 

That the Bloodlines were used in Andy Collins' home game, or even that they came from there, is not terribly important. The book is a book of variants, some culled from the OGC of other companies. As a book of variants, the playtesting is almost guaranteed not to be as complete as core products. Certainly, I would not expect to find that all possible combinations of them have been checked and double-checked.


----------



## Olive (Feb 10, 2004)

Silveras said:
			
		

> VP/WP have been in Star Wars d20 for several years. Damage Save has been in M&M for almost as long. Of course these don't sound playtested.




While I basically agree with you, M&M and SWd20 are pretty different to DnD in their assumptions, combat styles, etc. regardless of the basic mechanic. So just because they work well in those games doesn't mean that they'll work well in DnD.

But the whole Andy Collins rules the DnD world thing is pretty silly.


----------



## Silveras (Feb 10, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> While I basically agree with you, M&M and SWd20 are pretty different to DnD in their assumptions, combat styles, etc. regardless of the basic mechanic. So just because they work well in those games doesn't mean that they'll work well in DnD.
> 
> But the whole Andy Collins rules the DnD world thing is pretty silly.




Granted. I was less articulate than I intended (I know, not a first  ). The "Of course these don't sound playtested" should have been with the next paragraph, before "As a book of variants ...".


----------



## Olive (Feb 10, 2004)

Silveras said:
			
		

> The "Of course these don't sound playtested" should have been with the next paragraph, before "As a book of variants ...".




I assumed sarcasm myself...


----------



## Stalker0 (Feb 10, 2004)

Man, this is like the time when a person got an advance copy of 3.5 and started spilling.... its getting crazy

And it does look like the sorc is getting hosed by some of these variants.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 10, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> There's no nonlawful unarmed combattant in UA.
> 
> Elf Paragon:
> 
> ...



*Yes they are...all of it. And may I ask, does it have for the other races also?*


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 10, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> If you want to tie the aquisition of contacts to a mechanic, tie it to diplomacy checks.
> 
> A little bit of playtesting could have addressed that issue before people put money on it.



I could easily be mistaken, but the earliest implementation of 'contacts as class/level ability' was in *Fading Suns d20* (2001) as a Noble class ability.

. . . and here it is again in *Spycraft* (2002) as a Faceman class ability ("Backup") . . . 

. . . and in *d20 Modern* (2002) as an Investigator class ability.

You may not _like_ the concept, but you can't say it hasn't been playtested.


----------



## Vecna (Feb 10, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Gestalt:
> A few caveats: shared class features accrue at the rate of the faster class, spells/day of two classes are kept serarately, no combining two prestige classes and you shouldn't use prestige classes that already are class combos.




So you can mix two base classes, one base class and one prestige class but not two prestige classes?

Another question:
The variant that allow a wizard to choose spells per day from his spellbook and cast them spontaneously is only for spell point based wizards?


----------



## MiB (Feb 10, 2004)

*Domain Wizard: Seriously broken*

Hi all, 

got the book yesterday and quickly browsed through the contents. I have mixed fealings about it, some of it sound great, some of it is of the "ouch, don't touch that" variant. But I guess that's what "optional" means.

What hit me is the domain wizard, and I am surprised that this hasn't come up here.

This guy gains: A list of domains spells (1 of each level, themed around a topic) and casts them at +1 levels, plus gets a bonus spell slot in each spell level that is usable only for domain spells. He also automatically aquires the domain spell when he gets the respective spell level).

Now guess what he pays for it: zip!
Well, he can't become a regular specialist as well, but that seems to be all. No loss of feats, prohibited schools, caster level...
People please tell me that I missed a line of text somewhere.
Or is this the death of the regular wizard?


----------



## Frostmarrow (Feb 10, 2004)

MiB said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> 
> got the book yesterday and quickly browsed through the contents. I have mixed fealings about it, some of it sound great, some of it is of the "ouch, don't touch that" variant. But I guess that's what "optional" means.
> 
> ...




It seems pretty strange, yes. Is is possible to compose your domain-list yourself or are you bound to the cleric domains in PHD?

If you use a clerical domain I can see why there is no downside since those lists are pretty low powered anyway. (You could build a better repertoire as a regular wizard).

However; if you can make the list yourself at character creation then the class really seem to be busted.


----------



## MiB (Feb 10, 2004)

*Domain*

No, it's neither of the two. Wizard domains and cleric domains are not the same and they are not-self made either. It's just a list of 9 (or was it 10?) spells themed around a topic such as "Warding" or "Travel".

The domain spells itself are not what I consider powerful (although it's nifty to get a free spell for your spellbook every other level), its especially the additional spell slot per level that you essentially get for free....


----------



## Frostmarrow (Feb 10, 2004)

MiB said:
			
		

> No, it's neither of the two. Wizard domains and cleric domains are not the same and they are not-self made either. It's just a list of 9 (or was it 10?) spells themed around a topic such as "Warding" or "Travel".
> 
> The domain spells itself are not what I consider powerful (although it's nifty to get a free spell for your spellbook every other level), its especially the additional spell slot per level that you essentially get for free....




So the balance lies in the pre-fabricated spell-lists then. So instead of getting two spells chosen freely you get to pick one spell freely and get the other one from the list?

The additional slot is also pre-selected so many days you won't get a good opportunity to cast your domain spell. (I might be deluded, I know).


----------



## MiB (Feb 10, 2004)

Me again 

No, that's not a balancing factor, because you still get to pick your two spell each level, without limitation (as a specialist has it). Also some of the domain list are set like "blast off monster X's a**" so that's not a balancing factor either...


----------



## Frostmarrow (Feb 10, 2004)

Pity. I was looking forward to this class but I simply can't convince myself to power-game. Thanks for the info, though.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 10, 2004)

Some more...

Contacts- They are an optional rule that everyone gets. They're not overly powerful. They are assumed to come from your characters backstory. This variant doesn't do anything for NPCs you meet in roleplay, they are in addition to contacts.

Gestalt - There is a number of especially powerful combos recommended

Level based turning check - It's basically a level check + Charisma modifier vs. 10 + HD + turn resistance + Charisma modifier. There's a maximum number of HD you can turn with a check and the effects are not exactly the same.

Racial paragons - There are drow, dwarf, elf, gnome, half-dragon, half-elf, half-orc, halfling, human, orc, and tiefling paragons. No aasimar though.

About the domain wizard: the biggest problem I see with it is that it's strictly better than the standard wizard AND all specialist wizards as it gets no banned schools. You probably wouldn't use other wizards when using domain wizards.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 10, 2004)

MiB said:
			
		

> No, it's neither of the two. Wizard domains and cleric domains are not the same and they are not-self made either. It's just a list of 9 (or was it 10?) spells themed around a topic such as "Warding" or "Travel".
> 
> The domain spells itself are not what I consider powerful (although it's nifty to get a free spell for your spellbook every other level), its especially the additional spell slot per level that you essentially get for free....




The price of this compared to "normal" specialization is that your bonus slots can be used to prepare only those 9 domain spells (which you cannot choose), not ALL the spells you may know of that school.

You also don't get the bonus to spellcraft to all spells of a school, although you don't either get the penalty because you have no forbidden schools.

On the overall it looks still better. The banned school were a huge disadvantage. I think there is still a reason to be an old specialist, but on the other hand there would be NO more reasons left to be a generalist!


----------



## Felon (Feb 10, 2004)

MiB said:
			
		

> This guy gains: A list of domains spells (1 of each level, themed around a topic) and casts them at +1 levels, plus gets a bonus spell slot in each spell level that is usable only for domain spells. He also automatically aquires the domain spell when he gets the respective spell level).
> 
> Now guess what he pays for it: zip!




Oh, the horror! The broken horror!   

By the way, what does a cleric cough up for his domains? Pretty much zip, huh? Still gets to cast every clerical spell in existence. So what's the big deal with wizards receiving a similar beneift? 

As far as I can tell, the notion that wizards should have to pay through the nose for extra spells per day is just something that's been pre-conditioned into folks from time immemorial. Wizards were the big gun back in the day, but now divine and warriors are beefed-up far more than in previous editions, and likewise wizard spells have been reigned in. We can let up a little on the pointy-hats now, I think. 

Fact is, for the ability to cast arcane spells, they already pay with the inability to wear armor, a wretched hit die, and a feeble base attack bonus. The pay big-time. And to cast a lousy extra spell per level, they should have to undermine their singular strength? Talk about broken.   



> People please tell me that I missed a line of text somewhere. Or is this the death of the regular wizard?




Wel, what is so wrong with every wizard having an area of concentration? Is it a bad thing that there are no "generalist" clerics?



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> On the overall it looks still better. The banned school were a huge disadvantage. I think there is still a reason to be an old specialist, but on the other hand there would be NO more reasons left to be a generalist!




Well, with this version, the concept of "specialist" is somewhat like a fighter who uses his bonus feats to become a weapon specialist. There's no "paying". It's a class feature. 

Personally, I think I'll tie the wizard domains into familiars, so that they will actually serve some significant purpose now.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 10, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Personally, I think I'll tie the wizard domains into familiars, so that they will actually serve some significant purpose now.




The domains are: Abjuration, Antimagic, Battle, Cold, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Fire, Illusion, Necromancy, Storm, and Transmutation.
Now you can start assigning familiars.    

btw, if you need more information about the domains, just ask.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Feb 10, 2004)

Could you please tell me what spells constitutes the conjuration domain? MUWHAHAHAHA.


----------



## Felon (Feb 10, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> btw, if you need more information about the domains, just ask.




Thanks much! Let's start off with the most potentially "uber" domains: evocation and battle. What do they offer?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 10, 2004)

In the "players roll all the dice" system, how are monster critical hits adjudicated when the PC is making a defence saving throw against its attack in this book?


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 10, 2004)

Domain Wizard domain spells:
1 bonus spell per spell level, these spells cast at +1 caster level.
Spells (from lvl 0-9):

Abjuration: resistance, shield, resist energy, dispel magic, remove curse, Mordenkainen's private sanctum, greater dispel magic, banishment, mind blank, prismatic sphere

Antimagic: detect magic, protection from chaos/evil/good/law, obscure object, dispel magic, minor globe of invulnerability, break enchantment, antimagic field, spell turning, protection from spells, Mordenkainen's disjunction

Battle: daze, true strike, protection from arrows, greater magic weapon, fire shield, Bigby's interposing hand, Tenser's transformation, power word blind, moment of prescience, time stop

Cold: ray of frost, chill touch, chill metal (as 2nd-level druid spell), sleet storm, wall of ice, cone of cold, Otiluke's freezing sphere, delayed blast frostball (as delayed blast fireball, but cold damage), polar ray, comet swarm (as meteor swarm, but cold damage)

Conjuration: acid splash, mage armor, web, stinking cloud, summon monster IV, wall of stone, acid fog, summon monster VII, maze, gate

Divination: detect magic, detect secret doors, see invisibility, arcane sight, prying eyes, true seeing, greater arcane sight, discern location, foresight

Enchantment: daze, charm person, Tasha's hideous laughter, suggestion, confusion, hold monster, greater heroism, insanity, mass charm monster, dominate monster

Evocation: light, magic missile, flaming sphere, lightning bolt, shout, wall of force, Bigby's forceful hand, Mordenkainen's sword, Otiluke's telekinetic sphere, Bigby's crushing hand

Fire: flare, burning hands, scorching ray, fireball, wall of fire, cone of fire (as cone of cold, but fire damage), summon monster VI (fire creatures only), delayed blast fireball, incendiary cloud, meteor swarm

Illusion: ghost sound, disguise self, invisibility, major image, phantasmal killer, shadow evocation, mislead, mass invisibility, scintillating pattern, shades

Necromancy: disrupt undead, ray of enfeeblement, false life, vampiric touch, fear, waves of fatigue, circle of death, control undead, horrid wilting, energy drain

Storm: ray of frost, obscuring mist (as 1st-level cleric spell), gust of wind, lightning bolt, ice storm, control winds (as 5th-level druid spell), chain lightning, control weather, whirlwind (as 8th-level druid spell), storm of vengeance (as 9th-level cleriv spell)

Transmutation: mage hand, expeditious retreat, levitate, haste, polymorph, baleful polymorph, disintegrate, reverse gravity, iron body, shapechange



Plane Sailing: if the defense comes up a natural 1 it's a threat (if the threat range is greater, it's 1-2 or 1-3)


Frostmarrow:


----------



## MiB (Feb 10, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Oh, the horror! The broken horror!
> 
> By the way, what does a cleric cough up for his domains? Pretty much zip, huh? Still gets to cast every clerical spell in existence. So what's the big deal with wizards receiving a similar beneift?
> 
> ...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 10, 2004)

MiB said:
			
		

> The domain wizard, however, is just better then the generalist, so it's hardly balanced.
> If you feel that the standard wizard is unbalanced, then a domain wizard would be the solution. I would even tend to agree, because I think that 3.5 tipped the scales to the warrior classes favor. (esp. because of the new Power Attack ruling).
> 
> But still, allowing domain wizards makes generalists obsolete. That's all I meant by calling them broken.




I think you are making assumptions based on incomplete information.

You are responding as though domain wizards are meant to be an option that stands alongside plain wizards and specialists. It seems equally likely to me that domain wizards could be dropped into a campaign as the generic wizard class, replacing both generalists and specialists.

That would be a perfectly valid way of using an optional rule for domain wizards, and it would seem to be a perfectly natural one to me.

A more correct formulation of your objection might be "a DM deciding to allow domain wizards as an option alongside generalists is broken". The class variant itself is not.

Cheers


----------



## MadBlue (Feb 10, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Level progressions for Defense Bonus:
> defense bonus is based on CHARACTER level (not class level), multiclass characters take the better one
> classes with no armor proficiency  : level/3 +2
> classes with light armor proficiency  : level/3 +3
> ...



Hmm. With this system, a 20th level Monk will have the same AC as an unarmored 20th level Fighter or Cleric. 

I would have thought it would be related somewhat to Reflex save, or have the characters choose an "Offensive" or "Defensive" option, like in CoC. If a character picks up an armor proficiency Feat, does the character's Defense Bonus improve, or is the bonus just based on classes that have armor proficiency as a class feature?


----------



## Frostmarrow (Feb 10, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Conjuration: acid splash, mage armor, web, stinking cloud, summon monster IV, wall of stone, acid fog, summon monster VII, maze, gate
> 
> Frostmarrow:




Dang! I was hoping for Summon Monster I, Summon Monster II, ...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 10, 2004)

MadBlue said:
			
		

> Hmm. With this system, a 20th level Monk will have the same AC as an unarmored 20th level Fighter or Cleric.
> 
> I would have thought it would be related somewhat to Reflex save, or have the characters choose an "Offensive" or "Defensive" option, like in CoC.




I like this way much better. It means that the core, uh, Fighter class gets to be the best at avoiding being hit in fighting. (the "based of Ref ST" option was used in SWd20 v1 and WoT, but was ditched in SWd20 V2 - too great for rogue types, too rubbish for fighters).

The 20th level Monk would have the same AC as the others... apart from his Wis bonus to AC, of course, which could put it up several more notches quite easily.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 10, 2004)

I wonder if the defense value thing means that base 1st level fighters end up at AC16 by default? That is quite a big boost over what normal 1st level fighters afford.

I wonder if it is a "dodge" bonus, or some other named bonus?

I wonder how shields factor in these circumstances?


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 10, 2004)

Defense bonus is based only on armor proficiency as a class feature.
It doesn't stack with armor bonus, but with all other bonuses (even with shield and natural armor bonuses).
And yes, that means all 1st-level fighters get AC 16 by default.


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 10, 2004)

On the domain wizard.

I think I've heard it mentioned by a few designers that the wizard was balanced assuming specialization, so I think you can assume by default that the generalist wizard is underpowered. Now does that mean the domain wizard is balanced? Eh, I'm on the fence. Having the same number of spells, they both sacrafice versatility in certain respects, though the +1 caster level for domain spells is certainly a bit much.


----------



## Trainz (Feb 10, 2004)

On the domain wizard:

IMC, since basic 3rd ed, as me as the DM and as my friend as the DM, no-one has ever played a wizard, favouring the sorceror instead. So my group feels that the wizard isn't interesting as is.

These changes might be just the thing to put the wizard on par with the sorc IMC. Might.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 10, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Some more...
> 
> Contacts- They are an optional rule that everyone gets. They're not overly powerful. They are assumed to come from your characters backstory. This variant doesn't do anything for NPCs you meet in roleplay, they are in addition to contacts.
> 
> ...



*Thank you*


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 10, 2004)

Trainz said:
			
		

> On the domain wizard:
> 
> IMC, since basic 3rd ed, as me as the DM and as my friend as the DM, no-one has ever played a wizard, favouring the sorceror instead. So my group feels that the wizard isn't interesting as is.
> 
> These changes might be just the thing to put the wizard on par with the sorc IMC. Might.




Good. I'm not the only one. I'm still not sure where this notion that the sorcerer is underpowered relative to the wizard comes from.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 10, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Defense bonus is based only on armor proficiency as a class feature.
> It doesn't stack with armor bonus, but with all other bonuses (even with shield and natural armor bonuses).
> And yes, that means all 1st-level fighters get AC 16 by default.



Sounds like a good reason for all Monks to take a level of Fighter.  That should put them at the top of the AC food chain (where they belong, IMHO).

I don't think I'm going to like this option, but we'll see.

Pity, really.  I delayed the start of my campaign for two months because I expected to use a fair amount out of this book and didn't think it was fair to ask players to change thought process mid-stream.  The two most anticipated variants, for me, were the magic system and the defensive bonuses.  I think I'll prefer the way defensive bonuses were done in WoT and SW d20.  Since I'm not a fan of the AU psuedo-sorcerer style nor of spell points, I'm not sure the UA version will see the light of day in my game, either.

*sigh*

Oh, well.  I never planned on using the whole thing.  If 1/3 of the book is usable in my game, I'll consider it a good buy.  (Hey, WotC announced going into this that not all the options would be compatible, so there should be no complaints about that.)


----------



## Silveras (Feb 10, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Good. I'm not the only one. I'm still not sure where this notion that the sorcerer is underpowered relative to the wizard comes from.




I am currently playing in a campaign where the DM throws a variety of situations at us. My sorcerer is *keenly* aware that a wizard would be of far more use in this setting. 

Much depends on the campaign. If the DM does not give out enough magic items to increase the Sorcerer's versatility, and the campaign uses a variety of challenges, the Sorcerer is much crippled compared to the wizard. On the other hand, if the campaign has a fairly consistent type of challenge, the Sorcerer's extra slots and flexibility of using any spell known helps make them more potent than a Wizard.


----------



## yipwyg (Feb 10, 2004)

*Paragon Races*

I was wondering how close are these to how Arcana Unearthed Racial classes are.  In Arcana Unearthed you can take either take a racial or standard class level, each time you raise a level.  I am wondering this, because one of my groups is playing in a game where we are using the book Savage Species.  In Savage Species you must take all of the levels in your race before taking any standard class levels.

Thanks for any info.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 10, 2004)

This book sounds pretty darn cool.  I've got a question on the gestalt classes, though.  Is it possible to combine a core and a prestige class into a gestalt?  I'm not sure how the abilities would be spaced out, considering the varying levels of the prestige class.  Don't need any hard and fats rules, just if it's possible.  I love the concept, though, its given me some great ideas for a high-powered campaign I was planning on running!


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Feb 10, 2004)

Regarding the Defense bonus, how does it stack with armor?
Will the armor as damage reduction and defense bonus systems work well together?

I'm considering using the Wounds/Vitality, armor as damage reduction, and defense bonus systems all together. Are there any major snags?


----------



## Stalker0 (Feb 10, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Good. I'm not the only one. I'm still not sure where this notion that the sorcerer is underpowered relative to the wizard comes from.




A lot of logical debates and player experience There are a ton of threads on this forum about that topic alone.

Let me get this defense bonus thing straight... basically I got a 16th level wizard. I takes one level of fighter, and he now has the defense bonus of a 17th level fighter?


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 10, 2004)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> A lot of logical debates and player experience There are a ton of threads on this forum about that topic alone.
> 
> Let me get this defense bonus thing straight... basically I got a 16th level wizard. I takes one level of fighter, and he now has the defense bonus of a 17th level fighter?




Well, duh. But I've never seen one account that has been particularly convincing.


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 10, 2004)

Silveras said:
			
		

> I am currently playing in a campaign where the DM throws a variety of situations at us. My sorcerer is *keenly* aware that a wizard would be of far more use in this setting.
> 
> Much depends on the campaign. If the DM does not give out enough magic items to increase the Sorcerer's versatility, and the campaign uses a variety of challenges, the Sorcerer is much crippled compared to the wizard. On the other hand, if the campaign has a fairly consistent type of challenge, the Sorcerer's extra slots and flexibility of using any spell known helps make them more potent than a Wizard.




Yeah, but the game is fundementally designed and balanced around combat. In almost all cases, the sorcerer has enough spells known to cover most of the bases, especially now that they can trade in low-level combat spells for utility as they rise in level. So in most tactical situations, the sorcerer will dominate. And if, when you say a variety of challenges, you are referring to a monster with an odd immunity/save set, the wizard, minus copious use of divinations, will be caught with his pants down just as often as the sorcerer. There simply aren't that many spells that see constant use.

And, given a standard treasure allotment, they can make up the rest of either the utility or 'weak save' ground with little difficulty.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 10, 2004)

*Gestalt*

More thoughts about gestalt classes... I really like them, but I'm not going to go along with all the rules for them.  (Isn't that funny?  I'm house-ruling the book of house rules.   )  I think I'm going to assign averages to most of the numeric abilities, like saving throws, BAB, skill points, etc.  That way they'll be really good, but not everyone will be taking monk to get all good saves, for example.  A monk/wizard will have avg Fort, avg Ref, and good Will, for example.  I'll just have to make some tables for average saving throw, and semi-good and semi-bad BAB progression.  

More thoughts....how many core classes are there?  With just the 11 core classes, there are 55 gestalt combinations.  If you throw in the 4 core classes from MiniHB, and 3 from CW, that makes 18 core classes, or 153 gestalt combinations.  The mind boggles...


----------



## Trainz (Feb 10, 2004)

I'm DEFENITELY going to use the spontaneous cleric as NPC support for my players.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 10, 2004)

Answers, next round:

You may freely multiclass paragon and standard/prestige classes.

Gestalt with standard and prestige: absolutely no problem as you may choose each level which two classes to combine.

As the Defense bonus doesn't stack with an armor bonus, combining it with armor as DR seems to be a bumpy ride. Armor in armor as DR still has a (reduced) armor bonus, but it also has a DR rating, so the armor bonus probably would be insignificant compared to the defense bonus, but it would work.

Stalker0: you got the defense bonus right.

TwoSix: your gestalt variant sounds a LOT like 2nd Edition multiclassing. And if you don't count combining a class with itself, you only get 55 or 153 combinations. When adding prestige classes, you get even higher numbers.


----------



## Douane (Feb 10, 2004)

Tarril,

could you give us the details on the drow (and the tiefling) paragon?


Danke! 

Folkert


----------



## CRGreathouse (Feb 10, 2004)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> More thoughts....how many core classes are there?  With just the 11 core classes, there are 66 gestalt combinations.  If you throw in the 4 core classes from MiniHB, and 3 from CW, that makes 18 core classes, or 171 gestalt combinations.  The mind boggles...




Just 55, actually, with the 11 core classes, and 153 from the 18 --though many won't be any good.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 10, 2004)

Douane/Folkert: Hey, auch noch wach?


Drow Paragon: d6; med. base attack; good reflex save; class skills: climb, craft, hide, intimidate, jump, knowledge (all), listen move silently, profession, spellcraft, spot, survival, swim; skill points: 4+Int mod; spells/day: +1 level of cleric or wizard at lvl1+3; simple weapons, rapiers, longswords, hand crossbows, light armor; 1st: one additional daily use of each innate spell-like ability; 2nd: improved darkvision (+30 ft.), light blindness lessened to light sensitivity; 3rd: Dex+2

Tiefling Paragon: d8, med. base attack, all good saves; class skills: bluff, craft, disguise, hide, knowledge (the planes), listen, move silently, profession, sleight of hand, spot; skill points: 4+Int mod; simple weapons, light armor; 1st: one natural resistance to energy (fire, cold, electricity) increases to 10; 2nd: darkness 3x/day, racial bonus on bluff and hide improves to +4; 3rd: dex+2


----------



## Felon (Feb 11, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Gestalt:
> Level progressions for Defense Bonus:
> defense bonus is based on CHARACTER level (not class level), multiclass characters take the better one
> classes with no armor proficiency  : level/3 +2
> ...




Wow. If this is the sum total of what the defense bonus is about, then I'm extremely disappointed. That's a pretty crude system. One level of multi-classing is all it takes to get the best possible defense, not to mention the monk gets ye old shaft.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 11, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Wow. If this is the sum total of what the defense bonus is about, then I'm extremely disappointed. That's a pretty crude system. One level of multi-classing is all it takes to get the best possible defense, not to mention the monk gets ye old shaft.



Well, the monk will also get his class and Wisdom bonus to AC.
This system is obviously best used in swashbuckling, pirates, and armorless campaigns, so the traditionally heavy-armored classes don't miss their armor.


----------



## yipwyg (Feb 11, 2004)

*paragon races*



			
				Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Answers, next round:
> 
> You may freely multiclass paragon and standard/prestige classes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Douane (Feb 11, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Douane/Folkert: Hey, auch noch wach?




Yep, die Uni (und mehr noch mein Examen) treibt einen ja förmlich dazu, Nachtmensch zu werden. 




> Drow Paragon: d6; med. base attack; good reflex save; class skills: climb, craft, hide, intimidate, jump, knowledge (all), listen move silently, profession, spellcraft, spot, survival, swim; skill points: 4+Int mod; spells/day: +1 level of cleric or wizard at lvl1+3; simple weapons, rapiers, longswords, hand crossbows, light armor; 1st: one additional daily use of each innate spell-like ability; 2nd: improved darkvision (+30 ft.), light blindness lessened to light sensitivity; 3rd: Dex+2




Hmm, interesting, though not really good (or worth it) for the poor male drow fighters. 


Thanks!

Folkert


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 11, 2004)

yipwyg said:
			
		

> Does the racial paragons override the standard way monsters are handled as playable races (as in Savage Species), or does it assume that you are automatically starting at higher levels than 1st.  example drow by monster manual rules is equivalent to a 3rd level standard race.



You still need to be of the standard race, paragons are some kind of prestige races as classes.


			
				Douane said:
			
		

> Hmm, rather interesting, though not really good (or worth it) for my poor male drow fighter.



I'm also not so thrilled about the tiefling paragon for my (quite rich actually   ) tiefling arcane trickster.


----------



## Douane (Feb 11, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> I'm also not so thrilled about the tiefling paragon for my (quite rich actually   ) tiefling arcane trickster.




Well, he gets good saves and ..., and ... good saves. Oh, and a better energy resistance!   


It seems that you are in luck if the direction of your PC meshes with the somewhat narrow course of a racial paragon, otherwise ...   


Folkert


----------



## Douane (Feb 11, 2004)

As an afterthought (because I'm bound to get asked this by one of my players):

Does the Half-Dragon Paragon improve upon the breath weapon?


Thanks! (again )

Folkert


----------



## Saeviomagy (Feb 11, 2004)

MiB said:
			
		

> Me again



really?


> No, that's not a balancing factor, because you still get to pick your two spell each level, without limitation (as a specialist has it).




Do you mean that "a specialist has limitations on what spells he can pick each level, and this doesn't", or do you mean "a specialist has no limitations on picking spells each level, and neither does this"?


----------



## MadBlue (Feb 11, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Defense bonus is based only on armor proficiency as a class feature.
> It doesn't stack with armor bonus, but with all other bonuses (even with shield and natural armor bonuses).
> And yes, that means all 1st-level fighters get AC 16 by default.



So you're either going to wear armor and get the benefits, or go with your class-based defense. That _does_ make sense for a swashbuckling campaign. Although it does have that multiclassing problem that others pointed out. I guess I was really hoping for it to be more of a dodge bonus that stacks with armor - basically representing that characters get better at avoiding blows as they gain experience - that way higher level characters wouldn't have to be so reliant on magic items for a good defense. Well, it's not like I need an _official_ variant rule to use that kind of option in my campaign.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Feb 11, 2004)

I actually determined class based defense progressions for each class before Unearthed Arcana was anounced.  And personally I like the defense type that's in D20 Modern and Star Wars more than that one which is suggested.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 11, 2004)

Douane said:
			
		

> As an afterthought (because I'm bound to get asked this by one of my players):
> 
> Does the Half-Dragon Paragon improve upon the breath weapon?
> 
> ...



A bit (to 3x/day)

Half-dragon paragon: d12; good base attack; good fortitude and will save, class skills: see below; skill points 4+Int mod; no weapon or armor proficiency; 1st: paragon levels stack for Sorcerer caster level (not spells/day or spells known); 2nd: natural armor increases +1; 3rd: breath weapon 3x/day (only once every 1d4 rounds).

Class skills: concentration, diplomacy, intimidate, knowledge (all), listen, search, sense motive, spot
-black: hide, move silently, swim
-blue: bluff, hide, spellcraft
-brass: bluff, gather information, survival
-bronze: disguise, survival, swim
-copper: bluff, hide, jump
-gold: disguise, heal, swim
-green: bluff, hide, move silently
-red: appraise, bluff, jump
-silver: bluff, jump, perform
-white: hide, move silently, swim


----------



## herald (Feb 11, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> A bit (to 3x/day)
> 
> Half-dragon paragon: d12; good base attack; good fortitude and will save, class skills: see below; skill points 4+Int mod; no weapon or armor proficiency; 1st: paragon levels stack for Sorcerer caster level (not spells/day or spells known); 2nd: natural armor increases +1; 3rd: breath weapon 3x/day (only once every 1d4 rounds).
> 
> ...




Thanks again Tarril


----------



## Count Arioch the 28t (Feb 11, 2004)

I like that defense bonus thing, kinda.  But not really.

I'm thinking I might incorporate it into my game, except drop the first bonus (+6 for fighters, for example), and allow the level based bonus to stack with armor.  I'll call it a dodge bonus, or something, as I have always fealt that D&D needs more defensive abilities.

Oh, and I wnat to say thanks for all the info.


----------



## Gallo22 (Feb 11, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Well, the monk will also get his class and Wisdom bonus to AC.
> This system is obviously best used in swashbuckling, pirates, and armorless campaigns, so the traditionally heavy-armored classes don't miss their armor.




Please remember that the "defense system" was placed out there is various rpgs that don't have tons of armor and magic bonuses.  I personally don't think it will work well with the D&d rules at all.  

It takes away the benefit of fighter types to have high ACs and make all the classes about equal in this regard.

This new book is pretty lame in my opinion and has very few good uses.  It takes away even more of the "use your imagination" part of the game.  I place it in the gruop of those "player option" rule books that came out for 2nd edition towards the end of its reign. 

Just my opinion.   

Gallo22


----------



## JPL (Feb 11, 2004)

Would someone preview the ogre mage bloodline for me?

This gestalt-monk martial arts game idea has captured my imagination...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 11, 2004)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> Please remember that the "defense system" was placed out there is various rpgs that don't have tons of armor and magic bonuses.  I personally don't think it will work well with the D&d rules at all.
> 
> It takes away the benefit of fighter types to have high ACs and make all the classes about equal in this regard.
> 
> This new book is pretty lame in my opinion and has very few good uses.




Have you got the book and read it? Do you understand the point of it?

Effectively it can be viewed as a tool to help people develop interesting new campaigns. If someone wanted to make a low magic campaign just using the standard D&D books it would be very difficult because so much is predicated on magic. The class defense bonus would be a help to anyone wishing to create such a campaign.

Not everyone will have a narrow view of what constitutes a "D&D game", you know!

Cheers


----------



## DonAdam (Feb 11, 2004)

Another option for a gestalt campaign: everyone is a multiclasses psychic character. I thought about sorcerer, but with psions you don't have the stat suck; your fighter can use the Str discipline, your rogue the Dex, etc. And you avoid the armor issue.


----------



## Gundark (Feb 11, 2004)

Is there defensive bonuses like in star wars d20?


----------



## Nifelhein (Feb 11, 2004)

I was wondering on the VP and WP rules, there are some problems we are debating on the rules forum right now, is the preview all there is about it in the book? Because I think they keep some spots open that should be taken care of...

Anyway, just some general info woudl be fine, if the sections topics could be posted it would be even better.

And thanks in advance, I know this is not all that easy and also, that you have been doing this for some days now...


----------



## Felon (Feb 11, 2004)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> It takes away the benefit of fighter types to have high ACs and make all the classes about equal in this regard.




They don't really have that advantage right now, so I don't see a big difference in that respect.



> This new book is pretty lame in my opinion and has very few good uses.  It takes away even more of the "use your imagination" part of the game.




What are you talking about exactly? How do offering new rules detract from utilizing imagination? Offering up options encourages people to try new things.



> I place it in the gruop of those "player option" rule books that came out for 2nd edition towards the end of its reign.




Well, again, offering options in and of itself is not a bad thing. The fact is, it was the lack of options in the 2e core system made it pretty unappealing to lots of folks. The 2e option books were bad because of their poorly-designed content, not simply because they were option books. Prematurely lumping Unearthed Arcana in with them based on sketchy info is kind of lame.



> Just my opinion.




Sounds like a hasty one.


----------



## Acid_crash (Feb 11, 2004)

All I know is that I'm getting this book, even if I have to *gasp* sell other less used books to get it.


----------



## sbrengard (Feb 11, 2004)

I just learned that UA will be available from my FLGS this Friday.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Feb 11, 2004)

sbrengard said:
			
		

> I just learned that UA will be available from my FLGS this Friday.




Same here. I guess I'm going to cancel my Amazon order. March 5th is too long for me to wait.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 11, 2004)

Amazon has been really bad about that for a while.  A couple years back, they used to get things out quickly.  Now you'd be lucky, if you get something from them two or three weeks after it's been released.  You might want to try walmart.com.  You'll save just as much money, and get it a lot faster.  Mine order from them is supposed to be shipped tomorrow or Friday.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 11, 2004)

Vitality and Wound Points: Section topics

Vitality Points
Wound Points
Critical Hits
Injury and Death
-nonlethal damage
-0 vitality points
-taking wound damage
-0 wound points
-stable characters and recovery
Special Damage Situations
-coup de grace
-massive damage
Healing
-natural healing
-assisted healing
-magical healing
NPCs and Monsters
-creatures without constitution points
-bonus hit points
-damage reduction
-fast healing
-regeneration
Monster Challenge Ratings

and a Behind the Curtain Sidebar


----------



## sbrengard (Feb 11, 2004)

Sounds just like the release at wizards


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 11, 2004)

JPL said:
			
		

> Would someone preview the ogre mage bloodline for me?



There's no ogre mage bloodline in UA.


----------



## JPL (Feb 11, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> There's no ogre mage bloodline in UA.




[rereads list]

Oh.  Well, then.  Never mind.

Maybe I'll make one up once I've read the book and seen how it's done.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Feb 11, 2004)

What are the variant specialist wizards (for each specialty) and how do they differ from, say, a normal specialist wizard? Quick summary of the abilities of a couple of them?


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 11, 2004)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> What are the variant specialist wizards (for each specialty) and how do they differ from, say, a normal specialist wizard? Quick summary of the abilities of a couple of them?



Here's just the names of the variants for now:

Abjurer:
Resistance to Energy
Aura of Protection
Spontanaous Dispelling

Conjurer:
Rapid Summoning
Enhanced Summoning
Spontaneous Summoning

Diviner:
Enhanced Awareness
Bonus Feat List
Prescience

Enchanter:
Cohort
Social Proficiency
Extended Enchantment

Evoker:
Energy Affinity
Energy Substitution
Overcome Resistance

Illusionist:
Chains of Disbelief
Shadow Shaper
Illusion Mastery

Necromancer:
Skeletal Minion
Undead Apotheosis
Enhanced Undead

Transmuter:
Enhance Attribute
Spell Versatility
Transmutable Memory


Some more: the specialist wizard gives up some class feature when choosing the variants - taking the first variant loses him his ability to obtain a familiar, with the second variant he loses his wizard banus feats (except the enchanter, he just gets another list of bonus feats), someone using the third variant does not gain additional spells per day for being a specialist wizard.


----------



## JPL (Feb 11, 2004)

Tarril, why don't we just have you post the whole thing?

You'd do that for us, wouldn't you?


----------



## Gundark (Feb 11, 2004)

I'll ask again since nobody answered this one    .Anyhow is there defensive bonuses like there is in Star Wars d20? If so then how does it work?


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Feb 11, 2004)

Gundark said:
			
		

> I'll ask again since nobody answered this one    .Anyhow is there defensive bonuses like there is in Star Wars d20? If so then how does it work?




Yes. It's been the subject of quiet a bit of discussion in this very thread. Not sure how you missed it.

In short, classes get a bonus to Defense based on the type of armor proficiencies their class starts out with. It's not exaclty like Starwars, but similar.

At least, that's how it came across to me. I haven't got the book yet.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 11, 2004)

Gundark said:
			
		

> I'll ask again since nobody answered this one    .Anyhow is there defensive bonuses like there is in Star Wars d20? If so then how does it work?



No, there's just the defense bonus we already talked about, no other defense bonus variant.


			
				JPL said:
			
		

> Tarril, why don't we just have you post the whole thing?
> 
> You'd do that for us, wouldn't you?



The whole 218 pages? 
Well, I like answering questions, but that is a bit much, don't you think so?


----------



## kilamanjaro (Feb 11, 2004)

Gundark said:
			
		

> I'll ask again since nobody answered this one    .Anyhow is there defensive bonuses like there is in Star Wars d20? If so then how does it work?




This was answered a few pages back.  Basically each class gets a defence bonus based on what its armor prof. was.  The defensive bonus doesn't stack with armor but does stack with shields and the monk's dodge bonus.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 11, 2004)

I am sorry, but this thread has convinced me not to buy this book. To me it is a bunch of tweaks that just add complicated rules to an already complicated game. This doesn't add anything fresh and new that betters the game for me. A lot of you seem to think it does, but i'm not one of them.

This appears to me as a release of the 2e Optional Rulebooks in the 3.0/3.5 world. I didn't like it then and i don't like them now.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 11, 2004)

Tarril,

I noticed something about bloodlines



> There are three bloodline strength - minor, intermediate, and major, giving 5, 10, or 20 special abilities. All of that uses up 13 pages.




Would it be possible to give an example of how that pans out for, say, one of the elemental bloodlines? I'm curious as to how they've worked it out and what kind of "level of power" is involved.

Regards,


----------



## ForceUser (Feb 11, 2004)

I'm a little annoyed at the paladin prestige class. A DM who uses it is, in effect, removing a core class and forcing anyone who wants to play one to jump thorugh hoops just so they can have the special priviledge of playing...a core class. 

Excuse me if I don't leap for joy.

Personally, I would have reenvisioned the concept for prestige purposes, pared it down to ten levels, and given it a bit more focused "oomfph." The paladin prc is no more prestigious than the core class, so what's the point?


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 11, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to give an example of how that pans out for, say, one of the elemental bloodlines? I'm curious as to how they've worked it out and what kind of "level of power" is involved.



O.k., I'll bite. Here's more about bloodlines and one example:

Every source has a minor bloodline, many sources have intermediate bloodlines, major bloodlines only come from the most powerful and primal of sources, including celestials, demons, devils, and the mightiest of dragons.

You gradually become more powerful with a bloodline, therefore you must take 1-3 bloodline levels, which are "empty", except for calculating class level for the abilities of your other classes. If you don't take these levels you get a 20% penalty on XP and no further bloodline abilities. Minor needs to take a bloodline level at 12th level, intermediate at 6th and 12th, major at 3rd, 6th, and 12th.

Bloodline abilities depend on your character level, of course.

Bloodline abilities are the same in any strength, they just come slower, so you won't get all of the major ones.
Minor gets one ability every 4th level, intermediate every 2nd level, and major every level.

The Gold Dragon Bloodline as an example:
+2 on Sense Motive checks
Alertness
Strength +1
Resistance to Fire 5
Gold Dragon Affinity +2
+1 to natural armor
+2 on Heal checks
Resistance to Fire 10
Constitution +1
Water breathing
Gold Dragon Affinity +4
+1 to natural armor
+2 on Swim checks
Power Attack
Intelligence +1
Breath Weapon
Gold Dragon Affinity +6
+1 to natural armor
+2 on Jump checks
Immunity to Fire

The Affinity to X gives the indicated bonus on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Perform checks made to interact with X.


----------



## buzz (Feb 12, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> The paladin prc is no more prestigious than the core class, so what's the point?



It's an option a lot of people have been clamoring for since 3e was orignally released. If you don't want to use it, cool. Maybe the other 215 pages will have something you'll like.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 12, 2004)

Treebore said:
			
		

> I am sorry, but this thread has convinced me not to buy this book. To me it is a bunch of tweaks that just add complicated rules to an already complicated game. This doesn't add anything fresh and new that betters the game for me. A lot of you seem to think it does, but i'm not one of them.
> 
> This appears to me as a release of the 2e Optional Rulebooks in the 3.0/3.5 world. I didn't like it then and i don't like them now.



From that I would say yes, but what has been going on for years, are the house rules. variant plays, and crazy ideas that has been lurking around for quite some time now.

Now they are seeing print, being made legit. As at the WOTC site, there is a reference to a acknowledgment that other (third party) material has been added, with thier blessing to the book.

That means, other gaming companies are getting their props, in helping the industry getting better or worse (your view is private, of course), come what may...everyone will have to decide what is likeable or not.

And honestly, we all know, it is not a perfect system, if it was...it would become boring and bland within a short time.

What I find, that...as much as it looks and feels, if it can help my game or character to be better...there is always room for improvement...and the major key, is imagination...as always, this print...are guidelines...with room to move around to do what you feel. As long it is fair and balance for everyone else.

And top of that...it is a business move...Eberron is coming, and they are preparing the masses for the next stage...(hmmmm...I wonder what that is?)


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 12, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> I'm a little annoyed at the paladin prestige class. A DM who uses it is, in effect, removing a core class and forcing anyone who wants to play one to jump thorugh hoops just so they can have the special priviledge of playing...a core class.
> 
> Excuse me if I don't leap for joy.
> 
> Personally, I would have reenvisioned the concept for prestige purposes, pared it down to ten levels, and given it a bit more focused "oomfph." The paladin prc is no more prestigious than the core class, so what's the point?



Point understood, but as far I heard from other people, this class and a few other should be in that format, that is not my opinion mind you.

Being one of those prime profession..is pretty daunting for some people to do, all that was done now, instead of just saying *I am paladin *, the next question would be, do you want to be one?

It is a option to add flavor to the drama, imagine if you please, e.g. a player that you know, never, ever wanted to touch that profession, spewing their dislike verbally...then during a session (many that has passed)...one day, you are sitting there, ready to eat your pizza and drink your (soft drink title put here)
and all that goes flying all over the place...with the shock and surprise that was heard from that peculiar person... it would be the best thing to happen in a story structure and if only,it was pulled off in secret (showing no signs of the conversion) and the DM has been keeping tabs.

It will be a coup.

And it will make other players think hard...what did he/she do to get there...ah...but that is another story within itself.


----------



## JPL (Feb 12, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> The whole 218 pages?
> Well, I like answering questions, but that is a bit much, don't you think so?




My friend, once you leave out the illustrations, we're probably only talking 150 pages or so.

Although if you have time, maybe you could scan the illustrations and post them too.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 12, 2004)

JPL said:
			
		

> My friend, once you leave out the illustrations, we're probably only talking 150 pages or so.
> 
> Although if you have time, maybe you could scan the illustrations and post them too.



Hey, nice idea...he could put them in the Art Gallery, plenty of room there.


----------



## Trainz (Feb 12, 2004)

The pics are probably not OGL, so I stongly advise not doing so without the written consent of WotC.

I know... party popper.


----------



## JPL (Feb 12, 2004)

Trainz said:
			
		

> The pics are probably not OGL, so I stongly advise not doing so without the written consent of WotC.
> 
> I know... party popper.





Aw, I'm just makin' the funny.  Ignore me.


----------



## Trainz (Feb 12, 2004)

JPL said:
			
		

> Aw, I'm just makin' the funny. Ignore me.



No no, it's OK. My warning wasn't made to make anyone feel bad.

Sorry.

Ignore me too.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 12, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Human Paragon: 3 level-class, med base attack, good will save, d8 hp, any ten class skills, skill points: 4+Int mod, simple weapons, one martial weapon, light armor, spells/day +1 in lvl 2+3, lvl1:Adaptive Learning - choose one skill to be permanent class skill, lvl2:bonus feat, lvl3:Boost one ability by 2 points.




Tarril, thanks for taking the time to answer our questions.  If you're still doing so, could I check if there are any prerequisites for taking a level in Human Paragon (apart from being human, of course)?


----------



## MadBlue (Feb 12, 2004)

Count Arioch the 28t said:
			
		

> I like that defense bonus thing, kinda.  But not really.
> 
> I'm thinking I might incorporate it into my game, except drop the first bonus (+6 for fighters, for example), and allow the level based bonus to stack with armor.  I'll call it a dodge bonus, or something, as I have always fealt that D&D needs more defensive abilities.



I started up a thread on something pretty much like that >Here<. I feel the same way about defensive abilities vis a vis D&D. I think it's more of an issue in 3e because the d20 system is open ended so there's more of a call for boosting items. But eventually it gets to the point that most characters have to have a Ring of Protection, a Cloak of Resistance, an Amulet of Natural Armor and one or two items that boost their abilities, just to stay competitive.


----------



## Nifelhein (Feb 12, 2004)

Thanks for the info on VP and WP, seem they did not address something we have found out in about 10 posts... sneak attacks... and critical its with spells...

I wish Hasbro never bougth WotC...


----------



## jsaving (Feb 12, 2004)

> Being one of those prime profession..is pretty daunting for some people to do, all that was done now, instead of just saying I am paladin, the next question would be, do you want to be one?



My question is, is there *finally* a paladin class for which "true good" characters (NG) are eligible?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 12, 2004)

jsaving said:
			
		

> My question is, is there *finally* a paladin class for which "true good" characters (NG) are eligible?




(cough, cough)....tr-ue good...ye say...true good...mercy be, you are looking for a saint.

Roleplay that lad....roleplay it...


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Feb 12, 2004)

jsaving said:
			
		

> My question is, is there *finally* a paladin class for which "true good" characters (NG) are eligible?




This has alrady been addressed, & the short answer is "no."  The paladin prestige class maintains the LG requirement.

However, some other paladin (full core class) options basically allow for paladin classes for all of the extreme/cardinal ALs--the LG paladin of honor, the CG paladin of freedom, the LE paladin of tyranny, and the CE paladin of slaughter.

Honestly, I was really expecting the paladin PrC to basically be a 10-level verison of the paladin, & basically be opposite of the blackguard PrC; it'd require a certain BAB, some feats, and a Good AL (as opposed to LG only, since blackguards allow/require any evil AL).  The 10-level paladin would gain 1st--4th level paladin spells, just like the blackguard gaining 1st--4th blackguard spells.  I also expected the ranger PrC to be a 10-level PrC as well.

I may wind up using the core paladin & the 3 other-aligned core class variants instead of the paladin PrC, but then again, I'm really considering writing up a version of a 10-level, any Good-AL variety of paladin PrC to be more on par with the current "core" blackguard PrC.  Then again, I'll probably work on a 15-level PrC treatment of the freedom, tyranny, & slaughter paladins to provide on-par options with the 15-level PrC of the honor paladin.

I may try to give a 10-level ranger PrC a shot as well, though I'm not sure about a 10-level bard PrC, esp. with the larger spell list for bards (0-6, compared to the smaller 1-4 lists for paladins & rangers, and even a few other classes like sohei & hexblades).  Heck, I may try to give a 10-level sohei PrC a shot as well.


----------



## Ace (Feb 12, 2004)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> Yes. It's been the subject of quiet a bit of discussion in this very thread. Not sure how you missed it.
> 
> In short, classes get a bonus to Defense based on the type of armor proficiencies their class starts out with. It's not exaclty like Starwars, but similar.
> 
> At least, that's how it came across to me. I haven't got the book yet.




I don't know about a +6 defence bonus at 1st level-- It seems high to me unless of course armor doesn't stack in which case it is predicated on Scale + Large Shield as standard starting gear

That actaully makes sence to me

I think I might use something like that system with Conan D20 armor as damage reduction though

a/2 level + the mods given sounds about right and gives offence its customary 20% advantage


----------



## Staffan (Feb 12, 2004)

Ace said:
			
		

> I don't know about a +6 defence bonus at 1st level-- It seems high to me unless of course armor doesn't stack in which case it is predicated on Scale + Large Shield as standard starting gear



As I understand it, it does not stack with armor but does stack with shields and other bonuses. In which case, it's a small bonus but not a huge one. At first level it's a +1 bonus, but on the other hand AC tends to increase really fast for the first few levels. Full plate armor is pretty standard at 3rd level for fighter-types, and that's +8.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 12, 2004)

Treebore said:
			
		

> I am sorry, but this thread has convinced me not to buy this book. To me it is a bunch of tweaks that just add complicated rules to an already complicated game. This doesn't add anything fresh and new that betters the game for me. A lot of you seem to think it does, but i'm not one of them.
> 
> This appears to me as a release of the 2e Optional Rulebooks in the 3.0/3.5 world. I didn't like it then and i don't like them now.




You are right, Unearthed Arcana is effectively a book of variants. If you don't like the idea as you didn't like it in 2e I agree with you that this book is not for you.

This is a book that gives you many options to try out in a campaign if you just want to try something different: you can take one option alone and already the difference to your game may be huge (for example if you use armor as DR or those VP/WP); you may combine many options at once, although it is clear that some of them are not compatible with each other - but that's ok, this book is not supposed to be used all at the same time, definitely.

If you are not interested in changing the rules of your game, or if you already have your own homebrew options, it is probably not going to be a useful book for you, just as a book of "crunchy bits" is quite unuseful if you normally like to write down your custom PrCls and feats for your game.

If I may produce my personal opinion, I am very happy to see WotC releasing a book of rules after so many of "crunchy bits" only, although again I say that you really can't use more than a few of these variants at the same time.

Furthermore, this book addresses many of the common subjects of house rules in gaming: to name a few... variants to core classes, some core classes made prestige, helping multiclass spellcasters, vitality points instead of hit point, armor as DR instead of AC bonus, defensive bonus, more flexible spells system, alternative metamagic, alternative school specialization, bloodlines, action points, facing in combat, rules for reputation, use of a hex map instead of squares... these are all topics that I have seen discussed on this very messageboard. With UA, WotC is simply suggesting which is the way (or which are the ways, in a few cases) that would probably work best in their opinion, hopefully backed up by some playtesting   If someone like me has felt that a variant could bring an interesting change to my game, but I was usually afraid to implement it by myself, this book is where I would start from. It is a book of ideas, but as always you can use them as inspiration and then come up with your own variant if these don't seem perfect.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 12, 2004)

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info on VP and WP, seem they did not address something we have found out in about 10 posts... sneak attacks... and critical its with spells...
> 
> I wish Hasbro never bougth WotC...



Methink you are too quick to judge. Then again, perhaps, be glad that the sacred cow that is the hit point system remains part of the core rules. And WotC don't need Hasbro to tell them that. In fact, I doubt Hasbro have any influence over what kind of health system is appropriate for _Star Wars RPG,_ other than the fact that many agree, including myself, the hit point system will not work with _Star Wars RPG_ cinematic roleplaying ... ever.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Feb 12, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Here's just the names of the variants for now:
> SNIP
> 
> Transmuter:
> ...



This wizard specialist variant sound very interesting, specially this last one, could you tell us what is the last two special abilities of the variant trasmuter?

thanks


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 12, 2004)

JPL:
I made a mistake, there is an Ogre Mage Bloodline, it's just the Intermediate Ogre Bloodline:
+2 on Climb checks
Power Attack
Strength +1
+1 to natural armor
Ogre Affinity +2
Darkness 1/day
+2 on Concentration checks
Invisibility 1/day
Charisma +1
Fly 1/day


FireLance: 
I didn't find any prerequisites at all for any paragon class (apart from the race)


FabioMilitoPagliara:
Spell Versatility - at 5th level, this transmuter may, for every five levels he gains, choose one non-transmutation spell and forever after treat it as a transmutation spell. This spell may also be chosen from his prohibited schools. As I said above you lose your Wizard bonus feats with this variant.
Transmutable Memory - 1/day give up a number of prepared spell levels (max. half class-level) and prepare different spells in their place as long as the number of newly prepared spell levels is equal or less than the number of spell levels given up. This requires a number of minutes concentration equal to these spell levels. You lose your additional spells/day for being a specialist, when using this variant.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Feb 12, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> snip
> FabioMilitoPagliara:
> snip
> Transmutable Memory - 1/day give up a number of prepared spell levels (max. half class-level) and prepare different spells in their place as long as the number of newly prepared spell levels is equal or less than the number of spell levels given up. This requires a number of minutes concentration equal to these spell levels. You lose your additional spells/day for being a specialist, when using this variant.



WOW, interesting. The Transmutable Memory remembers me of a glantrian capability. Do you need your spellbook when changing spells around?

thanks


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 12, 2004)

FabioMilitoPagliara said:
			
		

> WOW, interesting. The Transmutable Memory remembers me of a glantrian capability. Do you need your spellbook when changing spells around?
> 
> thanks



It doesn't say so, but as you're preparing new spells you'll probably need your spellbook for that.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 12, 2004)

I'm really interested in the Gestalt classes.  If you have say, a fighter5/wizard5, how would you do experience?  Would you treat the character as 1.5 x his level, say, ECL 7?  And what would be an appropriate encounter for these guys?  Cr7 or 8?


BTW, thanks to you guys for taking the time to enlighten us!


----------



## Nifelhein (Feb 12, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Methink you are too quick to judge. Then again, perhaps, be glad that the sacred cow that is the hit point system remains part of the core rules. And WotC don't need Hasbro to tell them that. In fact, I doubt Hasbro have any influence over what kind of health system is appropriate for _Star Wars RPG,_ other than the fact that many agree, including myself, the hit point system will not work with _Star Wars RPG_ cinematic roleplaying ... ever.



 Well, it may be that is why I asked about the table of contents for the VP/WP system there, and yes, it is equal to the one found on the site, unless they have taken care of sneak attack somewhere there, and spells too.

Is that the case, Tarril?

Anyway, I am not against this book, I like options, I dislike the power that is now centered in Andy Collins' hands and the many lay offs that WotC did because it was bought by Hasbro, or the later did, for that matter.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 12, 2004)

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Well, it may be that is why I asked about the table of contents for the VP/WP system there, and yes, it is equal to the one found on the site, unless they have taken care of sneak attack somewhere there, and spells too.




Did you read the vp/wp stuff carefully? It says that sneak attack (and any other bonus dice damage) is applied to wounds on the basis of 1pt per die. So they do take care of sneak attack there.


----------



## Gwarthkam (Feb 12, 2004)

Could someone please tell me the spells known for a cleric with spontaneous casting?

I know this has been asked and answered previously in this thread, but the answer was: "just like a sorceror + 2 spells/ level due to domains."

But this doesn't really fit since the spell progression for clerics and sorcs are different, clerics get the ability to cast higher level spells before sorcs do, for instance a level 13 cleric can cast 7 level spells, a level 13 sorc can't.

So... what's the answer here?

thank you in advance


----------



## Nifelhein (Feb 12, 2004)

Yes, I noticed the sneak attack, but there is no spells in the mix, sorry, I have overlooked it before... anyway it pisses me when I read a phrase that reads:

some other things may not work well and need tweaking, go for it!

And that is what they do in that behind the curtain box... at the end of the sneak attack paragraph...


----------



## d20Dwarf (Feb 12, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> The racial variants seem to be taken from dragon



I can't wait to see if this is true, as the author of one racial variants article.


----------



## Falstaff (Feb 12, 2004)

Can you give us more information on the Injury System?


----------



## buzz (Feb 12, 2004)

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Anyway, I am not against this book, I like options, I dislike the power that is now centered in Andy Collins' hands and the many lay offs that WotC did because it was bought by Hasbro, or the later did, for that matter.



WotC laid people off for the same reasons virtually every other company in USA did: the economy was (is) in the crapper. Freaking everyone I know has been laid off in the past year or knows someone who has.

Blaming suits at Hasbro for possible flaws in product you have yet to see is, IMHO, kinda silly. I'd be surprised if any executives at Hasbro even knew this product existed, mich less care about its content.


----------



## herald (Feb 12, 2004)

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Anyway, I am not against this book, I like options, I dislike the power that is now centered in Andy Collins' hands and the many lay offs that WotC did because it was bought by Hasbro, or the later did, for that matter.




If you have a beef with Andy, IMHO, you should bring up your points in another thread. At best your of topic...


----------



## Jack Daniel (Feb 12, 2004)

RE: Wounds & Vitality, I can at least tell you how I've been running spells and sneak attacks under this system.  I see a lot of people suggest converting attacks that deal dice of vitality damage into "1 point of wound damage per die," but I find that to be a pretty inelegant solution -- it loses the distinction between die types, for starters.  So, I just used common sense for sneak attack and applied the rule that was already there: _damage expressed as extra dice, such as from a sneak attack or an elemental weapon, is not multiplied by a critical hit.  _Therefore, it would stand to reason that under a VP/WP system, such damage would not change to wound damage on a critical hit, and would instead remain vitality damage.

For spells, I just took an alternate route.  At the moment, I'm ruling that when a spell or similar energy effect critically hits, _some _of the damage becomes wound damage -- an ammount that cannot exceed the spell's level (or, if the effect has no level, 1/2 the hit dice of the creature using the attack).  So far this has worked out well, but if it proves to be on the weak side, I may just change the wound cap to caster level (or, if I like the UA rules, "magic rating").


----------



## Nifelhein (Feb 12, 2004)

Buzz and Herald,

Sorry about speaking what I think on a thread that is somehow connected to it, I try to avoid posting too much offtopic and to make my posts haev at least something connected to the initial topic, though. I understand that you did not like to have to read it here, herald, and for that I apologize.

Anyway, he did gave info on the injury system, but this is a hell lot of pages to point you, somewhere around 4 might be a good check out. 

Also, Jack Daniel, thanks for sharing, the insight has been good, in my opinion, I have a D&D rules thread related to the VP/Wp mechanic if you would like to drop by.

Anyhow, how does the Level Independent XP Awards -- An alternative experience point progression with fixed experience awards for monsters irrespective of character or party level. actually work?


----------



## Hjorimir (Feb 12, 2004)

I would like to second the request for more specific information on Spontaneous Casting for Clerics/Druids. Can somebody please give a breakdown at what pace they gain access to higher level spells? Is it exactly like a sorcerer (i.e. gain access to 2nd-level spells at 4th level as opposed to 3rd)? Do they maybe gain access to their 2nd-level domain spells at 3rd and then start selecting as a sorcerer would at 4th?

Thank you for any feedback.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 12, 2004)

jsaving said:
			
		

> My question is, is there *finally* a paladin class for which "true good" characters (NG) are eligible?




There is one in Forgotten Heroes: Paladins, the PDF by Maladins Gate. A 20 level core class paladin variant.


----------



## DanMcS (Feb 12, 2004)

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Anyhow, how does the Level Independent XP Awards -- An alternative experience point progression with fixed experience awards for monsters irrespective of character or party level. actually work?




Probably like experience in previous editions.  Standard orcs were worth 15 xp, no matter what level you were, which was a low but reasonable amount for 1st level characters, and pretty insignificant for high level characters.  I'd guess the new system is something like 25 or 50xp * the CR of the critter, which would be the simplest way to introduce a system like that without all sorts of complicated calculations.


----------



## JPL (Feb 12, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> JPL:
> I made a mistake, there is an Ogre Mage Bloodline, it's just the Intermediate Ogre Bloodline:
> +2 on Climb checks
> Power Attack
> ...




Groovy.  Danke.  Seems to me that a gestalt Monk-Sorcerer with an Ogre Mage bloodline [and a spell list tailored to his ancestry] would be a cool character for this Oriental Adventures one-shot I have brewing...

Neutral Good Paladins...there was one in Dragon a few months back, wasn't there?


----------



## Nifelhein (Feb 12, 2004)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> Probably like experience in previous editions.  Standard orcs were worth 15 xp, no matter what level you were, which was a low but reasonable amount for 1st level characters, and pretty insignificant for high level characters.  I'd guess the new system is something like 25 or 50xp * the CR of the critter, which would be the simplest way to introduce a system like that without all sorts of complicated calculations.



 I believe it can be like that too, but I wonder whether that system would actually change the way characetrs level by giving different ammounts of xp.

And also, I would love to know what exactly is addressed in that rule variant...


----------



## d20Dwarf (Feb 12, 2004)

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> And also, I would love to know what exactly is addressed in that rule variant...



Nostalgia! 

After all, diaglo has probably sent in more customer feedback cards than the rest of EN World combined.


----------



## Nifelhein (Feb 12, 2004)

Good one, and a very very possible one too!  Anyway, I liked the old ways a little better, back then we took many months to level up and now we take a month only...

We played only 3 sessions and the players are already complainign about not leveling up... and they already did once!


----------



## Von Ether (Feb 12, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> If someone like me has felt that a variant could bring an interesting change to my game, but I was usually afraid to implement it by myself, this book is where I would start from. It is a book of ideas, but as always you can use them as inspiration and then come up with your own variant if these don't seem perfect.




*waves hand* Personaly I think this book is what d20 is about (gaming wise), options, not limits.

I've been playing a jury-rigged d20 Star Wars/d20 M/D&D game for a while, this book will probably replace the thumb tacks with rivets and the duck tape with a fiberglass shell. In essence, UA IS my DMG.

For me, I feel like some of these options should have been in the 3.0 DMG. My gaming style has no use for tons of charts that list the features of a dungeon or loads of magic items I'll never use. I ran d20 for a long time without the 3.0 DMG and when I finally did buy it, I felt like it was more to complete the set of $20 books than for any gaming use. I doubt 3.5 would serve me better beyond more PrCs.

As an aside, I guess I was the only guy who thought "That ain't right." When I got my 3.0 PHB and saw that the Paladin was a basic class. In one of my future games, there won't be the question "Why have a paladin PrC when it's no better than the core class?" Because in my game there won't be a core paladin class. You want special bonuses for  being a good guy? Act like a good guy and earn them.


----------



## Von Ether (Feb 12, 2004)

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> We played only 3 sessions and the players are already complainign about not leveling up... and they already did once!




Dive XP rewards by 6, you will be happy, just don't look the Rogue player in the eye when you do so. 

We've been gaming for a year and we just got to 4th level. Everyone is cool with it except for the Rogue since his focus, skills, are all based on skill rolls. If it wasn't for sysnergy bonuses and weapon finesse, the player would have quit a long time ago.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Feb 12, 2004)

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Good one, and a very very possible one too!  Anyway, I liked the old ways a little better, back then we took many months to level up and now we take a month only...
> 
> We played only 3 sessions and the players are already complainign about not leveling up... and they already did once!




That's what you'd expect from players to do. In my group we jokingly complain about not leveling up ten minutes past the last time. It's when they start levelling up on their own you really should start worrying.  For sure, even if we (the players) sometimes complain and whine it just shows we are committed to the game.


----------



## Greppa of Tartwater (Feb 12, 2004)

*"non magical" psionics*

What caught my attention was the mention of "non magical" psionics and "Recharge" magic. I have not been able to get more detail on these sections. Can anyone fill me in beyond what's on the front page of Enworld.org?


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 12, 2004)

Gwarthkam, Hjorimir: Spontaneous divine caster spells known - just like a sorceror + 2 spells/ level due to domains is right, and the highest spell level at odd levels has 0 spells known apart from domain spells (or summon nature's ally for a druid).

Nifelhein: Level Independent XP Awards - it's almost like 2E. The table for classes when to get to the next level just had to be changed from 3E.

Greppa of Tartwater:
Non magical Psionics - DMG p.297
Recharge Magic - In a nutshell: You just have to wait until your spell recharges, the you can use it again. Most spells just need some rounds (which you roll), these are the general recharge spell. There are also some specific recharge spells, recharging slower, anywhere from 5 minutes to 24 hours. Obviously this variant makes spellcaster stronger.


----------



## MadBlue (Feb 13, 2004)

Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> So, I just used common sense for sneak attack and applied the rule that was already there: _damage expressed as extra dice, such as from a sneak attack or an elemental weapon, is not multiplied by a critical hit.  _Therefore, it would stand to reason that under a VP/WP system, such damage would not change to wound damage on a critical hit, and would instead remain vitality damage.



Although the justification behind SA damage _not_ multiplying in a HP system is that it's doing the bonus damage already because it's hitting an especially vital area. It would seem odd if SA didn't do _any_ Wound damage in a critical hit using the WP/VP system, unless you've changed the definition of what a Sneak Attack represents (e.g. representing the skill of using non-lethal force to overpower a foe without killing them).

Of course the problem with equating Critical Hit Sneak Attack damage to 1 WP per d6 is what happens on a _non-critical_ SA that brings an opponent down past 0 VP? How many of the SA damage dice are converted to WP? It's not a problem if SA _always_ does 1 WP damage per die, although it makes it especially deadly.


----------



## Nifelhein (Feb 13, 2004)

Yeah, I know about the leveling up thing fairly well... and I told them that although the first level would go fast the upcoming ones would take sometime...

If I ahd a table to show them, though, it would make them complain a lot more you know that workds well, don't you guys? 

Anyway, i have not one, but *TWO* rogues in the group... one is rogue/wildlander (non magical ranger variant of the Midnight campaign setting).

On the subject, yes I also think that D&D on this 3.X editions is all about options, even when they do not make one of them possible... 

Thanks for the info on the xp award of UA, and I think that we had pretty much everything covered, as a last note, Tarril, I would like to ask you what do you think about the book now that you own it and has scanned pretty much everything in it, so?


----------



## mangamuscle (Feb 13, 2004)

Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> RE: Wounds & Vitality, [snip] Therefore, it would stand to reason that under a VP/WP system, such damage would not change to wound damage on a critical hit, and would instead remain vitality damage.
> 
> For spells, I just took an alternate route.  At the moment, I'm ruling that when a spell or similar energy effect critically hits, _some _of the damage becomes wound damage -- an ammount that cannot exceed the spell's level (or, if the effect has no level, 1/2 the hit dice of the creature using the attack).  So far this has worked out well, but if it proves to be on the weak side, I may just change the wound cap to caster level (or, if I like the UA rules, "magic rating").




 IMHO a more standard solution would be that any critical damage hit changes *one hit die* of criticall hit damage to wound damage *without modifiers*. So, i.e. a 20th level rogue that scores a crtitical sneak atack with a heavy mace still does only 1d8 points of direct wound damage, the +10d6+Str bonus+magical bonus go to vitality damage. The same goes for a spells, i.e. a critical maximized burning hands spell would do 8 points of wound damage and 32 points of vitality damage (1/2 that amount with a successful save vs. reflex, no damage on a succesful magic resistance roll).

Under this system it would make sense to allow critical multiplers, so in the rogue example above he would do an extra 1d8 vitality damage (since the heavy mace threat range is x2), meanwhile a light pick would do 1d4 wound damage and 3d4 vitality damage (critical x4).


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 13, 2004)

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info on the xp award of UA, and I think that we had pretty much everything covered, as a last note, Tarril, I would like to ask you what do you think about the book now that you own it and has scanned pretty much everything in it, so?



It's nice. There's quite some good ideas in there, and although I'm tempted to include a lot in my campaigns I will try not to hit my players with too much at once.


----------



## Renshai (Feb 13, 2004)

I picked my book up yesterday at my FLGS as they were unboxing it. So far I really like alot it. Some of the material seems like it will work VERY well with my Dawnforge Campaign  

Ren


----------



## Corinth (Feb 13, 2004)

Note: It is established that Sneak Attack (and other attacks that work in a similiar manner) goes straight to Wounds on a critical hit under the VP/WP paradigm.


----------



## dagger (Feb 13, 2004)

Anybody seen the book around Austin, Tx or near it? Thanks


----------



## Mercule (Feb 13, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Note: It is established that Sneak Attack (and other attacks that work in a similiar manner) goes straight to Wounds on a critical hit under the VP/WP paradigm.



So, if I understand correctly, a 5th level Rogue with a short sword could do 4d6 (including sword) damage to someone's Wound Points, if he caught them with their pants down?  Yikes!

Since you say "established", can you tell us where this was established?


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Feb 13, 2004)

Mercule said:
			
		

> So, if I understand correctly, a 5th level Rogue with a short sword could do 4d6 (including sword) damage to someone's Wound Points, if he caught them with their pants down?  Yikes!
> 
> Since you say "established", can you tell us where this was established?




Actually, that only happens if he scores a critical with his sneak attack I believe.
But yeah, it look like the Wound/Vitality system ups the power of Sneak Attacks a bit.

But, in a campaign that is trying to be "realistic" this is more realistic.


----------



## mangamuscle (Feb 13, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Note: It is established that Sneak Attack (and other attacks that work in a similiar manner) goes straight to Wounds on a critical hit under the VP/WP paradigm.




 But if you use the system "as is" it is quite illogical. let's suppose you are down to 3 VP but still have your full 16 WP (you are badly bruised, but nothing broken yet). This would be the perfect moment for the rogue to go out of the shadows and give you the killing strike. Let' suppose she is 20th level armed with her trusty nonmagical nonmasterwork dagger. She hits and scores a critical, that would be 10 WP + 1d4, not enough for the killing blow. But if no critical is scored, the she does 10d6+1d4 points of damage, thats 37.5 points of damage on average, enough to deplete 3 VP plus 16 WP in a sinlge strike.


----------



## Corinth (Feb 13, 2004)

Mercule said:
			
		

> So, if I understand correctly, a 5th level Rogue with a short sword could do 4d6 (including sword) damage to someone's Wound Points, if he caught them with their pants down?  Yikes!
> 
> Since you say "established", can you tell us where this was established?



_Spycraft_, _Stargate SG-1_ & _Star Wars_, as they are the extant VP/WP users.

And yes, you understand correctly.  This is why critical threat ranges are smaller than standard D&D, and why other games that use this paradigm often alter or change entirely the proceedure regarding the confirmation of critical hits.


----------



## Corinth (Feb 13, 2004)

mangamuscle said:
			
		

> But if you use the system "as is" it is quite illogical. let's suppose you are down to 3 VP but still have your full 16 WP (you are badly bruised, but nothing broken yet). This would be the perfect moment for the rogue to go out of the shadows and give you the killing strike. Let' suppose she is 20th level armed with her trusty nonmagical nonmasterwork dagger. She hits and scores a critical, that would be 10 WP + 1d4, not enough for the killing blow. But if no critical is scored, the she does 10d6+1d4 points of damage, thats 37.5 points of damage on average, enough to deplete 3 VP plus 16 WP in a sinlge strike.



No, you got it wrong.

If the rogue got a critical hit, then he would do 1d4(dagger)+10d6(Sneak Attack) directly to the target's WP.  This is the established rule, as this is how it works in _Spycraft_, _Stargate SG-1_ and _Star Wars_; this is a feature, not a bug; additional damage sources (such as Sneak Attack) tend to be rare or expensive (in metagame terms, at the very least), and threat ranges are much smaller than in standard D&D because of this fact.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Feb 13, 2004)

This is how I intend to handle sneak attacks: (With a 5th level Rogue for example.)

On a regular sneak attack, the damage is weapon damage + 3d6. One point of damage per die of extra sneak attack damage (in this case 3 pts) is applied directly to Wound points, the rest goes to Vitality.

On a critical sneak attack, the weapon damage is applied to Wound points as normal plus an additional one point of damage per die of extra sneak attack damage (in this case 3 pts). The remaining bonus sneak attack damage (3d6-3) is applied to Vitality.

That's my plan unless playtesting determines in needs to be modified. If sneak attacks prove to have become to powerful, I will change the bonus damage dice from +1d6 to +1d4 and see how it plays out.


----------



## mangamuscle (Feb 13, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> No, you got it wrong.
> 
> If the rogue got a critical hit, then he would do 1d4(dagger)+10d6(Sneak Attack) directly to the target's WP.  This is the established rule, as this is how it works in _Spycraft_, _Stargate SG-1_ and _Star Wars_; this is a feature, not a bug; additional damage sources (such as Sneak Attack) tend to be rare or expensive (in metagame terms, at the very least), and threat ranges are much smaller than in standard D&D because of this fact.




 Here we are discussing D&D, specificaly the VP/WP rules in unearthead arcana. If you read the *behind the curtain* sidebar you will notice how the talk about reducing sneak attack damage to 1 hp/die and if you read the whole article you would notice that threat ranges are increased, not decreased. Therefore you got it wrong, we are discusing apples and you are talking about oranges.


----------



## Corinth (Feb 13, 2004)

mangamuscle said:
			
		

> Here we are discussing D&D, specificaly the VP/WP rules in unearthead arcana. If you read the *behind the curtain* sidebar you will notice how the talk about reducing sneak attack damage to 1 hp/die and if you read the whole article you would notice that threat ranges are increased, not decreased. Therefore you got it wrong, we are discusing apples and you are talking about oranges.



No, I did not.

First: The sidebar is a suggestion, not the default condition, so the full damage dice still applies by default.  

Second: My commentary regarding threat ranges compares standard D&D (i.e. using the usual HP rules, not VP/WP) to _Spycraft/Stargate SG-1/Star Wars_ (which use VP/WP) and how the latter three games alter the threat ranges of their weapons to cope with the deadliness of critical hits.  The UA article's take on this issue mirrors the aforementioned approach, with the most extreme range going only to the greatest damage multipliers.


----------



## mangamuscle (Feb 13, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> No, I did not.
> 
> First: The sidebar is a suggestion, not the default condition, so the full damage dice still applies by default.




 Everything inside Unearthed Arcana is a suggestion, nothing can be considered "default" -_-



> Second: My commentary regarding threat ranges compares standard D&D (i.e. using the usual HP rules, not VP/WP) to _Spycraft/Stargate SG-1/Star Wars_ (which use VP/WP) and how the latter three games alter the threat ranges of their weapons to cope with the deadliness of critical hits.  The UA article's take on this issue mirrors the aforementioned approach, with the most extreme range going only to the greatest damage multipliers.




 nonsense, you clearly stated _additional damage sources (such as Sneak Attack) tend to be rare or expensive (in metagame terms, at the very least), and threat ranges are much smaller than in standard D&D because of this fact._ so your comments do not help at all in D&D (where anyone can get a level in rogue and get the sneak attack ability). I came here to read about D&D, not SW, if you want to troll look for someone else.


----------



## mangamuscle (Feb 13, 2004)

double post


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 14, 2004)

*Knowledge is Power....*



			
				Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> It's nice. There's quite some good ideas in there, and although I'm tempted to include a lot in my campaigns I will try not to hit my players with too much at once.




Mr Wolfeye, again...I know that this has been said in advance, but your unselfish action prepare me to read this book with a open mind.

As I am reading...the Spells Points free up the Paladin and Rangers to cast whatever spells within their lists and current level at hand.

This is something old fron the past, but newly discovered again...to which I wanted the lesser casters to have.

My gracious humble Thanks to your preview.

Hey Morrus, can you make a UA symbol please.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Feb 14, 2004)

A UA tag would be a great idea... so "bump" for that.

I'm particularly taken by the rules for incantations, spell that can be cast by ritual without using spell slots (or even spellcasting ability) and using a series of skill checks to successfully perform. It's a familiar trope of the genre and I'm sure it will see some use in my games.


----------



## Buddha the DM (Feb 14, 2004)

What's the xp cost for taking a Bloodline level? I can't seem to find it in the text.


----------



## Perun (Feb 15, 2004)

If I might be so bold as to ask the fine gentlemen already in the posession of the book how the mechanic of paying XP in order to reduce the race LA works? 

AFAIK, every three character levels, you're allowed to pay a XP sum, which would then reduce his LA by one. Is there a specific formula that gives the amount of XP you've got to pay? Or do you simply pay you'r level's worth of XP?

If I were, for example, playing a genasi (or aasimar, or tiefling, or duergar, or whatever) character, and I managed to reach 3rd character level (ECL 4), and if I decide to buy my LA off, how much XP would I have to pay?

What if I were playing a drow (LA +2)?

Hope I'm not asking too much.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Feb 15, 2004)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> What's the xp cost for taking a Bloodline level? I can't seem to find it in the text.




It's there under the sub-heading, Bloodlines Levels, but it uses the most unusual mechanics and here is a possinly vain attempt to explain how it works.

You are required to take a phantom level of Bloodline Level before you reach a certain Character Level. I call this a phantom level because you don't gain thre benefits of a normal class: an extra hit die, improved BAB and saves, skill points etc....

What does change is that you can use these Bloodline Levels to boost any level-dependent effects of your existing classes so, if you're a Sor3/Clr3/Mnk3 with one "phantom" Bloodline Level your:

- Sor caster level is 4th (Sor3 + 1 Bloodline Level);
- Clr caster level is 4th (Clr3 + 1 Bloodline Level)l; and
- Stunning Fist ability save DC is calculated as if you were a Mnk4.

A character with a minor bloodline must take a phantom Bloodline Level at CL 12; intermediate strength bloodline requires two Bloodline Levels, one at CL 6 and one at CL 12; while a major bloodline requires three Bloodline Levels, at CL 3, CL 6 and CL 12.

If you don't take the Bloodline Level before (or at?) the character level required you lose the next batch of bloodline benefits and you suffer a 20% XP penalty until the Bloodline Level is taken.

If all of that doesn't make sense try pages 19-20 of UA instead.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 15, 2004)

Perun said:
			
		

> If I might be so bold as to ask the fine gentlemen already in the posession of the book how the mechanic of paying XP in order to reduce the race LA works?



It's like this:
After earning three times as much level as your LA, you can pay an amount of XP equal to your current (ECL-1) x1000, losing a level, to reduce your LA by 1. You must now earn enough additional level equal to your new LA x3 to become eligible for the next reduction to your LA by 1. This goes on until you have reduced your LA to 0. You must buy your LA reductions as soon as they become available.
Example: a drow (LA +2) gets his reductions at character level 6 (ECL 8 - cost 7000 XP) then again at character level 9 (ECL 10 - cost 9000 XP)


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Feb 15, 2004)

Huh.  So, a LA drop is no bargain, is it?  About the only thing it's good for is making sure that the character ends up at CL20 when they're ECL20, instead of (for instance) CL18 when they're ECL20...


----------



## Perun (Feb 15, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> It's like this:
> After earning three times as much level as your LA, you can pay an amount of XP equal to your current (ECL-1) x1000, losing a level, to reduce your LA by 1. You must now earn enough additional level equal to your new LA x3 to become eligible for the next reduction to your LA by 1. This goes on until you have reduced your LA to 0. You must buy your LA reductions as soon as they become available.
> Example: a drow (LA +2) gets his reductions at character level 6 (ECL 8 - cost 7000 XP) then again at character level 9 (ECL 10 - cost 9000 XP)




Lovely! 

I know a couple of people that are going to appreciate this rule. Thanks, Tarril.

Regards.


----------



## Nifelhein (Feb 15, 2004)

Well, being able to actually get the highest levels without needing to make use of epic level handbook might be something worthy indeed, even more for spellcasters who would be loosing too much by then.

It seems as a good rule that should see my gaming table, although I rarely start games above 1st leve, thus making a ECL race hard to get unless your character dies mid game...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 15, 2004)

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Well, being able to actually get the highest levels without needing to make use of epic level handbook might be something worthy indeed, even more for spellcasters who would be loosing too much by then.
> 
> It seems as a good rule that should see my gaming table, although I rarely start games above 1st leve, thus making a ECL race hard to get unless your character dies mid game...



 You could use Racial Levels to solve that.


----------



## Nifelhein (Feb 15, 2004)

Ys, I know... but I don't have Savage Species and my players don't go anywhere around rpg on the internet, as far as I know.

Anyway, that is a possibility and the latest one on WotC website has the Drow and many others possible character races.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 15, 2004)

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> Ys, I know... but I don't have Savage Species and my players don't go anywhere around rpg on the internet, as far as I know.
> 
> Anyway, that is a possibility and the latest one on WotC website has the Drow and many others possible character races.



 Exactly. I've got a PC wanting to play a Tiefling in a 1st level game I'm starting, so that's going to see some use.


----------



## Zappo (Feb 15, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Less Lethal Falls



Ok, this strikes me. _Less_ lethal falls? In D&D a high level warrior could fall from a freakin' airplane and _expect_ to walk away from it. Less lethal falls means that he can now fall from orbit? Maybe with a feat to resist being incinerated by attrition?


----------



## thalmin (Feb 15, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Ok, this strikes me. _Less_ lethal falls? In D&D a high level warrior could fall from a freakin' airplane and _expect_ to walk away from it. Less lethal falls means that he can now fall from orbit? Maybe with a feat to resist being incinerated by attrition?



This one is in the 3.5 DMG, page 303.


----------



## Buddha the DM (Feb 15, 2004)

Derulbaskul said:
			
		

> It's there under the sub-heading, Bloodlines Levels, but it uses the most unusual mechanics and here is a possinly vain attempt to explain how it works.
> 
> You are required to take a phantom level of Bloodline Level before you reach a certain Character Level. I call this a phantom level because you don't gain thre benefits of a normal class: an extra hit die, improved BAB and saves, skill points etc....
> 
> ...




Yes I know all of this from reading my copy of UA, but what is the XP cost paid? Is it treated like a regular level?


----------



## woodelf (Feb 15, 2004)

JPL said:
			
		

> Scholarly bard?  I'm all over that, too.  Someday before I die I'm going to play a sage as a PC...




One of the coolest characters in any of my games was my brother's tortle scribe/duelist.  So, not a pure sage-type, but he probably used the scribe abilities more than the duelist abilities.


----------



## jarandus (Feb 15, 2004)

*Unearthed Arcana Racial Paragon question*

I was wondering if someone can help me figure out _exactly_ what the gnome paragon Illusion aptitude works out if I am playing a 3rd level character that is a 1 gnome paragon/1 bard/1wizard (illusionist)

1 for all wizard spells but 2 for any illusion spells
1 for all bard spells but 2 for any illusion spells

is this correct or am I misunderstanding the mechanic?

Thanks


----------



## woodelf (Feb 15, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> (and anyone wonder why we might want *less* lethal falls? I'm surprised there isn't a more lethal falls variant!)




quick-n-easy more-lethal falls variant: use the AD&D1(&2?) falling rules: d6 per 10' fallen, cumulative.  I.e., 
10'     1d6
20'     +2d6 (=3d6 total)
30'     +3d6 (=6d6 total)
40'     +4d6 (=10d6 total)
etc.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Feb 15, 2004)

mangamuscle said:
			
		

> I came here to read about D&D, not SW, ... .




But you are in the General RPG Discussion forum.

The D&D forum is elsewhere.


Eric Anondson


----------



## woodelf (Feb 15, 2004)

Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> The Gold Dragon Bloodline as an example:
> Resistance to Fire 5
> Gold Dragon Affinity +2
> +1 to natural armor
> ...




[snipped out the non-relevant elements]

ok, mini-rant: is it *so* hard to establish a consistent convention for listing increasing benefits, especially in class/race/bloodline/whatever lists?  Could they *please* either list them cumulatively, *or* individually, and stick with that method for *everything*.  Individually would be preferable, since that's how benefits are listed in general (you don't list "+2 on Sense Motive checks, Alertness, Strength +1" as the benefits for the 3rd level of the bloodline, you just list "Strength +1", because the benefits are assumed to be cumulative, so they're listed individually).  How come Gold Dragon Affinity and Resistance to Fire are listed cumulatively (i.e., the total bonus at that level is given), while the natural armor bonus is listed individually (i.e., just the bonus given at that level)?  Now, in this particular case, what's intended is crystal-clear.  But there are other cases where it's not: aging modifiers to abilities, frex--you have to look at the complete list before it's clear whether they're listed cumulatively or individually.
[/rant]


----------



## woodelf (Feb 15, 2004)

Mordane76 said:
			
		

> From the list... it looks like there might be about 50% completely new topics, and about 50% topics that have seen print in other d20 sourcebooks at some time or another.  I'm still very interested in this book... but not as much as I was before I saw this list.




From having skimmed the book, and actually read several sections (several hp/ac variants, skill variants, and some magical alternatives), i'd actually characterize the book as, roughly:

1/3 variants that are already out there in a D20 System game, though perhaps with some modifications/revisions from the original
1/3 variants that are old hat in the non-D20 System world, and are many of the reasons people have historically left D&D for other games (some of the previous category also have appeared in non-D20 System games, too)
1/3 more-or-less-new stuff--though the conceptual antecedents of these elements have often been out there for a while

So, if you have a lot of D20 System books, and/or other RPG books, it's probably not gonna be as Cool and New for you.  If you're comfortable doing up your own houserules, even if they make fairly radical, low-level changes, you probably don't need this book in any case.  But if you either don't have the time, or the inclination, or the ability/knowledge to come up with radical rules overhauls, and keep them fun and balanced to the degree your group requires, this is a great book. It finally brings to D&D (and, in some cases, to the D20 System in general) a lot of the rules innovations of the last 20 years--potentially slaying the rest of the sacred cows and fully modernizing D&D.  At the cost of its D&D-ness, potentially.  

And if you want to use a large selection of the more-radical alternatives, i would wonder why you're playing D&D, and not just picking up Ars Magica, GURPS, Earthdawn, Riddle of Steel, or some other fantasy RPG?  I mean, if you were to use generic classes, recharge magic, specific injury, DR and damage conversion for armor, defense bonus, contacts, reputation, bell curve rolls, complex skill checks, craft points, and spontaneous metamagic, just how "D&D" would it still be?


----------



## woodelf (Feb 15, 2004)

There're a few things in this book that i wonder why they need to write them down:



			
				Tarril Wolfeye said:
			
		

> Feeling better. Now working down (page 1)
> gestalt characters - effectively taking two classes at once: just use all class features and the better of all variable features (for example Base Attack, Base Saves, # of skill points...)



With the helpful warning that characters will be much more powerful than their character level indicates, and CR ratings won't be accurate.  Do i really need someone to tell me i can make a character by taking the best/sum of two class levels at every character level, and that it'l radically change the balance?



> Bloodlines (take 2) - Ancestors available: Celestial, Demon, Devil, Doppelganger, Black Dragon, Blue Dragon, Brass Dragon, Bronze Dragon, Copper Dragon, Gold Dragon, Green Dragon, Red Dragon, Silver Dragon, White Dragon, Air Elemental, Earth Elemental, Fire Elemental, Water Elemental, Fey, Djinni, Efreeti, Janni, Cloud Giant, Fire Giant, Frost Giant, Hill Giant, Stone Giant, Storm Giant, Githyanki, Githzerai, Hag, Lycanthrope, Minotaur, Ogre, Slaad, Titan, Troll, Vampire, Yuan-ti.
> There are three bloodline strength - minor, intermediate, and major, giving 5, 10, or 20 special abilities.
> All of that uses up 13 pages.



Am i reading right that these are basically like the Heroic Paths of Midnight: an additional track of abilities gained with level, independent of your race/class?



> Bell Curve Rolls - 3d6 instead of 1d20 and what it entails.




I'm a little disappointed in this one. 3d6 is a really clumsy alternative to d20. It chops off the extremes of the roll, requires addition, and is very heavily centered.  mid20 [3d20, drop the lowest and highest] would've been a much better option to present/explore: no math, just comparison; not quite so heavily center-weighted; full range of results; and it'd work better with the luck domain.

And, heck, if you *want* to add up a bunch of dice for every roll, you should really do it right and roll 3d6+2dF--that'd give you a range from 1 to 20, with about the steepness of 3d6. 



> -Injury System: No hp, just 6 conditions: hit, disabled, dying, nonlethal hit, staggered, unconscious.



This plus recharge magic pretty much completes the job of porting Ars Magica to D&D that D&D3E started. [well, short of dropping classes, that is.  Though using the Expert/Warrior/Wizard base classes as presented in Unearthed Arcana would give a bit more of the companion/grog/magus feel.]


----------



## woodelf (Feb 15, 2004)

Twiggly the Gnome said:
			
		

> Nope, I like class names that are something that characer or it's allies might refer to it as, in game. A character refering to its self as a Anti-Paladin would, to me, smack of Austin Powers style camp. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's still silly.




any moreso than someone referring to themselves as "evil" (and meaning it)?


----------



## woodelf (Feb 15, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> I'm a little annoyed at the paladin prestige class. A DM who uses it is, in effect, removing a core class and forcing anyone who wants to play one to jump thorugh hoops just so they can have the special priviledge of playing...a core class.




Sort of like how D&D3[.5]E doesn't have an "acrobat" base class, instead forcing you to jump through hoops to play one?  Or a "skill monkey" base class?  There're any number of fantasy archetypes, and former D&D archetypes, that don't have base classes--the division between base class and prestige class is fairly arbitrary to begin with, and plenty of people think that there shouldn't be any such thing as 1st-level paladins--that it just shouldn't be a base class.


----------



## woodelf (Feb 15, 2004)

Azlan said:
			
		

> For example, I see there is an entry for "Armor as Damage Reduction" under Chapter 4: Adventuring. Now, I would _love_ to see a comprehensive, playtested, and balanced set of rules for armor damage reduction; especially so, with those rules being handed down from the game-designer gods of WotC (if only because those rules would reach a broader audience and be more generally accepted); but that alone would take an entire chapter if not more! Because, really, "armor as damage reduction" does not sync well with the D&D system, as is; which still, at its core -- even with the greatly improved 3.0/3.5 -- is totally built around the antiquidated and convoluted (if not nonsensical) "to hit" roll vs. AC concept.




Yeah, AC and hps are sufficiently intertwined that you really need to change both if you change one.  Luckily, there are variants for both in Unearthed Arcana, and you could easily grab a pair of variants that complement one another.


----------



## woodelf (Feb 15, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> Strangely enough, these are the variants I'm most intrigued by:
> 
> Hex Grid
> Number of times counting diagonal squares has made me wish D&D used a hex grid: Lots.




Yeah, i still don't understand the switch to squares.  Has an actual rationale/reason been put forth at any point, and i just missed it?


----------



## d4 (Feb 15, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> And if you want to use a large selection of the more-radical alternatives, i would wonder why you're playing D&D, and not just picking up Ars Magica, GURPS, Earthdawn, Riddle of Steel, or some other fantasy RPG?  I mean, if you were to use generic classes, recharge magic, specific injury, DR and damage conversion for armor, defense bonus, contacts, reputation, bell curve rolls, complex skill checks, craft points, and spontaneous metamagic, just how "D&D" would it still be?



well, speaking from personal opinion, i'd still rather play a heavily _Unearthed Arcana_-ed version of D&D 3.5 than Ars Magica, GURPS, or Earthdawn. (i don't have any prior experience with RoS, but from what i've heard i probably wouldn't like that system either.)


----------



## woodelf (Feb 15, 2004)

Omega Minus said:
			
		

> Each time an enemy attacks a PC, the player rolls a defense check (1d20+character's AC modifiers) against the opponent's attack score (11+enemy's attack bonus). Any time a player casts a spell or uses a special attack that forces the enemy to make a saving throw, he rolls a magic check (1d20+ spell level + ability modifier + other modifiers) against the enemy's fortidude/reflex/will score (11 + enemy's save modifier).






			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Man, I can't wait to get this book!




OK, color me confused: Omega Minus posts pretty much the entirety of a very simple rules variation (one that doesn't need much more than that to work out)--one that is found in the DMG, not Unearthed Arcana--and it makes you want to buy Unearthed Arcana?  What's the connection?


----------



## d4 (Feb 15, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> With the helpful warning that characters will be much more powerful than their character level indicates, and CR ratings won't be accurate.  Do i really need someone to tell me i can make a character by taking the best/sum of two class levels at every character level, and that it'l radically change the balance?



there's more than just a helpful warning, though. there's also guidelines for how to modify CRs, experience, and other factors to take into account the increased power of the gestalt characters. i don't expect everyone who wants to use the option to be able to wear the game designer hat themselves and come up with this stuff on their own.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Feb 15, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> OK, color me confused: Omega Minus posts pretty much the entirety of a very simple rules variation (one that doesn't need much more than that to work out)--one that is found in the DMG, not Unearthed Arcana--and it makes you want to buy Unearthed Arcana? What's the connection?



Beats me...  I've been using opposed rolls over static 10+ for nearly 3 years now (Defense, Spell DCs, and _most_ anything with a value 10 or higher).


----------



## Michael Tree (Feb 15, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> With the helpful warning that characters will be much more powerful than their character level indicates, and CR ratings won't be accurate.  Do i really need someone to tell me i can make a character by taking the best/sum of two class levels at every character level, and that it'l radically change the balance?
> 
> I'm a little disappointed in this one. 3d6 is a really clumsy alternative to d20. It chops off the extremes of the roll, requires addition, and is very heavily centered.



The gestalt character section is much more comprehensive than you give it credit for.  There's a good descripton of how to modify CRs to be more appropriate, and in-depth descriptions of the ways in which it radically changes the balance, including several that aren't apparent at first.

I agree about the 3d6 though.  If d20 has too much randomness, then 3d6 has way too little.  2d10 would work much better IMO.  It's a flatter curve, easier to add, and incorporates almost the entire range of a d20 roll.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Feb 15, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> any moreso than someone referring to themselves as "evil" (and meaning it)?





Not at all, I play alignment as a balance of actions, not a self descriptor. I'm not of the school that says it's alright for a Paladin to kill baby Orcs because they're Eeeevil.


----------



## Michael Tree (Feb 15, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Sort of like how D&D3[.5]E doesn't have an "acrobat" base class, instead forcing you to jump through hoops to play one?  Or a "skill monkey" base class?  There're any number of fantasy archetypes, and former D&D archetypes, that don't have base classes.



Ironically, with UA there essentially is an acrobat and skill-monkey base class.  A very simple Rogue variant, in which the sneak attack progression is replaced with the Fighter's bonus feat progression, fulfills both of these roles.


----------



## woodelf (Feb 15, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> there's more than just a helpful warning, though. there's also guidelines for how to modify CRs, experience, and other factors to take into account the increased power of the gestalt characters. i don't expect everyone who wants to use the option to be able to wear the game designer hat themselves and come up with this stuff on their own.




ah! I must've skimmed that section too quickly (or turned 2 pages at once, or something)--i didn't notice that it gave concrete advice on CRs, etc.


----------



## Silveras (Feb 15, 2004)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> Yes I know all of this from reading my copy of UA, but what is the XP cost paid? Is it treated like a regular level?




I don't have my copy yet, but from the description earlier, it sounds to me like there is no "XP cost". When you get to 12th (or 13th), you "take" a level in a phantom "Bloodline Class" that gives you +0 BAB, +0 Fort, +0 Ref, +0 Will, +0 hp, +0 Skill Points, and +1 Effective Level for level-based purposes. You are now a 12th (or 13th) level character with 11 (or 12) HD, BAB, skill points, etc., plus bloodline abilities.


----------



## Silveras (Feb 15, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Beats me...  I've been using opposed rolls over static 10+ for nearly 3 years now (Defense, Spell DCs, and _most_ anything with a value 10 or higher).




But that's not quite what this is. 

"Players Roll All the Dice". The DM does not make an attack roll. Instead of the monster rolling 1d20+bonus+adjustments and checking against the character's AC (10+bonses+adjustments)... instead the monster is assumed to roll 12+bonuses+adjustments and the PLAYER rolls "AC": 1d20+AC Bonuses+Adjustments.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Feb 15, 2004)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> Yes I know all of this from reading my copy of UA, but what is the XP cost paid? Is it treated like a regular level?




Of course. You're taking a level in a "virtual" class therefore you pay the normal XP costs.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Feb 15, 2004)

Renshai said:
			
		

> I picked my book up yesterday at my FLGS as they were unboxing it. So far I really like alot it. Some of the material seems like it will work VERY well with my Dawnforge Campaign
> 
> Ren




I've posted my thoughts on this topic over at the Paths of Legends boards. I hope you'll check it out and add your own comments.


----------



## buzz (Feb 15, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> OK, color me confused: Omega Minus posts pretty much the entirety of a very simple rules variation (one that doesn't need much more than that to work out)--one that is found in the DMG, not Unearthed Arcana--and it makes you want to buy Unearthed Arcana?  What's the connection?



Because it's *not* the same rule variant that you're citing from the DMG? (UA: "Players roll all the dice" != DMG: "Defense roll".) Because it was yet another idea I thought was cool, not the *only* idea?

Is my being enthusiastic not okay with you?


----------



## buzz (Feb 16, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Yeah, i still don't understand the switch to squares.  Has an actual rationale/reason been put forth at any point, and i just missed it?



When did D&D ever use hexes before? All I remember was the little flanking diagram from 1e, but maps were always in squares.


----------



## woodelf (Feb 16, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> Beats me... I've been using opposed rolls over static 10+ for nearly 3 years now (Defense, Spell DCs, and most anything with a value 10 or higher).





			
				Silveras said:
			
		

> But that's not quite what this is.
> 
> "Players Roll All the Dice". The DM does not make an attack roll. Instead of the monster rolling 1d20+bonus+adjustments and checking against the character's AC (10+bonses+adjustments)... instead the monster is assumed to roll 12+bonuses+adjustments and the PLAYER rolls "AC": 1d20+AC Bonuses+Adjustments.




Yeah, i didn't catch that at first--Bendris is describing something that increases the die rolling, and symetricalizes the system (both sides always roll).  I'm talking about, and the poster raving about Unearthed Arcana was responding to, something that eliminates GM die-rolling, and makes the system deliberately asymetrical.


----------



## woodelf (Feb 16, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> well, speaking from personal opinion, i'd still rather play a heavily _Unearthed Arcana_-ed version of D&D 3.5 than Ars Magica, GURPS, or Earthdawn. (i don't have any prior experience with RoS, but from what i've heard i probably wouldn't like that system either.)




Even if you've altered it sufficiently that it's closer to one of the latter than to D&D?  Seriously, using a significant portion of the rules in Unearthed Arcana could actually end up with a game that is closer to "Earthdawn with a d20" or "GURPS with classes" than to D&D3[.5]E.  I mean, does it really matter any more that it's nominally the same system at that point, if you've changed [almost] everything?


----------



## woodelf (Feb 16, 2004)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> Ironically, with UA there essentially is an acrobat and skill-monkey base class.  A very simple Rogue variant, in which the sneak attack progression is replaced with the Fighter's bonus feat progression, fulfills both of these roles.




Cool!  'course, i've already got the Akashic, as well as some homebrew stuff, and i'm not likely to be playing a D20 System game any time soon, so it's mostly a moot point for me personally.  But i gotta say i've been pleasantly surprised by Unearthed Arcana.  It's got some really great stuff in it, even if i think it's also got some pretty silly/obvious stuff in it.  If i were running a D20 System fantasy game, it'd be the only WotC book i've seen so far that i'd buy.


----------



## woodelf (Feb 16, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> Because it's *not* the same rule variant that you're citing from the DMG? (UA: "Players roll all the dice" != DMG: "Defense roll".) Because it was yet another idea I thought was cool, not the *only* idea?
> 
> Is my being enthusiastic not okay with you?




It's perfectly ok--i said i was confused, not upset, disbelieving, incredulous, offended, or anything else negative.  I see now that i misread you--and misremembered the DMG (i could've sworn that in the same section that talked about defense rolls, it also talked about simply having the players do all the die rolling).

And i hoped that that one idea wasn't *the* reason you were interested--but it *was* the only one you quoted and enthused about, so i was questioning.  Sorry; didn't mean to upset you.


----------



## woodelf (Feb 16, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> When did D&D ever use hexes before? All I remember was the little flanking diagram from 1e, but maps were always in squares.




Officially, AD&D1 used squares (and 10s of feet) indoors, and hexes (and 10s of yards) outdoors.  Outdoor maps were usually, but not always, overlaid with a hex grid, while dungeon maps were always with a square grid.  Most people i know used all squares for the home stuff, but only because hex graph paper was hard to find, and all of us that had battle mats (homemade or commercial) used hexes.

AD&D2 was on the fence, and the combat rules, at least, did everything in both hexes and squares (flanking/facing diagrams for both, missile scatter diagrams for both, etc.).  I don't think i bought any commercial adventures for AD&D2, and i don't remember seeing a grid of any sort on the campaign maps from boxed sets.


----------



## d4 (Feb 16, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Even if you've altered it sufficiently that it's closer to one of the latter than to D&D?  Seriously, using a significant portion of the rules in Unearthed Arcana could actually end up with a game that is closer to "Earthdawn with a d20" or "GURPS with classes" than to D&D3[.5]E.  I mean, does it really matter any more that it's nominally the same system at that point, if you've changed [almost] everything?



yes.

even if i were to use a heaping helping of variant rules from UA so that i ended up with something that was, as you put it, closer to "GURPS with classes" than core D&D, it would _still_ have elements of d20 that i like present and have elements of GURPS that i don't like absent.

the only _Unearthed Arcana_-like books for GURPS are the two Compendia, which however do not move GURPS in the direction of the game i desire in the way that UA moves d20.

so it would still, for me, be better to play a UA-modified version of d20 than a Compendia-modified version of GURPS.

(as far as i know, the other systems you quoted don't even have books of alternate rules, so they are even less useful to me.)

the next obvious question would be why don't i just make up my own system or modify the rules myself? while i love working on settings and other worldbuilding details, i hate creating rules. i like worldbuilding, but i don't like game design. so i prefer to leave that in the hands of the professionals.


----------



## Tarril Wolfeye (Feb 16, 2004)

Buddha the DM said:
			
		

> Yes I know all of this from reading my copy of UA, but what is the XP cost paid? Is it treated like a regular level?



Yes


----------



## Shazman (Feb 16, 2004)

Could you please give out some deatails on the wilderness rogue variant?


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Feb 16, 2004)

Wilderness Rogue
Class Skills:  Remove the following; Appriase, Diplomacy, Decipher Script, Forgery and Gather Information.  Add the following:  Handle animal, Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (nature), Ride, Survival

Special Abilities:  Add Woodland Stride (as the 7th level ranger ability), camouflage (as the 13th-level ranger ability) and hide in plain sight (as the 17th level ranger ability) to the list of special abilities that can be chosen by the wilderness rogue

That's it for the Wilderness Rogue.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 16, 2004)

Thanks.  Sounds pretty good.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Feb 16, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> the only _Unearthed Arcana_-like books for GURPS are the two Compendia, which however do not move GURPS in the direction of the game i desire in the way that UA moves d20.




Actually, the Compendia are hardly UA-like. CI is more like an enormous splat book made so SJG didn't need to keep reprinting the Secret disadvantage. CII is a little more UA-like, but there was nothing that actually changed the game. FWIW, GURPS CI is the second-most battered RPG book I own, second only to the Basic Set, of which I have had three printings and am considering tanking my softcover one even more so I can have an excuse for my wife when I buy a hardcover one.   

Oh, on topic ... UA is the best non-big three WotC book. Which, when you consider most of the non-big three WotC books, isn't all that impressive, but it is nice. The black cover is a welcome surprise. Makes it look way badass.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Feb 16, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Even if you've altered it sufficiently that it's closer to one of the latter than to D&D?  Seriously, using a significant portion of the rules in Unearthed Arcana could actually end up with a game that is closer to "Earthdawn with a d20" or "GURPS with classes" than to D&D3[.5]E.  I mean, does it really matter any more that it's nominally the same system at that point, if you've changed [almost] everything?




At least if you go from the D&D side, the work has already been done for you.

Earthdawn is a great world setting, but the rules are not too great and in some spots just plain impossible to use. It's much easier to address that starting from D&D than from earthdawn.


----------



## d4 (Feb 17, 2004)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> Actually, the Compendia are hardly UA-like. CI is more like an enormous splat book made so SJG didn't need to keep reprinting the Secret disadvantage. CII is a little more UA-like, but there was nothing that actually changed the game.



well, you're right. i stopped playing GURPS when 3e came out in 2000, so i haven't actually looked at those books in almost 4 years now. from memory, they seemed like books of options, but as you say, the options they presented weren't the same kinds of options that UA presents.



> _Oh, on topic ... UA is the best non-big three WotC book. Which, when you consider most of the non-big three WotC books, isn't all that impressive, but it is nice. The black cover is a welcome surprise. Makes it look way badass._



i whole-heartedly agree.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Feb 17, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Yeah, i didn't catch that at first--Bendris is describing something that increases the die rolling, and symetricalizes the system (both sides always roll).



The perils of posting while on Kid Duty...

As is, though, you indicated the rule as being in the DMG.  The rule described above doesn't sound like anything I've seen in the DMG.  I have seen (and use) the Opposed Rolls in the DMG.  Is it in the 3.5 DMG and not 3.0?


----------



## ArcOfCorinth (Feb 17, 2004)

What's the spell progression for the generic Spellcaster class? Also, is there any way for the generic Expert to get sneak attacks?

What are the preresquites for the Ranger PrC?


----------



## woodelf (Feb 17, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> yes.
> 
> even if i were to use a heaping helping of variant rules from UA so that i ended up with something that was, as you put it, closer to "GURPS with classes" than core D&D, it would _still_ have elements of d20 that i like present and have elements of GURPS that i don't like absent.
> 
> ...




Well, the question i'm trying to get at is, if there *were* a game that was already what you wanted [had all the bits of D&D3E you like, none of those you didn't, and all those changes you'd incorporate if you got to run the show], would you still prefer to modify D20 System to match that vision (even assuming it was as easy as picking which options out of a published rulebook you'd use), rather than switch and play that other game?  [there is, of course, no "right" or "wrong" answer here--i'm just curious.] IOW, it's not about modifying vs. not-modifying, it's about modifying the familiar vs. ready-made-but-unfamiliar.



> the next obvious question would be why don't i just make up my own system or modify the rules myself? while i love working on settings and other worldbuilding details, i hate creating rules. i like worldbuilding, but i don't like game design. so i prefer to leave that in the hands of the professionals.




Well, i asked not to question the veracity/honesty/tenability of your claim, just to better understand your position. One of my homebrews, frex, grew out of AD&D houserules.  I kept making one change, and then another, and so on. At one point, i had something that was about equal parts AD&D2 and Ars Magica, and as i was contemplating another change, i realized that the changes i was making wouldn't be satisfactory until it was no longer recognizably "D&D".  The end result was basically Ars Magica with the magic based around the D&D spelllists, rather than a pseudo-Medieval paradigm.  This is not to say that the same would be true for you.  Just that, it seems to me that if the end result you want is, say, 90% like game A, and 10% like game B, starting with game A would make more sense than starting with game B.  The relevance of this semi-obvious statement is that, with the options presented in Unearthed Arcana, i suspect i could alter D&D (game "B", in this case) until the above was true, for several different game "A"s out there, but i'm not sure i see the point--that is, if it really ended up like that, why not just pick up game "A" and play it?

And i'm not sure there's a definitive answer, in either direction.  

Oh, and i fully support the "i don't wanna write a game, i wanna play a game position".  That's prefectly sensible and understandable, IMHO.  I wasn't even planning to go there. [In fact, i'd say it's a doubly-tenable argument in the case of D&D3E: if what you like are fairly complex, high-crunch games, the effort to create them is pretty significant, even if only in bulk of rules needed.  It makes much more sense for someone who wants a Window-like RPG to just roll their own than someone who wants a D20-System-like one.]


----------



## woodelf (Feb 17, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> The perils of posting while on Kid Duty...
> 
> As is, though, you indicated the rule as being in the DMG.  The rule described above doesn't sound like anything I've seen in the DMG.  I have seen (and use) the Opposed Rolls in the DMG.  Is it in the 3.5 DMG and not 3.0?




Wouldn't know.  Haven't read the 3.5 DMG.  And it's been a while since i last read the 3.0 DMG. As i said in another post, i may have been conflating two different things that are obviously connected to me, but only one of which (defense rolls) is actually in the DMG.  I thought the DMG extended that concept to giving all the rolls to players, but that may be just something that's come up online. And i don't have any D&D3[.5]E books to check for myself.


----------



## Particle_Man (Feb 17, 2004)

ArcOfCorinth said:
			
		

> What's the spell progression for the generic Spellcaster class? Also, is there any way for the generic Expert to get sneak attacks?
> 
> What are the preresquites for the Ranger PrC?




The spells known is exactly like sorceror. The spells castable per day is close to sorceror, but weaker. 0 levels start at 4, then 5,5, and 6 at 4th.  the 1st-7th levels start at 2 when the sorceror would start getting spells/day for that level, and go 2,3,4,5,5,6.  9th level is 2,3,4,5,6.  9th level is 2,3,5 (the only one not to get to 6).  Levels 0-8 all cap out at 6 per day max.  But hey, you get bonus feats, and not restricted to the wizard feat list.

All generics can take Sneak Attack for 2d6 as a feat if they have 4 ranks in Hide and Move Silently.  There are two better versions(+3d6 doe 5d6 total, and +4d6 for 9d6 total), that require correspondinly higher skill ranks in the two skills.(11, then 18)

For what it is worth, the class abilities as feats include: evasion (and improved evasion), familiar, favored enemy, 3 levels of sneak attack, smite evil, turn undead, trap sense (which includes trapfinding within the same feat too), uncanny dodge (includes improved uncanny dodge within the same feat too), and wild empathy. For the rest, you have to make them up yourself.

Ranger Prc needs: Endurance, Track, and eithe rRapid Shot or TWF.  Can cast calm animals as a divine spell.  Bab+4, Knowledge nature 2 ranks, survival 4 ranks.


----------



## ArcOfCorinth (Feb 17, 2004)

Thanks!


----------



## Fingers Boggis (Feb 17, 2004)

is it me or aree these generic classes starting to look better and better as we find out more

Fingers


----------



## d4 (Feb 17, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Well, the question i'm trying to get at is, if there *were* a game that was already what you wanted [had all the bits of D&D3E you like, none of those you didn't, and all those changes you'd incorporate if you got to run the show], would you still prefer to modify D20 System to match that vision (even assuming it was as easy as picking which options out of a published rulebook you'd use), rather than switch and play that other game?



well, correct -- if there _were_ a system like that, that's what i would want to play. currently, however, the system i want is d20 (or a modified version of d20).



> _Just that, it seems to me that if the end result you want is, say, 90% like game A, and 10% like game B, starting with game A would make more sense than starting with game B.  The relevance of this semi-obvious statement is that, with the options presented in Unearthed Arcana, i suspect i could alter D&D (game "B", in this case) until the above was true, for several different game "A"s out there, but i'm not sure i see the point--that is, if it really ended up like that, why not just pick up game "A" and play it?_



well, theoretically speaking, it could be because the 10% of game A you are missing by doing it this way is the 10% you dislike the most, and by starting from game A, it may also be the 10% that's hardest to get rid of.

i don't know -- this is all theoretical supposition.

another factor could be that old Ryan Dancey chestnut "network externalities." i'm sure i could use UA to make d20 into nearly a GURPS clone -- and _still_ be able to get more people interested in playing it than in playing GURPS. _that_ has nothing to do with the quality or content of the rules and all to do with people's attitudes and reactions to different name brands.



> _It makes much more sense for someone who wants a Window-like RPG to just roll their own than someone who wants a D20-System-like one._



that's a very good point.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 17, 2004)

The generic classes do sound pretty good.  They allow more customization of PC's than ever.  Do the generic classes get more feats like a fighter.  It seems like they would have to if you were trying to build the core class PC's from generic classes.  This may have been addressed earlier, but I don't feel like reading through pages of posts to find it.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Feb 18, 2004)

Fingers Boggis said:
			
		

> is it me or aree these generic classes starting to look better and better as we find out more




Indeed, I tried something like this back in 2e, but it came off as clumsy.

Five things I'm very keen on implementing are Generic Classes, Backgrounds, Character Traits, Weapon Groups and the three Prestige classes (Bard, Paladin, and Ranger).  I might try to implement a Prestige Paladin of Freedom as well, using the Prestige Paladin as a framework example.


Regards,
Eric Anondson


----------



## Particle_Man (Feb 18, 2004)

Shazman said:
			
		

> The generic classes do sound pretty good.  They allow more customization of PC's than ever.  Do the generic classes get more feats like a fighter.  It seems like they would have to if you were trying to build the core class PC's from generic classes.  This may have been addressed earlier, but I don't feel like reading through pages of posts to find it.




Warrior - gains feats as fighter, but not restricted to fighter list.
Spellcaster - gains feats as wizard, but not restricted to wizard list.
Expert - gains feats at 1,2,4,8,12,16,20.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Feb 18, 2004)

Can someone post about the Weapon Groups?


----------



## d4 (Feb 18, 2004)

Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> Can someone post about the Weapon Groups?



basically breaks down weapons into different groups of similar weapons: Axes, Picks and Hammers, Heavy Blades, Bows, etc.

different classes get different free weapon groups proficiencies: Fighters get Basic Weapons plus a choice of any four, Sorcerers get Basic Weapons and a choice of either Crossbows or Spears. and so on.

there's a separate (single) feat for Exotic Weapons: if you have the Exotic Weapons feat, you are proficient with all the exotic weapons that fall under the _other_ proficiencies you already have. for example, you already have Crossbows and Flails & Chains as two weapon group proficiencies. if you pick up the Exotic Weapons feat, you can now also use hand crossbows (an exotic crossbow) and spiked chains (an exotic flail / chain).

and there's yet another feat for exotic double weapons.

i like the system. more detail than core D&D's basic / martial / exotic structure, while not going as far as previous editions in which you chose single weapons.

one cool thing that's mentioned is altering the groups for different cultures and races -- for example, having a "Drow Weapons" or "Orc Weapons" group, or for bringing in weapons from Oriental Adventures (perhaps a "Rokugani Weapons" group). so that weapons that are common to one culture might be exotic to another and vice versa. it seems it would be easier to implement this notion with Weapon Groups than with the core D&D mechanic.


----------



## Douane (Feb 18, 2004)

I think I've read somewhere that UA has a rule for a variant rogue who exchanges his sneak attack dice for feats.

If there is such a variant, could someone please give some more details on the exact mechanics, please? (If possible, also the list of feats to choose from.)


Thanks!

Folkert


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2004)

Almost the entire text:

Give up sneak attack, get fighter feats every two levels.


----------



## Nifelhein (Feb 18, 2004)

And so they have finnaly said that the Fighter is behind a rogue... always!


----------



## Douane (Feb 18, 2004)

Thanks, KM! (Incredibly fast service 'round here!  )


As to the option: EEK!!! Isn't that rextremely powerful? (I had imagined something like that from what I read but had hoped for less feats.)

Thanks again!

Folkert


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2004)

Bloody slow boards and a double post!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2004)

Not so much. Sneak Attack is a bit more potent than a feat should usually give, and you get that every 3 levels....switching it for a feat every two doesn't hurt, especially when you won't be able to make optimal use of many of them (rogues don't wield big weapons or get in melee for long).


----------



## woodelf (Feb 18, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> basically breaks down weapons into different groups of similar weapons: Axes, Picks and Hammers, Heavy Blades, Bows, etc.
> [snip]
> i like the system. more detail than core D&D's basic / martial / exotic structure, while not going as far as previous editions in which you chose single weapons.




IOW, pretty much exactly like the system in the Complete Fighter's Handbook (AD&D2)--just pointing out that it *has* been done before.  And i, too, think it's better than both single weapons and the very broad groups of D&D3E core.  I'm glad to see it in the new system.


----------



## d4 (Feb 18, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> IOW, pretty much exactly like the system in the Complete Fighter's Handbook (AD&D2)--just pointing out that it *has* been done before.  And i, too, think it's better than both single weapons and the very broad groups of D&D3E core.  I'm glad to see it in the new system.



i never played 2e, but it reminds me of the weapon skills in GURPS.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Feb 18, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> i never played 2e, but it reminds me of the weapon skills in GURPS.




Weapon skills in GURPS are much more specific than the UA groups. (Then again, GURPS weapons are a bit more specific in effects than D&D weapons.) UA *does* resemble the Complete Fighter's Handbook's broad groups. Personally, while I like the system in UA, I'm not sure how folks who are used to fighters having every weapon out there except the weird ones would take it. I know I'm not using it in my current game partly for that reason.


----------



## d4 (Feb 19, 2004)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> Weapon skills in GURPS are much more specific than the UA groups.



Axe/Mace, Bow, Broadsword (which also includes clubs), Fencing, Polearm, Spear, etc. -- GURPS doesn't seem "much more" specific than UA. in fact, in some categories, UA is the one that has more specifics -- c.f. GURPS' Axe/Mace skill, which in the UA system is two different proficiencies.

the only real difference is that "exotic" weapons tend to be their own skills in GURPS whereas in UA they are lumped in with the other categories.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Feb 20, 2004)

Dang, resurrected from page 4...

My copy of UA is pending from Amazon (ordered an item that went from "ship within 24 hours, at a 30% discount" to "ship within 2-3 weeks, at no discount," but luckily, I kept the discount...).

So I'm going to keep asking...

Looking through my copy of _Torn Asunder_ (Bastion Press, I believe... the publishers of _Into the Green_, the item in my order that is holding up my order  ), and I'm wondering about the six-step damage system.

How are healing spells handled?  Do you get penalties as you get more damaged?  Anything pop out about the system that you think people would like to read about?


----------



## Marshall (Feb 20, 2004)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> UA *does* resemble the Complete Fighter's Handbook's broad groups. Personally, while I like the system in UA, I'm not sure how folks who are used to fighters having every weapon out there except the weird ones would take it. I know I'm not using it in my current game partly for that reason.




Actually its closer to the 2eCW "Tight Groups"

In fact, the groupings are so narrow as to be almost useless, IMO


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Feb 22, 2004)

Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> Looking through my copy of _Torn Asunder_, and I'm wondering about the six-step damage system.
> 
> How are healing spells handled? Do you get penalties as you get more damaged? Anything pop out about the system that you think people would like to read about?



Bumped to get answers...


----------



## Silveras (Feb 23, 2004)

Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> Dang, resurrected from page 4...
> 
> My copy of UA is pending from Amazon (ordered an item that went from "ship within 24 hours, at a 30% discount" to "ship within 2-3 weeks, at no discount," but luckily, I kept the discount...).
> 
> ...




Healing spells heal 1 non-lethal and 1 lethal "hit" per 5 points of healing. 

Getting "hits" is based on making Fort saving throws. The more damage in the successful attack, the more difficult the save. Also, as you accumulate "hits", you have penalties to the save. Once you start getting hurt, it becomes easier to continue. 
Resting overnight restores 1 hit per 2 character levels; 1 per level if you get 24 hours bed rest.


----------



## Psion (Feb 23, 2004)

Fingers Boggis said:
			
		

> is it me or aree these generic classes starting to look better and better as we find out more




It's you. 

To each their own, but as for me, I think that having a bit stronger built in archetype is part of the point of classes. If I wanted something more generic than D&D, I'd play Fantasy Hero.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Feb 24, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> It's you.
> 
> To each their own, but as for me, I think that having a bit stronger built in archetype is part of the point of classes. If I wanted something more generic than D&D, I'd play Fantasy Hero.




 I've been thinking about using the Gestalt rules as a means of fine-tuning your archetypes-- for instance, instead of having a special class for Samurai or Knights, have them take levels of Fighter/Aristocrat. You could do the same for Paladins-- most of whom would have Aristocrat levels as well.

 You could follow this out for a lot of complicated concepts. Most Ninja PrCs and just about every Ninja base class I've seen were really just Monk/Rogue hybrids. One of my friends used to always play Paramanders in 2e-- it's a simple stretch to make them a Paladin/Sorceror.

 It surprises me. I was expecting them to just be munchkin fodder.


----------



## Squire James (Feb 24, 2004)

Heretic Apostate said:
			
		

> Huh.  So, a LA drop is no bargain, is it?  About the only thing it's good for is making sure that the character ends up at CL20 when they're ECL20, instead of (for instance) CL18 when they're ECL20...




You are a drow (LA +2).  At 6th level (ECL 8, 28k xp), you pay 7k xp, leaving you at 21k xp and LA +1.  You just fell to ECL 7, but you still have 6 class levels.  At 9th level (ECL 10, 45k xp), you pay 9k xp, leaving you at 36k and no LA.  You are now an ECL 9 character with 9 character levels, much like a human (who are probably level 10 guys halfway to 11 by now).  Note that you never really "lose a level" here:  you lag 2 levels behind the party until level 6, then 1 level behind until level 9.

From level 10 onward, you are in pretty good shape.  You still have all your racial abilities, and you aren't going on those inflated XP scales anymore.  If the DM awards XP by individual levels rather than average party level, you should catch up somewhat as play progresses.


----------



## drnuncheon (Feb 29, 2004)

arcady said:
			
		

> Having rules for handling contacts is great, but getting them should be part of the roleplay, not just an arbitrary benefit of killing Orcs...




Considering that they are defined at the time of use, I don't think these are supposed to replace contacts that you gain from roleplaying.  Rather, they are to represent people that you happen to have met in your 'offstage time' - between adventures, before the campaign started, etc.

They're the equivalent of Indiana Jones heading to Egypt and just happening to know the best digger in Cairo.

J


----------

