Is Unearthed Arcana 3.5? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Is Unearthed Arcana 3.5? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
magus77777
09-15-06, 01:02 PM My DM will not allow Unearthed Arcana because he says it not 3.5 it's 3.0 he says.
Is he right or wrong?
Galadan_Ironstone
09-15-06, 01:30 PM It is 3.5, but they are optional rules so if your DM says "no" you are out of luck.
Madacapa
09-15-06, 02:39 PM You must obey your DM without question...
magus77777
09-15-06, 02:56 PM It's not the fact he said no, he just did not want to use it because he thinks it's 3.0. Is there a list of all the books that are 3.5 legal, so I can show him.
ReverendBSB
09-15-06, 07:52 PM The release date of the Players Handbook 3.5 is July 2003, while the release date for Unearthed Arcana is February 2004, so it would seem to me that Arcana is a 3.5 book. But of course if your DM does not want to use any rules from it, that is his perogative.
Darth Sephiroth
09-15-06, 09:58 PM You could talk to him about specific things from it, that may get him to give it a second glance if nothing else.
Trevan0
09-16-06, 03:04 AM Step 1, Crack open Unearthed Arcana to page 55.

Step 2, Look at the skills Eliminated from the Urban Ranger's list. Note they lose survival. Suvival was named Wilderness Lore in 3.0.

Step 3, Point out millions of other 3.5 based concepts in the book.

Step 4 (optional), Gloat.
Fang3
09-16-06, 04:41 AM Your DM is right, Unearthed Arcana is pure 3.0 material, and should be disallowed in your campaign... well actually it's full 3.5 obviously enough, but a DM is always right, especially when he's wrong.
Ranger REG
09-16-06, 05:09 AM My DM will not allow Unearthed Arcana because he says it not 3.5 it's 3.0 he says.
Is he right or wrong?
The new Unearthed Arcana first published in January 2004.

The Player's Handbook v.3.5 first published July 2003.
Otto the Bugbear
09-16-06, 09:35 AM it not 3.5 it's 3.0

You could also ask why that matters one bit. But before you do, open the Player's Handbook or Dungeon Master's Guide to page 4, and have the sidebar "Why a new edition" ready".

Cheers

Otto :)
DarkThoughts24
09-16-06, 10:49 AM You must obey your DM without question...

so very true.
enlightened
09-17-06, 05:45 PM DMs being silly sticklers about things like this get my goat.

I'm of the opinion that the DMs opinion about which things should be allowed is no more improtant than the players' opinions about it.

The players wanting to use something and the DM saying "no" is the same as the DM deciding something and the players saying "no". If one is OK, both are OK.

This:
Player: I want to use this class from UA.
DM: No.
Player: Why?
DM: Because .

.....is the same as this:
DM: You rolled a 1. Roll for critical miss.
Player: No.
DM: Why?
Player: Because I don't like critical miss house rules. Next person's turn please.

If one side can say "no" both sides can say "no".

If I were you I would ask the other players if they want to use the book or not. 　If they all say yes, then invite them all over to your house the next week instead and you start DMing the game.......using the book.

And tell your DM that if he wants to come too he should roll up a character. :D

Maybe I'm just in a particularly democratic group, but we vote on everything (which books to use, house rules, what to nerf, etc.) and the DM's vote counts for only one.

In addition, the natural respons to a DM saying "no" due to world specific reasons is this:
Player: I want to use this class from UA.
DM: No.
Player: Why?
DM: Because [insert world specific reason].
Player: [I]But I don't want to play in a world in which that is the situation. I want to play in a world in which I can play this class.
Millennium
09-18-06, 10:06 AM I don't have UA in front of me at the moment, but if I recall correctly it doesn't actually touch on any of the rules that are different between 3.0 and 3.5. As such, it can be trivially used in either edition.
Aragorn Raziel Wilcrez
09-18-06, 04:20 PM I don't have UA in front of me at the moment, but if I recall correctly it doesn't actually touch on any of the rules that are different between 3.0 and 3.5. As such, it can be trivially used in either edition.

If you'd read earlier in this thread:

Step 1, Crack open Unearthed Arcana to page 55.

Step 2, Look at the skills Eliminated from the Urban Ranger's list. Note they lose survival. Suvival was named Wilderness Lore in 3.0.

Step 3, Point out millions of other 3.5 based concepts in the book.

Step 4 (optional), Gloat.

So, it touches a lot on 3.5 rules. Also lets you make your game some crazy number like 3.745...

Anyway, material from UA is sometimes unbalancing. The variant classes aren't really, but the variant systems are (ie. generic classes, skill variant rules, etc).

Only D&D convention DMs have total say over everything. At the table at home, though, there needs to be compromise.
Sphyre
09-19-06, 03:43 AM You must obey your DM without question...

LOL, thanks for the laugh :rofl:
Thurbane
09-25-06, 04:08 AM I must correct all of you - Unearthed Arcana was 1E, without any question. Thank you.
Thurbane
09-25-06, 04:11 AM <snip anti DM dogma>
Yes, heaven forbid that your DM disallow your 1/2 dragon thri kreen Samurai Soulknife Oozemaster for reasons of flavor in his campaign.

I mean, him putting hours and hours of work into creating a game world that has a feel of consistency and/or uniqueness does not give him the right to say no to a race or class request. Perish the thought.

:rolleyes:
Galadan_Ironstone
09-25-06, 06:14 PM I must correct all of you - Unearthed Arcana was 1E, without any question. Thank you.

Very funny! I'm happy someone else remebers 1st Edition. Funny enough Unearthed Arcana in 1st Ed was an awesome book. Weapon Specialization was great!
riceisnice
09-25-06, 09:49 PM Yes, heaven forbid that your DM disallow your 1/2 dragon thri kreen Samurai Soulknife Oozemaster for reasons of flavor in his campaign.

I mean, him putting hours and hours of work into creating a game world that has a feel of consistency and/or uniqueness does not give him the right to say no to a race or class request. Perish the thought.
Extreme example presented. Point made. But the build you presented is a far cry from giving your dwarf fighter a paragon level from UA.

It boils down to both being reasonable in one's requests and reasonable in granting them, on both sides of the screen. Arbitrarily deciding all UA material is unacceptable because the number preceding the word "edition" is off by 0.5 isn't being especially reasonable.

My only question when I'm the DM and a player proposes a non-core/non-standard rule or concept be introduced is, "Will it make the game more or less fun?" Maybe the half-dragon samurai oozelord blah blah blah would be more fun for that one player, but the game would suffer unless the whole premise everyone agreed on was "wacky character day".
Cameron_DuModre
09-25-06, 10:20 PM Seems to me if someone is DMing and no one else is running any campaigns that means that the DM is putting a lot of effort in to help other people play.

I personally am leery about UA rules because they can make things needlessly complicated and while I am open to possibly taking select things from the UA book I hold final judgement.

Honestly if someone wants to play something that I think is going to be overpowering or is a terrible fit for the lore/feel of the world then they can work on their own campaign and I'll be happy to be a player in it. It's nice to kick back and let someone else work for awhile.

And if they had a tantrum about my DMing practices, well, if I'm in their game I can feel justified to give them just a hard a time as they gave me.

:rolleyes:
demon666fast
09-25-06, 11:16 PM You must obey your DM without question...

At first I laughed out loud on that. But after thinking about how some people may create absurd character concepts or try other ways to simply break the game, I have to agree, the line that separates good sense and nonsense is really thin.

You must obey your DM without question... or find a new one, or DM yourself!

It's interesting to watch how different the concepts of rpg groups can be. In some groups the DM is like an almost divine guy that dictates what happens and everybody is bound to his will, it's like an insane nerdish respect or something like that. And most of these DMs just take themselves too seriously, it's laughable. And it's amazing how it happens in groups with older people.
In my group the DM is just another player. Everybody discuss the rules, and everybody votes to decide which rules to use and not to use. Most players DM, sometimes there are 3 campaigns going on, with a different DM in each one. The player vs. dm thing rarely happens, maybe never. I'm still trying to figure out wich one is the cause and wich one is the consequence.
That's why everytime I read something like "obey your DM" I start imagining a very funny and cartoonish situation. :P
Thurbane
09-26-06, 04:25 AM Extreme example presented. Point made. But the build you presented is a far cry from giving your dwarf fighter a paragon level from UA.

It boils down to both being reasonable in one's requests and reasonable in granting them, on both sides of the screen. Arbitrarily deciding all UA material is unacceptable because the number preceding the word "edition" is off by 0.5 isn't being especially reasonable.

My only question when I'm the DM and a player proposes a non-core/non-standard rule or concept be introduced is, "Will it make the game more or less fun?" Maybe the half-dragon samurai oozelord blah blah blah would be more fun for that one player, but the game would suffer unless the whole premise everyone agreed on was "wacky character day".
All good points.

Yes, I was making a pretty extreme example, I'll admit (although not as extreme as you might first think - seriously, check out what people on here post as their character/party sometime. The mind boggles.).

However, I am lucky enough to game with players who dont make these kinds of requests. We play mostly core only. If people have fun playing non-standard races and/or classes, I wish them all the best. But to get snarky with a DM because he has set limits of PC races and classes isn't very productive either.

The DM/player relationship should be give and take. Sometimes that means the DM gives up his spare time to run adventures and a campaign world for you, and he takes away some character concepts that don't fit in with his vision of his campaign world.
babysamurai
09-26-06, 05:46 AM You must obey your DM without question... or find a new one, or DM yourself!

What is up with this new generation of control-freak DM’s?

Just like any social situation in life, you should be reasonable and approachable.

It’s fine if the DM says there are no "Samurai’s" in his world, but to flat out have the attitude that no one can question him/her, on anything, ever, is totalitarian and passive-aggressive in the extreme.

As a DM I prefer to work with my players to make a great campaign.
demon666fast
09-26-06, 07:35 AM What is up with this new generation of control-freak DM’s?

Just like any social situation in life, you should be reasonable and approachable.

It’s fine if the DM says there are no "Samurai’s" in his world, but to flat out have the attitude that no one can question him/her, on anything, ever, is totalitarian and passive-aggressive in the extreme.

As a DM I prefer to work with my players to make a great campaign.

What I really had in mind when I said that is if you really have to "obey" your DM, if it comes to that, you would be better findinG a new DM or dming yourself.
Ranger REG
09-26-06, 10:11 PM I must correct all of you - Unearthed Arcana was 1E, without any question. Thank you.
Funny, because I have both 1e and 3e (3.5e to be exact) copies.

*wet raspberry shower* :pbbbtt:
riceisnice
09-26-06, 11:28 PM The DM/player relationship should be give and take. Sometimes that means the DM gives up his spare time to run adventures and a campaign world for you, and he takes away some character concepts that don't fit in with his vision of his campaign world.
I disagree with you to some extent, but the group I've played with has always had a very cooperative view of world- and campaign-building. The ideal DM response to a player's character concept that doesn't currently fit in his vision of the game world should be, "Where could this fit in my vision of the game world?" Now, granted, there may be some ideas too ludicrous to entertain (though my group sounds like yours, in that they're never too ridiculous), for the most part, with a little communication and imagination you can fit mostly anything into a game and maintain the DM's coherent campaign world.

As for the O.P.'s situation, there are pretty much no player's options (that is to say, barring all the system-wide game-changing variants) in the UA book that cannot be seamlessly integrated into most any D&D campaign world. And to not even consider the material suggested because you incorrectly believe it's based on an outdated version of 3rd edition seems to be somewhat lacking in the cooperative spirit any gaming group should try to foster.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
magus77777 09-15-06, 01:02 PM	My DM will not allow Unearthed Arcana because he says it not 3.5 it's 3.0 he says. Is he right or wrong?
Galadan_Ironstone 09-15-06, 01:30 PM	It is 3.5, but they are optional rules so if your DM says "no" you are out of luck.
Madacapa 09-15-06, 02:39 PM	You must obey your DM without question...
magus77777 09-15-06, 02:56 PM	It's not the fact he said no, he just did not want to use it because he thinks it's 3.0. Is there a list of all the books that are 3.5 legal, so I can show him.
ReverendBSB 09-15-06, 07:52 PM	The release date of the Players Handbook 3.5 is July 2003, while the release date for Unearthed Arcana is February 2004, so it would seem to me that Arcana is a 3.5 book. But of course if your DM does not want to use any rules from it, that is his perogative.
Darth Sephiroth 09-15-06, 09:58 PM	You could talk to him about specific things from it, that may get him to give it a second glance if nothing else.
Trevan0 09-16-06, 03:04 AM	Step 1, Crack open Unearthed Arcana to page 55. Step 2, Look at the skills Eliminated from the Urban Ranger's list. Note they lose survival. Suvival was named Wilderness Lore in 3.0. Step 3, Point out millions of other 3.5 based concepts in the book. Step 4 (optional), Gloat.
Fang3 09-16-06, 04:41 AM	Your DM is right, Unearthed Arcana is pure 3.0 material, and should be disallowed in your campaign... well actually it's full 3.5 obviously enough, but a DM is always right, especially when he's wrong.
Ranger REG 09-16-06, 05:09 AM	My DM will not allow Unearthed Arcana because he says it not 3.5 it's 3.0 he says. Is he right or wrong? The new Unearthed Arcana first published in January 2004. The Player's Handbook v.3.5 first published July 2003.
Otto the Bugbear 09-16-06, 09:35 AM	it not 3.5 it's 3.0 You could also ask why that matters one bit. But before you do, open the Player's Handbook or Dungeon Master's Guide to page 4, and have the sidebar "Why a new edition" ready". Cheers Otto :)
DarkThoughts24 09-16-06, 10:49 AM	You must obey your DM without question... so very true.
enlightened 09-17-06, 05:45 PM	DMs being silly sticklers about things like this get my goat. I'm of the opinion that the DMs opinion about which things should be allowed is no more improtant than the players' opinions about it. The players wanting to use something and the DM saying "no" is the same as the DM deciding something and the players saying "no". If one is OK, both are OK. This: Player: I want to use this class from UA. DM: No. Player: Why? DM: Because . .....is the same as this: DM: You rolled a 1. Roll for critical miss. Player: No. DM: Why? Player: Because I don't like critical miss house rules. Next person's turn please. If one side can say "no" both sides can say "no". If I were you I would ask the other players if they want to use the book or not. 　If they all say yes, then invite them all over to your house the next week instead and you start DMing the game.......using the book. And tell your DM that if he wants to come too he should roll up a character. :D Maybe I'm just in a particularly democratic group, but we vote on everything (which books to use, house rules, what to nerf, etc.) and the DM's vote counts for only one. In addition, the natural respons to a DM saying "no" due to world specific reasons is this: Player: I want to use this class from UA. DM: No. Player: Why? DM: Because [insert world specific reason]. Player: [I]But I don't want to play in a world in which that is the situation. I want to play in a world in which I can play this class.
Millennium 09-18-06, 10:06 AM	I don't have UA in front of me at the moment, but if I recall correctly it doesn't actually touch on any of the rules that are different between 3.0 and 3.5. As such, it can be trivially used in either edition.
Aragorn Raziel Wilcrez 09-18-06, 04:20 PM	I don't have UA in front of me at the moment, but if I recall correctly it doesn't actually touch on any of the rules that are different between 3.0 and 3.5. As such, it can be trivially used in either edition. If you'd read earlier in this thread: Step 1, Crack open Unearthed Arcana to page 55. Step 2, Look at the skills Eliminated from the Urban Ranger's list. Note they lose survival. Suvival was named Wilderness Lore in 3.0. Step 3, Point out millions of other 3.5 based concepts in the book. Step 4 (optional), Gloat. So, it touches a lot on 3.5 rules. Also lets you make your game some crazy number like 3.745... Anyway, material from UA is sometimes unbalancing. The variant classes aren't really, but the variant systems are (ie. generic classes, skill variant rules, etc). Only D&D convention DMs have total say over everything. At the table at home, though, there needs to be compromise.
Sphyre 09-19-06, 03:43 AM	You must obey your DM without question... LOL, thanks for the laugh :rofl:
Thurbane 09-25-06, 04:08 AM	I must correct all of you - Unearthed Arcana was 1E, without any question. Thank you.
Thurbane 09-25-06, 04:11 AM	<snip anti DM dogma> Yes, heaven forbid that your DM disallow your 1/2 dragon thri kreen Samurai Soulknife Oozemaster for reasons of flavor in his campaign. I mean, him putting hours and hours of work into creating a game world that has a feel of consistency and/or uniqueness does not give him the right to say no to a race or class request. Perish the thought. :rolleyes:
Galadan_Ironstone 09-25-06, 06:14 PM	I must correct all of you - Unearthed Arcana was 1E, without any question. Thank you. Very funny! I'm happy someone else remebers 1st Edition. Funny enough Unearthed Arcana in 1st Ed was an awesome book. Weapon Specialization was great!
riceisnice 09-25-06, 09:49 PM	Yes, heaven forbid that your DM disallow your 1/2 dragon thri kreen Samurai Soulknife Oozemaster for reasons of flavor in his campaign. I mean, him putting hours and hours of work into creating a game world that has a feel of consistency and/or uniqueness does not give him the right to say no to a race or class request. Perish the thought. Extreme example presented. Point made. But the build you presented is a far cry from giving your dwarf fighter a paragon level from UA. It boils down to both being reasonable in one's requests and reasonable in granting them, on both sides of the screen. Arbitrarily deciding all UA material is unacceptable because the number preceding the word "edition" is off by 0.5 isn't being especially reasonable. My only question when I'm the DM and a player proposes a non-core/non-standard rule or concept be introduced is, "Will it make the game more or less fun?" Maybe the half-dragon samurai oozelord blah blah blah would be more fun for that one player, but the game would suffer unless the whole premise everyone agreed on was "wacky character day".
Cameron_DuModre 09-25-06, 10:20 PM	Seems to me if someone is DMing and no one else is running any campaigns that means that the DM is putting a lot of effort in to help other people play. I personally am leery about UA rules because they can make things needlessly complicated and while I am open to possibly taking select things from the UA book I hold final judgement. Honestly if someone wants to play something that I think is going to be overpowering or is a terrible fit for the lore/feel of the world then they can work on their own campaign and I'll be happy to be a player in it. It's nice to kick back and let someone else work for awhile. And if they had a tantrum about my DMing practices, well, if I'm in their game I can feel justified to give them just a hard a time as they gave me. :rolleyes:
demon666fast 09-25-06, 11:16 PM	You must obey your DM without question... At first I laughed out loud on that. But after thinking about how some people may create absurd character concepts or try other ways to simply break the game, I have to agree, the line that separates good sense and nonsense is really thin. You must obey your DM without question... or find a new one, or DM yourself! It's interesting to watch how different the concepts of rpg groups can be. In some groups the DM is like an almost divine guy that dictates what happens and everybody is bound to his will, it's like an insane nerdish respect or something like that. And most of these DMs just take themselves too seriously, it's laughable. And it's amazing how it happens in groups with older people. In my group the DM is just another player. Everybody discuss the rules, and everybody votes to decide which rules to use and not to use. Most players DM, sometimes there are 3 campaigns going on, with a different DM in each one. The player vs. dm thing rarely happens, maybe never. I'm still trying to figure out wich one is the cause and wich one is the consequence. That's why everytime I read something like "obey your DM" I start imagining a very funny and cartoonish situation. :P
Thurbane 09-26-06, 04:25 AM	Extreme example presented. Point made. But the build you presented is a far cry from giving your dwarf fighter a paragon level from UA. It boils down to both being reasonable in one's requests and reasonable in granting them, on both sides of the screen. Arbitrarily deciding all UA material is unacceptable because the number preceding the word "edition" is off by 0.5 isn't being especially reasonable. My only question when I'm the DM and a player proposes a non-core/non-standard rule or concept be introduced is, "Will it make the game more or less fun?" Maybe the half-dragon samurai oozelord blah blah blah would be more fun for that one player, but the game would suffer unless the whole premise everyone agreed on was "wacky character day". All good points. Yes, I was making a pretty extreme example, I'll admit (although not as extreme as you might first think - seriously, check out what people on here post as their character/party sometime. The mind boggles.). However, I am lucky enough to game with players who dont make these kinds of requests. We play mostly core only. If people have fun playing non-standard races and/or classes, I wish them all the best. But to get snarky with a DM because he has set limits of PC races and classes isn't very productive either. The DM/player relationship should be give and take. Sometimes that means the DM gives up his spare time to run adventures and a campaign world for you, and he takes away some character concepts that don't fit in with his vision of his campaign world.
babysamurai 09-26-06, 05:46 AM	You must obey your DM without question... or find a new one, or DM yourself! What is up with this new generation of control-freak DM’s? Just like any social situation in life, you should be reasonable and approachable. It’s fine if the DM says there are no "Samurai’s" in his world, but to flat out have the attitude that no one can question him/her, on anything, ever, is totalitarian and passive-aggressive in the extreme. As a DM I prefer to work with my players to make a great campaign.
demon666fast 09-26-06, 07:35 AM	What is up with this new generation of control-freak DM’s? Just like any social situation in life, you should be reasonable and approachable. It’s fine if the DM says there are no "Samurai’s" in his world, but to flat out have the attitude that no one can question him/her, on anything, ever, is totalitarian and passive-aggressive in the extreme. As a DM I prefer to work with my players to make a great campaign. What I really had in mind when I said that is if you really have to "obey" your DM, if it comes to that, you would be better findinG a new DM or dming yourself.
Ranger REG 09-26-06, 10:11 PM	I must correct all of you - Unearthed Arcana was 1E, without any question. Thank you. Funny, because I have both 1e and 3e (3.5e to be exact) copies. wet raspberry shower :pbbbtt:
riceisnice 09-26-06, 11:28 PM	The DM/player relationship should be give and take. Sometimes that means the DM gives up his spare time to run adventures and a campaign world for you, and he takes away some character concepts that don't fit in with his vision of his campaign world. I disagree with you to some extent, but the group I've played with has always had a very cooperative view of world- and campaign-building. The ideal DM response to a player's character concept that doesn't currently fit in his vision of the game world should be, "Where could this fit in my vision of the game world?" Now, granted, there may be some ideas too ludicrous to entertain (though my group sounds like yours, in that they're never too ridiculous), for the most part, with a little communication and imagination you can fit mostly anything into a game and maintain the DM's coherent campaign world. As for the O.P.'s situation, there are pretty much no player's options (that is to say, barring all the system-wide game-changing variants) in the UA book that cannot be seamlessly integrated into most any D&D campaign world. And to not even consider the material suggested because you incorrectly believe it's based on an outdated version of 3rd edition seems to be somewhat lacking in the cooperative spirit any gaming group should try to foster.