Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Evandar_TAybara 02-18-04, 07:24 PM	First of all, I have to say how impressed I am with Unearthed Arcana. I was in two minds about ordering the book but am very glad that I did. Typically I tend to stick to core rules as much as possible and the thought of a book of variants and house rules was somewhat alarming. But I can honestly say that in my opinion it's the best supplemental book that WotC have ever put out. Although I may never use more than a handful of rules from it, I can see the appeal and potential in everything I have so far flicked through. This comes as a shock, as I commonly find less that 25% of content in supplemental books to be up to standard. One of the things that impresses me more than anything is that virtually all of the variant rules seem loophole free - i.e. implementing a rule or two won't open up horrible rules clashes or abusable situations. And although there are only certain rules variations that appeal to me, I could probably name groups or players I have known that would use all of them. This got me thinking that perhaps this is the way forward with the game? That perhaps a more flexible system with variant rules being part of the core books should be introduced with version 4? Maybe in fact, this is one of the reasons UA was published - to test the waters with this kind of rulebook. Alternatively of course, there the chance that it is also a research project - a chance to test ideas that are in development for version 4 to see what appeals to the gaming community? Then again, it's probably just another rulebook to keep the treasure chests in Wizard Towers topped up with GPs.... Evan.
Illithidbix 02-18-04, 08:56 PM	Hmm I always thought it was interesting that the 3.0&3.5 DMGs both have quite a few examples of variant rules in it, despite this being this being a feature noticeably absent from most other D&D books (which mostly add a few rules or new classes, monsters, spells etc). The D20 system is really a very detailed and internally consistent system. (I think only gurps has matched it on that scale, but then Gurps is pretty much designed to be far more modular anyway), I mean you can find rules for so many types of situation, rather than their being general guidelines on how to make them up. I suppose you could say that this encourages DM’s to look stuff up rather than make it up on the spot. I actually kind of got the impression that D20 was trying to create a system that could be applied everywhere, and that everything could interelate with a mimimum of difficulty. (I am personally not convinced that it really succeded, or was a good idea, different settings have different flavours beyond any mere changes in whats in them). I always have thought that perhaps is a disadvantage as it means that DM's are often reluctant to modify rules because of how it may affect other rules and situations further down the line, the D&D system always struck me as being in far more delicate balance than most other systems that seem to be able to take lots of quite large abd arbitrary changes without appearing to change the game too much. D&D also sometimes tries to hard to be internally consistent at the expensive of conceptualisation (like the way hitdice are effectively treated as monster class levels, and even determine things like Skill levels and stuff, why is a big, tough monster necessarily going to be more skilful than a little one :confused: ).
Goblyn Queen 02-19-04, 09:54 AM	I got UA last weekend. My first impression is that it has some interesting variations on play while managing to satisfy the munchkin appetite. I still think someone at WOTC has it out for wizards...but that may just be my personal prejudice showing. My boyfriend's observation on UA. He believes it is a fishing expedition for what to put in 4th edition and I tend to agree with him. (*now donning flame proof suit*) WOTC is throwing out tiny chunks of raw meat and hoping that we will all fall for the "NEED for a NEW EDITION" ...hook, line and sinker. As for me...I was not happy when they put out "3.5" but I did buy it. That won't happen with 4th ed....unless they wait 5 or 6 years. There's plenty of d20 stuff flying off the presses and between 3.5 and house rules, I will be very careful what I invest my gaming dollars in. Well...that's my two cents.
Wander 02-19-04, 12:27 PM	Evander, while that is certainly possible, it would be a first. The process TSR/WOTC has followed in the past is to release a basic rules set, add a bunch of new material to it (to the point that the basic rules have all but disappeared), then release a new edition that "cleans up" all those irritating variants and gets back to the basics (at which point the process begins anew). That said, there may be a few things from this book that see the light of day in some future 4th edition, assuming that's on their radar, but the sort of thing they will likely put in any such edition will be stuff that's very smoothly compatible with the new rules concepts. I just don't see them doing a system that allows a player to, say, pick and choose from among a group of "class abilities," effectively designing their own class. I should add that this is not necessarily a bad thing. "Ease of entry" into a new or revised system is important because it makes the system accessible to new players. The Hero System (Champions, etc.), for example, while a cool system, is probably not for the faint of heart: too many options, too many decisions. If D&D is to remain the "standard" RPG, it has to be a game that anyone can play with a minimum of hassle. FWIW.
Evandar_TAybara 02-19-04, 03:00 PM	But when it comes down to it, 4th edition will only be a more thought out revision of 3rd edition rather than an entirely different system, yes? The joy of the d20 D&D system and the OGL is the flexibility with which material from other d20 sources can be implemented. WotC would be shooting themselves in their feet if they were to completely overhaul the basic system. Not only would all their own backlist of material (including non D&D stuff) become instantly useless, but so would the vast array of 3rd party material. Evan.
Myztek 02-19-04, 07:03 PM	4th edition. Many years away - 2008 at the earliest was the last WotC projection.
Mutant for Hire 02-19-04, 07:10 PM	I wouldn't be surprised to see a varient of the Generic classes become the starting basis for 4th edition. There is not a huge amount of difference between the Fighter and the Warrior. All they need to do is take a few Special Abilities and turn them into Feats with appropriate requisite abilities and they can pretty much toss the core classes as they stand.
Ogre4Hire 02-19-04, 07:42 PM	Blah. There's such thing as too much generalization, and those expert, warrior, and spellcaster classes did it for me. It's like the ultimate in Cherry Picking. Blah.
Lord Schpungus 02-19-04, 08:14 PM	Blah. I happen to like a class-based system.
Masterful_Norg 02-20-04, 01:34 AM	Blah, there's a brown spot on this banana! Oh! Hello! Yeah, even after toying with a no class system in my mind as an approach to realism I realised the allure of classes.
Zaebos 02-22-04, 06:25 PM	Blah And paranoia sweeps supreme. The DMG already toyed with the idea of generic classes by allowing players to play 0 level characters, in a round about way. But other than that, these variants aren't to see how many people play with what, but to offer a number of variants that are already used in other d20 products and campaigns without shelling out massive $$ to get those other products.
Banpai 02-22-04, 06:40 PM	To say it clear I love the class system in D&D Modern with his 6 base classes (no tough thing to make small changes to them to better fit what you aim for) and his advanced classes. Unfortunately this system would not work for D&D chause it simply does not fit into the world and most campaigns, you simply need stuff to fill the roles like the a bard. Its like in real life - you need to specialize to make yourself important for others. The generic classes are a nice idea and a help to design new base classes but the name says it they are generic and I prefere my characters to be something very special everytime.
kzin 02-22-04, 07:48 PM	The reason d20Modern (d20M) "Basic" classes don't really work with D&D is that none of them give spell casting ability, so you're holding back spell casters for at least 3 to 5 levels before they qualify for a spell based Advanced Class. That works fine for the no-to-low magic settings for d20M, but you can't really duplicate the feel of D&D with that. Your wizards, clerics, etc. will all be much weaker than the fighters and such. I tried to work around that by making spells more of a Feat and Skill-point issue (access to casting via feats, learning individual spells via skill points instead of a chart (as with a sorcerer)) in my "d20Fantasy" project, but I think people found it to be too much of a departure from the regular D&D way. I think the Generic Classes make a good way to address both paths. For me, the ideal is: 1) basic/generic core classes that have NO character concept elements to them (character concept should be left to the player's description of their character, not to the game mechanics). I'm not sure if the best path is "adapt the Generic Classes to Modern and other time periods" or "add the Spell Caster class to the d20M Basic Classes". The former produces 3 core classes, the latter produces 7 core classes. 2) d20M style "Advanced Classes" that optionally provide characters with classes that are tailored around basic archetypes for the GM's world (and where's where you'd get the D&D classes). They should be like the 15 level prestige classes in UA for the Paladin and Ranger. You need to be around 5th level to qualify, and then you can stick with them up til 20th character level. Different worlds will add or remove these from the standard list. I wouldn't want them to offer things that aren't available to the basic/core classes, just provide a clear path in navigating and defining that archetype (sort of like the way the Ranger does combat styles: these feats aren't exclusive to the Ranger, they're just maybe a little easier for a Ranger and they provide a clear path to what it means to be a Ranger). 3) Prestige classes that are tailored around specific special groups within the GM's world (ie. not the prestige classes that are hybrids of other classes, like found in the splat books, but the ones like those found in the Forgotten Realms books that detail the special abilities and paths taken by specific groups within the Realms). These should mostly be either 10 level classes that require the character to be around 10th level, or 5 level classes that require the character to be around 15th level. 4) no restrictions on multi-classing; multi-classing is how you take basic/generic classes and formulate complex character concepts. A character should be able to decide whether they want to multi-class in Warrior and Divine-Spellcaster to make their version of Galahad, or instead to pursue the Paladin advanced class. The end result should be a matter of taste, not a matter of something forced upon them by descriptions within the class mechanics. 5) All "spell-like" and "supernatural" abilities should actually be spells. Characters/creatures that need access to that type of thing should take levels of Spell Caster. All mundane (not spell-like nor supernatural) class features should be Feats. I don't mind restricting the core classes to certain bonus feats though. 6) and my own personal taste is to have the spell point system, and have spells learned via skill points (instead of the sorcerer's "Spells Known" chart). But, spells can only be learned with skill points from the Spell Caster class. I would give the Spell Caster 2 more skill points per level (and the Expert 2 more as well, I think they should be at 8, not 6). 2 spells per level matches both the default for the Wizard and the average result of the Sorcerer's chart. IMO, that's what D&D 3.0 should have been. If that's what D&D 4.0 looks like, I'll be quite happy.
Banpai 02-22-04, 08:21 PM	You have written a great post kzin and it would be great if 4.Ed would feature something like that AND the normal class system (maybe with psionics) it would be great if the two variants would be balanced with each other so everyone can play their favorite character version. I don´t know what we have to expect after D&D 3.5 a D20Fantasy (basically as PHB but without any setting specific information) or D&D 4.0 simply the new version of D&D with new better rules but UA is certainly a good step into the right direction. I would be happy if they would give us a solid core of rules and masses of variant rules
Zaebos 02-22-04, 08:27 PM	I am supremely happy that D&D 3.0/3.5 does not look like your campaign. But such is the beauty of D&D, that you can add, modify, delete any rule, rule set or any number of options at your whim. I for one would not like playing your campaign, but if this works for you so be it. I probably wont allow 'generic classes' in my campaign since it takes away much of what the game is based around. It also penalizes those who are new to the game yet at the same time giving more choice for players to abuse. So to keep it simple, to keep balance, and to keep flavor, the generic class system will not be implimented. Neither will spell points, since it adds more bookkeeping for players, and I try to keep it as simple and straight forward for players while giving them class options to 'customize' to taste. I do not agree with the idea that PrC's in the splat books were hybrids of classes, since they offered much more in the way of path progression than any of the FR's PrC's did. Forgotten Realms PrC's are nice, but lack in the way of serious comitment by characters it seems due to their relatively short progressions. To take a stance that there are no restrictions in your campaign regarding multiclassing is, at least in my opinion, foolish and offers tremendous opportunities to abuse the system. I do, however understand where you were going with this and I am glad that the UA had addressed this small issue. Page 100 offers a House Rule from Andrew Finch that adds a favored class, thereby allowing a more thought out customized character, at the expense of a feat. Also, in tandem with this house rule I will probably use the Magic Rating system discussed on page 135 to encourage more customization in a more balanced way with the Optional Variant listed in the description that doesn't allow arcane and divine classes to mix. I do not agree that all Spell like and Supernatural abilities should be done as spells if nothing than for flavor of the abilities. Not to mention that you hinder the unique properties of each of those abilities. At any rate, each person has their unique taste for how D&D should and shouldn't be run, and for me, I prefer to let the players make the decisions for their characters in how they should progress, as long as its non-abusive to the system.
darkkender 02-22-04, 09:24 PM	4th ed bah, for those out there who are to worried about a 4th ed look at it this way I spent about 10+ years on AD&D 2nd ed revised, mind you I am making the point that it was revised a few years after 2nd ed AD&D came out much as the new third ed D&D and a few years later we get 3.5 which derives more from our filthy computer inundated society of dot com and version X.X that marketing departments every where know that consumers are going to spend buttloads more money for something with a version number as compared to something with a revised logo. All that said, if they did a 4.0 in a few years such as 2008 all they really will be doing is probably updating and fixing all those things that they realize needs fixing kinda like microsoft release the next version basically the same fixed old bugs and created 10 times the number of old bugs with new bugs. As for UA and generic classes while for the most part they blow I can say they would work great with prestige core classes such as the bard, ranger, or paladin or any other core class adapted to a prestige class. And as for Gestalt classes for power gamers, yes thats true especially if your GM is a power gamer because all characters in a party have to be gestalt characters not just one or two.
mhacdebhandia 02-22-04, 11:11 PM	Gestalt classes != power gaming. Gestalt classes just power up the overall level of the campaign. When everyone has two classes, the game numbers just increase, and the feel of the campaign has changed. That's not power gaming any more than the fact that the numbers are higher in Third Edition than in Second Edition means that Third Edition is a power gamer's game.
kzin 02-23-04, 12:15 AM	Zaebos: I wasn't saying ALL of the PrC's in the splat books are hybrids and ALL of the ones in the campeign books are flavor classes, I'm just saying they tend to each lean in those directions (not having my splat books here, I can't give examples off the top of my head though, but I think the Arcane Trickster is one such example). mhacdebhandia: Depends on what you mean by "power gaming". Power Gaming is about how a character changes after character creation. Story Games: the advancement within the game is solely about accomplishing story events. Rewards take the form of story awards such as titles for characters when they are given land within the setting by their king, or prestige for having eliminated the vampire in his castle, etc. (think about video games which have a narrative but where you don't really gain new abilities as the game goes on, or you only gain temporary power-ups; if you could buy any gun in Grand Theft Auto III from the start, then it would fall into this category ... as it is, though, it's more of a hybrid between Story and Power) Character Gaming: advancement within the game is more about dramatic personality change as characters grow and move in new directions. The game doesn't focus as much upon reward as the evolution of the character's personality. Power Gaming: the advancement within the game is focused upon characters acquiring new power and powers as the game goes on. Such as a better BAB, better saves, better spells, more and more powerful magic items, etc. In that respect, D&D has always been about power gaming (with the other types of gaming left as a game group issue than a game issue), and has always gotten more and more power oriented as it has evolved. There are other game systems (usually free ones on the web) that don't even have experience point systems because they completely avoid the Power Gaming model.
mhacdebhandia 02-23-04, 06:55 AM	D&D has always been a numbers-focused game. Even in the earlier editions where you stopped getting hit dice after a certain level and only got bonus hit points, there were always more spells to acquire, more monsters to defeat, more treasure to find. That's part of the level-based model that D&D uses - characters increase in power as they get more experienced. That's not power gaming, that's power increase in the course of a game. Power gaming has traditionally meant an approach to play which is highly oriented towards getting an "edge" over others - whether that means other players, or over the opposition. A tactical, resource-managing approach to adventures, an intense focus on mechanical optimisation for greater efficiency - that's power gaming. It doesn't have to be a bad thing, mostly because it doesn't have to be the be-all and end-all. You can approach the mechanics of the game in power-gamer style while still motivating your character with matters unrelated to the acquisition of power and its efficient use. At some point, you will have to negotiate a compromise between the logical mechanical choices and the logical roleplaying choices (does it make sense for my character to abandon his mage's guild which has trained and guided him ever since his retirement from the King's Army in order to join the ranks of the Eldritch Knights?) - but that's only to be expected. Any D&D game faces power increase. Even when you make deliberately poor mechanical choices because of in-character motivations, you are still becoming more powerful than you were before - not as powerful as you might have been by making different choices, but still more powerful. It's the nature of the beast. Back to the point: There's nothing about gestalt classes which implies power gaming as opposed to power [/b]increase[/b]. Obviously, the power level of the campaign is increased. Even if you include gestalt classes in a normal game, it's not necessarily a power gamer's choice - the same arguments against multiclassing and Level Adjustment races for spellcasters, for example, apply to gestalt classes, whether they're balanced with single-classed characters by means of some sort of Level Adjustment (which I believe is the system Kaya Kenobi is using) or by an experience point penalty. In a game where everyone has gestalt classes, the power level is increased across-the-board - CRs for non-classed monsters get "lower" effectively, and NPCs have gestalt classes too, so there's nothing of power gaming about it.
Xorial 02-23-04, 10:14 AM	Intead of adjusting CRs for gestalts, just give them an ECL of +2. Slows down their leveling, and accomplishes the same thing as an altered CR. End result: Flexibility at the expense of slower XP awards.
kzin 02-23-04, 01:05 PM	Originally posted by mhacdebhandia That's part of the level-based model that D&D uses - characters increase in power as they get more experienced. That's not power gaming, that's power increase in the course of a game. and focusing on power increase in the course of the game is power gaming. Power gaming has traditionally meant an approach to play which is highly oriented towards getting an "edge" over others Not traditionally. There have long been multiple ways of defining it. Back into the 80's (when usenet was still useful) there were many discussions about how to define the different types of gaming. And, as I indicated, that's just one of the variations. "It depends on what you mean by [it]". A tactical, resource-managing approach to adventures, an intense focus on mechanical optimisation for greater efficiency That's a form of Min-Maxing, which is related to power gaming (because the focus on efficiency and resource management is about maximizing the amount of power you're able to use for a given level of power), and could be considered a sub-set or extreme form of power gaming, or it could be considered a separate issue. It doesn't have to be a bad thing None of the definitions I gave were of a "good/bad" form. Any D&D game faces power increase. Any game faces power issues. The question is whether or not the game focuses on that as a form of advancing the character over time.
Xorial 02-23-04, 02:03 PM	It should be remembered, that the DM has the responsibility to out game the gamers. Not usually to beat them down, but if they get out of hand, the DM should remind them that the only way to get powerful, is to beat powerful foes. If they "walk" thru encounters without any repucussions, then lower the CR to reflect that it WASNT a challenge. If it is too easy, then they shouldnt get much, if any, XP. Thats why a 20th level fighter doesnt get any XP for continually thumping low level orcs.
DesolateCity 02-23-04, 04:28 PM	and focusing on power increase in the course of the game is power gaming. there is no focus on power increase. it is just an effect of gaining experience and leveling the only way to not increase power is to keep everyone at first level, and to not allow them to gain any new equipment or spells or anything while there are some campaigns that may focus on increasing power, just the simple effect of leveling increases power gestalt characters are supposed to be used for games that have a higher starting power level that doesnt mean that that is the focus somebody might end up running a game with gestalt characters that is mostly focused on story, where all the characters are heros of epic, and who can accomplish mighty acts from first level heck, you could even run a campaign with gestalt characters where all the characters are godlings, and who have to somehow aquire worshippers and portfolios. I could see that campaign not having any combat at all, at least not among the godlings
kzin 02-23-04, 09:06 PM	Originally posted by DesolateCity there is no focus on power increase. it is just an effect of gaining experience and leveling Go back and read what was said. There IS a focus on power increase within the character progression/experience system of the game mechanics. The ONLY effect of gaining experience and leveling in the game mechanics is gaining power. You don't gain titles, you don't gain in-setting prestige, you don't have some mandatory dramatic change of your character's personality, etc. The game mechanics' concept of advancing the character is giving them more power. Thus, it is focused on power increase. the only way to not increase power is to keep everyone at first level, and to not allow them to gain any new equipment or spells or anything Or start them out at Nth level and never advance them past that. You can pick whatever power level you want, and stay there. But that doesn't fit in with the experience award and progression system. You have to throw that out in order to play the game that way. (I'm not saying D&D can't avoid power gaming, I'm saying that, as it is written, it is a power gaming system, compared to being a story gaming or character gaming system ... with those other 2 forms of gaming being left to the game group ... and I'm not even saying that as a criticism, as I think it's perfectly reasonable to leave things that are really play styles to the game group, while giving a lot of structure and mechanics to the one style that really needs structure and mechanics)
Zaebos 02-23-04, 10:23 PM	Face it, the fact that your characters gain in power as they level is a huge part of exactly what D&D is. It helps them to be better equipped to handle more deadly encounters, and such is the way it should be. The problem here is that 'power gaming' has been defined as (in this thread) as gaining in power. THis is not the truth. Power gaming is gaming for the sole purpose of abusing rules/dm's to gain as much benifit to your character as you can get away with, or as some would say, munchkin. Other wise your just gaming and having fun.
SykeXero 02-25-04, 10:35 AM	Back to the subject. In 4thE I would like to see the "weapon groups" become standard. I don't think the generic classes should be directly put into the 4thE. Perhaps a varient such as "generic fighter" or "generic wizard". They would be similar to the standard classes as is but even more customizable. For the fighter example, there would be actual class-features that could be selected from a branching tree of sorts. You could be an agile fighter or a Tankor fighter and get ablilities based on what you want to do but still be a fighter. It is already begining in the core books with the specialist wizard and the ranger fighting styles. Why not do more? I would apreciate it at least.