Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Veomyr 02-13-04, 09:52 PM	Anyone have any reviews yet? I'm dying to get the book, but I have to wait for a few days.
Calamity Spear 02-13-04, 10:48 PM	I just picked it up today, and it has me drooling to put the variants to work in a game! I especially love Traits. That they are self-balancing is icing on the cake. You get a +2 bonus on a skill, and -2 on another, related skill. Flaws have me leery, though; a free feat in exchange for a penalty that could possibly be ignored by the character's build. I could see myself using them if I kept them in mind so they'd actually come up, though. I also loved how they used Kobolds in many of the variant racial types. All hail the mighty kobold! :D I'm only half-way through so far, but Weapon Groups seems to have potential. Sort of a throw-back to 2e, but one I really like. I dislike the Facing rules, but for no rule reason. They're very sound and make sense; I just dislike Facing as a rule. ;) Paragon classes are so nice I asked the DM of an Underdark campaign I'm going to be in soon if I could have levels in Drow Paragon for my drow wizard. Good stuff. They are 3-level classes that give the 0-HD races (such as the standard ones in the PHB) a continuation, as if they had HD and race features. That's all I have thoughts on so far.
Kastas 02-13-04, 10:58 PM	So far I'm really impressed by what I've seen. Nobody is going to want to use everything, but that's kind of the point. If/when I start a new campaign, I'll definitely use some of the variants in the book. Some of my favorites so far are bloodlines, spell points, variant specialist wizards, and spelltouched feats. I'm toying with the idea of dropping sorcerers entirely from my next campaign and using wizards with spell points instead. As far as presentation goes, it's so-so. The book is packed to the gills with information, but the art's a bit subpar, in my opinion.
Nick Soapdish 02-14-04, 12:26 AM	I haven't really read it well so far, but I like the bloodlines and the hit point / damage variants a lot. There may be a lot of stuff that I don't want to use, but the problem that I'm facing right now is that I want to use too much of it at once. The only disappointment so far is that for some reason I was expecting rules for magic item reation without experience point loss and I couldn't find it.
Calamity Spear 02-14-04, 12:40 AM	originally posted by Nick Soapdish The only disappointment so far is that for some reason I was expecting rules for magic item reation without experience point loss and I couldn't find it. Yeah, I was expecting that, too. I think it's because I mentally lumped all the information I was hearing about UA with the stuff I was hearing about the new Dragon #317, which has rules for just that in its 'Power Components' article.
stone_dog 02-14-04, 12:44 AM	Hey Nick! Check out this months Dragon when you can. It has some slick rules on using special components in exchange for XP. You can either purchase them or harvest them yourself. It is pretty neat. Basically you can buy an item that replaces XP costs for 5x(XP creation cost). A critter can only produce a power components that are about 20% of its standard XP. It gives neat little tidbits on proper harvesting too. Nightmare hooves (all four) are good for about 300 xp, but they have to still be burning when you boil their essence into droplets or whatever, so you have to store them in special jars of oil. It isn't a great article, power components for mastercrafted items are pretty stupid, but you can dig some serious nuggets out of it. How does the injury system work in UA? I am pretty interested in that.
Kaya Kenobi 02-14-04, 01:03 AM	I actually read the book in full before deciding to order it... Let me put it this way: The alternate races are ok.. Gestalt Classes should be steered clear of. Domain Wizards is actually nifty. Prestige Bards and Paladins seem a little underpowered. And the Vitality Points irks me.
Count Arioch the 28th 02-14-04, 01:05 AM	Gestalt classes are only okay, if EVERYONE has them, including NPCS. Balancing monsters might be tricky though.
The Simple Seeker II 02-14-04, 02:31 AM	The variant rules offered, can make the gaming aspect very interesting. I will give my thoughts after going through the fine print.
Kaya Kenobi 02-14-04, 03:28 AM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th Gestalt classes are only okay, if EVERYONE has them, including NPCS. Balancing monsters might be tricky though Gestalt, 2e style of multiclass.. Fighter/Mage, Thief/Mage, Fighter/Thief/Mage Take the best of each class and use it, gain all benefits of each class but at a major XP penalty. 2 classes effectively make you double as good, but take twice as long to level up.. 3 classes, and it takes 3 times as long. As I said, 2e style. It's actually easy, if you look at it that way.. A Fighter/Mage/Thief has many benefits, but in order to reach 2nd level, you'll need 6,000 XP. While Fighter/Thief and Fighter/Mage requires 3,000 XP.. If I'm reading things right, this is how I'd rule it..
Sheer_FALACY 02-14-04, 03:33 AM	This actually works much better with 3e than with 2e. In 2e, you needed double the XP every level, so you were only behind by one level. In 3e you suffer a much larger penalty, which is only logical.
Kaya Kenobi 02-14-04, 03:55 AM	Originally posted by Sheer_FALACY This actually works much better with 3e than with 2e. In 2e, you needed double the XP every level, so you were only behind by one level. In 3e you suffer a much larger penalty, which is only logical. If that is so... Then I might see it better.. But as far as I see it, I hated 2e multiclassing...
Count Arioch the 28th 02-14-04, 10:05 AM	I agree with that assertion. I will not be adding gestalt classes to my campaign, as I don't feel like re-writing every PC and NPC to compensate for it.
(Psi)SeveredHead 02-14-04, 11:51 AM	What about the new ranger? What level do you need to be to take it, and did they actually make it non-magical?
Fiendish Dire Weasel 02-14-04, 04:41 PM	Thought the "non-magical" Ranger was the one in Complete Warrior ( :rolleyes: ). The one in Unearthed Arcana is the PrC version of the Ranger, so like the Paladin version they posted I assume it is just a 15 level PrC version of the normal PHB Ranger.
Magnificate 02-14-04, 05:38 PM	Can anybody tell me something about Urban Druid?
Skaboozh 02-14-04, 07:05 PM	I love the book. Absolutely, positively love it. Here are the things I'll be using in my next campaign: Gestalt classes - Yeah, it's pretty high powered, but not overtly so. Like the book said, it's a long way from running two characters. Damage save - That's the system with the 6 different injury types. I have to tweak it a bit, like adding a medium fortitude save to some classes, but otherwise I love it. Taint - Great way to add a gritty "realism" to the game. Sanity - Another way to make the game a bit grittier. So while the characters themselves will be higher powered, they'll have some scary things to deal with. Class variants - Not the ones like the thug or the urban ranger, but the ones at the very end of the chapter. The fighter that can sacrifice his feats for sneak attack progression, the paladin who sacrifices turn undead, remove disease, and lay on hands for favored enemies. Those are awesome. Bell curve rolls - I love how much more average the rolls will become, which means your actual modifiers mean that much more. That's the way I think it should be. Weapon groups - Awesome way to beef up the fighter-types a bit more.
aldymnor 02-14-04, 07:52 PM	Check the Future Releases board. A lot of UA owners won't post here because technically it's not really a class-based accessory. Classes make up about a fifth of what's in the book. Once WizO_Paradox puts up a forum for Unearthed Arcana, the threads in future release will probably be moved there.
(Psi)SeveredHead 02-15-04, 01:22 AM	Originally posted by Fiendish Dire Weasel Thought the "non-magical" Ranger was the one in Complete Warrior ( :rolleyes: ). The one in Unearthed Arcana is the PrC version of the Ranger, so like the Paladin version they posted I assume it is just a 15 level PrC version of the normal PHB Ranger. Now I've seen the prestige paladin - anyone know what the requirements of the prestige ranger are? I hope it's not charm animals as a divine spellcaster or something like that :eek: Actually, can anyone answer my question? Is the prestige ranger a spellcaster or some kind, or not?
The White Sorcerer 02-15-04, 01:27 AM	Originally posted by Fiendish Dire Weasel Thought the "non-magical" Ranger was the one in Complete Warrior ( :rolleyes: ). Not non-magical, non-spellcasting. They never said they would make a non-magical ranger. Magnificate: No urban druid in UA. There's an urban ranger, tho.
The White Sorcerer 02-15-04, 01:29 AM	Originally posted by (Psi)SeveredHead Is the prestige ranger a spellcaster or some kind, or not? Yes.
(Psi)SeveredHead 02-15-04, 12:15 PM	Originally posted by The White Sorcerer Not non-magical, non-spellcasting. They never said they would make a non-magical ranger. Sounds like they weren't listening to the fans. :rolleyes: I would really like to know why the "non-spellcasting" ranger who actually does cast spell(-like abilitie)s has locate creature on his spell list? Is that supposed to be an insult to the ranger's tracking abilities? "Your tracking sucks, so here's a spell to do it for you." Why would the ranger even bother improving his Survival skill? At least they didn't get create food and water.
Nick Soapdish 02-16-04, 11:45 PM	Originally posted by (Psi)SeveredHead Now I've seen the prestige paladin - anyone know what the requirements of the prestige ranger are? I hope it's not charm animals as a divine spellcaster or something like that :eek: Actually, can anyone answer my question? Is the prestige ranger a spellcaster or some kind, or not? It's not Charm Animals as a divine caster. It's something like that - Calm Animals. Unfortunately, there's no non-spellcasting ranger in the book. There's an urban ranger and there's a wilderness rogue - which comes close, I suppose. Even closer if you trade out the sneak attack for feats like in one of the other variants. Or you could build one by multi-classing the expert and warrior. Still an inelegant solution, but it's something.
Kaya Kenobi 02-17-04, 03:05 AM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish It's not Charm Animals as a divine caster. It's something like that - Calm Animals. Unfortunately, there's no non-spellcasting ranger in the book. There's an urban ranger and there's a wilderness rogue - which comes close, I suppose. Even closer if you trade out the sneak attack for feats like in one of the other variants. Or you could build one by multi-classing the expert and warrior. Still an inelegant solution, but it's something. The reason why there's no casterless ranger is because it's in the CW.
Count Arioch the 28th 02-17-04, 08:30 AM	That's not quite what some people are looking for, from my understanding, there are people that want a completely non-magical ranger.
Myztek 02-17-04, 11:40 AM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th That's not quite what some people are looking for, from my understanding, there are people that want a completely non-magical ranger. It takes about thirty seconds to change the CW ranger into a completely nonmagical class. Just replace those high level abilities with a few nonmagical abilities like further enhanced movement, improved evasion, feats, etc ... It may not be official, but it is as close as you're going to get. WotC has released 3 versions of the 3.5 ranger ... I sincerely doubt you'll get a 4th.
Kaya Kenobi 02-18-04, 04:55 AM	true.. There's really no reason to do that either.. WotC doesn't like to cater to the minority.. sorry
Nick Soapdish 02-19-04, 05:46 PM	Originally posted by Kaya Kenobi Gestalt, 2e style of multiclass.. Fighter/Mage, Thief/Mage, Fighter/Thief/Mage Take the best of each class and use it, gain all benefits of each class but at a major XP penalty. 2 classes effectively make you double as good, but take twice as long to level up.. 3 classes, and it takes 3 times as long. As I said, 2e style. It's actually easy, if you look at it that way.. A Fighter/Mage/Thief has many benefits, but in order to reach 2nd level, you'll need 6,000 XP. While Fighter/Thief and Fighter/Mage requires 3,000 XP.. If I'm reading things right, this is how I'd rule it.. Actually, from what I recall, there isn't an experience point penalty at all. The catch is everybody in the party needs to be a gestalt character, which they emphasize. So it's not remotely close to balanced against a normal character, but they're sort of balanced against each other. (Obviously, there are some more powerful or weaker combinations.) And then you need to treat the party as though they're a level or two above for obvious reasons.
Nick Soapdish 02-19-04, 05:48 PM	Originally posted by Myztek It takes about thirty seconds to change the CW ranger into a completely nonmagical class. Just replace those high level abilities with a few nonmagical abilities like further enhanced movement, improved evasion, feats, etc ... It may not be official, but it is as close as you're going to get. WotC has released 3 versions of the 3.5 ranger ... I sincerely doubt you'll get a 4th. But it's not "official". I'm fine with the CW version or tweaking it or just using the normal ranger. But I wouldn't mind seeing another completely magic-free variant.
Kaya Kenobi 02-19-04, 07:34 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish Actually, from what I recall, there isn't an experience point penalty at all. The catch is everybody in the party needs to be a gestalt character, which they emphasize. So it's not remotely close to balanced against a normal character, but they're sort of balanced against each other. (Obviously, there are some more powerful or weaker combinations.) And then you need to treat the party as though they're a level or two above for obvious reasons. And in a party where only one character is gestalt, an extra ECL rating or XP penalty is all that's needed.
Count Arioch the 28th 02-20-04, 11:09 AM	That may be so, but I, for one, won't be using those rules in my current campaing. I'd like to add that an all-gestalt campaign might be pretty fun. I hope that I get to play, and I get to be a paladin/monk. That would rock in so many ways. Smiting and backflips, best of both worlds! Aww, forget it. No one around here would DM for me, most people consider my rules knowledge to be irritating when I am a player, although every appreciates that I rule fairly as a DM.
WizO_Catoblepas 02-20-04, 11:52 AM	Moved to Unearthed Arcana board.
Skeptical Clown 02-20-04, 12:34 PM	My review: Chapter 1: Races Mixed bag. The environmental variants aren't particularly interesting. I guess they'd be useful in some contexts, but most seem kind of bland. I like the Bloodlines, even though the balance seems just slightly off-kilter. Paragon classes are dumb. Chapter 2: Classes Seems pretty good to me. I don't care for Gestalt classes. I like the "Generic" classes, but the balance seems off to me; something is missing. The "Spellcaster" is basically a sorcerer with bonus feats and one less 9th level spell, who has access to all spell lists. Which wouldn't be that unbalanced, except the rules say you pick whether the caster is Divine or Arcane, and it seems only a fool would pick Arcane. Needs work. Chapter 3: Building Characters Seems ok. I haven't gone over it in as much detail yet. I like the Background tables for developing skillsets for characters. Chapter 4: Adventuring Different ways of handling combat and damage. I don't like all the variants, but I can see how any of them could be useful to certain campaigns. Chapter 5: Magic Good chapter. I like most of the ideas, but some of them aren't developed enough. Legendary weapons (Weapons which require devoting time in a special PrC linked to that weapon in order to unlock greater powers) are cool, but there's not enough variety in the book alone to make use of. I like Incantations. Chapter 6: Campaigns Again, mostly good stuff. I wouldn't want to use ALL of it in one campaign, but any of the systems (Honor, Insanity, Contacts, etc.) could be useful for campaigns that focused on them. Overall: A pretty good book, with some pretty good ideas, and a few pretty bad ones.
Fiendish Dire Weasel 02-20-04, 05:13 PM	I like the "Generic" classes, but the balance seems off to me; something is missing. The "Spellcaster" is basically a sorcerer with bonus feats and one less 9th level spell, who has access to all spell lists. Which wouldn't be that unbalanced, except the rules say you pick whether the caster is Divine or Arcane, and it seems only a fool would pick Arcane. Needs work. I was under the impression that the Generic Classes were supposed to be balanced against each other, not normal PHB classes. I didn't think they were supposed to be used in normal games but in games where you only have those 3 classes to choose from.
Skeptical Clown 02-20-04, 06:09 PM	My point was that it's not balanced against itself. Or at least, not clear. The Wisdom spellcaster gets no armor penalties, and a good Will save. The Intelligence spellcaster gets good skills. And the Charisma spellcaster gets... uh.... a good charisma bonus. So what's the point in offering the choice, if one is clearly superior? Further, if it's more powerful that a standard class (the sorcerer), doesn't that mean that CRs would need adjusting? I agree, it's not supposed to be balanced precisely against normal classes, but it should have the same rough level of power.
Mind of Darkness 02-21-04, 12:04 AM	The web enhancement mentions a "planar ranger" on page 55, anyone care to describe it?