Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Greg K 02-25-04, 01:30 PM	As the title says, what do you wish had been included in UA, but was not (or at least you wish was done different). For me it was the following: Chapter 1: Human variants by culture. Where are they? Someone from a nomadic horse culture in the desert is going to be different than someone growing up in the jungle or arctic. Starting skills, feats, weapons, armor (if any) should not be expected to be the same. Chapter:3 Barbarian environment variants- I wanted to see a variant of barbarians influenced by environment and culture. (See Human variants by culture above). The original 1e Barbarian in 1st edition UA had list made some recognition of skills being influenced by culture and David Howery's revision of the 1e Barbarian (the revision is still the best Barbarian in my opinion) for Dragon Magazine gave extensive examples of Barbarian from various cultures. Druid-Environment variants: The Complete Druid Handbook had alternative abilities based on the druid's environment. Mongoose has something similar posted on their website. Monk- I wanted to see a variant that allowed more choice in designing the monk including special abilities. The fighting style variant does not go far enough. Also, like many people, I wanted to see a non-ki based martial artist Sorceror- Abilities and spells tied to the sorceor's bloodline Wizard Specialists: I like the idea of the domain wizards and the specialist wizard variants, but I would have liked a variant that either ties back to the 1e Illusionist with each specialist has their own spells list or at least have non specialty spells have some kind of penalty (e.g, treating non specialty spells as being a higher level for learning purposes or having reduced level based effects). Chapter 3 d20 Modern style Occupations. This would have been great with the generic classes and, for me, much more useful than the backgrounds Chapter 4 Class defense bonuses working more like they do in Wheel of Time and allowing armor bonus to stack Further elaboration on both WP/VP and Injury systems to further integrate them with DND. Chapter 5 Psionics variant based on feats and skills like the force in Star Wars d20. Well at least Green Ronin did this
kgiggles 02-25-04, 01:39 PM	About 50 more pages. I was pretty happy with the UA, the price is something I`ll have to get used to though.
Giant in the Playground 02-25-04, 02:14 PM	Nothing. It's not that there couldn't have been more stuff, but frankly, if I can think it up myself I can just create it myself too. I was happy there was stuff in UA that I would never have thought ofÑeven if that means I would never use it, either, like Sanity. Greg K, you've obviously got very clear and decent ideas there; why not write them yourself? Pick up the 1e sources you mention and have at it. Why did you need UA to put those ideas in print to validate them?
Kastas 02-25-04, 02:42 PM	There wasn't much more that I could have wanted from UA. Of course, I didn't really know what to expect in the first place. I have a few minor gripes with the book, including a few mentioned above (inadequate/uninteresting monk variants, insufficiently explain hit point systems, no mention of psionics) but overall the book met and exceeded my expectations.
Nikdo 02-25-04, 02:55 PM	Three reasons I like an "official" book of variant rules (i.e. Unearthed Arcana): 1) It's kind of nice to tell a new player (or a potential player) that you run a campaign that uses (for example) Wound Points and Vitality, Defense Bonus, and Armor as Damage Reduction from Unearthed Arcana. It's a common point of reference. 2) The rules were (theoretically) play-tested by WotC designers for balance and impact. 3) UA makes a lot of systems "legal" by adding them to the OGL which gives third party publishers a lot of freedom to do some really cool stuff. If WotC put out another UA every year, I would be the first to pick it up.
Kobold Avenger 02-25-04, 02:57 PM	A monk with a larger variety of choices and no alignment restriction. The Wealth bonus system, and ways to handle it with D&D campaigns as opposed to D20 Modern. Starting Occupations from D20 Modern adopted to D&D.
Endarire 02-25-04, 05:21 PM	-Paladin variant for every alignment -All base classes for every alignment -Rules for bardic music as a feat (progression) -Variant for no favored classes -EE
Morloth 02-25-04, 06:49 PM	A new system to craft magic items. I'm not that happy with the way they put in in the 3rd edition. I would like to put away the feats necesary to create an item, because you'll have to thing well ahaid of time what you want your character to look like when he's at level 10. You just can't make an magic sword for a friend of yours, or you'll have to say 'just wait a few more weeks. I'll go slaugther some orcs and then I'll know how to craft a magic sword :P. I would rather see some kind of system that uses the spell 'permanent' to craft these items. With the same prestiges and XP / gold costs, but without the feat.
Ahnehnois 02-25-04, 07:19 PM	-How about a favored class variant that actually makes sense. Think about the current one. Elf's favored class is wizard. So elven wizards are better wizards, right? No, they're better at multiclassing out of wizard. -I'd like to have seen the "open-ended roll" from the ELH added to this book because I use something like it and it's not OGC yet. -A skill-based magic system or something really different is probably too much to ask for in a book of "quick" variants, but it would be nice to see. -Medium saving throws. I like this type of book and I'd be happy to see more similar works in the future.
Contrast 02-25-04, 07:25 PM	Much of the artwork was very dissapointing. Especially the absence of any works by Warren Reynolds (W.A.R.) But then again, that mile-a-minute master deserves to take break now again doesn't he? And the chapter openers were done by Doug Kovacs, who is (in my oppinion at least) vastly inferior to Arnie Swekel
Doomhawk 02-25-04, 08:45 PM	I would've kinda liked a system for masterwork items with more than one level of masterwork. Like weapons that had natural enhancement bonuses not due to material, but craftsmanship.
The Simple Seeker II 02-25-04, 09:30 PM	Originally posted by Doomhawk I would've kinda liked a system for masterwork items with more than one level of masterwork. Like weapons that had natural enhancement bonuses not due to material, but craftsmanship. Here...this can help you. http://www.d20variations.com/thetower/special-weapons-and-armor.html
strenoth 02-25-04, 09:31 PM	actually, for that last, you coudl take a peak at the d20 Wheel of Time book, it has Masterpeice weapon and armor.
Edymnion 02-25-04, 10:02 PM	I would have liked to see a couple more variants presented. For Barbarian: Berserker. Perfectly civilized, as well educated as any other class, but who goes berserk during a fight. Its doable with the current Barbarian class, but a more focused variant would have been nice. For Monk: The Brawler. Go watch something like The Legendary Adventures of Hercules, and look at Iolas. He can do some truely massive damage with his unarmed attacks, is quite proficient in the use of swords and bows, and can easily hold his own without the need for bulky armor. D&D simply does not have any class that can replicate this even remotely well. Monks come close, but all that chi power and oriental flavor just don't cut it, while the other classes are even less well suited. For Fighter: An anti-spellcaster fighter. Spell resistance, ability to deflect rays and bat away energy missles with their weapon. Those are the ones I wanted to see most, and didn't get. I really, really, REALLY wanted to see a Brawler. An archetype fantasy character that really needed to be made, but hasn't.
riceisnice 02-25-04, 10:17 PM	I'd've liked to see a freeform kind of magic system, maybe a mix of Wheel of Time weaves and powered-down epic level seeds. Also a truly classless (as opposed to 3 generic classes) variant might've been cool.
Magus_Extreme 02-25-04, 11:13 PM	honestly, i would have liked to seen: A scaling magic system, ala Wheel of Time. Spellcasting Fatigue, like from Dragonlance 3e Skill-based magics.
valvorik 02-25-04, 11:19 PM	Rather than the rules for making items in campaigns with no "down time", I would have preferred rule variants to encourage downtime so that characters have "lives", families etc. etc.
rkr1970 02-26-04, 12:15 AM	I would have liked to see more in the way of make-sense rules. Simple, easy to employ, and useful to a broader range of players. Example 1: Spontaneous Domains - Domain spells for priests where all the priest does is choose what domains he will have, but does not prepare those spells for the extra domain spell slot for each level. The priest spontaineously casts one of his domain spells with a domain spell slot equal to or higher than the spell he's casting. Domain spell slots may not be used in any other fashion, with this option, but it rewards priests with more immediate access to their domain spells and would even encourage players to pick up additional domains for more than just the domain bonus. Example 2: All Skills Are Adaptive - When gaining a level, all class skills previously gained from other classes are available as class skills, whether on the new class skill list or not. Why would someone who has spent most of their career as a rogue not continue to learn already known skills such as Hide or Move Silently just because he's gaining a level in wizard? Example 3: Background Bonuses - At character creation, the DM and player discuss the character's background. The DM grants a one time bonus to each character based on some aspect of their background. These bonuses would tend to be small, and more often than not, lend themselves more to role-playing than combat. Such as a +2 vs. ingested poisons because a character's mother was a horrid cook, or Animal Handling as a class skill for growing up on a farm. It's little things, like helping father on the fishing boats, being familiar with a paticular race or culture, or having grown up begging on the streets, that should be reflected in a character's skills and knowledge long after picking up a sword and heading off on adventures.
Veomyr 02-26-04, 10:17 AM	Originally posted by rkr1970 Example 2: All Skills Are Adaptive - When gaining a level, all class skills previously gained from other classes are available as class skills, whether on the new class skill list or not. Why would someone who has spent most of their career as a rogue not continue to learn already known skills such as Hide or Move Silently just because he's gaining a level in wizard? When did things change so that this was not already the case.
Elendur 02-26-04, 11:09 AM	Originally posted by rkr1970 Example 2: All Skills Are Adaptive - When gaining a level, all class skills previously gained from other classes are available as class skills, whether on the new class skill list or not. Why would someone who has spent most of their career as a rogue not continue to learn already known skills such as Hide or Move Silently just because he's gaining a level in wizard? That rule would also mean someone who only spent 1 level in rogue would get rogue class skills from then on. Basically you are talking about 'gestalt skills'. There's nothing wrong with that rule as a variant, but I'd hardly call it a 'make sense' rule. You might as well say a character continues to learn wizards spells as he gains levels in rogue, since that's what he spent most of his career doing.
Shakra 02-26-04, 11:20 AM	THIS IS :censored::censored::censored::censored: . YOU SHOULD SUE THAT MONTE COOK GUY FOR SELLING THIS.
klyre 02-26-04, 12:55 PM	Originally posted by Shakra THIS IS :censored::censored::censored::censored: . YOU SHOULD SUE THAT MONTE COOK GUY FOR SELLING THIS. Erm.. Monte Cook sold Arcana Unearthed. This is about Unearthed Arcana. P.S. Chill out.
The_Fan 02-26-04, 01:10 PM	It pretty much covered everything I really wanted to see, and a lot of things I didn't know I wanted to see! If anything, I just want more. More bloodlines, more environmental/elemental variants, more paragon classes, etc. More!
rkr1970 02-26-04, 02:38 PM	That rule would also mean someone who only spent 1 level in rogue would get rogue class skills from then on. Basically you are talking about 'gestalt skills'. There's nothing wrong with that rule as a variant, but I'd hardly call it a 'make sense' rule. You might as well say a character continues to learn wizards spells as he gains levels in rogue, since that's what he spent most of his career doing. [/QUOTE] A wizard gains spell ability through intensive study in his primary discipline, just as a rogue gains sneak attacks and a bard gains his increasing repertoire of songs. Skills are minor in comparison to these abilities. Most skills would improve through practice, rather than study. In fact, the majority of said practice probably comes during the time spent reaching the next level. Why wouldn't a rogue who spends half of 4th level hiding be able to improve it normally just because he took wizard for 5th level? In my game, I also do not limit players to adding only 1 point to a given skill each level, but most DMs I've spoken with don't either. Aside from the obvious problems of bookkeeping, why limit someone who wants to take their character in a whole new direction? I have my own limitations, though. I allow players to add as many skill points to a newly gained class skill or a well practiced skill as they wish, to the level limit, of course. If they haven't used a skill or recently gained it as a class skill, they have to justify why that skill should show marked improvement.
Marshall 02-26-04, 02:43 PM	Originally posted by Elendur That rule would also mean someone who only spent 1 level in rogue would get rogue class skills from then on. Basically you are talking about 'gestalt skills'. There's nothing wrong with that rule as a variant, but I'd hardly call it a 'make sense' rule. You might as well say a character continues to learn wizards spells as he gains levels in rogue, since that's what he spent most of his career doing. Not really, you are still restricted to the sp/lvl from the class you just took and you still have to worry about the skills attached to that class.
rkr1970 02-26-04, 06:38 PM	Also, don't forget that even a Wiz 5/Ftr 3 who most recently went up as a fighter WOULD gain spells, if he found them in a spellbook or scroll, just not spell levels or spells per day...
Ainaelin 02-26-04, 09:32 PM	Well, I just reecived my copy of the book today, and have read a lot of it... Morloth, there is a new crafting system in UA, which allows any character to create any item. Basically, characters gain crafting points as they progress (and CRAFT Feats allow bonus points) and use them when they craft items, be they normal, masterwork or magic items. Edymnion, the "Brawler" and the antimagic fighter do already exist as PrC in some Splat books. Check the Complete Warrior for the Drunken Master and the Occult Slayer. Of course, they are PrC, and not core Classes, but such specialized classes should be PrC anyway, IMHO. ;) ***************************** As for me, I was mainly disappointed by their generic classes, which are only slightly boosted NPC classes (I do not say this because of the names). They are underpowered classes that allow a bit of flexibility, without allowing too much... What I was expecting (it was actually my main and greatest expectation) was something like a point-based classless system, where you would buy your abilities each level. I thought I had read somewhere that UA Arcana would provide this, and I was mistaken. Now, I'm looking for such a system on the internet, but I cannot find any... :( I have read that D20 Modern has a related system, but I don't have the book (and I don't like modern campains, so I won't buy the book anyway). However, I will try to look at it in a shop to get an idea... On the other variants in UA, well, I like the Armor as DR, the Class Defense, recharge magic and Bloodlines, and a few minor variants here and there (PrC-entry RPed tests). I like a lot of the concepts, but I am not convinced by their implementations, such as the Races, Paragon, Variant Classes, Divine Spontaneous casting, Metamagic components, Action points , Character Traits, Flaws, and Spelltouched Feats, and so on... I haven't read the whole new injury/V/W system yet, but what I ahd already read on it before (on the forums or the previews) did not convince me either... Well, now, I have to think a little more on it, and change the few things that need changing, and present the changes to the other DMs in my group... Wish me luck! :)
Salla 02-26-04, 10:40 PM	ECL Zero Anthropomorphic Animal Races made by official WotC staffers (so I can use it in games where the DM says 'anything WotC printed). A Hero-System-Esque point-buy system for all class features.
Ricardo Martinez Garza 02-27-04, 11:39 AM	After reading it the only thing I think it lacks is an alternate system of weapon specialization. Back in the days of old D&D there was an optional system that would allow you to increase the damage you did with your prefered weapon (and also grantes some special abilities that in the current system would be bonues to disarm, parry, etc.).
Magus_Extreme 02-27-04, 01:20 PM	oh, i forgot to mention. I would have like to see guidelines on making new paragon classes.
JoAT 02-27-04, 02:56 PM	Originally posted by Magus_Extreme oh, i forgot to mention. I would have like to see guidelines on making new paragon classes. Then have I got a deal for you! A while back, I grabbed the Arcana Unearthed DM's screen, on the promise that it would provide guidlines to convert characters back and forth between D&D and AU - it did, but they weren't very hard or fast, and I was kinda disapointed. However, it did include how to create new/transfer over other races, including how to design the racial levels. In basics, they were: Determine Paragon hit die by creature type: Humanoid d8, fey d6, Dragon d12, ect. Unless the race is very skill full, 2 skill points per level - use common sense to determine the class skills, and if the race gets a bonus to a skill, it should probably be a class skill. Unless it's fairly war-like, a race should have medium BAB progression. Saveing throws - adjuct as nessicary. In general, a race should only have one good saving throw (they say to use one medium, but I guess it'd be a good diea to get rid of that idea). Special abilites: Each level should provide a special ability (A bonus feat, bonus to racial skill, innate spell abilities, attribute bonus, ect). Magic: If the race is likely to have magic, then it should allow paragon levels to stack wth caster levels. (I'd say use something like Sorcerous blood, or take off one of the eariler levels, however - I think this is what happened in AU, don't have the book with me). Also, you should limit it to 3 levels - I limit them to a miniumum of three levels, or 1/2 hit dice/LA, whichever's higher.
kzin 02-27-04, 04:34 PM	What I wish UA had had, but it didn't: An updated list of the Priest/Cleric "Spheres" that reflects the 3.5e spell lists, and rules for how to use those instead of domains. An expansion of the Urban Arcana rules that blend psionics and magic more closely (gives actual arcane schools of magic to psionic disciplines). That's all I can think of right this second.
Ainaelin 02-27-04, 08:51 PM	Originally posted by kzin What I wish UA had had, but it didn't: An updated list of the Priest/Cleric "Spheres" that reflects the 3.5e spell lists, and rules for how to use those instead of domains. True, that would have been VERY nice. With the Core rules, Clerics powers are very much the same, whatever the patron deity, and the Domains are not enough present to counter-balance the verysimilitude clerics otherwise have... The 2nd Ed. Speres did the best job at this I have heard of in a D&D game... (one of the very few things 2nd has over 3.0 or 3.5, but worth mentionning...)
WotC_Andy 03-01-04, 04:30 PM	Originally posted by Kobold Avenger The Wealth bonus system, and ways to handle it with D&D campaigns as opposed to D20 Modern. I wrestled with a Wealth system for D&D for a few days during UA design, but ultimately discarded the concept. I couldn't come up with any system that came even *close* to recreating a typical D&D experience, meaning that the system would totally ignore all treasure & wealth guidelines--making CRs and such extraordinarily out-of-whack. That was just too big a nut to crack for this book. D20 Modern intentionally abstracts character wealth because modern life (generally) assumes an ongoing and predictable income/wealth level. D&D has no such assumption; in fact, it's completely the opposite--characters *must* go on adventures to make money, otherwise they have to subsist on the menial income from their Craft or Profession skills. Trying to port d20 Modern's assumption into D&D's milieu dramatically distorts too many of D&D's expectations. Or, to put it succinctly: D&D character "wealth" is about what they own. D20 Modern character "wealth" is about what they can afford.
CDW22 03-01-04, 05:29 PM	Something I would *love* to see would be the "Psionics are different" variant mentioned in the PHB, although that may be in the revised version. Like certain monsters have Spell Resistance, some have Psionic Resistance, some have both. It sounds like a neat variant to me anyways...
KBSSAUM 03-01-04, 09:08 PM	I'd LOVE to see a variant rule to play with classless, leveless characters, or something like that. Have you seen anything like that for d20 system somewhere?
Wil_Hyral 03-01-04, 09:41 PM	For the record, I'm glad to see the wealth thing didn't even make it into beta print. I don't mind it in D:20M. In the modern world, things don't work like they do in medieval society. In medieval society, you either own something or you don't, and it pretty much stopped there. In most theocratic Medieval cultures, you ended up serving someone for life anyway, and they'd give you just enough to live so you could fuel a war engine but I'm not going to go there. What I stated stands true; either you owned something or you didn't. Contemporary society has more layers. Rent, credit, leasing, stock options and net worth really convolute the definition of ownership. Thus, the abstract system just makes more sense in such a society. In fact, until the new age of capitalism in the very early 1900s, I would say society was closer to a D&D system. Of course, American debtors were an exception. Salla: Have your DM consider the Moreau races in D20: Modern. If I remember correctly, they're both WotC-Published, in the Modern SRD, and LA + 0. I think I speak for a select group of gamers that would have liked to see more of a nod toward multiple-genre catership. We do have generic classes and defense bonuses in this book, but let's see mixed in era rules. Which classes, for example, would have "Drive" as a skill in 1930s America? I realize this isn't a popular demand but it would have made an interesting section. Edit: I'd also like to have seen alternate rules for creating magic items, sans an experience cost. Whether it's taking feats that give you points or whatever, I just don't like the idea of expending experience for crafting.
DrWorm 03-01-04, 09:42 PM	Originally posted by Ricardo Martinez Garza After reading it the only thing I think it lacks is an alternate system of weapon specialization. Back in the days of old D&D there was an optional system that would allow you to increase the damage you did with your prefered weapon (and also grantes some special abilities that in the current system would be bonues to disarm, parry, etc.). Yea...that was in the blue book (expert set i believe) and i loved it. We ported it over to AD&D, but have not seen fit to convert it to 3.5 (or 3.0 for that matter)
Gloom of the Night 03-01-04, 11:41 PM	I would have like maybe more ideas/rules for running urban games. Maybe an enviromental varient for urban-ized races and classes. I really like the urban ranger, but why was the urban druid in the next Dragon...? Also a urban Barbarian i think would be cool (i.e. raging drunk) Other than that I really like the alternate rules for making the game more complex. -gloom
Hengwrt Ellesmere 03-02-04, 01:44 AM	I would have liked to see the sorcerer bloodline feats from Dragon #311 in UA, just so they'd be OGC. I also wanted a balanced and playtested variant for item creation that didn't require the expenditure of xp but rather had a cap on how much could be created per level. You would get a certain number of points per level that could be used to create items, and after that you either can't create any more or you have to spend xp. This would keep wizards from lagging behind their party in xp as a consequence of using their essential class abilities, but it would still limit how much a wizard could create each level.
Sheer_FALACY 03-02-04, 03:17 AM	A section on how to balance legendary weapons, so that we aren't just left with 4 weapons and no guidelines about creating more.
Wil_Hyral 03-02-04, 03:21 AM	Originally posted by Sheer_FALACY A section on how to balance legendary weapons, so that we aren't just left with 4 weapons and no guidelines about creating more. Jeez, even a paragraph to this effect woulda been nice. It's rather intuitive, but it's still annoying how they left us with four really static weapons in a concept that promotes individuality among items.
Ainaelin 03-02-04, 04:21 AM	Originally posted by KBSSAUM I'd LOVE to see a variant rule to play with classless, leveless characters, or something like that. Have you seen anything like that for d20 system somewhere? Well, from what I have seen in a shop, the D20 Modern character creation happens in two steps. You decide the character's pre-adventuring occupation, which gives him a couple of class-skills thoughout his career. Then there are 6 generic classes, roughly equivalent to the six abilities, with their particular Saves and BAB advancement. At first level, you gain 2 Feats, and another one each 3rd level, plus a bonus "Feat" every even level, among a list specific to each class (the Swift class has such bonus feats as Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, etc...). At each odd level, you gain a "Talent", which is also a genre-specific class ability... You end up gaining at least one ability each level, and you choose which. PLUS you can multiclass freely without having an XP penalty... Which makes it easier to create a character more in par with what you want... Compare it to the UA Generic Classes, where you gain an ability only every other level, which means you have half as many abilities as a D20 class, and even compared to the D&D Core classes, you fall down far behind...
Veomyr 03-02-04, 09:55 AM	Originally posted by KBSSAUM I'd LOVE to see a variant rule to play with classless, leveless characters, or something like that. Have you seen anything like that for d20 system somewhere? Not gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent.
DrWorm 03-02-04, 03:14 PM	I thought I remembered someone saying Call if Cthulu was classless, but I never checked it out myself. If so you could port that over pretty easy.
ArnimThayer 03-02-04, 03:40 PM	I was disappointed to not find any variant Ranger combat mastery styles. I know that other products have them, but compiling them in an "offical" source book like this would have been nice. I also would have enjoyed variants for non-spellcasting paladins, rangers and bards; adding something for giving up spellcasting. It's still not too late for a Web Enhacement covering either of these (nudge, nudge,.... hint, hint!). Some of the concepts weren't as well thought out as I would have liked either. With Armor as Damage Reduction, what DR is granted by magic items like Bracers of Defense? With Wound Points and Vitality, exactly how much of damage from magic is wound and how much to vitality? I won't be using those options, but the majority of the book was well presented.
Kyy'Dakh 03-02-04, 04:11 PM	I would have liked to have seen a non-lawful monk sort of class, too, representing someone who merely got good at kicking [hiney] unarmed. I would have also enjoyed a non-magical ranger variant: Someone who's good at surviving in the wild through sheer skill. Maybe I should take a look at the barbarian variant again. And of course, I'd like to see some more variants of my favorite class: The sorcerer. Battle sorcerer looks like a good option, but not the sort of thing I'm looking for. I would have also liked a few more example incantations. I'm working on a few myself, and I'm having a hard time figuring out how to calculate the DC, since they don't show much of how they built the examples. I'd like to be able to make lower level incantations. Got a Incantation version of Knock I'm working on that only opens some very specific doors. (Maybe only about 50 of them in my campaign's entire cosmology.)
Ainaelin 03-02-04, 06:45 PM	Official variants of non-casting Paladins and Rangers can be found in the Complete Warrior. No bard, though. ArnimThayer, I would think that Bracers of Armor being a kind of magical field, it woulddd remain a mere bonus to AC, even in the Armor as DR variant. The table P. 111 says that any enhancement bonus adds to the AC. If you do not like that, you may use the table as a guideline : Bracers + 4 act like a Chain shirt, bracers +8 like a full Plate, etc...
KBSSAUM 03-02-04, 08:13 PM	I'd LOVE to see some variant rules for low magic characters, not dependent on lots of magic items, AKA 'christmas trees'. Have you seen anything like that for d20 system somewhere?
Sheer_FALACY 03-02-04, 08:16 PM	Originally posted by KBSSAUM I'd LOVE to see some variant rules for low magic characters, not dependent on lots of magic items, AKA 'christmas trees'. Have you seen anything like that for d20 system somewhere? Vow of Poverty?
KBSSAUM 03-02-04, 09:08 PM	Originally posted by Sheer_FALACY Vow of Poverty? I love to play classical D&D, but sometimes i just get tired of the way it is, and start thinking... When magic items are so mudane and common as they are in D&D, they lose their true, mystical value. When character need them so much, in order to be playable, they lose their true heroic identity. Think that as a Vow of Indepence ;).
Zero Cochrane 03-03-04, 10:06 PM	There are already some rules for trading out a wizard's or sorcerer's familiar, but I'd like to see a rule that lets me trade a druid's or ranger's animal companion for a class feature I like better. I don't want an animal following me wherever I go and it's a waste of a class feature I'm not using. A similar rule wrt a paladin's mount would be good too. Suggestions are welcome.
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-03-04, 11:22 PM	I wanted to see some optional fixes to existing rules which weren't quite working how they should be. For instance, alternate falling object rules or alternate saving throw rules that eliminate the +2 bonus everytime you multiclass. And while the book had a lot of features to make a campaign deadlier, I thought they could have also spent some time with rules to make a campaign less deadly. For instance, some other form of protection against save or die spells. Also optional rules/variants to some of the world definining spells (such as teleport and raise dead), would have been nice. I'd really like to see a sequel to UA, it was definitely one of the better books WotC has produced. Hopefully it would have some more alternate rules out.
Veomyr 03-04-04, 07:42 AM	Originally posted by Zero Cochrane There are already some rules for trading out a wizard's or sorcerer's familiar, but I'd like to see a rule that lets me trade a druid's or ranger's animal companion for a class feature I like better. I don't want an animal following me wherever I go and it's a waste of a class feature I'm not using. A similar rule wrt a paladin's mount would be good too. Suggestions are welcome. Good ideas. The problem, at least from my viewpoint, is that animal companions and paladin mounts are a little more powerful than a familiar. So we'd have to scale the special ability to match, but that could lead to a very nasty druids/rangers/paladins...
Darius the Barbarian 03-04-04, 08:02 AM	Well, I find UA really great, this books offers me way more than all 3.5 publications together, since the core rulebooks. Of course, this is due to the book's concept but nevertheless, I'm feeling a bit "oversaturated" with countless PrCs, feats, items and spells as page fillers. Anyway, what I would have liked to see in UA are rules for low magic campaigns. After many years of playing and DMing in my favorite setting of FR, I'd like a change and a bit of a return to the WFRP style. Sure, I can use some variants from UA (taint, sanity) plus Grim'n'Gritty rules but that's not really what I want. I'd like a set of alternative rules for a low-medium magic world where spellcasters are still potent but really rare, where magic items are something truly special and extraordinary and where magical healing and resurrection are not commonplace. I know I can adjust existing D&D but UA could have provided some tips and guidelines, that's what the book is for.
Veomyr 03-04-04, 08:22 AM	Originally posted by Darius the Barbarian I know I can adjust existing D&D but UA could have provided some tips and guidelines, that's what the book is for. I think the DMG has a info and tips about low-magic campaigns. Part of the issue would be what determines what is low-magic, and what is not. Is a +1 longsword pretty powerfull? How common are spellcasters? Are divine spells just as rare as arcane? There's an very large number of questions that would need anwers, and the DMG and UA don't have enough pages to list them all.
Tenzhi 03-04-04, 08:47 AM	Originally posted by Ricardo Martinez Garza After reading it the only thing I think it lacks is an alternate system of weapon specialization. Back in the days of old D&D there was an optional system that would allow you to increase the damage you did with your prefered weapon (and also grantes some special abilities that in the current system would be bonues to disarm, parry, etc.). Adding +2 or +4 damage to your preferred weapon is, in fact, increasing the damage you do with it (often by as much or more than you would by increasing the die type). That said, some expanded weapon mastery rules granting other bonuses may have been nice - as long as they didn't require the use of a massive table like the BECM D&D weapon mastery rules did. What I would have liked to have seen (rather than a bunch of worthless background generation tables, for instance) were guidelines for an alternate system of creating magic items. Preferably a system where the crafter must spend time and gold on researching the best way to craft a particular magic item, spend time questing for the rare ingredients (or a lot more gold to hire adventurers to do it for him), and then spend a great deal of time performing exhausting rituals to enchant and craft the item (possibly taking Constitution damage in the process) - all without the XP cost. The list cost of the item should somehow determine the total amount of time and gold spent (not to mention the difficulty of acquiring any items needed) and the retail price should at best allow the crafter to break even (thus making magic shops an unlikely occurrence, and giving magic items found in treasure hoards more meaning). Scrolls, potions, and possibly wands would be the easiest to make...
Elendur 03-04-04, 11:13 AM	Originally posted by Zero Cochrane There are already some rules for trading out a wizard's or sorcerer's familiar, but I'd like to see a rule that lets me trade a druid's or ranger's animal companion for a class feature I like better. I don't want an animal following me wherever I go and it's a waste of a class feature I'm not using. A similar rule wrt a paladin's mount would be good too. Suggestions are welcome. A couple possibilities for replacing animal companions. For a druid, enhancing her summoning spells might be an option. Extra slots(like domain slots) per day, longer duration, increased caster level, and number of animals summoned are all options. The other option is to look at what animal companions provide, and offer that to the character. The animalistic features variant, while a poor replacement for wildshape, offers some ideas for this. So a druid or ranger might be able to pick up scent, extra speed, swim or climb movement, water breathing, ect. 'Beastmaster' options like animal communication, enhanced wild empathy, and see-through-the-eyes abilities. How you balance that I leave as an exercise to the reader :)
Elendur 03-04-04, 11:17 AM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth I wanted to see some optional fixes to existing rules which weren't quite working how they should be. For instance, alternate falling object rules or alternate saving throw rules that eliminate the +2 bonus everytime you multiclass. Didn't the fractional bonus rule fix this? Or was that for just for BAB? You should be able to apply it anyway, as there are only two progressions for save, 'good and 'poor'.
Belegbeth 03-04-04, 02:21 PM	Originally posted by KBSSAUM I'd LOVE to see some variant rules for low magic characters, not dependent on lots of magic items, AKA 'christmas trees'. The generic class system looks like it is in intended for a "low magic" campaign.
Szatany 03-04-04, 03:13 PM	True, that would have been VERY nice. With the Core rules, Clerics powers are very much the same, whatever the patron deity, and the Domains are not enough present to counter-balance the verysimilitude clerics otherwise have... What stops us from doing that on our own ?
Belegbeth 03-05-04, 01:04 PM	I would have loved a variant magic system that did away with the "arcane/divine" divide. "Arcana Unearthed" by Monte Cook has such a system, but it is not designed for standard DnD. I know that the generic spellcaster effectively gets rid of the arcane/divine divide, and I *really* like the idea of generic classes, but it would have been nice to see how such a system might have worked with more "standard" DnD classes.
igronimus 03-05-04, 01:13 PM	I would have liked to have seen an alternate magic item crafting system. Something that did away with the xp and craft feats. Something akin to the rules they used from the Spells & Magic supplement of 2nd edition. It made crafting magic a truly interesting endeavor, and almost a quest in itself for the better ones, as opposed to an exercise in subtracting xp and gold that we have 3rd.
Lina_Inverse 03-06-04, 05:04 AM	the problem with 2E item crafting was this.... since every item required nearly the same amount of effort why were there ANY weak items,espilly since you needed permancy which was what 15th level:mad: why make a +1sword at all when a +5 wasnt that much harder,then you throw in you lost one con(well now in 3E you have the why make a +5 sword when +1 flameing/shocking/frost sword is better AND cheaper....) and potions/scrolls were insane why would you QUEST to make a one use spell or just one of the bazillion or so healing potions that apparntly existed.....
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-06-04, 05:27 AM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse the problem with 2E item crafting was this.... since every item required nearly the same amount of effort why were there ANY weak items,espilly since you needed permancy which was what 15th level:mad: why make a +1sword at all when a +5 wasnt that much harder,then you throw in you lost one con Well, it was hardly perfect, but I would have liked to see an attempt at a system that acted as a revised 2E item creation system. The one thing I really dislike about 3E is that character's no longer can spend their gold on anything except more adventuring equipment. It used to be that the purpose of adventuring was to get rich, only now all the money you find you have to reinvest in adventuring items as opposed to putting it into something cool and interesting like land, a castle, or some soldiers. The one thing I did like about the 2E system was that it made crafting magic items an adventure and part of the plot, as opposed to simply dropping gold in a jar and preventing adventurers from buying any luxuries at all.
Lina_Inverse 03-06-04, 05:34 AM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth Well, it was hardly perfect, but I would have liked to see an attempt at a system that acted as a revised 2E item creation system. The one thing I really dislike about 3E is that character's no longer can spend their gold on anything except more adventuring equipment. It used to be that the purpose of adventuring was to get rich, only now all the money you find you have to reinvest in adventuring items as opposed to putting it into something cool and interesting like land, a castle, or some soldiers. The one thing I did like about the 2E system was that it made crafting magic items an adventure and part of the plot, as opposed to simply dropping gold in a jar and preventing adventurers from buying any luxuries at all. noted in second edition you had nothing to do with gold...which brings 3 conclusions A.im lvl5 and have a million gold....im retireing B.awww crap 20k gold?couldnt we have more items instead? Rogue:BWAHAHAHAHA 20000 exp!(remember THAT rule *shudders*) and in addition simple logic says there should be some form of magic shop even if just potions/scrolls and the nessistys for them(no one can tell me THOSE are rare....)simply cause there big money items,sell a +1sword and thats ALOT of money by the book. if youd like PM and we can try and build a system that A.lets low level chars make items,so theres a point to +1 swords(though still no +2 or higher sadly....) B.makes scrolls/potions "uncommon" but common enough for adventurers C.do the adventure thing...but not the con loss thing
igronimus 03-06-04, 10:24 AM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth The one thing I did like about the 2E system was that it made crafting magic items an adventure and part of the plot, as opposed to simply dropping gold in a jar and preventing adventurers from buying any luxuries at all. Dropping gold and xp in a jar is just so un-exciting and un-rewarding. The players got much more satisfaction from completing a rather powerful magic item, than just getting it handed to them by paying gold and xp. It also allowed the DM a lot more control over what items the players got. If you have an item you didn't want them to have for whatever reason, you just made it unavailable and exceedingly complex to make. The way it is now, if they have the feat, the xp, and the gold, you'll have to deal with any problematic magic item.
BaronVonStevie 03-06-04, 09:48 PM	Originally posted by Ahnehnois -How about a favored class variant that actually makes sense. Think about the current one. Elf's favored class is wizard. So elven wizards are better wizards, right? No, they're better at multiclassing out of wizard. TOTALLY. If you really think about it the "favored class" feature of a race is pretty misleading. You don't want to concentrate on that class. .. more like you want to dabble in that class. Doesn't sound "favored" at all.
Veton 03-06-04, 11:00 PM	Originally posted by Ahnehnois -How about a favored class variant that actually makes sense. Think about the current one. Elf's favored class is wizard. So elven wizards are better wizards, right? No, they're better at multiclassing out of wizard. Originally posted by BaronVonStevie TOTALLY. If you really think about it the "favored class" feature of a race is pretty misleading. You don't want to concentrate on that class. .. more like you want to dabble in that class. Doesn't sound "favored" at all. I was actually thinking of making some sort of house rule for this. A) You start off with one level of your race's favored class, but it doesn't count as a level for purposes of the wealth you should have, experince needed to gain a level, etc. B) You can gain a level in your race's favored class, but it doesn't count as a level for purposes of the wealth you should have, experince needed to gain a level, etc. Of course, with this, max ranks in a skill would be Level + 4
Greyman 03-07-04, 12:40 AM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth The one thing I really dislike about 3E is that character's no longer can spend their gold on anything except more adventuring equipment. It used to be that the purpose of adventuring was to get rich, only now all the money you find you have to reinvest in adventuring items as opposed to putting it into something cool and interesting like land, a castle, or some soldiers. The one thing I did like about the 2E system was that it made crafting magic items an adventure and part of the plot, as opposed to simply dropping gold in a jar and preventing adventurers from buying any luxuries at all.One of the things I like about 3E is that you need to reinvest your profits to keep adventuring.  Players don't have to rely one random treasure placement to acquire magic items (nor on the DM's generousity/stinginess index).  And D.M. have nice guidelines for letting the players craft the exact item they desire - which doesn't mean they don't get to add their own plot element, it just removes the arbitary nature.
Szatany 03-07-04, 02:33 AM	Originally posted by Ahnehnois -How about a favored class variant that actually makes sense. Think about the current one. Elf's favored class is wizard. So elven wizards are better wizards, right? No, they're better at multiclassing out of wizard. How about this one: Whenever you gain level in your favored class, you roll twice for hit points and choose better result.
Veton 03-07-04, 03:21 AM	Originally posted by Szatany How about this one: Whenever you gain level in your favored class, you roll twice for hit points and choose better result. Hmmm...one thing about that is it still doesn't fit with "favored" class. "Hit" Points are partially about your combat expertise. Someone with more hit points is better at turning deadly blows into glancing ones. But I figure a creature who has levels in it's favored class will be better at doing what the class does, rather then just standing around longer in combat.
Belegbeth 03-07-04, 03:45 AM	In my last campaign I had a house rule that characters gained 2 extra skill points whenever they went up a level in their favored class.
Szatany 03-07-04, 03:47 AM	Ok, maybe each race should give minor feat or equivalent if has at least one level in favored class. For example, all elves, when taken 1st level of wizard, gain spell focus: divination. All half-orc barbarians gain toughness, all dwarven fighters gain weapon focus: either any hammer or axe, etc...
Belegbeth 03-07-04, 03:53 AM	Originally posted by Szatany Ok, maybe each race should give minor feat or equivalent if has at least one level in favored class. For example, all elves, when taken 1st level of wizard, gain spell focus: divination. All half-orc barbarians gain toughness, all dwarven fighters gain weapon focus: either any hammer or axe, etc... The problem with that strategy is that it still encourages the "dabbler" approach to one's favored class (i.e. taking only a few levels in one's favored class in order to get the benefits at no xp cost).
Szatany 03-07-04, 04:02 AM	Ok, then bonus should be even more minor and scale with levels. For example, half-orc barbarians gains +1 hit point/level (but not if your roll 12).
mercurywyrm 03-07-04, 07:52 PM	A strong EXP replacement system, with items of appropriate value replacing EXP cost for spells and magic item creation. I would perfer my players looking for Gems totalling a cost of 10,000 GP to create a +5 sword and having to research specific arcane runes for one and casting a whole bucketload of spells into it than the current system. I would also wan't a better sorcerer, everything in the book dealing with magic seems to nerf the sorcerer by giving the others all it's benifits and nothing reasonable in compensation. The battle sorcerer is effectively just better as is the generic caster and the spontaneous divine caster. The spell point and time before casting again systems nerf them as well but do give slight bonuses for other classes getting their main +. I wan't a system which rewards players for doing things asked for NPCs with EXP and standard money according to difficulty. For instance if a PC was hired to craft a sword they would get EXP for crafting it and selling it to the right person. But if they crafted one to sell they would just get the money. Or pretty much any other skill. I wan't a system for (magic) item creation that relies on ONE feat, I agree with needing some kind of knowlede on item creation but I don't think it shoud be so many different feats. Maybe two or three feats, such as one for wands, scrolls, staffs, and potions. One for arms, armor, and wonderous items. And one for golems. I also wanted a levelless character system. Something with casters getting spells per day kinda like this High 0th 10 1st 9 ... 8th 2 9th 1 Mid 0th 7 1st 6 ... 5th 2 6th 1 Low 1st 4 2nd 3 3rd 2 4th 1 and bab being like this Low = One attack +5 bonus Mid = Two Attacks +10 bonus High = Three attacks +15 bonus And then having three points to spend on spellcasting and BAB one of which may be converted to two points for the systems below. HP Base=d4 moderate=d6 good=d8 great=d10 incredible=d12 And saves kinda like this Base, one good Mid, two good High, three good and skills kinda like this (Max ranks is 20/10) Base = (2 + INT) *10 Mid = (6 + INT) *10 High = (10 + INT) *10 Feats Base Mid High And then having four points to spend on those and some generic classes for this system and half classes then rather than awarding EXP you would award feats (for tactics), skill ranks (for skill use failure or none), and items. Finally I wanted some variants for oriental or middle eastern or african styled versions of the monsters. And I good system for item qualities beyond masterwork.
Elendur 03-08-04, 06:58 PM	How about an XP bonus, say 10%, while in a favored class? That would encourage characters to stay in the class. Just throwing stuff out there.
donm61873 03-09-04, 02:19 AM	The two OGL items I would have liked are: Spellcasters from ENPress "Elements of Magic" Item Creation from Mystic Eye's "Artificer's Handbook" Any other cool OGL bits people which had been in UA3.5? DonM.
Salla 03-09-04, 08:16 AM	After some later introspection ... for class variants ... Something to swap for a druid's wildshape and/or animal Something to swap for a paladin's mount Something to swap for a ranger's animal Something to swap for a ranger's spellcasting Yeah, I know that wildshape is uber and all, but I hate keeping track of multiple stat sheets for characters (which is also why I don't have animal companions, familiars, or mounts).
Nathaniel Essex 03-09-04, 02:22 PM	The Core Classes from D20 Modern being able to be used for D&D. Then convert the core classes from the D&D book intom Advanced Classes; Prestige classes stay prestige classes but maybe shorten the progessions into a 5 level type. Some sort of spellcasting similar to the Epic spellcasting: Not the effects (50d8) but more like the Spellcraft checks for casting the spells.
ArnimThayer 03-09-04, 05:09 PM	Someone already did. You can find the link HERE (http://members.lycos.co.uk/merlinsworkshop/)
Wil_Hyral 03-09-04, 08:27 PM	Yeah, someone did, but I think he means we'd like to see it in UA, as the thread is titled. If he doesn't mean that, I do.
TieraStarr 03-10-04, 07:54 AM	Ricardo Martinez Garza: ... alternate system of weapon specialization. Back in the days of old D&D there was an optional system that would allow you to increase the damage you did with your prefered weapon (and also grantes some special abilities that in the current system would be bonues to disarm, parry, etc.). DrWorm: Yea...that was in the blue book (expert set i believe) and i loved it. We ported it over to AD&D, but have not seen fit to convert it to 3.5 (or 3.0 for that matter) It was the black Master Box set actually. I loved it for that version, but don't think it belongs in 3E.
TieraStarr 03-10-04, 08:23 AM	Archtyrant Terevoth: Also optional rules/variants to some of the world definining spells (such as teleport and raise dead), would have been nice. I'm not sure whether to agree with this wholeheartedly, or suggest it deserves to be a book in it's own right. kzin: An updated list of the Priest/Cleric "Spheres" that reflects the 3.5e spell lists, and rules for how to use those instead of domains. Ainaelin: True, that would have been VERY nice. With the Core rules, Clerics powers are very much the same, whatever the patron deity, and the Domains are not enough present to counter-balance the verysimilitude clerics otherwise have... Szatany: What stops us from doing that on our own ? I tried once, it is not easy. I have several variant rules involving spheres that I would love try implementing, but assigning the spells to spheres is a difficult task. Elendur: How about an XP bonus, say 10%, while in a favored class? That would encourage characters to stay in the class. Just throwing stuff out there. That's one of the best simple ideas I've heard for a long time.
Adrez Nesnsid 03-12-04, 04:13 PM	I would've liked to see 3e rules for wild mages.
Veton 03-12-04, 04:25 PM	How to explain to your player that gestalt character's WON'T make everyone think he's a powergaming min/maxing munchkin... Seriously though, I wish they had made a "sterotypical" wizard and Sorcerer. The Wizard could have no need for non-costly material components, but would have a staff that would be required to cast them instead. The Sorcerer could manifest his own spells, so that no spell is the same. Obviously, there would be some drawbacks, but it would be more flavorfull.
Salla 03-13-04, 09:10 AM	Originally posted by Veton How to explain to your player that gestalt character's WON'T make everyone think he's a powergaming min/maxing munchkin... Seriously though, I wish they had made a "sterotypical" wizard and Sorcerer. The Wizard could have no need for non-costly material components, but would have a staff that would be required to cast them instead. The Sorcerer could manifest his own spells, so that no spell is the same. Obviously, there would be some drawbacks, but it would be more flavorfull. I can see your point about the Gestalts; it is specifically referred to as a 'High-Powered Campaign Variant', which means in a normal campaign it's screwed up, but since everybody of importance in the Gestalt Campaign is a Gestalt, it balances out. It makes characters remarkably flexible. As far as the 'stereotypical' wizard, if you happen to have Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, you could sub in the Magister class.
Veton 03-13-04, 12:40 PM	Originally posted by Salla I can see your point about the Gestalts; it is specifically referred to as a 'High-Powered Campaign Variant', which means in a normal campaign it's screwed up, but since everybody of importance in the Gestalt Campaign is a Gestalt, it balances out. It makes characters remarkably flexible. As far as the 'stereotypical' wizard, if you happen to have Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, you could sub in the Magister class. Yup. Explained it to him, but he says it'll wreck his character concept, despite the fact that he's already multi-classed :bored: Arcana Unearthed, eh? Heh, I remember when I ordered Unearthed Arcana. The clerk was a little confused as to which one I wanted :P I'll check into it.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-14-04, 02:58 AM	More fluff......... :P Seriously I would have loved to have seen an alternate alignments system akin to D20 moderns allegence system I keep hearing about or just something different with alignment altogether. I would have also liked to have seen more on trading aout class abilities or rebuilding classes. Although I will say after looking the class chapter over I found that alot of that was hidden in there. BTW I actually liked the Generic classes I'm going to combine them with the siplified skills and try to run an 'old school' style game with them....
Salla 03-14-04, 07:43 AM	Recent thought: A point-based, graph-using Alignment Shift system. Perhaps similar to the Honor thing, but with two numbers for the L-C/G-E axes. How many points various acts are, that sort of thing.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 03-14-04, 11:01 AM	Oh and add me in for an alternate Item creation...one that's based in skills not feats...
legacyheir 03-14-04, 11:03 AM	I forget where, but I remember reading about each ability score being divided into two or three different ones. You know, like Charisma becoming something like sheer personality and comeliness. Anybody know anything about that?
Peregrine7 03-14-04, 02:50 PM	I would have liked a feats-and-skills variant magic system, meself...
Ainaelin 03-14-04, 07:23 PM	Originally posted by legacyheir I forget where, but I remember reading about each ability score being divided into two or three different ones. You know, like Charisma becoming something like sheer personality and comeliness. Anybody know anything about that? Yes, it was in the Skills & Powers book for AD&D 2nd Edition. There were a few good ideas in that book...
Veton 03-14-04, 07:41 PM	I really liked the Item Familiar varient. But what would have also been good would be a "Item that grows in power along with a character." That way, someone can "upgrade" their sword without relying on a mage to do it, maybe by using their own personal power (XP) to do it. This way, someone doesn't have to give their father's sword to someone they don't know in order to have a good weapon.
BaronVonStevie 03-15-04, 02:24 AM	I really dig the wizard variants. It makes playing a spellcaster more personalized.. moreso than the way it was before where there were these ringer spells that everyone should learn and prepare.. you hardly ever used 99% of the bonus metamagic feats available.. and your familiar was bupkis. what I wish was in there though? maybe more of a detailed hit location system ala GURPS.
Illithidbix 04-05-04, 07:26 PM	I'm not that impressed by most of the stuff in UA, most people can (and have) produced pretty much the same thing (produced and posted my own version of Wounds/Vitality system and Armour as DR before I saw UA). There are a lot of nice and interesting suggestions in UA, but nothing really substantial, radical and inspirational where having a dedicated, professional games design team would be really useful, nothing really big. For me I would liked to have seen: 1) A Classless System 2) Maybe even a Leveless system as well (although I think levels, even more than classes a rather built into the heart of D&D mechanics, to remove them would basically involve rewriting the entire game) and: 3) Freeform Magic (i.e. a system like Mage the Ascension that allows you to make spells up on the fly rather than being forced to trawl through your spell list to find something vaguely useful to cast, now that would be really cool, although I doubt it would fit the rigid structure of the D20 system) On what I did like in it, W&V, Defense and armour as DR, weapon groups, alternate dice system, the Sanity rules (even though lifted from Call of Cuthulu) and most of all: Gestalts, now these I absolutely love, I seriously doubt I'll ever play one and certainly never intend to. However in those few pages it has provided something to distract all the Munchkins and Twinks in the D&D community and keep them away from the rest of the system. :smirk: (Not that I think that everyone who Gestalts is a powergamer of course, although I have seen a strange deficit of threads asking to provide background on their gestalt characters, and explaining how their characters have learnt to incorporate often contradictory styles and backgrounds compared to the number of "wicked/most powerful gestalt builds..." :angel: )
TieraStarr 04-06-04, 07:49 AM	legacyheir: I forget where, but I remember reading about each ability score being divided into two or three different ones. You know, like Charisma becoming something like sheer personality and comeliness. Anybody know anything about that? I have a DnD 3½ conversion (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=209032) in Redgar's Repository. -Tiera
TieraStarr 04-06-04, 07:55 AM	Salla: Recent thought: A point-based, graph-using Alignment Shift system. Perhaps similar to the Honor thing, but with two numbers for the L-C/G-E axes. How many points various acts are, that sort of thing. One was included in the AD&D Dragonlance campaign setting. However, it included a 10-point buffer between alignments, with temporary penalties to warn the character that they were drifting. There were also permanent penalties (eg level loss) for actually changing alignment.
TieraStarr 04-06-04, 08:23 AM	moved to new thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=3069183#post3069183).
Ainaelin 04-06-04, 09:49 AM	Hi, I don't think this is the place for suggestions on Favoured Classes, so I have started a new thread on the subject. Thread on Favoured Classes (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=215269) Meet you there! ;)