PHB2 vs. Arcana Evolved

[Psion]

First are by far foremost, you appear to be being a bit more than slightly thin skinned over a blatant joke.

Don't presume to read my mood over the internet. I don't have my empathy-over-TCP protocol adapter installed. I'm relaxed and not annoyed.

But I just thought I'd make my position clear, for anyone who might have taken you seriously.

But most of all I stand by my statement that you've shown a clear pattern of new classes starting out two strikes down.

So it's not a joke, and my strident defense is justified.

(And there ain't the slightest thing wrong with that by the way, I completely respect your reasoning for it.) Two strikes in no way means you can't still hit a home run.

Fair enough, if you look at it that way.

I'd say one strike. I do give the PHB classes a pass, because of their primacy and fact that they are the de facto standard and will be will supported, which typically more than counters weaknesses they may have as classes. But the point of my rebuttal is that AE classes are just as subject to this as PHB II classes are. So even if you don't happen to agree with my assessment that supplemental classes are at a disadvantage, my opinion contrasting two different sets of supplemental classes does not factor that in.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I am in agreement with Psion here, I think.

The PHBII classes. . . are not so great, in my opinion. One, I can't even bring myself to comment on. But the Duskblade, Knight and Beguiler strike me as either unnecessary or subpar.

On the other hand, the magic system in AE - along with the classes using it - is very cool. For example, the Mageblade is the definitive "gish". That alone would make it worth a look, IMO.


In the end, I've got as much use from a few 'Class Acts' and other crunchy articles from Dragon magazine, as anything from the PHBII. But from what I gather is frequently the case, round these parts especially, your mileage might well and truly vary.

AE changed the way I decided to have certain kinds of magic work in my campaigns, and has provided a few classes without which I would be less content. As was already said, it's great if you're wanting a comprehensive alternative, or if you like tinkering or mix 'n matching (as I do).

 

[Nightfall]

Psion isn't thin skinned. He's just mildly salsa blooded.

*does agree with Psion that the flavor of the PHB II's new classes is kind of meh.* I might I might allow a beguiler but honestly, not sure about Dragon Shaman. *pauses* Correction I am sure I don't want to have Dragon Shamans in my games.

 

[Pants]

I agree that some of the AE classes rock.

Heh, I find it funny how some folks hold up the Oathsworn as 'a more flexible monk alternative' when it is, in fact, just as inflexible and nichey as the monk.

AE has the runethane, ritual warrior, mageblade, and totem warrior. Those alone beat the living tar out of the PHBII classes, which are by and large, a little too nichey and strict.

Still, they're fairly different books. I'm not sure one could adequately compare the entirety of each book against the other. Though I will try...

PHBII is the book you turn to when you just want to add some good stuff to your game. Whether it's variant abilities, good feats, or even a class or two (zomg sum1 lieks teh classes, oh noez!!!1111) it's a great book. The affiliation and retraining rules are nifty too.

AE is the book you look to when you're designing your campaign world. A lot of the rules help to add flavor to the world and to make it seem different than standard D&D world #454. It's not something that can be easily plunked down into a campaign setting as most of the rules require extensive reworking to 'fit in' (especially spellcasting classes).

I'm not sure I prefer one over the other though PHBII sees a lot of use since I'm boring and I run pretty standard Greyhawk.

 

[Acid_crash]

If you have Arcana Evolved and Spell Treasury for AE, then you have no need for D&D at all, as far as the spells are concerned.

Spell Treasury has most of them converted over to the AE magic system, along with probably another hundred or two spells. It has about 500 spells in it, all in addition to the spells in the AE main rule book.

Once you get that spell compendium, you won't have to worry about which spells from which book to use.

 

[Garet Jax]

I have both books and I agree with the consensus that they are very different supplements. One is a variant player's handbook and the other just adds a ton of options to the existing 3.5 PHB.

If you don't mind me using a dramatic analogy, AE is like a Stanley Kubrick film, brilliant and innovative...but a little quirky. PHB2 is like a Jerry Bruckheimer production, it's flashy and very mainstream, but also follows a very safe formula that may make it seem mediocre to some.

That said, I still think PHB2 is one of the best and most useable wotc books since the original PHB.

 

[BryonD]

Heh, I find it funny how some folks hold up the Oathsworn as 'a more flexible monk alternative' when it is, in fact, just as inflexible and nichey as the monk.

AE has the runethane, ritual warrior, mageblade, and totem warrior. Those alone beat the living tar out of the PHBII classes, which are by and large, a little too nichey and strict.

Opinions certainly vary. And that is cool.
But as that goes, none of the classes you listed are ones I would have.
Actually the totem warrior is one that I like and find works better in D&D than in AE. (In my perception, since I've never actually played a true AE/Shattered Throne game) The class is really good, but I find the idea that all archetypical tribal warriors shape shift to animal form to be ackward. I understand that most of the tribe is probably just Warriors and maybe Unfettered. But those are not the archetypal ones. Now, go to a D&D game and have the 5 tribal warrior Barbarians be teamed with a dude that turns into a wolf (and still be a warrior, not a spellcaster), and that is cool. Of course it is just as easy to dump Barbarians into AE, so I'm being picky about a trivial matter. But heh, that is the default AE way....

The only race to make it into my game are Faen, which I recast as male and female Picts.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Mageblades, and Unfettered, are lovely, but the ritual warrior mechanics look clunky and hard to remember - but I'm not speaking from experience, as my group is pretty conservative, and AE isn't going to show up in our game.
Does the Rit warrior work in play?

 

[Psion]

Heh, I find it funny how some folks hold up the Oathsworn as 'a more flexible monk alternative' when it is, in fact, just as inflexible and nichey as the monk.

Yeah, oathsworn's sort of a dog.

Ritual warrior, witch, unfettered, and champion... those are what I'm about.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Of course, those who really follow what I have to say about classes find that points that I hammer on for classes isn't a tar-brush dismissal, but one based upon an assessment of the justification, flavor, and flexibility of the classes. Qualities that the AE classes have in spades and the PHBII classes lack.

I'm a big fan of flexibility too. I love options. I wish they'd do for Paladins what Monte did for Champions. Likewise, if I had to pick between the mage blade and the duskblade, I'd pick the former every time. But I don't necessarily find the DnD versions lacking. I think they're more generic, and I believe that's intentional. I also don't necessarily have a problem with a class that has a clearly defined role. Beguilers are a new take on illusionists (an interpretation I think was very good). Duskblade's cast spells and beat the tar out of things. The dragon shaman I could take or leave (really, a prestige class stretched out over 20 levels), but I see no inherent issues with the class, so if a player wanted to play one, I'd be fine with that. Knights are weird... the best comparison I have is Iron Heroes' armiger (in terms of role). But I don't see the issue with class abilities that encourage a player towards a specific role. After all, isn't that the whole point of a class in the first place?

Ulric, I don't know what your specific purpose is, but I think if you want to a DnD only game, go with the PHBII. If you're looking to spice up your game, implement unqiue classes, magic, and so forth, AE's your ticket. Neither is perfect. PHBII can just cause more inflation, and AE is like the "3.5" of Arcana Unearthed; basically the same game, but full of unnecessary changes, additions, and revisions.