# Unearthed Arcana = D&D Viagra!



## Shadowdancer (Feb 24, 2004)

I got my copy of Unearthed Arcana last Thursday and spent the weekend reading much of it -- it helped that ENWorld was down.  

This product has reignited my passion for D&D. It is so full of good ideas, or at least ideas that spark the imagination. I want to scrap our current campaign and start all over with something new, incorporating some of the ideas in this book.

I haven't been this excited about a D&D product since "Shelzar."


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 24, 2004)

While I share some of your enthusiasm, I didn't think D&D was "limp" to start with.  

It is a solid book, tho.  The options presented will certainly make their way into a few of my games.


----------



## bubbalin (Feb 24, 2004)

just a quick question, but how many pages in this book?


----------



## Beale Knight (Feb 24, 2004)

bubbalin said:
			
		

> just a quick question, but how many pages in this book?



 222, counting the ToC and Index.


----------



## KenM (Feb 24, 2004)

Its a good book. But the ideas in it are far from orginal. I can see where they took stuff from other RPG's.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Arcana Unearthed* was Viagra for D&D. Unearthed Arcana is just Prozac for D&D.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 24, 2004)

It is a good book but it contains nothing that you could not find somewhere else and "the food of the gods" that everyone has been wanting for a long time.  

I like the book, WotC has been putting some good solid books out.


----------



## Chronosome (Feb 24, 2004)

I'm glad to hear it's lived up to the hype.  
I've flipped through it and, ooooooo, me wantee.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 24, 2004)

As  far as my campaign is concerned, I'd say Arcana Unearthed is a shot of adrenaline pumped directly into the heart of my D&D game.

I've had more campaign ideas in the past week than I have had in the past six months. Some _better _than I'd had in _years_.



> Its a good book. But the ideas in it are far from orginal. I can see where they took stuff from other RPG's.



Yeah, but keep in mind that many folks (like myself and my group) don't have a lot of experience with the gamut of d20/OGL games. For us, Unearthed Arcana opens up avenues and possibilities we've never even considered.

Manna, baby.


----------



## Beard in the Sky (Feb 24, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Its a good book. But the ideas in it are far from orginal. I can see where they took stuff from other RPG's.




I have noticed too that the words "dungeons and dragons" appear in previous sources. Plus, all those numbers on the dice, I've seen them elsewhere too.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2004)

Chronosome said:
			
		

> I'm glad to hear it's lived up to the hype.
> I've flipped through it and, ooooooo, me wantee.



I'm not sure how well it lives up to the hype.  Although I like a lot of stuff here and there in it, there's a lot of stuff I don't like.  It really bounces around a lot.  And, a lot of the stuff I do really like I've already seen, often in other WotC d20 games (Cthulhu, Star Wars, Modern and WoT).  Now that the honeymoon's over, so to speak, I'm thinking that the book wasn't really all that it's cracked up to be.

Still, it has some nice ideas in it, though.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 24, 2004)

I disagree with Joshua. I've found lots of superb ideas and variants in it; even better, it reinvigorated my imagination. For me, it's a thumbs up.


----------



## KB9JMQ (Feb 24, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I disagree with Joshua. I've found lots of superb ideas and variants in it; even better, it reinvigorated my imagination. For me, it's a thumbs up.




Wouldn't that be "Pointy Hook" up ?


----------



## Gnarlo (Feb 24, 2004)

KB9JMQ said:
			
		

> Wouldn't that be "Pointy Hook" up ?



Which brings up back to Viagra again...

It's my favorite WOTC book in quite a while as well. Lots of goodness within to think about and examine how to and whether to fit into my campaign.

And I agree with what's been said before; yes, I'm sure a lot of it has appeared in other d20 products, but those of us who don't collect the gamut of d20 are happy to have it all in one place.


----------



## Psion (Feb 24, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how well it lives up to the hype.  Although I like a lot of stuff here and there in it, there's a lot of stuff I don't like.  It really bounces around a lot.  And, a lot of the stuff I do really like I've already seen, often in other WotC d20 games (Cthulhu, Star Wars, Modern and WoT).




I'll second that.

There are a lot of nice, workable mechanics in there. I think a lot of people stand to get a lot out of this book. So don't get me wrong when I say this, but...

...it seems to me that:
- there is a lot of rehashing of what has already been done (admittedly, where third party publishers have done it, it just gets it to a wider audience, which is good for said wider audience, not so good for many ENWorlders.)
- lots of rehashing BAD ideas (I just about clawed my eyes out when I saw the traits and flaws. See this post for more on why I am not impressed on them.)
- a few things that had me saying "huh - why would anyone use that?"
- lots of catering to little voices (which I guess is good if your particular nit got addressed, not so good otherwise.)

So yeah, lots of useful stuff, but I imagine lots of DMs will only be pulling out a small fraction of the stuff therein. i.e., I think it's good, but perhaps not as great as some have hyped it.


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 24, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I'll second that.
> 
> There are a lot of nice, workable mechanics in there. I think a lot of people stand to get a lot out of this book. So don't get me wrong when I say this, but...
> 
> ...




Three out of four of those points seem to miss the point of the book. It is stated up front that these are options and by definition most aren't going to use them all in a single sitting. I'm planning to run two seperate campaigns using different varients; the book works for those who like variety and move often from game to game. I suspect this is quite common given how short most campaigns actually are.

And many people who purchase this book aren't the type of hardcore enworlders with a lot of disposable income who purchase every d20 suppliment they can find; this is basically a better bang for the buck if you want options. 

I'm in agreement on the basic weaknesses of a traits and flaws system. Though most of the ones I've seen in UA are actually ok. The system you seem favor doesn't really do what UA traits do, i.e. tweak characters at a given level into a certain specialization, though i'll grant you its less prone to the 'freebie' syndrome.


----------



## Beard in the Sky (Feb 24, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It really bounces around a lot.




Isn't this what its supposed to do? We just sort of went through it and picked out what we could use, said other things would be great for when we run Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, or whatever. I rather liked the potpourri feel to the book.


----------



## Psion (Feb 24, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Three out of four of those points seem to miss the point of the book. It is stated up front that these are options and by definition most aren't going to use them all in a single sitting.




I don't think I said anything that contradicted that.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 24, 2004)

Yeah, UA is a great book IMO.

I read through it last night. 

No, I won't use everything in there - in fact, for PCs, I'll probably use extremely little.  But, for example, I love the "trait" ideas - these were new to me as presented - and they'll be useful to develop NPCs.  I also like how they cleaned up the concept of the flaw.  Rather than make the flaws useless, they explain that they must have an impact on the PC in game terms (not role-playing) to be acceptable to warrant a feat.  

From a quick read-through, I give it 5 stars.  I like having all the variants in one place.  

WotC has produced a gem, IMO.  

Now where's the Monster Manual III?


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 24, 2004)

I got the book this weekend and, while I was already happy with D&D, I thought this book was an excellent product. 

I don't want to use everything in the book. My current campaign is only going to be using a very small number of things actually. But it was interesting to see the various mechanics and ideas, and I like having access to a book filled with alternate rules just in case I need something later on.

I love that WotC did a product like this, and I hope to see more in the future. I don't want to see alternate rulebooks coming out every-other month, but I could stand a compilation like this every couple of years or so.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2004)

Beard in the Sky said:
			
		

> Isn't this what its supposed to do? We just sort of went through it and picked out what we could use, said other things would be great for when we run Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, or whatever. I rather liked the potpourri feel to the book.



I don't mind the potpourri feel of the book, and sure, you're not supposed to use everything in it at once (in fact, there's no way you could since some of it is self-contradictory, especially in regards to classes and such.)

What I'm saying is, that most of the ideas that I thought were good ideas are not new to d20, or even to WotC d20.  Here's a few examples:

I like the Class defense based bonus.  In fact, the classes seem broken without it, as they require the "patch" of an expected magic armor bonus to work otherwise.  But that's fixing a problem, not really introducing something new.  Not only that, Star Wars d20, d20 Modern and d20 Wheel of Time, all WotC books, already used this mechanic, and did it better in my opinion.  The UA version  has the same progression for each class, the only thing differing being the starting point.  The progressions are also much flatter than they are for Wheel of Time, say.
I like Would/Vitality points as a nice option.  Presented already in Star Wars d20, though -- or open content already via Spycraft.
I like the damage save idea, but it's cribbed from Mutants & Masterminds.
I like the Sanity mechanic, but it's cribbed from d20 Call of Cthulhu, which is already a WotC book as well.
Some of the other ideas were potentially good, but needed a little bit more attention given to them; bell curve dice rolling, at half a page, doesn't really address situations that could come up very well, IMO.  A lot of the damage and armor variants are half-hearted, have very little discussion around how to use them (especially in conjunction with each other) to the point that I have to still kitbash them together with house rules to make them work.
In short, UA sparked my imagination for some changes to the system, but when it came right down to it, the changes I'm looking at were already available in d20 format, and in many cases were better done the first time around.  And, to boot, I have to still work it in and figure out how it all works together, and if anything, it seems the point of this book was that I didn't have to do that.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I disagree with Joshua. I've found lots of superb ideas and variants in it; even better, it reinvigorated my imagination. For me, it's a thumbs up.



Well, I'm not sure you're really disagreeing with me, as I'm not saying that it doesn't do any of those things.  I'm not sure it lives up to the hype, though -- like I said, most of the really good ideas they had, they've already published under another gameline.


----------



## ddougan (Feb 24, 2004)

The Mirrorball Man said:
			
		

> *Arcana Unearthed* was Viagra for D&D. Unearthed Arcana is just Prozac for D&D.




heh, am I the only person that missed the point with Arcana Unearthed? I just dont see what is soooo good about it. Nothing jumps out from it like the options in UA.

I do love Unearthed Arcana though - as the original poster said, its really got me excited about things again (not that DnD 3e is plain, but I've recently been emphasising modern campaigns for a change of pace, now I'm really looking forward to some variant rules in the new DnD scenario I'm starting this weekend)


----------



## Psion (Feb 24, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I like Would/Vitality points as a nice option. Presented already in Star Wars d20, though -- or open content already via Spycraft




Actually, it wasn't open content in Spycraft. It was a closed, used with permission sort of thing. Having it be open was one of the holy grails of this book.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 24, 2004)

if UA is Viagra...does that mean i'm gonna get a jillion and one spam ads sent to me....telling me how i can get my "campaign" to last longer and stay rigid longer.

or am i gonna get old fogeys like Bob Dole saying "Whoa, down boy." on the next GE Commercial.


----------



## Psion (Feb 24, 2004)

> heh, am I the only person that missed the point with Arcana Unearthed? I just dont see what is soooo good about it. Nothing jumps out from it like the options in UA.




Well, that might be in part because it was assembled as a game, not as a book of options. But there were several things people saw and liked in AU much in the same vein as UA:

- new class variants, including a new way of approaching spellcasters
- variant spellcasting system
- racial "classes" (essentially, what made it to UA as paragon classes. Funny how you don't see the appeal of AU, but the UA authors which you praise obviously did.  I was sort of surprised to not see AU in the OGL copyright credits.)


----------



## Henry (Feb 24, 2004)

ddougan said:
			
		

> heh, am I the only person that missed the point with Arcana Unearthed? I just dont see what is soooo good about it. Nothing jumps out from it like the options in UA.




Here's what I see in it: Race levels (added to UA also); a variant magic system, more variant than anything in UA, that is flexible but DOESN'T use power points; equipment that sparks my imagination, particularly articulated armors; Psionics that mesh with the magic seamlessly; total rearrangement of the classes into non-traditional roles.

All of it six months before UA saw publication.

I took a look at UA in a bookstore this weekend, but realize I have a third of the book already in other d20 products. I am grateful for it, and the fact it is OGL content, which means more d20 publishers will be using these variants, but for me I found NO rules in there for use in D&D that I either want to use, or that I'm not already using.

I am glad it's brought some very solid fruits of the OGL to other gamers that don't look at d20 products much. 

3.5 was not the shining example of the power of Open development; this book is.


----------



## Henry (Feb 24, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I was sort of surprised to not see AU in the OGL copyright credits.)




That's because they were taken almost directly from a document that Rich Redman, Monte Cook, and one other designer (Bruce C? Sean K?) had done after they had all read Monte's take on Race levels. I'm guessing that Monte, Rich, and the third designer gave WotC separate permission to use that document. Because it wasn't the literal game rules from AU, they probably didn't feel free to credit it.


----------



## ddougan (Feb 24, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Well, that might be in part because it was assembled as a game, not as a book of options. But there were several things people saw and liked in AU much in the same vein as UA:
> 
> - new class variants, including a new way of approaching spellcasters
> - variant spellcasting system
> - racial "classes" (essentially, what made it to UA as paragon classes. Funny how you don't see the appeal of AU, but the UA authors which you praise obviously did.  I was sort of surprised to not see AU in the OGL copyright credits.)




None of which really grabbed me, made me want to interrupt my Spycraft campaign and get back to DnD.

(UA did that ... luckily it arrived just before the current Spycraft mission ended, so its DnD + some variant rules starting this week 

I'm not saying AU is a bad book (lots of other people seem to love it), just that, having bought it and read it, there's nothing I want to take from it. 

Really, nothing... 

[Edit] It didn't even make me want to look into the Diamond Throne more as a Campaign Setting. I know it was sold as a dual-use book (Variant PHB + Diamond Throne PHB), but its failed on both those counts for me ... so I guess it *is* a bad book in my opinion - so no flames - if you are enjoying it, keep doing so !


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Actually, it wasn't open content in Spycraft. It was a closed, used with permission sort of thing. Having it be open was one of the holy grails of this book.



Ah, didn't realize that.  Then again, WP/VP was open content (under a slightly different name) under the old ENWorld magazine published two years or so ago.


----------



## Psion (Feb 24, 2004)

ddougan said:
			
		

> [Edit] It didn't even make me want to look into the Diamond Throne more as a Campaign Setting. I know it was sold as a dual-use book (Variant PHB + Diamond Throne PHB), but its failed on both those counts for me ... so I guess it *is* a bad book in my opinion - so no flames - if you are enjoying it, keep doing so !




So, does not necessarily wanting to use something make it bad? That's not the definition I would use (and if I did, the reviews page would look a bit different.. ;p )

Just because I don't want to drive a mustang doesn't make it a bad car.


----------



## ddougan (Feb 24, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> So, does not necessarily wanting to use something make it bad? That's not the definition I would use (and if I did, the reviews page would look a bit different.. ;p )
> 
> Just because I don't want to drive a mustang doesn't make it a bad car.




It means its bad for me  I bought the book, had no interest in using it as an alternative campaign setting, no interest in using it as a variant player handbook, no interest in lifting stuff out of it as variant rules in my campaign.

Basically I've not used the book. In my opinion it was a bad buy!

If you are using it and enjoying it, like I said in my previous message - don't stop


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 24, 2004)

I generally dislike house rules, but I'll eventually be using (or would be open to using):

Elemental racial variants
Reducing level adjustments
Bloodlines
Racial paragon classes
Variant character classes
Class feature variants
Complex skill checks
Massive damage threshhold variants
Legendary weapons
Item familiars
Taint

And there are another half-dozen ideas that wouldn't be appropriate for my current game, but which I could use in future campaigns. Yup; definitely worth it for me.


----------



## nikolai (Feb 24, 2004)

*Psion*, could you talk about your dislike of the traits and flaws system a little more?



			
				Psion's RPG.net alter-ego said:
			
		

> I'm not fond of them. As a disclaimer, I am not fond of most disad systems, but this system is in no way exemplary. Some of the flaws are okay; in most D&D games, a -6 initiative is going to hurt regardless of character types. That said, some strike me as having the same sorts of problems that many disad systems face. "Feeble" - why do we need this disad? Isn't having a low Stength and Constitution sufficient to describe this condition? "Inattentive" - this strikes me as having the same problem that most of the "traits" earlier in the same section have... penalties to skills in a party situation usually aren't penalties. You merely take penalties to skills that you are never going to be strong in anyways, and it's really a non-penalty, since the rest of the party will carry those skills.




From what I've seen and heard of the system they seem to have designed it so that the disadvantage will count, and that their effect is worse than the advantages. Things like these for the down-side of traits:


-1 penalty on Spot checks (or Spot and Listen checks),
-2 penalty on Dexterity-based skills,
-1 penalty to your Armor Class,

Or these for flaws:


-6 to Initative,
-3 to Will Saves

Don't seem that broken. I don't yet have the book, so I may well be missing something. But it seems to me things like spot, listen, and balance checks have specific effects on individual characters, and are hard to opt out of. Character can minimise their impact, but can't choose *not* to use them.

Oh, and what proportion of non-broken flaw/traits are there? This sort of system is very vulnerable to the weakest link in the chain, so could you fix it by crossing out those that don't work on a case-by-case basis? 

Sorry for the long post, traits/flaws are one of the big draws of UA for me.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 24, 2004)

I rather like the traits system. Psion's point is that a penalty to spot or search (or any "shared" skill that the whole party rolls) won't matter, because someone else can compensate for you. I don't see that as much of a problem in UA's traits system, though.

Flaws are trickier. It's difficult to balance two bonus feats with two penalties, and incorporating the flaws system could allow entrance into some prestige classes relatively early.


----------



## Psion (Feb 24, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> *Psion*, could you talk about your dislike of the traits and flaws system a little more?
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've seen and heard of the system they seem to have designed it so that the disadvantage will count, and that their effect is worse than the advantages. Things like these for the down-side of traits:




Erm... I thought I explained it pretty well in the linked post you quoted. I'm not sure exactly what to add. Let me try again.

Some of the penalties AREN'T very abusable. As stated, an initiative penalty is pretty telling for most characters the way the game is played.

That said, many of the penalties are weak and are not really a balancing detriment _despite the fact that they are larger in magnitude than the associated bonus_. 

Why is _minmaxing_. You are not going to take a penalty in a skill you are expecting your character to use a lot. Rather, you are going to take a penalty in a skill you will never use. That being the case, disadvantages become point-mines vice adding character flavor.

This approach has struck me as wonky ever since I first saw it in ars magica "anti-skills" or whatever they were, for this reason.

As also stated in the quoted link, I think the only way to really handle disadvantages viably that don't have direct and telling impacts on the game (like the initiative penalty flaw, or the way flaws work in Kult) is to reward the character on a per-incident basis, so the character is only rewarded if the flaw actually comes into play.

Or, another alternative is to simply allow the player to take whatever disads they want to actually play and not give any kickbacks (or, at best, roleplaying XP bonus). IME, making disads point mine only invites wonky characters that the player really isn't that keen on roleplaying.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> ...but when it came right down to it, the changes I'm looking at were already available in d20 format...




...and would cost you how much to collect on your own, when each hardcover book is in the $30+ range these days?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I rather like the traits system. Psion's point is that a penalty to spot or search (or any "shared" skill that the whole party rolls) won't matter, because someone else can compensate for you. I don't see that as much of a problem in UA's traits system, though.
> 
> Flaws are trickier. It's difficult to balance two bonus feats with two penalties, and incorporating the flaws system could allow entrance into some prestige classes relatively early.



I agree; I'm fine with the traits (there's another rule add-on that I like that I forgot) but I'm not real pleased with the flaws for the reasons cited above.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> ...and would cost you how much to collect on your own, when each hardcover book is in the $30+ range these days?



That's only an issue if I hadn't already had those books for several years, in some cases.    Sure, starting from scratch, UA is a better deal than picking up Star Wars so you can see how WP/VP works, and class based defense bonus, and CoC to see how Sanity works (to use two examples.)  But I've had both of those books since they were new.

Besides, my comment isn't that UA isn't a good book and worth owning, merely that I don't think it lives up to the hype.  Most of the better rules in it are not original to d20, and in many cases, they weren't exactly spelled out exactly how they should be used, especially in combination with other house rules.  To me, that seems like it should have been a pretty crucial step, and would have been worth it to pick up even if I literally had every rule already in the book in print from somewhere else.

As it is, I still have to do the same amount of work to kitbash in many of the optional rules.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Feb 24, 2004)

Wow, I see that the usual naysayers are panning the new material. Count me in as one who gives it an overall thumbs up! I turned a fairly critical eye to the book when I picked it up, thinking I MIGHT find some decent material in there but was pleasantly surprised. I dont think everything in it is great but most of it is worth the time to read through. I got some really good ideas from this and particularly like the new death's door system (sans the -10 hp rule) which will be implemented in my game asap.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Feb 24, 2004)

My own take on this is that I dislike flaws in general for several reasons.

The first is that I don't want to see parties that are full of disfunctional or maimed characters just so they can get bonusses ("I'm a one-legged, deaf, mute ranger who can only communicate in sign language but I have all the archery feats at first level"). After a while (actually, it doesn't take a while), parties full of chain smoking, drug-addicted, nearsighted, absentminded psychopaths get old.

My second reason for dislike is probably part of what Psion is talking about. In the d20 system, a lot of skill checks fall into the category of "Unless it's a maxed out class skill enhanced by magical items, you'll fail every time" by mid level. For example, at first level, even an 8 wis fighter could hear the rogue sneaking up on the party if he rolled well and the rogue rolled poorly. By eighth level, only a character with maxed spot and listen skills has a chance of detecting the rogue sneaking up on the party no matter how poorly the rogue rolls. Consequently, unless you are trying to max out spot and listen, the -1 penalty on spot and listen checks is meaningless past level four or so since you'll fail those checks with or without the penalty.

Similarly, a lot of non-melee oriented characters simply have to live with the fact that, by eighth level, unless they're facing someone who's not a threat to begin with, their foes will reliably hit them on anything but a roll of 1. So the -1 penalty to armor class is meaningless for such characters. -2 to dexterity based skills is similarly negatable.

-6 to initiative and -3 to will saves are in a different category since I can't think of any character who wouldn't actually suffer from them but, even there, -6 to initiative might not be a big deal to some characters for whom it would make the difference between occasionally going in the middle of the initiative order and always going at the end (such as a lot of clerics and paladins).



			
				nikolai said:
			
		

> *Psion*, could you talk about your dislike of the traits and flaws system a little more?
> 
> From what I've seen and heard of the system they seem to have designed it so that the disadvantage will count, and that their effect is worse than the advantages. Things like these for the down-side of traits:
> 
> ...


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 24, 2004)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Wow, I see that the usual naysayers are panning the new material.



    Since only Psion and I are "naysayers" relative to this book in this thread, and I'd hardly call either of us "the usual naysayers" I'm not sure what you mean.  Unless this is more generic, and you're just commenting that every new product has naysayers?

If so, I don't see how that's particularly useful; naturally every product will have varying level of appeal to different gamers.

And to clarify (again) I'm not at all saying that UA is a bad book; I'm quite please with my purchase of it.  However, I'm just saying that for better or worse, I expected more of it than I got.  I don't think what it brings to the table is really particularly new, innovative, or in many cases even well-done.  The signal to noise ratio of the alternate rules is somewhat poor, in other words.  There's some real gems in there, but you've got to dig them out of the dross.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Feb 24, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Since only Psion and I are "naysayers" relative to this book in this thread, and I'd hardly call either of us "the usual naysayers" I'm not sure what you mean.  Unless this is more generic, and you're just commenting that every new product has naysayers?
> 
> If so, I don't see how that's particularly useful; naturally every product will have varying level of appeal to different gamers.




Guilty conscience Joshua? I was referring to some reviews I had read around the web. My fault for being a little too nonspecific I suppose.

edit: spelling and removed needless jerkyness


----------



## Henry (Feb 24, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> The first is that I don't want to see parties that are full of disfunctional or maimed characters just so they can get bonusses ("I'm a one-legged, deaf, mute ranger who can only communicate in sign language but I have all the archery feats at first level"). After a while (actually, it doesn't take a while), parties full of chain smoking, drug-addicted, nearsighted, absentminded psychopaths get old.




Played GURPS before, I see?


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 24, 2004)

We EN-worlders generally know more about the availablility of these rules variants than others.

For those who also read the WotC boards, what's the general feeling over there regarding UA?  Good or bad?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 24, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> -6 to initiative and -3 to will saves are in a different category since I can't think of any character who wouldn't actually suffer from them but, even there, -6 to initiative might not be a big deal to some characters for whom it would make the difference between occasionally going in the middle of the initiative order and always going at the end (such as a lot of clerics and paladins).




Even these arn't too bad. As pointed out there are those who don't mind low initiative order or sometimes even benefit from it.  With the new 3.5 circular initiative system it doesn't impact anything much anymore other than breaking out of being flat-footed. Our combats have also run into the problem that with multiple attacks no one wants to move and attack first. As for -3 to will saves with multi-classing buffing up saves and the need for pre-req feats for PrCs in demand this can be an easy trade off.  No I agree that this is an inherently flawed system designed basicly to facilitate easier minmaxing.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Feb 24, 2004)

Damn, I thought I was the only one playing a one-legged, deaf, mute, sign-language-using ranger. 

There has been an interesting trend in WotC books lately: first we had the _Book of Exalted Deeds_, with its uber-feats and PrC's balanced by role-playing considerations. Now we have _Unearthed Arcana_, with its uber-feats balanced by flaws or disadvantages. Hmm. This must mean something. Or maybe I've just sniffed too much glue today.


----------



## Psion (Feb 24, 2004)

I know breakdaddy has clarified, but just to be perfectly clear, I think this is one of the two best books WotC has put out since 3.5e. That doesn't mean I think it's perfect.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 24, 2004)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Now we have _Unearthed Arcana_, with its uber-feats balanced by flaws or disadvantages. Hmm. This must mean something. Or maybe I've just sniffed too much glue today.




I'm not sure that's fair, Joshua. Not the glue-sniffing; I refer to claiming that UA "uber-feats" are balanced by flaws. Taking a flaw grants a bonus feat allowable in the game, not a feat from some special list. And which feats in UA seemed "uber" to you? On my read-through, they seemed remarkably well-balanced. I'm curious if I missed something or if you're generalizing.

No argument about the BoED feats, though. None at all.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Feb 24, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I know breakdaddy has clarified, but just to be perfectly clear, I think this is one of the two best books WotC has put out since 3.5e. That doesn't mean I think it's perfect.




Whats the other one? Complete Warrior? If so I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 24, 2004)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> first we had the _Book of Exalted Deeds_, with its uber-feats and PrC's balanced by role-playing considerations.



That's what it is!

I like a lot of the BoED, but something has been bugging me about it.  I think you just nailed the issue for me.

As far as UA goes, I like it.  A lot of the variants are really great.  This is actually the first time I've seen WP/VP presented in full, so I'm happy with that.  Having the Injury Saves right next to it is great, too, just for reference.  Incantations are nice, as are the variant specialist wizards.  I'm also dying to run a gestalt game sometime, just not right away.  There are enough good points in the book that I'd create a huge post listing all the ones I'm considering promoting to my group.

I consider the desert elf, jungle gnome, etc. section a bit out of place in this book.  I don't really think they suck, just that they aren't variant -- kinda like I would have been disappointed if there'd been a section of new PrCs somewhere.  Paragons were interesting, but will probably never get used.  The Paladin, etc. PrCs only convinced me of the fact that 15 is too many levels for a PrC.  The new Defense Bonus system was sad.  Didn't much care for either traits or flaws.  And I was disappointed that the spell point system went only far enough to be uncomfortable without a lot of gain -- hanging spell options is even more bizarre than hanging the actual spells (which is one of my gripes with Monte's AU system).

On the whole though, I don't think I've been happier about a 3/3.5 purchase besides the core books.


----------



## rounser (Feb 24, 2004)

I think it would be good if WotC realised they're on a roll - that gamers actually dearly love to tinker with their games - and reconsidered releasing Dancey's old idea, the D&D Game Design Handbook, which gives justifications and explains checks and balances for why the rules are the way they are, and guidelines on creating balanced variants.  I reckon it would help d20 publishers as well.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 25, 2004)

I bet I'm not alone in finding threads like these more useful than reviews. Because of this thread and others, I'm going to buy the book tomorrow. Actually, that will be later today. I've heard many well-articulated views and re-examined my own desire to stay as close to the core rules as possible while I've been learning this edition of the game. Well I've procrastinated long enough, almost.

The fact that this book collates a number of ideas from other sources is fine by me. I have a dozen issues of Dragon, some freely downloadable material but nothing that's in UA. In itself, that wouldn't be enough to persuade me to buy it. What has persuaded me is that even those who have expressed some reservations about the book give it qualified approval.

I can't wait to have an opnion on it now.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2004)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Whats the other one? Complete Warrior? If so I wholeheartedly agree.



I'd vote for Draconomicon, myself.  I also just picked up GR's Book of Fiends today, and so far, I think it's better than the lot of them, though.  We've got your Vile Darkness right here, indeed!


----------



## MerricB (Feb 25, 2004)

I haven't got the _Draconomicon_ yet, for it is one of those books that I'll only get when I have spare cash and nothing else catches my eye. Dragons just don't interest me much.

_Complete Warrior_, otoh, is one of the best books from WotC for my campaign in a long time. I was just rolling up a swashbuckler yesterday and being impressed by how different it was in feel from a fighter/rogue. 

_Unearthed Arcana_ will hopefully arrive in Ballarat next week - I'm very much looking forward to seeing it. Much like _CW_, I don't expect to use all of it in a campaign... but that different parts of it will see use in different games, and that it will be good. 

The bonuses in the _Book of Exalted Deeds_ being balanced by role-playing penalties was something I actually liked - it makes the mature label make sense! Acting in an exalted fashion is a role-playing penalty, no doubt about it - what bonus then do you receive for it?

The Traits and Flaws of UA seem interesting to me (the traits more than the flaws). Obviously, the DM should vet them carefully to see if the penalties are appropriate for his or her game. In my game, a penalty to Spot would be a nightmare, because I use Spot to determine if that PC is surprised in an encounter.

Cheers!


----------



## Foundry of Decay (Feb 25, 2004)

I'll certainly chime in and state that UA has been a big boon to me.

I wasn't too excited about it at first as well, but from reading about people's general outtake and review on the book, I proceeded to pick it up.

Reserve hit points alone helped immensely.  I have a group going through a homebrew AU (Not UA, Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed) campaign, and as anyone who uses that system knows, healing is at a premium, and there are NO clerics (Greenbond, yes, I'll admit).  The last characters they tried to go through the campaign would spend hours and days hanging around safe harbor healing up their wounds, and then would get trounced when they returned to the place they were exploring because the enemy had time to shore up its defenses.

Simply being able to actually get this group through a full story-arc in one night was like heaven.  I haven't completed a story arc in this campaign until now with all the need for rest going on.

I've also become pretty envigorated with ideas.  I might try using Spell points with exhaustion rules, I love the craft points rules, and the Item familiar rules were exactly what I was looking for.

Granted, the book won't have every idea be a hit with every person.  I'm not big on the Legendary weapons, or Gestalt character rules, but I certainly will say It gave me a lot more ideas than I had just using the core rules after these years.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 25, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'd vote for Draconomicon, myself.  I also just picked up GR's Book of Fiends today, and so far, I think it's better than the lot of them, though.  We've got your Vile Darkness right here, indeed!




Not to hijack this discussion too much, but how do you like the Book of Fiends Joshua?  I've gotten to look through it, but not read much of the flavor text or analyze the critters in detail.  I'm getting mine tomorrow, so I'm a little jealous of you now, you lucky bastard!


----------



## MerricB (Feb 25, 2004)

Just visited the WotC boards to look up reaction to UA, and found this post by Ed Stark:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=188488
In case anyone's curious, here are some UA variants I plan on using in my next game (and, no, they're not all ones I wrote):

Favored Environment
Craft Points
Armor Damage Conversion
Magic Rating
Metamagic Components
Spontaneous Metamagic
Spell Points
Legendary Weapons
Item Familiars
Buying off LA

I'm itching to see how these work in combination with each other.

Anybody else planning on or already implementing a list of UA rules?

Cheers!


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2004)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Not to hijack this discussion too much, but how do you like the Book of Fiends Joshua?  I've gotten to look through it, but not read much of the flavor text or analyze the critters in detail.  I'm getting mine tomorrow, so I'm a little jealous of you now, you lucky bastard!



To not hijack the discussion, I started this new thread right here just to have this discussion.


----------



## Unseelie (Feb 25, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> I got my copy of Unearthed Arcana last Thursday and spent the weekend reading much of it -- it helped that ENWorld was down.
> 
> This product has reignited my passion for D&D. It is so full of good ideas, or at least ideas that spark the imagination. I want to scrap our current campaign and start all over with something new, incorporating some of the ideas in this book.
> 
> I haven't been this excited about a D&D product since "Shelzar."




D&D Viagra?! What, it makes D&D harder?


----------



## Unseelie (Feb 25, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Its a good book. But the ideas in it are far from orginal. I can see where they took stuff from other RPG's.




I should hope so, considering that they give credit for many of the items they borrowed.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Feb 25, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'd vote for Draconomicon, myself.  I also just picked up GR's Book of Fiends today, and so far, I think it's better than the lot of them, though.  We've got your Vile Darkness right here, indeed!




Havent picked up that one yet, maybe Ill give it a try though. Heard lots of good things about it.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2004)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Havent picked up that one yet, maybe Ill give it a try though. Heard lots of good things about it.



Check out the other thread I mentioned above!


----------



## Psion (Feb 25, 2004)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Whats the other one? Complete Warrior? If so I wholeheartedly agree.




I guess we are destined not to wholeheartedly agree.

For my money, it's Draconomicon.

(I take it you missed "how much I rue the CW Samurai" discussion.  )


----------



## Joshua Randall (Feb 25, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that's fair, Joshua. Not the glue-sniffing;



Oh, so you're calling me a druggie, are you?! 



> I refer to claiming that UA "uber-feats" are balanced by flaws. Taking a flaw grants a bonus feat allowable in the game, not a feat from some special list. And which feats in UA seemed "uber" to you?



Actually I was making a gross generalization in the absence of anything but a quick flip-through of UA at the store. I should've said something like, "taking flaws to balance out EXTRA feats" - not necessarily UBER feats.



> No argument about the BoED feats, though. None at all.



Weirdly, despite my repeated pimping of the awesomeness of BoED to my players, no-one wants to use anything from it. It's like they're scared to be that Good! But I digress...

I do think we are seeing WotC take off the kid gloves when it comes to power-level within D&D. We know they aren't playtesting as thoroughly as they did for the core 3e revision, and it seems like now the attitude is, "Screw it - we'll balance this (feat / PrC / new core class) out with role-playing considerations or something else." As long as people keep buying books, it'll work... but do they risk a Skillz'n'Powerz-style backlash?

Of course, it is also inevitable that as you add more and more stuff to an already complex system, min-max'ers will be able to find some broken combinations. That's part of the fun!


----------



## Breakdaddy (Feb 25, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I guess we are destined not to wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> For my money, it's Draconomicon.
> 
> (I take it you missed "how much I rue the CW Samurai" discussion.  )




Fair 'nuff. I agree about the samurai, I pretend those pages in the CW don't exist. Im going to check out Joshua's reference above and see about this Draconomicon business.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 25, 2004)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> it seems like now the attitude is, "Screw it - we'll balance this (feat / PrC / new core class) out with role-playing considerations or something else." As long as people keep buying books, it'll work... but do they risk a Skillz'n'Powerz-style backlash?




I'm sorry, apart from UA (which is a book which is intentionally pushing the boundaries) and the BoED (a book where role-playing _must_ be important, otherwise what's the point?), where are they not paying attention to game balance?

The MHb and the CW seem nicely balanced, IMO. Certainly there are one or two places where they may have missed something, but on the whole they seem excellent additions to the D&D line.

We'll have even more of a handle on it when _Complete Divine_ comes out, of course.

The thought of thoroughly playtesting UA is, in my opinion, ludicrous. The number of options and, more importantly, combinations of options makes such an effort nigh impossible. UA is not for the baseline D&D campaign - it's to give you ideas that can move you away from the baseline, and even more importantly, to present rules in a form that _other publishers_ can take advantage of.

Of _course_ new products aren't as thorougly playtested as the core 3E rules were! However, it's not like WotC don't playtest their products. Indeed, their process involves a design team, a developer team and playtesters. 

Cheers!


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 26, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The MHb and the CW seem nicely balanced, IMO. Certainly there are one or two places where they may have missed something, but on the whole they seem excellent additions to the D&D line.



I wouldn't use the adjective, "excellent." While they may be balanced but honestly calling a two-weapon fighting specialist a Samurai only shows they did not thoroughly do their homework. That's what I call "misleading the haoles."




			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> We'll have even more of a handle on it when _Complete Divine_ comes out, of course.



That assumes they are taking our criticism seriously.




			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> The thought of thoroughly playtesting UA is, in my opinion, ludicrous. The number of options and, more importantly, combinations of options makes such an effort nigh impossible. UA is not for the baseline D&D campaign - it's to give you ideas that can move you away from the baseline, and even more importantly, to present rules in a form that _other publishers_ can take advantage of.



I don't think it is ludicrous at all. By playtesting it, they can recommend what work best so we customers don't have to go through the hassle of fitting the new mechanics into _D&D_ game ourselves. It is like driving a big, square peg through a tiny hole. Eventually, we're going to have to modify the peg before it can make a perfect fit.




			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Of _course_ new products aren't as thorougly playtested as the core 3E rules were! However, it's not like WotC don't playtest their products. Indeed, their process involves a design team, a developer team and playtesters.



Either they don't playtest it enough -- which is about to become as worse as their constant editing performance -- or they changed their process of playtesting to a lower standard.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 26, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I wouldn't use the adjective, "excellent." While they may be balanced but honestly calling a two-weapon fighting specialist a Samurai only shows they did not thoroughly do their homework.




Or perhaps that they looked at this concept of a noble warrior with ki skills, diplomatic and intimidatory skills using two weapon and thought "that's close to a samurai!" In hindsight, the name may be a mistake, but I know I have no problem in linking the two concepts. 



> That assumes they are taking our criticism seriously.




Huh? Who is this "our"? 

"we're not going to cater to the specific and unique needs of a minority if doing so will cause hardship to the majority" - Ryan Dancey



> I don't think it is ludicrous at all. By playtesting it...




There's a big difference between playtesting and thorough playtesting. Playtest the VP/WP system for D&D. Ok. Now thoroughly playtest it. I'll get back to you next decade...

'better, faster, cheaper: choose two"

Cheers!


----------



## Psion (Feb 26, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The MHb and the CW seem nicely balanced, IMO. Certainly there are one or two places where they may have missed something, but on the whole they seem excellent additions to the D&D line.




We've already discussed the specifics, but just let me interject that many of us do not share your adoration for these books.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 26, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> .
> Huh? Who is this "our"?
> 
> "we're not going to cater to the specific and unique needs of a minority if doing so will cause hardship to the majority" - Ryan Dancey




I guess this is how we got D&D 3.5 AKA Andy Collins House Rules released.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 26, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> We've already discussed the specifics, but just let me interject that many of us do not share your adoration for these books.




So what, Psion? Many of us don't share your dislike of these books, either!

WotC would be foolish to rely merely on my perception of the books, or contrariwise, merely on your perception of the books.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I guess this is how we got D&D 3.5 AKA Andy Collins House Rules released.




Oh, come off it BJ - not just Andy Collin's House Rules... I'm sure that Ed Stark added a few things here and there! 

But really - how is this different to _any_ other edition of D&D? oD&D,  AD&D and UA were Gary Gygax's house rules, 2E was 'Zeb' Cook's house rules, 2.5E was Doug Niles' house rules and 3E was Monte Cook's house rules...

Cheers!


----------



## JoeBlank (Feb 26, 2004)

Butt-kissing to follow, please skip to next post if prefer to avoid reading such drivel:

Merric, the more I read your opinions and analyses, both here and on your website, the more respect I have for you. Your knowledge of, and love for, the game impress me. You are old-school, and yet open-minded. The fact that I share many of your opinions certainly helps. When I find a reviewer with likes and dislikes similar to my own, I can usually trust that his reviews on future books will be reliable. 

Thanks for all you bring to this community.

And more on topic: I have not had to time to read thru all of UA, but I very much like the idea of a tome of alternative house rules. Some parts of the book I have looked at might make their way into my future games, and many certainly won't. 

And I agree with the OP that just reading the book sparks many new ideas about ways to run a game.


----------



## Psion (Feb 26, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> So what, Psion?




"So what?" I chimed in, just the same as you. Should have I posted "so what" in response to your post? I was merely stating that I think that those books can, AFAIAC, be point at as signs of dubious work.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 26, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> "So what?" I chimed in, just the same as you. Should have I posted "so what" in response to your post? I was merely stating that I think that those books can, AFAIAC, be point at as signs of dubious work.




Psion, I've no problem with you saying that, however that isn't how what you posted reads to me. It reads as "I don't want to discuss it, but you're wrong."

At least point to a few balance issues in the CW (or posts in another thread).

Certainly, I don't believe that CW has anything on the level of balance issues that the BoED has. Do I believe that there are issues with the role-playing vs. game bonus style of the BoED? Absolutely, but I put that book, and UA, in a different category than the range of books designed more for the core market.

Cheers!


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 26, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Huh? Who is this "our"?
> 
> "we're not going to cater to the specific and unique needs of a minority if doing so will cause hardship to the majority" - Ryan Dancey



I'd like to think that my voice is one of the majority.




			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> There's a big difference between playtesting and thorough playtesting. Playtest the VP/WP system for D&D. Ok. Now thoroughly playtest it. I'll get back to you next decade...
> 
> 'better, faster, cheaper: choose two"



Taking shortcut: playtesting
Ensure quality: thorough playtesting

Honestly, initial playtesting is that bad to allow the mechanics to be presented "as is"?

You want me to fully praise Wizards of the Coast -- offering no criticism -- like a plastic Ken doll? I can do that. But if you want my genuine feeling, I will give them what is good and what is not good.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 26, 2004)

Not at all, but it just seems as if you're not quite getting all the nuances of my posts.

I said that _thoroughly_ playtesting UA is ludicrous. Certainly, there are ideas that that can be playtested in a fairly thorough manner before release (traits come to mind), but there are other ideas for which the implications are too great to allow such playtesting (gestalt classes, VP/WP systems). Consider the playtesting that 3E received, unparalleled in the history of role-playing, and it still had major issues with its balance. Not that 3.5E fixes all of those problems, for it doesn't, and of course introduces some new problems.

They can do a little gaming with the variant rules in UA, but the implications of each of the changes taken alone can be huge for a campaign that lasts two years, and then there are the combinations of the changes. Oh dear!

With a book like _Complete Warrior_, as a book where any part of it should integrate into a campaign easily, and that is built off the basic assumptions of D&D, then playtesting and the balance issues are solid and real. If it does fail on the balance issue, then that is a real problem for Wizards. 

However, I don't think that quite the same standard applies to _Unearthed Arcana_, and expecting that holds WotC to an unrealistic standard. I see UA as a real grab-bag: some ideas that are good, some ideas that have little relation to standard D&D, and some ideas that add much to the OGC community, even though their application in a 'normal' D&D is uncertain.

The weird, the wacky, and the wonderful - and which is which is down to personal preferences.

Cheers!


----------



## dreaded_beast (Feb 26, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> That's what I call "misleading the haoles."




Sorry for going off-topic but I just had to chuckle at this since I live in Hawaii too, heh.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 27, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I said that _thoroughly_ playtesting UA is ludicrous. Certainly, there are ideas that that can be playtested in a fairly thorough manner before release (traits come to mind), but there are other ideas for which the implications are too great to allow such playtesting (gestalt classes, VP/WP systems).



While I have yet to pick up the book, I question if they did institute any kind of playtesting for _Unearthed Arcana._ That's why I ask earlier if they have the names of playtesters on its Credit page. Or better yet, have those playtesters assure me that they went through the material for at least 30 days.




			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> However, I don't think that quite the same standard applies to _Unearthed Arcana_, and expecting that holds WotC to an unrealistic standard. I see UA as a real grab-bag: some ideas that are good, some ideas that have little relation to standard D&D, and some ideas that add much to the OGC community, even though their application in a 'normal' D&D is uncertain.



Still, if such a product bears the _D&D_ logos and trademarks, one is going to expect that those variant rules can fit into the _D&D_ core game like a glove. I can accept that certain variant rules from _UA_ cannot work together (and it should say so) or you have to pick and choose (e.g., replacing HP health system with VP/WP health system), but I'd like FULL instruction on how to use each variant rules into the _D&D_ core ruleset with little or no fuss.




			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> The weird, the wacky, and the wonderful - and which is which is down to personal preferences.



Of that statement, We can agree.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 27, 2004)

I agree with all of your points there, Ranger.

I'm sure some of the variants got playtested (just because I'm sure some are house rules), but others... urk. 



> Still, if such a product bears the D&D logos and trademarks, one is going to expect that those variant rules can fit into the D&D core game like a glove.




I do still think UA is a special case, and that it's been marketed as a special case. 

Cheers!


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 27, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I agree with all of your points there, Ranger.
> 
> I'm sure some of the variants got playtested (just because I'm sure some are house rules), but others... urk.



Can I quote you on that? You see. That's why I won't give the book an elementary school grade of E (for Excellent). I'm not sure I can give it an S (for Satisfactory).




			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> I do still think UA is a special case, and that it's been marketed as a special case.



The case being a message to all strictly _D&D_ gamers: "Open your eyes, fools! We have _d20_ all around you!"

That's okay. I remembered a time when I was a strictly monogamous role-player ... until I experimented other games.  Wink. Wink.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 27, 2004)

With regard to playing other games:

I'm just waiting for Paranoia XP to be released. 

Interestingly enough, a huge amount of my distrust of rules-light games come from my experiences with the Amber DRPG (which I played for 3 years, and is still one of my favourites). Anytime when a crucial situation in a RPG isn't covered by the rules, I go "uh oh"... I rate myself as a good DM, but I know I have off days (weeks, years, etc.)

With regard to rules balance and playtesting:

I'm sure that WotC R&D has a goodly regard for the role of playtesting. The CCG side learnt their lesson from _Urza's Saga_ (much fallout there), and the philosophy of having a design team and a development team is well entrenched there, and seems to have also spread to the RPG team. Also, you have Mike Donais (a former Magic designer) now working as a D&D designer and developer. 

They certainly have issues when it comes to editing (there have been a couple of interesting posts by Ed Stark related to that topic), but the balance issue is so much more thorny.

Cheers!


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 27, 2004)

What does Ed Stark have to say about editing?


----------



## Psion (Feb 27, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Psion, I've no problem with you saying that, however that isn't how what you posted reads to me. It reads as "I don't want to discuss it, but you're wrong."




That wasn't my intention; just expressing the alternate opinion.



> At least point to a few balance issues in the CW (or posts in another thread).




I thought you were there, thus I didn't think rehashing it would be too productive. I know I am not in the mood to rehash it.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 27, 2004)

That's ok, Psion. 

I may have been - unfortunately between then and now I've been scooping _Archfiends_, posting on Dragonsfoot, 3EBB, Necromancer and the Wizards boards as well as working, and my memory is what it has always been.

Cheers!


----------



## diaglo (Feb 27, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> What does Ed Stark have to say about editing?





do you really want to know?

i know i don't have to remind you or Merric. but for the others here...visit the WotC site...(T)Ed has some interesting comments.

also Mortality.net had a cool interview on their Radio program.


----------



## Particle_Man (Feb 27, 2004)

I like UA.  I want to combine the Injury Rules with the Generic classes (witha slight house rule to give the Expert a few more skill points/level).  Now I just have to convince players...

But there is one place where UA fell down on the job.  Where are the names for our poor generic iconics?  In honor of the awesome comic book Knights of the Dinner Table, I dub them, from left to right, Bob (the expert with the crossbow), Sara (the divine spellcaster) and Dave (the warrior -- what else would Dave be?).  Not shown is Brian (the arcane spellcaster).


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 27, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> do you really want to know?
> 
> i know i don't have to remind you or Merric. but for the others here...visit the WotC site...(T)Ed has some interesting comments.



How about kindly directing us to the specific page(s) containing T'ed's quotes by providing a link?


----------



## Pants (Feb 27, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Still, if such a product bears the _D&D_ logos and trademarks, one is going to expect that those variant rules can fit into the _D&D_ core game like a glove.



I sincerely doubt that, considering that many of these variant rules are designed to replace or augment existing rules in the DnD framework.  Also, consider that this is a book where you pick and choose what you want.  Playtesting each and every rule and how it interacts with all of the Core Rules _and_ the other variant rules is an impossible wish.

Thus, I really doubt that they'll fit like a glove.

That said, the balance on some of the alternate rules seems dubious at best.


----------



## Azlan (Feb 27, 2004)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> Unearthed Arcana = D&D Viagra!




Naw. UA = half-cocked.

I was looking forward to this book. But when I picked it up and leafed through it, I was disappointed by how little depth it ended up having. And the price tag! $35 for, what, 220 pages? That's $5 more and about 100 pages less than the 3.5 Player's Handbook! (Yes, you can get either book at 30% discount, on-line, but that's beside the point.)

UA needs about 50 pages more, with the book covering the same number of rules variants as it does now, but with greater depth. (The price tag should remain the same.) Because, while there are lots of rules variants in the UA, most of them are not as well though out or not covered as thoroughly as they need to be.

For example, using DR for armor is a _big_ change to the D&D system, thus you need more than the mere couple of pages that UA provides to cover all the ramifications and balancing issues of such a change. But if you go with the bare-bones, half-baked rules variant that's given in the UA, you'll find that you've opened up a big can of worms in your campaign, which will serve only to muck things up, because not everything was taken into account in that rules variant.


----------



## Azlan (Feb 27, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Also, consider that this is a book where you pick and choose what you want. Playtesting each and every rule and how it interacts with all of the Core Rules _and_ the other variant rules is an impossible wish.
> 
> Thus, I really doubt that they'll fit like a glove.
> 
> That said, the balance on some of the alternate rules seems dubious at best.




Sorry, but for $35, and coming from the d20 gods of WotC, I expect each rules variant to indeed fit like a glove, and to not leak like a sieve, when I implement it into my campaign. Now, it would indeed be unrealistic to expect all of the rules variants to work in harmony with one another. But if I want to introduce just one or two rules variants from the UA into my campaign, I expect the coverage of those rules variant to be thorough if not complete, as I expect most if not all of the groundwork to be laid out for me. But this is not the case with most of the rules variants in the UA.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 28, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> How about kindly directing us to the specific page(s) containing T'ed's quotes by providing a link?




G'day, Ranger!

I've found the thread in which I posted the relevant links & topics:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=77517

Apologies for the delay.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Feb 28, 2004)

Azlan said:
			
		

> Naw. UA = half-cocked.
> 
> I was looking forward to this book. But when I picked it up and leafed through it, I was disappointed by how little depth it ended up having. And the price tag! $35 for, what, 220 pages? That's $5 more and about 100 pages less than the 3.5 Player's Handbook! (Yes, you can get either book at 30% discount, on-line, but that's beside the point.)




Never, ever, compare the price of any RPG book to the _Player's Handbook_. They are two different products. The PHb can be expected to sell 100,000 copies in a year, and far more than that in the first year of its release. There are economies of scale here that make it far cheaper than it would otherwise appear. There's not much risk in printing a PHb as well.

As the potential market for any other book diminishes, the cost must increase to offset the overhead of printing the book and the risk of it not selling. With books with very small potential audiences, the price is very high compared to the PHb. (See BoVD and BoED for such products).

Cheers!


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 28, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> G'day, Ranger!
> 
> I've found the thread in which I posted the relevant links & topics:
> http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=77517
> ...



Ah yeah. I remember now.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 28, 2004)

The interesting insight being that Ed did his own checking of the galleys, in addition to the editing team... and still missed stuff. 

Cheers!


----------



## Trance Fiend (Feb 28, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how well it lives up to the hype.  Although I like a lot of stuff here and there in it, there's a lot of stuff I don't like.  It really bounces around a lot.  And, a lot of the stuff I do really like I've already seen, often in other WotC d20 games (Cthulhu, Star Wars, Modern and WoT).  Now that the honeymoon's over, so to speak, I'm thinking that the book wasn't really all that it's cracked up to be.
> 
> Still, it has some nice ideas in it, though.




I think it great to have all the ideas put into one book for those like me that don't have, or never have read the books you mentioned.  My copy is coming sometime early next week.  My campaign is in need of a little jump start.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 28, 2004)

Trance Fiend said:
			
		

> I think it great to have all the ideas put into one book for those like me that don't have, or never have read the books you mentioned.  My copy is coming sometime early next week.  My campaign is in need of a little jump start.



I agree.  And don't take this wrong; I think UA is a good book.  It's just not quite what I hoped it would be.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Feb 28, 2004)

I've had a lot of time to peruse this book and I can say not worth it IMO.  For me I'd at most end up using 3 or 4 things from the book so maybe 20-30 pages of material, and that aint worth the price tag.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 28, 2004)

To each their own, I guess. It's one of my favorite books in some time, and for me it's worth the money.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 29, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The interesting insight being that Ed did his own checking of the galleys, in addition to the editing team... and still missed stuff.



Ah, well. Eventually, I'll pick it up since I'm an advanced user.

In the meantime, has anyone been able to post their own tips and/or fixes on incorporating the variant rules into their own _D&D_ game, and how different is the experience from previous _D&D_ game-play?


----------



## Psion (Feb 29, 2004)

Well, tonight's game saw my first use of a rule in the book. Namely, I let a character take advantage of the LA reduction rule. I've always thought by-the-book LAs were a little harsh.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 4, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> While I have yet to pick up the book, I question if they did institute any kind of playtesting for _Unearthed Arcana._ That's why I ask earlier if they have the names of playtesters on its Credit page. Or better yet, have those playtesters assure me that they went through the material for at least 30 days.




Finally got UA! 

*Designers:* Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Noonan, Rich Redman
*Additional Design:* Andrew Finch, Steve Kenson, Charles Ryan, Bill Slavicsek, Ed Stark, Jonathan Tweet, JD Wiker, James Wyatt
*Playtesters:* Richard Baker, Greg Collins, Dale Donovan, Chris Galvin, Joe Hauck, Kevin Kukas, Viet Nguyen, Brent Pearson, Tim Rhoades, Marc Russell, Scot Smith, Dennis Worrel, Warren Wyman, James Wyatt.

Boy, it's an interesting book. I think most of it would easily slot into an existing D&D game; some of it would change the balances (but is noted as doing such), and some of it would severely change the balances.

There is no way some of the material is balanced, or could be balanced, or should be balanced with regard to the regular D&D game. 

Cheers!


----------



## dungeondweller (Jun 3, 2004)

All I really know at this point is that the Jungle Gnome is hot... Hehe... 

I just picked it up before last Saturday's session and it's not what I expected. I was wanting more variant rules and less variant races; was hoping it would focus primarily on game mechanics.

I generally hate WotC sourcebooks simply because they're long on the "plug in content" and short on actual creativity... So, when I buy them, I'm looking for the one or two ideas that inspire me. This book, I think, will serve my purposes better than any WotC source in a long time.


----------

