Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ivid IV 02-23-04, 07:27 PM	Paragons and Variant classes ruin prestige classes. Or at least take the prestige out of them. Adding a high BAB, skill points, or even a feat or two is no guarantee that a prestige class will be inexessable untill a certain level for some classes. A couple levels of battle sorcerer here, a couple of levels of paragon there and you qualify for just about any Arcane or fighter based prestige class. Every prestige class ever now needs to be rewritten. Just what I have time for.:(
Xychotic 02-23-04, 07:40 PM	Umm, that's not quite so much of a problem. As DM, you have the right and responsibility to use the all-powerful "no." If you think they are gonna :censored: up your game, don't bother including them.
Anguirus23 02-23-04, 07:51 PM	Um...everything in that book is OPTIONAL, as are every prestige class ever. If they don't work together, don't use them both. Or, indeed, either! You only *need* to rewrite should you feel it necessary. I wouldn't let the battle sorcerer in my campaign anyway...
Ivid IV 02-23-04, 08:43 PM	I agree, but simply because something is optional doesn't mean it isn't UNBALANCED. I think I like every concept in the book. At least in theory, but the application doesn't seem to pan out properly.
Salla 02-23-04, 08:45 PM	Well, duh. I mean, just look at the Gestalt section. It does everything shy of having 'THIS IS VERY BROKEN' in boldface at the top of the section. :) If you feel it's unbalanced, don't use it. It's that simple, and that goes for anything in any book, core or otherwise, Wizards or Third Party.
Willie the Duck 02-23-04, 08:53 PM	Much of the book is by definition unbalanced. Or, more accurately, rebalanced. That said, things like the racial varients and the paragon racial classes don't fit that category: they ought to be balanced. That said, most of them are.
Count Arioch the 28th 02-23-04, 09:45 PM	Salla, please explain how gestalt is broken, I fail to see how it's broken without resorting to broken things in standard D&D, which are regardless of who's using them. (Shapechange is broken. Shades is broken. Vampires are broken. Gestalt is simply a higher powered version of the D&D game, to be used in a setting that's higher powered than the default.)
Salla 02-23-04, 09:57 PM	Comparing 20 levels of, say, Fighter/Monk gestalt to Fighter 10/Monk 10 standard MC, which one significantly more powerful is obvious. I know that Gestalt was designed for its own type of campaign, and in that setting it's balanced, but I'd never mix it with standard class/multiclassing.
Banpai 02-23-04, 09:57 PM	Right Gestalts are only broken if the DM is a score loser at min-maxing or simply canīt handle such strong PCs. Ok I admit it the Gestalt description actuall says it would be broken in a normal campaign - while thats absolutly true - a Gestalt campagin is absolutely not broken, yes domain wizards are definitly broken but Gestalts are NOT. Have a NICE day:D
Kaya Kenobi 02-23-04, 10:14 PM	Everything is quite optional in UA.. I'm leery about Gestalt, but for some reason I haven't seen any of the balance issues when I allowed a 5th level gestalt to be added in a party of 7th and 8th level characters. This PC gets hurt a lot quicker, and is one of the first to be knocked out. The only thing I did was make it ECL +2.. And while I understand what Gestalt really allows, I made it clear that I would never let the Gestalt to work like it does in UA. A monk-Druid 10/Sacred Fist 5 is fine, but not a Monk 5-Druid 10-Sacred Fist 5. I don't see the concept of such a thing... Domain Wizards, I'm really not sure about, because while some of the domains are weak, some are staggeringly overpowered, and further proves that Skip really hates sorcerers by giving wizards an even larger boost in UA with no regard at all whatsoever to sorcerers. Some of the other things are great flavor, like the bloodlines, new races, and even some of the feats.. But I don't like the class variants.
Zaebos 02-23-04, 10:26 PM	Gestalt is broken only to those who allow gestalts in a typical campaign. Gestalts are not broken if they are in a gestalt campaign.
Ivid IV 02-23-04, 10:28 PM	Willie the Duck wrote: "Much of the book is by definition unbalanced. Or, more accurately, rebalanced. That said, things like the racial varients and the paragon racial classes don't fit that category: they ought to be balanced. That said, most of them are." I disagree, for instance Racial Paragon skill points, HD, and BAB are almost all too good for the classes they are supposed to integrate with.
Kaya Kenobi 02-23-04, 10:33 PM	Originally posted by Ivid IV Willie the Duck wrote: "Much of the book is by definition unbalanced. Or, more accurately, rebalanced. That said, things like the racial varients and the paragon racial classes don't fit that category: they ought to be balanced. That said, most of them are." I disagree, for instance Racial Paragon skill points, HD, and BAB are almost all too good for the classes they are supposed to integrate with. Quite true... Although the one thing I find I love about the paragon is that it adds to flavor..
aldymnor 02-23-04, 11:54 PM	People who complain about gestalts being unbalanced need to first realize that gestalts aren't just "throw-in-a-game-able." You have to integrate them with careful consideration, just like the examples they give in the book, and just like the example Ms. Kenobi gave above. I don't like very many of their variants. A couple are fiendishly cool (I like battle sorcerer) but most of them are sort of annoying. Cloistered cleric is kinda cute. I really dislike their insanity rules, but I love using the section in my own way. Most the race variants are sort of arbitrarily detailed and kind of annoying. If I needed desert elves that badly, I could have made them up. It required almost no creativity on their half to make those. Also, wasn't this book about variants? How about variant humans like nomads, mountain-folk and such? These are just new races altogether.. Ivid, please explain further why you think every single PrC needs to be rewritten due to variant rules.
Ranger REG 02-24-04, 04:57 AM	Once again, Unearthed Arcana is for advanced users only. Andy Collin jokingly suggested the book should have a "Mature Gamers Only" sticker slapped onto it, because supposedly mature gamers would have the patience to try and fit this proverbial "big square peg through a small round hole."
Ivid IV 02-24-04, 08:43 AM	aldymnor wrote: "Ivid, please explain further why you think every single PrC needs to be rewritten due to variant rules." Take the human paragon: One level in a high intelligence spellcasting class, switch to paragon and take the three levels. Saves don't really improve. BAB is as good as if you had taken a level in fighter and you get a fighter feat, you can use light armor and a longsword (or any one martial weapon), Any ten skills so lets say: tumble, Bluff, knowledge (arcana), open lock, disable device, survival, decipher script, spellcraft, concentration,and Handle Animal as your skills. If you were planning for any particular prestige class you could stock up on those skills. By forth level you could have 7 Ranks in any group of skills, a BAB +2, 2nd level spells, 4 feats, a fighter weapon, and potentially an intelligence (or any other score) of 20. And you haven't even multiclassed yet... Any "advanced" user will see the merits in this career path. Any "mature" gamer has a family and doesn't have time to integrate a bunch of poorly thought out rules. That's what designers are paid for.
DungeonlessMaster 02-24-04, 11:11 AM	I was really looking forward to this book and I normally like rules options books however I think this is the first time I have been throughly unimpressed with a book. Racial variants: With the exception of the racial paragon prestige classes all this is is a bunch of rehashed races from dozens of other suppliments. The ones that are not simply 3.0 now 3.5 are the most basic sorts of races manufactored using the suggestions provide under "creating your own races" in the dmg. Anybody could have come up with those races. I totally disagree. Racial paragons are terrible. Why in the world would I multiclass into one of those when I could instead take levels in a real class. I don't think the racial paragons are better than the NPC classes. I do like the bloodline stuff, but it is hard to use. The class variants are all simply caving to the masses. THERE NEVER EVER SHOULD BE EVIL PALADINS. I wish wizards would make the section on anti-paladins from the 2nd ed. complete paladins handbook avialable. Then people could see shy anti-paladins don't make sense. The other class variants are equally silly. Can anybody explain why the urban ranger exists? What is the thought process behind his creation? The desingers where sitting around and one said "I have an idea, lets take away more than half of the rangers class abilities and rework him so that he can use gather information instead of wilderness lore for track!" I was hoping to see the inovations of classes like the woodsman from WOT make their way into the ranger. The prestige class variants of Paladin, Ranger, and bard are equally uninovative. They just make it so that every paladin and ranger has weapon specilization in addition to their normal powers because they are all 5 level fighters as well. Just reworking the classs so it only has 15 levels and adding prerequistes does not make it a "prestige" class. Gestalt characters would be neat but as has been said before, if they are used everybody needs to be Gestalt. The generic classes are ok, but I doubt that they get used in d&d very much. The adventuring changes where my biggest disapointment. All the new hit point systems, new armor systems, and new rolling systems and none of them are useable. Vitaltiy points prevent people from every being knocked unconsious, injury system prevents death of tough monsters, and armor as damage reduction makes armor all very generic. My biggest problem is with how hard this material is to integrate into a game. It is not easy to convert monsters to VP/WP. Armor as damage reduction is also not something can be done "on the fly." The rest of the book is similar. I like the magic chapter and will use a great deal of it, but again it is not every easy to use at all. I think that maybe the book was a little two hyped up in my mind. However, I am sure that this material is a lot harder to use than the previous sourcebooks. That is time I just don't have.
Kaya Kenobi 02-24-04, 11:24 AM	Why shouldn't there be evil paladins? The true meaning of paladin is champion defender of one's beliefs. Paladin, derived from the dictionary: A strong supporter or defender of a cause. As for everything else, I completely agree with you.
darkkender 02-24-04, 11:35 AM	besides people have always enjoyed the anti-paladin kinda like the blackguard. I mean really The Black Knight is the coolest.
Kaya Kenobi 02-24-04, 11:47 AM	Originally posted by darkkender besides people have always enjoyed the anti-paladin kinda like the blackguard. I mean really The Black Knight is the coolest. It's either a paladin, or it's a zealot. Both are known as strong supporters of a belief, although the zealot is more fanatical than, say... a paladin... :D
DungeonlessMaster 02-24-04, 03:16 PM	I would really like to discuss anti-paladins and what not but this is not the right thread. So I will go post one in the phb section of the message board. Under the classes part.
Mutant for Hire 02-24-04, 03:55 PM	My main complaints about UA are that some of the sections, while quite nice, really didn't belong in the book. The racial varients belonged either in a Monster Manual book or a Savage Species book, possibly as a template as well as a straight race. The varients for a bunch of the classes should have been slid over to The Complete Warrior book or the other Complete books. The Paragon classes annoyed me in that they were only three levels and not something more open-ended like the Bloodlines. The Bloodlines annoyed me in that they didn't make the Bloodline levels explicit level adjustment levels that had to be taken. They were amazingly close on that one but they just fell short of that. And there were not enough sections on mixing varient rules and the implications. Not that they could cover every possible variation of course.
The White Sorcerer 02-24-04, 04:19 PM	Originally posted by Ivid IV Any "mature" gamer has a family and doesn't have time to integrate a bunch of poorly thought out rules. I have a family? As in aside from my parents and sisters? :confused:
Lord Schpungus 02-24-04, 04:48 PM	Originally posted by Ivid IV Any "mature" gamer has a family and doesn't have time to integrate a bunch of poorly thought out rules. I always love when people drag out the 'I am more mature than you because I have a family' bit. It makes them sound so mature.:rolleyes: EDIT: Then again, complaining about the ol' maturity card isn't all that mature, either. Oops!!:D
Krelios 02-24-04, 05:00 PM	I agree, but simply because something is optional doesn't mean it isn't UNBALANCED. Actually, yes it does. It's only UNBALANCED if you add in some of one set of rules and some of another when they are specifically stated NOT to be compatible (ie the typical "Gestalts are broken in my group of normal PCs" rant). This sort of post just proves that people are not reading their book and just going off on the boards with half an opinion. Look at Unearthed Arcana. Use sections that you like, adapt sections to fit your campaign/group/playing style. Ignore what you don't like. NONE of UA is broken if used in the context that it is presented (even Domain Wizards) though very little of it can be used "Out-Of-The-Box" in a standard campaign. That's the point. If you're looking for another splatbook with Prestige Classes and new equipment/spells to just plop in an ever-growing core campaign, UA is not for you. If you're looking for some options to change the basic fundamentals of the D&D game (from very subtle to very extreme) than this book is what you've been waiting for. [edit:] I do not have time to address all of the issues that people have complained about from UA, but I had several myself that required me re-reading the sections in question several times. I'll admit that UA is not something you can skim through and pick out sections of (like most people seem to do with the other optional books), but that's precisely why I like it. With some work in advance on the DMs part, D&D can be even more like what he or she wants than ever before.
Ivid IV 02-24-04, 05:16 PM	Lord Schpungus wrote: "I always love when people drag out the 'I am more mature than you because I have a family' bit. It makes them sound so mature. EDIT: Then again, complaining about the ol' maturity card isn't all that mature, either. Oops!! " Your right, it was a cheap shot. Distilling the material presented into a feasible game isn't a reflection of maturity, it's about time. So much of this stuff is well conceived but poorly executed. While many of the rules in UA appear modular they really aren't.
Ivid IV 02-24-04, 06:05 PM	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Krelios Look at Unearthed Arcana. Use sections that you like, adapt sections to fit your campaign/group/playing style. Ignore what you don't like. NONE of UA is broken if used in the context that it is presented (even Domain Wizards) though very little of it can be used "Out-Of-The-Box" in a standard campaign. That's the point. This simply isn't true, re-read racial paragons. It is a modular design and SHOULD seamlessly fit into any game. I'm not talking about gestalt, which is its own thing. I'm talking about integrating a balanced concept into a campaign world. Variant classes, paragons, even bloodlines disrupt not only other options, but the balance of the core classes themselves. Use my example above and compare a straight wizard of 4th level with a wizard/human paragon of the same level Paragon has almost double the HP, Better saves, almost double the skill points and better skills to boot, light armor and for the sake of argument mounted combat, and a longbow. They lose a level of spells. Big whoop.
Zaebos 02-24-04, 06:18 PM	I personally don't see how the paragon is 'over powered'. But if you feel that way, then don't use it. Essentially, the paragon is a 3 level prestige class, and frankly I can't see ANYTHING in the paragon variants that create an overpowered character. a 4th level human wizard has more spells to cast than a 3rd level human paragon 1st level wizard does (or 2nd level wizard, 2nd level paragon). Not to mention the very fact that your talking about balance with other classes. Well, if you talk about it that way a 1st level wizard doesn't stand a chance vs. a 1st level fighter... Your argument really has no merit when talking about core class balance. The idea here is not about 'power', its about player choice and customization. Regardless, I do not assume to sway your opinion, rather, instead of complaining about it, fix it your own way, or don't use it at all. the UA is more of a DM options book, not a DM obey or die book.
Ivid IV 02-24-04, 07:03 PM	Originally posted by Zaebos I personally don't see how the paragon is 'over powered'. But if you feel that way, then don't use it. Essentially, the paragon is a 3 level prestige class, and frankly I can't see ANYTHING in the paragon variants that create an overpowered character. a 4th level human wizard has more spells to cast than a 3rd level human paragon 1st level wizard does (or 2nd level wizard, 2nd level paragon). Not to mention the very fact that your talking about balance with other classes. Well, if you talk about it that way a 1st level wizard doesn't stand a chance vs. a 1st level fighter... Your argument really has no merit when talking about core class balance. The idea here is not about 'power', its about player choice and customization. A prestige class has requirements, Paragons have none (except to be the race in question). A character should have to make a sacrifice to gain the additional abilities. There were two options for this in the past, multiclassing and prestige classes. Now there are three options. The idea is about BALANCE not power, a wizard has skills and spells that balance a fighters abilities. We are talking about a middle road with one level of spellcasting or one BAB sacrificed for skills and abilities that neither would gain without multiclassing. The prestige rules forced a commitment into classes, this penalized multiclassing abuses. Originally posted by Zaebos Regardless, I do not assume to sway your opinion, rather, instead of complaining about it, fix it your own way, or don't use it at all. the UA is more of a DM options book, not a DM obey or die book. This is certainly taking the high road isn't it! In other words I should shell out lots of cash to design things myself. That's great, and exactly what I have time for.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-24-04, 07:09 PM	Originally posted by Ivid IV Paragon has almost double the HP, Better saves, almost double the skill points and better skills to boot, light armor and for the sake of argument mounted combat, and a longbow. They lose a level of spells. Big whoop. Losing a level of spellcasting is never simply a "big whoop" when it comes to wizards. If a wizard wants to trade spellcasting progression for hit points and skills, then let him. It's only 2 more hit points on average, and 2 more skill points. The +2 to intelligence and the bonus feat is very good, but I'm not sure if it's worth giving up a level of casting progression. I don't think taking paragon would be a choice every wizard would make, at least not until epic levels.
Ivid IV 02-24-04, 07:32 PM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth Losing a level of spellcasting is never simply a "big whoop" when it comes to wizards. If a wizard wants to trade spellcasting progression for hit points and skills, then let him. It's only 2 more hit points on average, and 2 more skill points. The +2 to intelligence and the bonus feat is very good, but I'm not sure if it's worth giving up a level of casting progression. I don't think taking paragon would be a choice every wizard would make, at least not until epic levels. That +2 to Int means all save spells are a D.C higher, potentially an enchanter could stack this with his *free* spell focus feat and be casting his enchantments at a level higher than a straight enchanter and have more skills, hp, and a better BAB as well a two-handed sword.
Skeptical Clown 02-24-04, 07:59 PM	I'd say the Paragon classes are more attractive than most PrCs, simply from the amount of benefits earned in such a small amount of levels. I'd also say they're just lame and make little sense in a flavor or roleplay sense.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-24-04, 08:35 PM	Originally posted by Ivid IV That +2 to Int means all save spells are a D.C higher, potentially an enchanter could stack this with his *free* spell focus feat and be casting his enchantments at a level higher than a straight enchanter and have more skills, hp, and a better BAB as well a two-handed sword. If he wants to wade into melee with a greatsword, let him go for it. Wizard BaB + 3 levels of cleric BaB won't get him very far. As for DC, sure, a +1 DC is useful, but your higher level spells automatically have a higher DC by 1. So if you're only casting 3rd level while you could be casting 4th level, you're somewhat behind... not to mention 4th level spells have a much greater effect. At epic levels where you stop gaining higher level spell slots, then this could be broken, but at earlier levels I don't see it as a must take unless you're a pure save or die caster, even then it's not that much of a benefit.
Ogre4Hire 02-24-04, 08:53 PM	One thing I've thought about is a house rule that says a character must have 4+ levels in his/her race's Favored Class before allowing that character to take a level of Racial Paragon. It makes sense (at least to me), since how could you just start out as being the epitomy of your race?
Zaebos 02-24-04, 10:51 PM	Originally posted by Ivid IV This is certainly taking the high road isn't it! In other words I should shell out lots of cash to design things myself. That's great, and exactly what I have time for. There is give and take with the paragon, and there is a requirement, racial requirement. But thats neither here nor there. Your talking about one aspect of the book, and shelling out money was your decision. Again, there is no real benifit gained with paragon as compared to other classes, your giving up other class level abilities to take these racial class abilities... and if your a paragon fighter? you don't even cast spells. So I still don't understand your stance. Oh, and no its not the high road, its just the facts. modify what you don't like, don't use what you dont want and if your worried about shelling out bucks for books, dont. I am not going to use everything in the book, and in the book it even says that you probably wont either. Is that grounds for me to whine and moan about how much the book costs? Anyways, it is obvious you can't see the forest for the trees with this variant. More is the pity. It will be a nice addition to my campaign nontheless. One other thing. It becomes more prevalent on these boards that the prevailing attitude is DM vs. Players. If a player chooses to become a paragon, why not let him? None of these abilities are going to 'Break' your campaign, or even over power the character taking the limelight away from the rest of the group. Other than that, I can not possibly fathom why attitudes are such. A DM is the players guide to his world, not DM vs. Players.
flyingmoose 02-24-04, 11:34 PM	Umm... I don't like Craft Points. I'm fine with magic and mundane item crafting as is (though I conceed in three years of gaming, I've never seen an item-crafting PC).
Tenzhi 02-25-04, 01:29 AM	Originally posted by Ivid IV This is certainly taking the high road isn't it! In other words I should shell out lots of cash to design things myself. That's great, and exactly what I have time for. UA is a book full of variant rules obviously meant for DMs who have the time and desire to tinker with the basic fundamentals of the game and tailor their campaigns to their specific tastes. If that's not you, then you probably didn't need this book. Just because a shiny new book comes out, doesn't mean you have to rush out and buy it without considering beforehand whether or not it's something you can use.
aridane 02-25-04, 06:08 AM	As with any book or material that comes out for 3.5 it rest squarely on the shoulder of the D.M. It's a varient book, that should be just that, to give each campaign it's own unique flavor. Gestalt class, do you really need them, I feel the multiclassing and prestiege class do a good job about that, its not perfect but good. Blood lines add a great flavor element to creating characters, as does the background element they added. As far as the paragons are concerned, that not as impressive an idea, becasue it's used to a limit in Monte Cooks Arcana Uneathed; and do you really need a player to take level a in human,to be the best of humanity, I really think it's slight waste of time, especially when the paragon can be detailed through the role playing. I feel that the creation points and various rules with spells came in handy. All in all I think the book is really pretty good, and there are plenty of thing that won't be put into my campaign or my own published world, but my gripes are slight.
Krelios 02-25-04, 07:53 AM	The gripe about Paragon classes is pretty immaterial. How many DMs will break the suggestions that UA gives and allow all of their players to take levels in a Paragon class? UA is pretty clear that these classes are only meant for a character that epitomizes what it means to be a member of that race, so I would only rarely expect to see one in every few campaigns that I played in. Again, most of the whining about UA can be solved by realizing that none of it was meant to simply drop into the campaign without changing anything or (heaven forbid) requiring the DM to make a judgement call. If you just let your players take anything from any book and slap it on their character, of course it's going to ruin your game...
Derren S. 02-25-04, 09:45 AM	So we have a book with "Only use it when everyone uses it" and "don't let your players have it" rules? So what exactly are I'm paying for? It seems to me that the selling argument for this book sadly is still "More Power" while giving the people who don't want power but actual variants some half finished bones to gnaw on.
Zaebos 02-25-04, 02:36 PM	On the contrary, the books selling point, at least for me, is to add variation to the rules, to add more flavor to the campaign, and to help define and adjudicate aspects of the game that may or may not work within the current scope of the rules within your campaign. I found this book immensly enjoyable to read through, reading it through at least 3 times my self before it even was closed. Some rules I will use, some I will not use, and others maybe fun for a one or two shot session. The UA brings options for the DM to allow or disallow what ever they see fit. It says, 'Here, an idea for you to tinker with'. The designers of this game collectively have more experiance gaming than any one person here could even fathom. To presume to suggest that they don't know what they are doing is very presumptious and needs rethinking. Also, many people here think that the source books are about 'MORE POWER', which can not be farther from the truth. Most everything in these source books are, in my opinion, balanced in comparision to level based abilities per class and so on. This is to add flavor and cusomization to characters, the game is about the characters, so perhaps, just perhaps, the DM should swallow their power tripping pride and look at these rules from a players perspective. DM's come and go, but you will always be a player. It is hard to imagine that there are DM's out there who out of hand reject things they either don't fully understand, fully realize the pros. vs. cons. of a specific rule/feat/PrC, or take on the attitude of 'its my world, you can't do that'. Remember this, without players, your world is useless.
stilleon 02-25-04, 02:44 PM	Originally posted by DungeonlessMaster The class variants are all simply caving to the masses. THERE NEVER EVER SHOULD BE EVIL PALADINS. I wish wizards would make the section on anti-paladins from the 2nd ed. complete paladins handbook avialable. Then people could see shy anti-paladins don't make sense. The other class variants are equally silly. Can anybody explain why the urban ranger exists? What is the thought process behind his creation? I am glad you are around to dicate what I should like or not like. I actually thought the Urban Ranger would be perfect in a Bluffside or Freeport based campaign where the majority of the play is city based, but I guess I was wrong. And paladins of evil gods... seemed natural to me. Thank you again for telling me what is good or bad and taking away my choice to decide what is best in my game world. I wish you could make everyone's game play richer by your dictates as you have mine. Sacastically yours Stilleon
Xorial 02-25-04, 02:59 PM	Originally posted by aridane As far as the paragons are concerned, that not as impressive an idea, becasue it's used to a limit in Monte Cooks Arcana Uneathed; and do you really need a player to take level a in human,to be the best of humanity, I really think it's slight waste of time, especially when the paragon can be detailed through the role playing. Go to Monte's website & download his racial classes for core D&D. They are suprising the same.:smirk: Monte said on his site that they may see their way into a WotC product.
aridane 02-25-04, 03:06 PM	As Far as the Urban Arcana book goes, sure it a book of vairent rule. Where the book really works is the opening of doors for new ideas, as a D.M. Myself I already see these varient rules are similar to varient rules I use myself. I would not necessarily keep them the way their presented in the book, but I feel I can alter the rules and make them better for use in my own campaign. As far as the urban ranger, it's simply a twist of the name call him a Urban Avenger, I like the name better for this character, it's fits with the style of the this prestige. Remember we make this stuff up and if we don't like it we change it. Were the creators, yes we can buy books and all types of varient books, but I am looking for the fastest and most enjoyable way for my players to have fun for six hours, and if the Varient Book helps I'll rock with it. ONE Major gripe for the money i'm paying I want a D.M. back up c.d., and some music to go with it, yeah that the ticket (lol) Light Laughter and Sweet water to you
Ivid IV 02-25-04, 04:16 PM	Originally posted by Derren S. So we have a book with "Only use it when everyone uses it" and "don't let your players have it" rules? So what exactly are I'm paying for? It seems to me that the selling argument for this book sadly is still "More Power" while giving the people who don't want power but actual variants some half finished bones to gnaw on. You have hit the nail on the head. The book is filled with interesting ideas that are only half-baked; the rest is up to the individual DM. Some rules only work if other rules were eliminated, most would mean a campaign restructuring. None of it seems to have the modular integraty that it should have. It's a great read, and certainly fuel for discussion on the direction D&D should take. It isn't as usable as many here would have you believe.
stilleon 02-25-04, 05:24 PM	Originally posted by Ivid IV The book is filled with interesting ideas that are only half-baked; the rest is up to the individual DM. Some rules only work if other rules were eliminated, most would mean a campaign restructuring. None of it seems to have the modular integraty that it should have. It's a great read, and certainly fuel for discussion on the direction D&D should take. It isn't as usable as many here would have you believe. I agree and disagree. I think yes, there are some not-fully thought out ideas here. Certainly, d20 is very dependent on the interation of rules. You make a change you got to think about feats it might change, other rules it affects, etc. This book can't go into every detail for every rule otherwise this book would have to be three times as large. An example is the Ring of Wizardry Spell Point discussion elsewhere on these boards. Not discussed in the book so a DM will have to make the rule for how it functions. Not for a casual gamer who playes the basic game and runs pre-made modules as is. I really recommend this book to those who do their own world building. You have a bunch of options to make your world unique in both race and classes allowed and in the way rules make the game itself play, which can affect the player's sense of fun. Like Action Points: works in Eberron, maybe not in Forgotten Realms.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-25-04, 07:08 PM	Originally posted by stilleon I think yes, there are some not-fully thought out ideas here. Certainly, d20 is very dependent on the interation of rules. You make a change you got to think about feats it might change, other rules it affects, etc. This book can't go into every detail for every rule otherwise this book would have to be three times as large. An example is the Ring of Wizardry Spell Point discussion elsewhere on these boards. Not discussed in the book so a DM will have to make the rule for how it functions. It goes back to the old 2nd edition style I think where they present you with a rule and you have to figure out how it interacts with other rules. To some 3E players, this is bad because it prevents them from knowing the exact "official" answer to anything. But to me, I think that's a bonus of using variants, there is no specific "official" answer and it leaves it up to your DM to decide, as opposed to him being straitjacketed by bad rules. They could never playtest these variants as muhc as the actual game, and the core rules have enough mistakes as it is (even with a revision). Simply put, they can't produce variant systems that have every possible contingency covered. Instead of trying to come up with hastily made rules to cover all sorts of other areas, they just do the smart thing IMO and leave it up to the DM to decide. And that serves the purpose of the book better. The basic idea is to try new systems. The book was a lot better on the conceptual side than it was on the crunchy charts and tables side anyway.
rkr1970 02-26-04, 12:45 AM	Is it just me, or did anyone else have a problem with the whole idea of randomly generated backgrounds? Why would I want a 4th level dwarf who has 3 different classes? Why would I let a chart pick feats and skills? It seems like 8 pages of filler. Then again, I am disappointed that they used the name of a GREAT book from 1st Ed, filled with more crunch than one could handle in any given campaign, and applied it to a book that would have been better served being called something like From the Forge, that would be significant of its concept as a tool for crafting you own variations of D&D.
Kaya Kenobi 02-26-04, 02:28 AM	aye, it may be aggrivating they used a nice name, but overall it's a book of options, and I'm all for that, if it was done better.
aridane 02-26-04, 02:56 AM	I've been playing since 1992, and believe For those who think this book should be better, I think they did the best that they could with what they had, some of it is overkill. For me it doens't matter what book I get I give the final, say on the rules wither I know them or not. But I've been thinking lately maybe as a D.M. or G.M. we shouldn't rely so much on wizards rules as much and instead concentrate on haveing fun, and creating our own rules, and I feel the Varient book at least gives you to the tool to branch out. I feel when you make up to much rules as a D.M. you have far much more work to do. The one thing I have noticed by many people is the fact that the rules are either to heavy or not enough, and I believe that the common denominator is the one runnng the game. The D.M. is the ultimate Varient.
stone_dog 02-26-04, 03:37 AM	Okay, might as well throw some coppers into the well or whatever corny thing adventurers say. Chapter one. Oh hell most of this chapter really. Bloodlines are only okay, and I have always liked paragon classes (they made more sense in Arcana Unearthed though), but the rest of the chapter is really pretty useless to me. Chapter the second. Mild disinterest with most of the chapter, but little here is without redeeming value. The one downside? Generic classes. I spit on them really. If I wanted generic I would play GURPS. I would have rather seen D20 modern Ability based classes. Those were kinda generic, but still had some style to them. Third Chapter. Character background? What? Hey, I'd dig up Central Casting if this was the route I wanted to go. Speaking of which, does anybody know a place that sells it PDF? Ch 4.0 Lots of good stuff here actually. Hexes are awkward as all get out (I've tried them before). I was glad combat facing was gone. Not much here to complain about really. Chapter Five There are things here that I liked and things that I was less than impressed by, but only one thing was irritating and that was components. Good idea, but the last thing I need is the wizard bugging me about which bits of the monster are good for what. Final Chapter Level INdependent XP awards. The new XP system is my favorite part of D&D. Diminishing returns keeps people hunting down new chalanges. Yeah. Something for everybody to love in this book. Then again there is always something for a bunch of people to rant endlessly about. Well, back to finding new rants! ;)
Tenzhi 02-26-04, 03:51 AM	Originally posted by stone_dog Final Chapter Level INdependent XP awards. The new XP system is my favorite part of D&D. Diminishing returns keeps people hunting down new chalanges. The Level-Independent XP Awards gives players the same diminishing returns as the standard XP system. A CR1 creature may be worth 300 XP at level 1 or level 20, but that 300 XP is worth a great deal less at level 20 than it is at level 1.
stone_dog 02-26-04, 04:45 AM	No it doesn't Tenzhi. If it gave the same returns you wouldn't get a single point for defeating a CR1 challange at level 20. It doesn't matter that the 300 points are a smaller percentage of the amouth you need every level. You are still gaining XP for an obstacle that doesn't even require effort anymore. I know that I don't have to use, but the point of the thread seems to be talking about what we don't like in Unearthed Arcana. I never liked the old system much and this reminds me of it.
Tenzhi 02-26-04, 05:13 AM	Originally posted by stone_dog No it doesn't Tenzhi. If it gave the same returns you wouldn't get a single point for defeating a CR1 challange at level 20. The important, defining adjective missing here is "diminishing." But perhaps I should have phrased my reply as "the same sort of diminishing returns." And it provides those diminishing returns without having to determine encounter level compared to the average party level. And yes, it is reminiscient of the previous editions... perhaps that's why I like it, because it reminds me of Dungeons & Dragons. While I enjoy many of the changes 3E brought along, there are just as many changes that I think take away from the D&D-ness of the game - the most distressing of which (to me) is the desegregation of classes.
Lord Schpungus 02-26-04, 10:15 AM	What, like saying dwarfs can't be wizards, halflings have to be rogues, that sort of thing? That's blatant racism, fantasy or not, and I'm glad Wizards decided that that sort of discrimination, role-played or not, is still instilling the seeds of hate into our culture and got rid of it. On topic, what I don't like about UA is that I don't have it yet. Also, the racial variants don't spark my interest, and neither do any of the alternate hp/AC systems. Still, I'll have to look at them anyway when I do get it. Fair and balanced, wot, wot?
stilleon 02-26-04, 11:14 AM	Originally posted by stone_dog No it doesn't Tenzhi. If it gave the same returns you wouldn't get a single point for defeating a CR1 challange at level 20. It doesn't matter that the 300 points are a smaller percentage of the amouth you need every level. You are still gaining XP for an obstacle that doesn't even require effort anymore. Read the UA again. It tells you to not award anything for CR's that are too low to be a challenge. You should not be giving any points at all to a 20th level party for defeating a bunch of CR 1 creatures. Unlike the DMG, these experience awards demand that you, DM, decide what is a challenge and what isn't instead of it being a mathematical formula.
stone_dog 02-26-04, 01:22 PM	The point remains is that I STILL don't like it and prefer the standard way. I understand that some people are happy about this UA method and that is fine (I can even understand it), but I am in no way going to switch over. Maybe it is just because I wrote an Excel spreadsheet that automatically calculates the formula and I don't want that to go to waste. Even if I didn't though, the formula works for my group, it is an easy way to wind the brain down after the session and I have to make enough judgement calls during the game to keep these reckless fools alive and still make it look like I am trying to kill them all (Yay Die Hard effect). Anyway, I admit that my earlier posts were a bit brusque and I apologize. You know how it gets with the late night fatigue posts. Tenzhi, thank you for clarifying there. I can see what you are talking about better with that post and a full night of sleep.
Skeptical Clown 02-26-04, 07:40 PM	I think the remark about desegregation of classes had more to do with the erosion of defining lines between classes. For example, no one I know would ever play a pure fighter. Ten levels of fighter is overkill, when you could take levels of barbarian or some prestige class to gain abilities that are a lot more useful than some spare feats. And it's easy to do that, too. How many people these days build character concepts from the ground up to be purely one core class? The old racial stereotypes are back in force, however, with the racial paragon classes. Never fear.
LyamRunechild 02-26-04, 08:46 PM	Just my little spew on what I have read so far... First, there was a post comparing Gestalt PCs to MC standard characters. It was my impression from the reading that if one is using Gestalt PCs, then you would not be using MC characters as well. It seemed to me that it is one or the other. I do like the idea of the evil paladin, but I am not so sure about the chaotic paladin. It has always been my belief that paladins (good or evil) are "knightly" and therefore lawful. I don't know. I'll have to look at that again. I do like the concept of the Bard, Paladin, and Ranger being prestige classes. Maybe this is a huge throw back to my days of 1ed D&D. I can buy the specialist wizard variant, but I'll have to play one before I make a final decision. The Domain Wizard needs some work. The Battle Sorcerer is disappointing. Bloodlines definitely need work. Paragon characters...bust! Variant races...eeeh...I'll skip using them the way they are written. Chapter 4 has some things I would like to experiment with. Overall, not was I was anticipating. Spewing is finished:D
Zaebos 02-26-04, 09:41 PM	Originally posted by LyamRunechild Overall, not was I was anticipating. This is exactly what I was expecting. From what I read on the website, I must say this is probably the best thing that WotC has put out lately next to the core books. I still stand by my ascertation that there is nothing wrong with paragons, but having said that, I can see why people have problems with it, since it essentially is a PrC with no requirements (aside from race), but the abilities gained, at least to me, don't warrant any requirements. For my games, it will work just fine. I haven't found anything unbalancing for these types of characters. Of course I wont use everything in the book, but the book is everything I wanted it to be, and more.
Nick Soapdish 02-26-04, 09:42 PM	Originally posted by Derren S. So we have a book with "Only use it when everyone uses it" and "don't let your players have it" rules? So what exactly are I'm paying for? It seems to me that the selling argument for this book sadly is still "More Power" while giving the people who don't want power but actual variants some half finished bones to gnaw on. I dunno. It seemed that a lot of the variants were not so much "more power", but "more power at a price". They help make some character concepts more playable. Is there potential for abuse? Well yeah. Every book that I've seen is. But I don't think that UA is any more prone to that than the rest and UA actually has a cautionary note about using its stuff.
LyamRunechild 02-26-04, 09:48 PM	Originally posted by Zaebos This is exactly what I was expecting. From what I read on the website, I must say this is probably the best thing that WotC has put out lately next to the core books. ... but the book is everything I wanted it to be, and more. Just out of curiosity, what are the best features , in your opinion, in UA. Maybe I am missing something.
Skeptical Clown 02-26-04, 10:00 PM	My problem with paragon classes isn't that they're unbalanced (although they're a bit too potent for a three-level class, I'd say.) No, my problem is that they are preposterous. What on earth IS a racial paragon, except someone who likes being a walking stereotype? "No no," you say, "They're just exemplars of their race's strengths." Bologna. Classes represent a progression of skills and abilities you learn, more or less like a profession. Prestige classes are more specialized versions of classes, who generally forsake the generalized abilities of a class for more specific ones. So how does a paragon class fit in? What the heck is a human paragon? Someone who acts more "human" than other humans? Someone whose abilities are more human than other humans? That's a nice catchphrase, but it translates into gameterms not at all. I'm not saying this to be sensational; obviously, racism in D&D is permissable because the races presented therein do not exist. I'm just pointing out how awfully un-roleplayable it is. Even the lamest PrC is more playable than a pure stereotype.
Skeptical Clown 02-26-04, 10:00 PM	Edit: stupid boards.
Keg of Ale 02-26-04, 10:11 PM	Seeing that UA is not a book intended for a 'standard' D&Der, I can't blame people who state they don't like it - its part of the book's concept. Personally, I've been wanting, waiting, dispairing for that exact sort of book since 3E came out. The books I really like are ones that give the DM guidelines to customise his world in any direction he wants. That's why my favorite supplements so far are MotP, Deities, and now UA. The book's problem is that some people have trouble to grasp its concept. Since I've been dreaming of this supplement since a long time, it took me only a second to recognise its usefulness when it came out. If 3E has a problem, it is its obsession with "game balance" - a useful thing, mind you, but it has the disadvantage of limiting you when you want to run a non-standard game. Try to run a low-magic campaign, for instance, and see the fighters become far weaker now that there are no loads of magical arms and armor lying about. Want to run a swashbuckling game in which fighters are armor-less? Same problem. Want to use a different system for spellcasting? You'll have to review the whole game system to impliment it and keep the game 'balanced'. Twicking with the system invariably means unbalancing it. It doesn't mean it will ruin your compaign if done properly, nor that it can't be fun. Simply, its too big a responsiblity for a beginning player. Unearthed Arcana is a book for those who want this responsiblity. Its for those who know their game style and their players well enough to risk revising fondemental aspects of the game in order to 'refresh' the game experience, or correct a rule they don't like. By doing so, you're bound to unbalance the game, but that won't harm your game if you do it right. Since rule variants you'll use depends much on your game style, its quite normal that some rules in the book don't suit you. I estimate that there will be 90% of the rules that won't interest you in the least, balanced by 10% of stuff you'll just itch to use the moment you read about it - that's if you're an open-minded sort of a D&Der (not all are, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that). So, you don't like paragon classes? That's great, you *are* expected to be very picky with the stuff you'll find in this book. Only use what you feel fits your game. Since my players aren't power gamers and only run after prestige classes for in-character reasons, I don't see any harm in Paragon classes being a little unbalancing in combination with PrCs. In my game, that's not a problem. Of course, I'll only let a player take levels of paragon if his character really looks and acts like the ideal of his race. And the idea is even more useful for NPCs - a dwarf king is a good character to give levels of paragon, for instance. My favorite parts of the book? Generic classes, hex grid, make players roll all dice, level-dependent AC progression and level-independent XP awards. Virtually every gamer I've showed the book to has had different preferences, and that's what I think is the beauty of it.
JoAT 02-26-04, 11:52 PM	Originally posted by Skeptical Clown My problem with paragon classes isn't that they're unbalanced (although they're a bit too potent for a three-level class, I'd say.) No, my problem is that they are preposterous. What on earth IS a racial paragon, except someone who likes being a walking stereotype? "No no," you say, "They're just exemplars of their race's strengths." Bologna. Classes represent a progression of skills and abilities you learn, more or less like a profession. Prestige classes are more specialized versions of classes, who generally forsake the generalized abilities of a class for more specific ones. So how does a paragon class fit in? What the heck is a human paragon? Someone who acts more "human" than other humans? Someone whose abilities are more human than other humans? That's a nice catchphrase, but it translates into gameterms not at all. I'm not saying this to be sensational; obviously, racism in D&D is permissable because the races presented therein do not exist. I'm just pointing out how awfully un-roleplayable it is. Even the lamest PrC is more playable than a pure stereotype. Just a side not, but I don't think that this is what was originally intended, when the racial class made it's way into Arcana Unearthed, (I find it really weird that it was done this way in Unearthed Arcana, but...) To me, the whole Racial (paragon) class is just another form of advancement - specifically, creature/monster advancement. Some mosters advance both by hit dice and by class levels, or at least, they can. So this is something of an option to have more standard races to advance by hit dice as well - the fact that they get additional abilites is not a bad thing either, at least as far as I'm concerned. I'm much more in line with the dragon/RL Vampire model of advancement, where monsters gain additional abilites as they advance, rather than just getting bigger. As for what would have liked to see? More stuff for the sorcerer and other spontenious classes - as far as I can tell both magic systems presented aren't very good for those who do cast spells sponteniously - they just grant wizards and the like the benefits, without the draw backs. Also, some support for other books they've put out wouldn't be a bad thing - if they shoved in some examples of the classes that don't do things in an entirely traditional way (how many spell points does a Hexblade, or Favored Soul get?), that would have left some ideass for those who design their own material to convert their stuff. Aside from that, I'd have prefered to see a small set of balanced, ECL 0 enviromental/elemental templates - the races are okay, but I'm never going to use them. I could have gotten some use out of a series of generic templates, though.
Tenzhi 02-27-04, 01:30 AM	Originally posted by Skeptical Clown I think the remark about desegregation of classes had more to do with the erosion of defining lines between classes. That's what it was indeed regarding. I'm perfectly happy to be rid of racial class and level restrictions, but I want my classes to be definitely distinct. I also prefer the creation of magic items (other than scrolls, wands, and potions) to be a rare quest whose successful completion rewards the player with XP rather than a ho-hum expenditure of time, GP, and XP that has players amassing their own armoury of custom-made magical items. A section in UA with guidelines to that effect would have been much more welcome than background generation tables.
Zaebos 02-27-04, 04:33 AM	My favorite bits of the book are Specialist Wizards variant, Armor as Damage Reduction, Class Defense Bonus, the House Rule on page 40 about Skilled 1/2 Elves, Level Check Turning, Magic Rating, Contacts and Reputation (I had my own rules on that, but these are better than what I had), the House Rule on Fractional Base Bonuses (page 73), and action points. These rules have been implimented easily and quite effectively in the last two gaming sessions, and the players feel that they make more sense for the type of campaigns I run. I have also added other's, but they are more of player choice than mechanics of the game, such as most of chapter one, goodly portion of chapter two, (domain wizard, spontaneous divine casters, favored environment, whirling frenzy, planar banishment, aspect of nature, prestige bard/paladin/ranger, gestalt characters, generic characters not included.) Most of chapter 3 (except spelltouched feats and including adding favored class), only Defenst Bonus, Armor as DR, and Action points in chapter 4, Magic Rating, Summon Monster Variants (players option), Spontaneous Metamagic (Daily use only)(to make metamagic more appealing since no one in my game uses metamagic feats), Legendary weapons, and item familiars in chapter 5. Chapter 6 I have included contacts, reputation and test based prerequisites (I have been playing it this way for a long time, except I had my own tests). I like most everything in the book however, but I for sure won't be using all of the rules. Most of the rules impact game play very little, while adding more player options to the game. The more options I can give my players, the more they seem to get into their characters because they can be (or become) what they want. Anyways, thats what I like. I think about the only thing I don't like is the gestalt characters, which remind me too much of how characters mulit-classed in 2nd edition, but also because they are just insane. However, I can see their use in particular campaigns, and would not be adverse in playing in one, though such is not in me to run one.
LyamRunechild 02-27-04, 04:16 PM	Originally posted by Zaebos ... Armor as Damage Reduction, Class Defense Bonus... I went back and reread these sections, and I think you are right. They could really be useful. I alway had questions in my mind about the AC system the way it originally was, but could not quite get a substitute that worked well. This could very well be my answer.
Skeptical Clown 02-27-04, 07:46 PM	Originally posted by JoAT Just a side not, but I don't think that this is what was originally intended, when the racial class made it's way into Arcana Unearthed, (I find it really weird that it was done this way in Unearthed Arcana, but...) To me, the whole Racial (paragon) class is just another form of advancement - specifically, creature/monster advancement. Some mosters advance both by hit dice and by class levels, or at least, they can. So this is something of an option to have more standard races to advance by hit dice as well - the fact that they get additional abilites is not a bad thing either, at least as far as I'm concerned. I'm much more in line with the dragon/RL Vampire model of advancement, where monsters gain additional abilites as they advance, rather than just getting bigger. I don't buy it. Because for it to relate to monstrous level progression, you'd have to assume that most races started with 4 HD. Either that, or you are assuming that people vary wildly in NATURAL abilities... and skills. Which doesn't really make sense. But then, I don't quite buy monster level progressions either.
JoAT 02-27-04, 07:54 PM	Originally posted by Skeptical Clown I don't buy it. Because for it to relate to monstrous level progression, you'd have to assume that most races started with 4 HD. Either that, or you are assuming that people vary wildly in NATURAL abilities... and skills. Which doesn't really make sense. But then, I don't quite buy monster level progressions either. I'm not relating it to monster level advancment but rather advancement by hit dice - I don't buy the whole savage progressions either. I am, however refering to the odd ability of monsters to advance above and beyond what's laid out in the MM, strictly by virtue of having more hit dice. I'd say that this is essentially advancing by hit-dice for humans and their ilk - though, you do gain a few bonus feature that few monsters gain.