How good is the REALLY? [Archive] - Wizards Community

How good is the REALLY? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Psifon
02-20-04, 01:21 AM First let me say that I have not yet bought UA. I have paged through it in the store, but that's it.

Still, I have to ask: How good is this book really? It seems to me that a book of nothing but variant rules is going to really have little impact on the game as a whole. Any impact it has will probably not be positive.

There are several reasons for this:

1) More rules are not necessarily better. The D&D system is a varied and complex system of rules. Adding more rules is bound to create situations where the new rule conficts or creates unforseen consequences with the old rules (look up the recent threads on tripping and being prone for some good examples of this principal at work).

2) Since the rules are ALL variant rules, no two DM's are likely to agree on what rules to use. This means that any given character you create may or may not be legal from one campaign to the next. This is a big deal to young adults, who tend to have highly mobile lifestyles (like college students for instance). Last time I checked this is the main market for the game.

Conversely non-variant characters will likely be underpowered compared to characters built on variant rules, since variant rules almost always make characters stronger.

3) Eventually it gets to be that there are so many variant rules that the rules system simply becomes a "the DM calls it" kind of construct. This is what second edition was, and it was not a good thing. Every book had various, conflicting rules on all sorts of things which were impossible for a single player or DM to remember. This lead to DM's simply making rulings on an ad-hock basis, while players researched rules to hand to the DM to allow them to pull off specific tricks. 3.0 had done away with all that, 3.5 + 3.0 has caused us to drift back into this pattern, and UA is pretty much cannonizing it as far as I can see.

It seems to me that we are entering the "Player's Option" phase of 3.5. This is a bad thing. A VERY bad thing. The Player's Option books in 2.0 were nothing but bad for the game. Even the critical hits charts sucked. Where is this all going for 3.5?

No sir, I don't like it, not one little bit.
klyre
02-20-04, 02:03 AM I just have to say that I've never worried about house rules varying from one DM to the next. I have never in my 6 years of playing ever come across a DM who would allow characters from other campaigns. Never. I really can't imagine why a DM would allow such a character.
Skeptical Clown
02-20-04, 12:19 PM It's ok. It seems different from the Player's Option books to me, because most of the stuff contained within is clearly intended to be used in non-traditional campaigns. There are a few tweaks here and there that might spice up a normal game, but I don't think that it threatens the standard D&D game at all. The most threatening parts are generally the worst (Paragon classes, gestalt classes), and I assume most people won't want to bother dealing with them.
Salla
02-20-04, 12:26 PM This is why I suggest that all DMs have a House Rules Document printed up and give each player a copy, so they know exactly what House Rules and Variants are in play in the game.
N4M8-
02-20-04, 12:36 PM 1) More rules are not necessarily better.

In many cases its not "more" rules its "different" rules.

2) Since the rules are ALL variant rules, no two DM's are likely to agree on what rules to use. This means that any given character you create may or may not be legal from one campaign to the next.

And no two DMs can agree on what is the right amount of treasure or difficulty of encounter. If a DM is inclined to allow you to bring in a pre-existing character then he's already past issues of dealing with what another DM did.

Conversely non-variant characters will likely be underpowered compared to characters built on variant rules, since variant rules almost always make characters stronger.

You don't have the book, haven't read it, but you know that variant rules make characters stronger? No, what they tend to do is change the mix of strengths and weaknesses. And many of the variant rules in the book have nothing to do with the characters but rather about how the characters interact with the game. Armor as Damage Reduction doesn't change a character's abilities, just how damage is dealt to him. The recycle timer optional spell system makes a character more flexible in his choice of spells available but also makes it impossible for him to chain cast spells (at least of the same level).

3) Eventually it gets to be that there are so many variant rules that the rules system simply becomes a "the DM calls it" kind of construct.

And that differs from the way things are now in what way? (Actually, my campaigns tend to be consensus affairs where the players are consulted on their preferences and the game is adjusted to their need. . .but then I'm not going to run a game for immature players.)

No sir, I don't like it, not one little bit.

Seems you 've made up your mind, sight unseen. Your right to do, but don't expect anyone to put a lot of weight on your having done so.
stilleon
02-20-04, 04:16 PM Unearth Arcana is not for the casual player or DM.

Instead, it is for those who love to bring new things into the game, and to vary the rules to capture a different feel when playing the game. Most of the variants will take a little work adding them in, and a good understanding of the d20 mechanics helps.
Psifon
02-21-04, 01:55 AM Originally posted by N4M8-
[B]In many cases its not "more" rules its "different" rules.

OK, cool.

And no two DMs can agree on what is the right amount of treasure or difficulty of encounter. If a DM is inclined to allow you to bring in a pre-existing character then he's already past issues of dealing with what another DM did.

We do have standardized guidelines for these issues however.

You don't have the book, haven't read it, but you know that variant rules make characters stronger? No, what they tend to do is change the mix of strengths and weaknesses. And many of the variant rules in the book have nothing to do with the characters but rather about how the characters interact with the game.

After 27 years of playing D&D, I think I can say with some authority that characters built on variant rules tend to be stronger than characters who are not. I did not say that they are in THIS case, although from what I have read on these boards, this appears to be the trend with UA as well.

Armor as Damage Reduction doesn't change a character's abilities, just how damage is dealt to him.

I did read this part. This is a perfect example of a rule that is going to grossly effect all aspects of melee combat. Two Weapon Fighting is weaker in this system. Two handed fighting is MUCH stronger, since you can now afford to put more attack bonus into Power attack, and you get a 2-1 payoff for doing so.

Seems you 've made up your mind, sight unseen. Your right to do, but don't expect anyone to put a lot of weight on your having done so.

Nah, If I had made up my mind I wouldn't have started this post. Rather, I am expressing a concern that this book might be taking the hobby down a wrong turn (like the Player's Option books did). I was just feeling ornery when I wrote that ;)
Starcrossed
02-21-04, 02:26 AM I look at it is just a book collected together of a lot of the same sorts of house rules that DMs have been making up all along. I have not played with a DM ever that didn't use at least a little bit of house rules. This just sort of makes some groups have the same house rules in effect. Making things more compatible between groups than it is different as I would see it. I play with several different groups. Already some of these rules have gone into play in each group. Some groups use some of the same ones. Others don't. Its kind of nice to have that variety...as long as I have my notes on what we use in the game that I am sitting in.:)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Psifon 02-20-04, 01:21 AM	First let me say that I have not yet bought UA. I have paged through it in the store, but that's it. Still, I have to ask: How good is this book really? It seems to me that a book of nothing but variant rules is going to really have little impact on the game as a whole. Any impact it has will probably not be positive. There are several reasons for this: 1) More rules are not necessarily better. The D&D system is a varied and complex system of rules. Adding more rules is bound to create situations where the new rule conficts or creates unforseen consequences with the old rules (look up the recent threads on tripping and being prone for some good examples of this principal at work). 2) Since the rules are ALL variant rules, no two DM's are likely to agree on what rules to use. This means that any given character you create may or may not be legal from one campaign to the next. This is a big deal to young adults, who tend to have highly mobile lifestyles (like college students for instance). Last time I checked this is the main market for the game. Conversely non-variant characters will likely be underpowered compared to characters built on variant rules, since variant rules almost always make characters stronger. 3) Eventually it gets to be that there are so many variant rules that the rules system simply becomes a "the DM calls it" kind of construct. This is what second edition was, and it was not a good thing. Every book had various, conflicting rules on all sorts of things which were impossible for a single player or DM to remember. This lead to DM's simply making rulings on an ad-hock basis, while players researched rules to hand to the DM to allow them to pull off specific tricks. 3.0 had done away with all that, 3.5 + 3.0 has caused us to drift back into this pattern, and UA is pretty much cannonizing it as far as I can see. It seems to me that we are entering the "Player's Option" phase of 3.5. This is a bad thing. A VERY bad thing. The Player's Option books in 2.0 were nothing but bad for the game. Even the critical hits charts sucked. Where is this all going for 3.5? No sir, I don't like it, not one little bit.
klyre 02-20-04, 02:03 AM	I just have to say that I've never worried about house rules varying from one DM to the next. I have never in my 6 years of playing ever come across a DM who would allow characters from other campaigns. Never. I really can't imagine why a DM would allow such a character.
Skeptical Clown 02-20-04, 12:19 PM	It's ok. It seems different from the Player's Option books to me, because most of the stuff contained within is clearly intended to be used in non-traditional campaigns. There are a few tweaks here and there that might spice up a normal game, but I don't think that it threatens the standard D&D game at all. The most threatening parts are generally the worst (Paragon classes, gestalt classes), and I assume most people won't want to bother dealing with them.
Salla 02-20-04, 12:26 PM	This is why I suggest that all DMs have a House Rules Document printed up and give each player a copy, so they know exactly what House Rules and Variants are in play in the game.
N4M8- 02-20-04, 12:36 PM	1) More rules are not necessarily better. In many cases its not "more" rules its "different" rules. 2) Since the rules are ALL variant rules, no two DM's are likely to agree on what rules to use. This means that any given character you create may or may not be legal from one campaign to the next. And no two DMs can agree on what is the right amount of treasure or difficulty of encounter. If a DM is inclined to allow you to bring in a pre-existing character then he's already past issues of dealing with what another DM did. Conversely non-variant characters will likely be underpowered compared to characters built on variant rules, since variant rules almost always make characters stronger. You don't have the book, haven't read it, but you know that variant rules make characters stronger? No, what they tend to do is change the mix of strengths and weaknesses. And many of the variant rules in the book have nothing to do with the characters but rather about how the characters interact with the game. Armor as Damage Reduction doesn't change a character's abilities, just how damage is dealt to him. The recycle timer optional spell system makes a character more flexible in his choice of spells available but also makes it impossible for him to chain cast spells (at least of the same level). 3) Eventually it gets to be that there are so many variant rules that the rules system simply becomes a "the DM calls it" kind of construct. And that differs from the way things are now in what way? (Actually, my campaigns tend to be consensus affairs where the players are consulted on their preferences and the game is adjusted to their need. . .but then I'm not going to run a game for immature players.) No sir, I don't like it, not one little bit. Seems you 've made up your mind, sight unseen. Your right to do, but don't expect anyone to put a lot of weight on your having done so.
stilleon 02-20-04, 04:16 PM	Unearth Arcana is not for the casual player or DM. Instead, it is for those who love to bring new things into the game, and to vary the rules to capture a different feel when playing the game. Most of the variants will take a little work adding them in, and a good understanding of the d20 mechanics helps.
Psifon 02-21-04, 01:55 AM	Originally posted by N4M8- [B]In many cases its not "more" rules its "different" rules. OK, cool. And no two DMs can agree on what is the right amount of treasure or difficulty of encounter. If a DM is inclined to allow you to bring in a pre-existing character then he's already past issues of dealing with what another DM did. We do have standardized guidelines for these issues however. You don't have the book, haven't read it, but you know that variant rules make characters stronger? No, what they tend to do is change the mix of strengths and weaknesses. And many of the variant rules in the book have nothing to do with the characters but rather about how the characters interact with the game. After 27 years of playing D&D, I think I can say with some authority that characters built on variant rules tend to be stronger than characters who are not. I did not say that they are in THIS case, although from what I have read on these boards, this appears to be the trend with UA as well. Armor as Damage Reduction doesn't change a character's abilities, just how damage is dealt to him. I did read this part. This is a perfect example of a rule that is going to grossly effect all aspects of melee combat. Two Weapon Fighting is weaker in this system. Two handed fighting is MUCH stronger, since you can now afford to put more attack bonus into Power attack, and you get a 2-1 payoff for doing so. Seems you 've made up your mind, sight unseen. Your right to do, but don't expect anyone to put a lot of weight on your having done so. Nah, If I had made up my mind I wouldn't have started this post. Rather, I am expressing a concern that this book might be taking the hobby down a wrong turn (like the Player's Option books did). I was just feeling ornery when I wrote that ;)
Starcrossed 02-21-04, 02:26 AM	I look at it is just a book collected together of a lot of the same sorts of house rules that DMs have been making up all along. I have not played with a DM ever that didn't use at least a little bit of house rules. This just sort of makes some groups have the same house rules in effect. Making things more compatible between groups than it is different as I would see it. I play with several different groups. Already some of these rules have gone into play in each group. Some groups use some of the same ones. Others don't. Its kind of nice to have that variety...as long as I have my notes on what we use in the game that I am sitting in.:)